Print

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

[Vector]

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.

*shrug*

I still think it's silly that Rowling follows the rule for seventh sons but doesn't do something for Ginny.  If you're going to do one gender distribution thing, you can do the other one.  It reflects a fundamental inconsistency.

And yes, Hermione's character is overdone, but it's still nice to have her.  It's not like most of the other characters in the books aren't familiar archetypes/stereotypes, either.


Insurance plans may now be required to provide for certain parts of women's health free of charge.

Let's hope so.

[Truean]

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

Exactly. There's a cost to war mongering. Buying a little yellow ribbon to stick on your gas guzzling SUV does not make you support the troops, especially when none of that money goes to them. You know where they do get money? Taxes....

"I love this country but won't pay the costs and taxes for it." *sigh*

Today's rich are spoiled. There's a reason half the libraries in this country are named after Andrew Carnegie.

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

Actually the conservatives are the ones rewriting the history books. We'd just like acknowledged somewhere.... "Say George Washington was gay?" now they're not even trying to fact check shit. What the fuck happened to journalistic integrity? http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/13/education/13texas.html

[RedKing]

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.

*shrug*

I still think it's silly that Rowling follows the rule for seventh sons but doesn't do something for Ginny.  If you're going to do one gender distribution thing, you can do the other one.  It reflects a fundamental inconsistency.

Well, to be fair the "seventh sons have special powers" thing is an age-old trope. Not so much "seventh child". While that might be a fundmental gender bias in folklore itself, I don't fault her for not bending the trope.

Actually the conservatives are the ones rewriting the history books. We'd just like acknowledged somewhere.... "Say George Washington was gay?" now they're not even trying to fact check shit. What the fuck happened to journalistic integrity? http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/13/education/13texas.html

You're asking for journalistic integrity out of Rupert Murdoch's people? Seriously? Have you looked at the news lately? 

[Truean]

O I have and it proves my point entirely

[SalmonGod]

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 wouldn't say it was a feminist work, either, though I would say it had stronger female representation than most popular works of fiction.  I don't believe that calling it sexist is fair at all.  I understand your perspective and could go a little more in-depth on it, but I'm not so in love with the series that I'm willing to appear as a rabid fanboy and drag out the issue more than it's worth.

[Vector]

I wouldn't say it was a feminist work, either, though I would say it had stronger female representation than most popular works of fiction.  I don't believe that calling it sexist is fair at all.  I understand your perspective and could go a little more in-depth on it, but I'm not so in love with the series that I'm willing to appear as a rabid fanboy and drag out the issue more than it's worth.

Stronger female representation than most popular works of fiction: yes.

Flamingly sexist: no.

Sexist elements: absolutely.  If we want to move past this point, we need to identify them and see how they can be bent, what was done well, what needs work.  To acknowledge that a work has problems is not to say that people cannot read it and ignore it, but to blind ourselves to what exists seems completely foolhardy.  And, fundamentally, many of the issues are with our traditional mythos, which should be explored and deconstructed in its own right.

I'm interested in the extra things you have to say, because... well, first off, I don't think you'll come off like a fanboy, and second I really hate it when I'm wrong but no one will tell me why.

[Korgus]

Why does it have to be either feminist or sexist?
I'm sick of these ultra-PC blogs, written by whiny academics who want everything to fit into their pretentious worldview.

[Vector]

Why does it have to be either feminist or sexist?
I'm sick of these ultra-PC blogs, written by whiny academics who want everything to fit into their pretentious worldview.

That's nice for you.

I'd argue with you, but I don't think I'd get anywhere with someone who's already decided I agree with whiny, pretentious academics.

[Phmcw]

http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/mexico/article/Mexico-cartel-issues-booklets-for-proper-conduct-1473149.php

Ho god, the hypocrisy : a Mexican drug cartel pretend to be a moral authority saving the country from their depraved way, claim religious merits, and is apparently the first supplier of meth in Mexico. Wow, just wow.

[KaelGotDwarves]

Why does it have to be either feminist or sexist?
I'm sick of these ultra-PC blogs, written by whiny academics who want everything to fit into their pretentious worldview.

Well for starters, you can't execute positive change in society if you don't recognise that there are problems with it, and that many aspects of society just add onto the problem.

Not many people would say that this world we live in is perfect, thus we have people who analyse the problems with it.

[RedKing]

http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/mexico/article/Mexico-cartel-issues-booklets-for-proper-conduct-1473149.php

Ho god, the hypocrisy : a Mexican drug cartel pretend to be a moral authority saving the country from their depraved way, claim religious merits, and is apparently the first supplier of meth in Mexico. Wow, just wow.

Huh. I was going to mention La Familia, then I read that this is a splinter group from La Familia. Man, the drug war in Mexico has so many fucked up religious elements to it. You've got drug mafia pretending to be Templar Knights, then you've got other cartels on the Gulf side that seem to have developed a thing for Aztec-style cutting-people's-hearts-out killings, and then there's Santa Muerte, this sort of bizarre syncretic combination of Mictecacihuatl and the Virgin Mary, and Jesus Malverde, a sort of Robin Hood-drug dealer-saint figure.

