Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[sonerohi]

I think so, yah, because I'm not really sure what I'm asking to be honest. Seems to me like there might be overlap between the lower levels of sexism and horribly shitty writing, which is what puzzled me, but you've clarified it. Although it sounds like Learning Is In Order anyways, because other people can't have the sense to reason in the exact manner that I do . Thank you much Vector.

Also, on the fetish topic, why are things even considered a fetish? Wikipedia says a fetish is just sexual attraction to something not traditionally viewed as attractive. It doesn't make sense to me that we classify feet or ropes or hair as a fetish but not abs or money or anything else on the body.

[Vector]

Freud.

[SalmonGod]

I don't follow the criticism of Rowling at all, personally.  Hermoine may not be the main character, but she sure as hell is portrayed as babysitting the main character often enough.  There are plenty of other strong female characters, such as the Molly Weasley and Prof McGonagall.  Consider also that Harry's mom can really be considered to be the one who defeated Voldemort, with her sacrifice being the source of the protective magics that made Harry who he was, and setting the entire pretense of the series in motion.

If anyone thinks the above is spoiler-worthy, I'll do so.

[Reelyanoob]

Spoil all you want, AFAIK, anyone who's planning to read Potter probably already has. Wouldn't touch it with a pole myself though.

[G-Flex]

Consider also that Harry's mom can really be considered to be the one who defeated Voldemort, with her sacrifice being the source of the protective magics that made Harry who he was, and setting the entire pretense of the series in motion.

Entire pretense of the series? I doubt Rowling even thought that up before writing the last book; the basic plot outline and resolution of it smack of her writing herself into a corner and having to pull a bizarre Christ-figure scenario out of nowhere.

Also, on the fetish topic, why are things even considered a fetish? Wikipedia says a fetish is just sexual attraction to something not traditionally viewed as attractive. It doesn't make sense to me that we classify feet or ropes or hair as a fetish but not abs or money or anything else on the body.

It's hard to come up with a good unifying theory for something like that. There's a reason why "fetishism" in the DSM-IV-TR relates specifically to arousal regarding nonliving things that aren't designed for sexual purpose, and it has to be enough of a fixation to disrupt normal psychosexual/social functioning, same with paraphilias. Generally, in professional psychiatry, something's not considered a problem unless it actually impairs your ability to function.

It's hard to really figure out the popular definition of "fetish". Obviously, there's something to it (you need some kind of word to describe a very particular and fairly arbitrary sexual kink or fixation that someone managed to pick up over the course of their lives), but it's probably a very vague amalgamation of different concepts that isn't easily defined.

[Lysabild]

Gotta agree with Salmon, I read the article and i found it rather silly, do people actually want every book in the world to be their vision of politically correct?

People should really just be allowed to tell their stories without having shit flinged at them :/

If I wrote a book about a guy being tortured and treated unfairly for no reason it doesn't make me hate men, it just means I wanted to write a story with a subject that for one reason or another interests me.

[Realmfighter]

Gotta agree with Salmon, I read the article and i found it rather silly, do people actually want every book in the world to be their vision of politically correct?

People should really just be allowed to tell their stories without having shit flinged at them :/

And so should this author be allowed to mock parts of our culture that she finds objectionable.

[Virex]

I don't follow the criticism of Rowling at all, personally.  Hermoine may not be the main character, but she sure as hell is portrayed as babysitting the main character often enough.  There are plenty of other strong female characters, such as the Molly Weasley and Prof McGonagall.  Consider also that Harry's mom can really be considered to be the one who defeated Voldemort, with her sacrifice being the source of the protective magics that made Harry who he was, and setting the entire pretense of the series in motion.

If anyone thinks the above is spoiler-worthy, I'll do so.

You mean it isn't sexist to portray all females as bookworms and babysitters who's only point in the story is to prevent the protagonist from doing stupid things?

[Reelyanoob]

Thought I'd share this, which contains seeds of both hope and rage.

[Vector]

People should really just be allowed to tell their stories without having shit flinged at them :/

You just underlined a main point of feminism right there.

The right to put in a female main character without being told--and rightfully so--that she has to a be a man, because boys/men will not read about a woman.  The right to tell our side of the story, and not be unjustly maligned in nearly every single work we appear in.

But we don't have that yet--and frankly, I think it's absurd to say "Oh, don't critique!  Don't critique!" when it comes to "shit-flinging."  If you feel you've been insulted by something, you generally get the right to insult back.

I think it's fairly clear by now that the author of the article felt insulted.

