Molly Weasley whose entire character is just being a mother. Does she have interests beyond being a mother? No, with seven children who has time to be a person?
Excuse me, but I can’t agree with your position here.
Is a woman not allowed to realize itself through motherhood?
Also Molly was smart and fierce (remember fight with Bellatrix Lestrange?
Hermione doesn’t engage with anything traditionally feminine, she’s a “not-like-other-girls” type character, hell she doesn’t really have any friends that aren’t boys
And I personally know such girls.
It’s perfectly normal for a girl to be like that.
Also her persona and stance evoke respect in the reader, as well as a sense that she is being treated unfairly.
There’s obviously Dolores Umbridge.
Haven’t you met cruel teachers / persons in power who acted all nice?
And it’s not like Dolores was the only villain in the books.
Luna Lovegood was introduced as another character to be bullied, and she remains on the outskirts throughout the book, but Rowling softened up on her once she got extremely popular with the fans of the series.
And her persona was revealed as a kind and brave hero.
It’s important for quirky children to feel represented.
Rowling was correct to be antisemitic actually!
Goblins didn’t strike me as jews exactly because they were friends with Harry Potter’s world Hitler.
A big nose and banking isn’t enough.
Excuse me, but I can’t agree with your position here.Is a woman not allowed to realize itself through motherhood?
Of course. And according to Joanne KKK Rowling, that’s the only way you can be a woman; if you can produce children. Women are the ones with the large gametes! That’s the definition of woman, nothing else. Screw all cis-women who don’t fit the mold.
Also Molly was smart and fierce (remember fight with Bellatrix Lestrange?
I do! “NOT MY DAUGHTER YOU DON’T!”
No matter what, Molly is nothing but a mother. There’s no character there beyond that.
And I personally know such girls.It’s perfectly normal for a girl to be like that.Also her persona and stance evoke respect in the reader, as well as a sense that she is being treated unfairly.
You’ve missed my point. My point is, there are many ways of being a person, and many ways of being a girl or a woman. Rowling doesn’t believe that, and the narrative she pushes explicitly defines what is and isn’t from her perspective, an acceptable way of being a woman. She very clearly values men over women.
Edit: As a child I looked past these things. I didn’t see them, I lacked the cultural context. I’m no longer a child, and now it’s blatantly obvious.
These books were written by a grown-ass woman who couldn’t possibly be so stupid as to name the only fucking Chinese character Cho Chang on accident. Her name is almost Ching Chong!
She couldn’t have been ignorant to the nazi rhetoric she spewed out, or the pro-slavery bits.
The books are soaked with racism, ableism, and misogyny and I don’t understand how anyone can go back to them as an adult, having obtained the cultural context, and still think the stories are okay.
And according to Joanne KKK Rowling, that’s the only way you can be a woman; if you can produce children.
Harry Potter books don’t have that assertion to me. There are different positive female figures in the books.
There’s no character there beyond that.
Did you read my comment? There were examples of characters beyond that. Your own examples, in fact.
pro-slavery bits.
Hermione is opposed to slavery, even though elves themselves don’t consider it so (who knows why - they are magical creatures).
And Hermione is a positive figure. I was sympathetic with her goal when I read the books.
Cho Chang
Chang is a common Chinese surname. Cho - was a miss.
Overall it looked like the author wasn’t really bothered to choose some real real name and chose to construct one to emphasize the character’s origin.
By the way: Cho Chang was a positive figure also.
There is no argument. You’re allowed to believe what you wish, wrong or not. I just don’t have the energy to waste on apologists and supporters of such heinous politics. Rowling’s politics are apparent in all of her writing, she’s always championed outdated eugenicist beliefs. If you choose to ignore that, that’s your prerogative and I don’t think anything I say or show you will convince you otherwise.
Ergo, this conversation here is just a waste of time for the two of us.
Excuse me, but I can’t agree with your position here.
Is a woman not allowed to realize itself through motherhood?
Also Molly was smart and fierce (remember fight with Bellatrix Lestrange?
And I personally know such girls.
It’s perfectly normal for a girl to be like that.
Also her persona and stance evoke respect in the reader, as well as a sense that she is being treated unfairly.
Haven’t you met cruel teachers / persons in power who acted all nice?
And it’s not like Dolores was the only villain in the books.
And her persona was revealed as a kind and brave hero.
It’s important for quirky children to feel represented.
Goblins didn’t strike me as jews exactly because they were friends with Harry Potter’s world Hitler.
A big nose and banking isn’t enough.
Of course. And according to Joanne KKK Rowling, that’s the only way you can be a woman; if you can produce children. Women are the ones with the large gametes! That’s the definition of woman, nothing else. Screw all cis-women who don’t fit the mold.
You’re not allowed to be too feminine, but also if you don’t adhere to white-feminine beauty standards you’re also bad.
I do! “NOT MY DAUGHTER YOU DON’T!”
No matter what, Molly is nothing but a mother. There’s no character there beyond that.
You’ve missed my point. My point is, there are many ways of being a person, and many ways of being a girl or a woman. Rowling doesn’t believe that, and the narrative she pushes explicitly defines what is and isn’t from her perspective, an acceptable way of being a woman. She very clearly values men over women.
Ember Green did an excellent video essay that touches on this topic.
There’s a Wikipedia entry on Jewish sterotypes. You could turn it into a drinking game, if you’d like to die of alcohol poisoning.
Edit: As a child I looked past these things. I didn’t see them, I lacked the cultural context. I’m no longer a child, and now it’s blatantly obvious.
These books were written by a grown-ass woman who couldn’t possibly be so stupid as to name the only fucking Chinese character Cho Chang on accident. Her name is almost Ching Chong!
She couldn’t have been ignorant to the nazi rhetoric she spewed out, or the pro-slavery bits.
The books are soaked with racism, ableism, and misogyny and I don’t understand how anyone can go back to them as an adult, having obtained the cultural context, and still think the stories are okay.
deleted by creator
Harry Potter books don’t have that assertion to me. There are different positive female figures in the books.
Did you read my comment? There were examples of characters beyond that. Your own examples, in fact.
Hermione is opposed to slavery, even though elves themselves don’t consider it so (who knows why - they are magical creatures).
And Hermione is a positive figure. I was sympathetic with her goal when I read the books.
Chang is a common Chinese surname. Cho - was a miss.
Overall it looked like the author wasn’t really bothered to choose some real real name and chose to construct one to emphasize the character’s origin.
By the way: Cho Chang was a positive figure also.
Sure. If it makes you feel better, then whatever.
That’s your argument? Ok.
There is no argument. You’re allowed to believe what you wish, wrong or not. I just don’t have the energy to waste on apologists and supporters of such heinous politics. Rowling’s politics are apparent in all of her writing, she’s always championed outdated eugenicist beliefs. If you choose to ignore that, that’s your prerogative and I don’t think anything I say or show you will convince you otherwise.
Ergo, this conversation here is just a waste of time for the two of us.