If weren't for the thousands of people getting killed every year, it'd make for some awesome urban fantasy.
 

[Korgus]

That's nice for you.

I'd argue with you, but I don't think I'd get anywhere with someone who's already decided I agree with whiny, pretentious academics.

I'm sorry, I've had bad experiences with these kind of blogs. A feminist blog attacked a series I obsess over for being ableist, because a disabled character sacrificed himself to save a load of (mostly) able bodied people, among other tiny slights. It really put me off that kind of thing. And I don't see how having a male protagonist makes Harry Potter sexist.

[Reelyanoob]

http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/mexico/article/Mexico-cartel-issues-booklets-for-proper-conduct-1473149.php

Ho god, the hypocrisy : a Mexican drug cartel pretend to be a moral authority saving the country from their depraved way, claim religious merits, and is apparently the first supplier of meth in Mexico. Wow, just wow.

I wouldn't buy that story without further evidence. Mexico has a strong revolutionary movement (Zapatistas in the south for example), and the same Party has been in power in Mexico for 65 years.

These "knights templars" are distributing pamplets which advocate against drug trafficking and drug use amongst other things. It could just be government propaganda that they are drug-traffickers. Mexico is known for that type of propaganda against protesters.

Very effective tactic to label all opposition as cartel members, don't ya think?

EDIT: A very quick google reveals the Mexican government make the same acusation of being "drug terrorists" against the non-violent Zapatista indian movement. Wiki on this movement claims they use Ghandi-style passive resistance techniques.

http://recycledminds.blogspot.com/2009/04/mexico-zapatistas-are-drug-terrorists.html

Take that how you will, but I'll take any further claims by Mexico's government with a grain of salt. They're like the "boy who cried wolf".

Whether or not these new guys are ex-cartel (or maybe some of them are) is really all on the say-so of the Mexican government & police (whom I stated I do not trust one inch).

[Vector]

I'm sorry, I've had bad experiences with these kind of blogs. A feminist blog attacked a series I obsess over for being ableist, because a disabled character sacrificed himself to save a load of (mostly) able bodied people, among other tiny slights. It really put me off that kind of thing. And I don't see how having a male protagonist makes Harry Potter sexist.

And, presumably, that feminist felt that disabled people were being attacked by the work, so the blogger spoke up about it.

I think you might need a little bit of perspective =)  Not all feminists are right in their allegations or something, you know.  They just talk about what they see and bicker as much as anyone else.  And, furthermore, they're definitely not monolithic.  I've gone elsewhere than that one particular Harry Potter question and seen feminists arguing both sides just as stridently.  I think the real difference is that they're using a different toolbox and looking at different things--that's all.

Again, it's not about having a male lead that makes the work problematic.  It's about the male presence so heavily outweighing that of the female, amongst other things.  If it were one thing, we'd say "well, that was a little issue, but it's not worth discussing."  It's the discovered balance and expressed tropes in a particular context, asking if a work advances equality or holds it back.  That doesn't at all condemn the work on literary merits, solely in a very specialized lens.

[SalmonGod]

Ok, I can see how it has sexist elements, due to even the strong female characters being portrayed in traditional roles.  I don't think you're wrong there.

I do wonder why it's a bad thing to portray feminine qualities in a positive manner, though.  As in the mother's sacrifice... yeah, it's a little bit cliche.  I still don't get why it's bad.  Molly Weasley... yeah, she has a lot of kids and is trapped mainly in a role as a mother figure.  I don't understand why this is bad.  I think it's realistic.  I personally think it's great that it's both realistic and positive.  She's the iron-fisted, overwhelmed mother with a henpecked husband... and it's portrayed as not a bad thing.  It's just how their lives turned out and what works for them, as it is with so many people in real life.  I get what you're saying about McGonagall, but keep in mind that the setting is supposed to be a parallel to the real world.  If we assume that the wizarding world has roughly the same history of patriarchy behind it as the muggle world, then McGonagall is a pretty spot on portrayal of a woman at that age in that position.  These characters are all believable and positive to me.  That wasn't an exhaustive list of strong female characters, either.  I get that you're disappointed with Ginny not turning out uber-powerful, but she was portrayed as having lots of potential.  It just didn't come out in this story.  There was also Tonks, who I thought was really cool.  These are just the ones that had the most prominent roles in the story, and that I can think of off the top of my head.  My impression of the setting as a whole is that women were equal to men in practice, but that their society's gender politics were in roughly the same place as ours.

And I agree that the list of developed female characters is shorter than the list of males, but I blame this on the book having a male lead and being guided mainly by his perspective.  There is absolutely no reason the book couldn't have had a female lead, other than market potential... and I'd be surprised if this wasn't Rowling's prime motivation in designing her main character.  This is something I can 100% agree on as being a bad thing.  I'd like to see more popular fiction told from a female perspective without being restricted to something like The Princess Diaries.