If I wrote a book about a guy being tortured and treated unfairly for no reason it doesn't make me hate men, it just means I wanted to write a story with a subject that for one reason or another interests me.

Just saying--it's very different to say that the work has sexist, etc., themes and call the author whatever.  This is why one usually says the work is "problematic," even, just to say that it furthers and strengthens certain tropes that are hurting people right now.

I dunno, really, if she's sexist or not.  All I'll discuss on this front is her work =)

I don't follow the criticism of Rowling at all, personally.  Hermoine may not be the main character, but she sure as hell is portrayed as babysitting the main character often enough.  There are plenty of other strong female characters, such as the Molly Weasley and Prof McGonagall.  Consider also that Harry's mom can really be considered to be the one who defeated Voldemort, with her sacrifice being the source of the protective magics that made Harry who he was, and setting the entire pretense of the series in motion.

If anyone thinks the above is spoiler-worthy, I'll do so.

. . . The best you've got is the mother-sacrifice, the women who gets married and has a horde of children (what did she do before getting married?  What are her interests?  Does she like to do anything other than mothering?  What does it say about a woman who needs to kill and demean Bellatrix LeStrange in order to prove that she has worth in the series--according to the author, anyhow?), and McGonagall, a woman whose entire apparent role in the series is to be snippy and vaguely noble?

I just... I'm going through what I remember of the books, and I remember lots of well-developed male characters to very few well-developed female ones.  If you really want the list to be "Lily, Molly, McGonagall, Hermione," I'll say... what, "Sirius, Lupin, Arthur, all of Molly's sons, Snape, Dumbledore, Harry, Malfoy, Neville, Ron."

I don't even really feel like that's scratching the surface.  But maybe that's just me.


The thing is, I understand people's desire to defend literature.  Really, I do.  The series was fun, daring, imaginative.  But I really can't support Harry Potter as a feminist work.  Because it wasn't one.

I'm also still pissed about what happened with Snape, but that's neither here nor there.  Also disappointed because I thought Ginny was going to end up absurdly powerful and awesome as the only daughter after seven sons, but apparently not.

[Virex]

Also disappointed because I thought Ginny was going to end up absurdly powerful and awesome as the only daughter after seven sons, but apparently not.

Erm, that would have implied that someone can only become important by virtue of her brothers. I don't think you want to say that, do you?

[Phmcw]

Wrong book. While the Harry Potter saga is no feminist manifesto, it feature enough strong and independent women to avoid this kind of criticism. Every book need not to be a manifesto.

Now do the same thing with twilight...

[Vector]

Erm, that would have implied that someone's daughter can only become important by virtue of her brothers. I don't think you want to say that, do you?

Not really.  It's tying into the "unique x in a line of 7 or 8" thing that is so common in sorceror mythology.  Usually, it's a boy--so Ron gets the advantage of being the seventh son.  Ginny sits in a tacked on, "extra" place that I thought was going to give her more prevalence in the narrative.  But no.

And, it wouldn't "show" a girl could be important only by virtue of her brothers.  There is Hermione, after all =)  It'd just be Ginny gaining a privileged place in the narrative due to the world mechanic, with other women doing other things.

Wrong book. While the Harry Potter saga is no feminist manifesto, it feature enough strong and independent women to avoid this kind of criticism. Every book need not to be a manifesto.

Now do the same thing with twilight...

It's already been done with Twilight approximately a million times.

I think that Harry Potter can be raked over the coals a little, too.

[Virex]

Erm, that would have implied that someone's daughter can only become important by virtue of her brothers. I don't think you want to say that, do you?

Not really.  It's tying into the "unique x in a line of 7 or 8" thing that is so common in sorceror mythology.  Usually, it's a boy--so Ron gets the advantage of being the seventh son.  Ginny sits in a tacked on, "extra" place that I thought was going to give her more prevalence in the narrative.  But no.

And, it wouldn't "show" a girl could be important only by virtue of her brothers.  There is Hermione, after all =)  It'd just be Ginny gaining a privileged place in the narrative due to the world mechanic, with other women doing other things.

It's still a gift related to gender distribution, which you can't really defend. Besides, Hermione is the classic bookwormish, thoughtful female sidekick, which is pretty much overdone. Although she does change in the series, her character remains sort of an idealized student hero, a role model that many girls cannot and should not try to follow. Why couldn't she be more like Harry, a conventional, somewhat lazy student? Now we're pushing a role model to girls that says they have to be the best at all times, while boys get to slack off and have fun.

[Sheb]

Not exactly rage, but I found this video today. Taxes are Patriotic! Maybe we should send that to the G.O.P.'s congressmen.