 |
|
 fernwithy | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
We kind of got off on a tangent on the Pet Peeves thread at the Quill, about people complaining because Harry wasn't Harriet. Accio Brain suggested that we'd probably get the same thing if we had the same books and exact same actions, but everyone's sex was switched. J Forias started, and I picked up, and honestly, I had too much fun to not share the results of this thinking. How 'bout Herman, that nerdy book-name? ;)
It would be Herman who would get the most flak, since obviously Harriet is being presented as someone inept at school. Rhona is always worrying about interpersonal stuff. But of course, let's not forget Harriet's nemesis, the materialistic and spoiled Drusilla Malfoy, who embodies the stereotype of cut-throat females, exemplified in the '80s film Heathers (I mean, can't you see that movie reflected in her two manipulated best friends, Gretchen Goyle and Victoria Crabbe?)
Headmistress Alba Dumbledore is the worst of all possible stereotypes--she never worries about her position as head of the school and spends all of her time nurturing children, like she has nothing more important to do. Important things are done by Malcolm McGonagall--the man, of course, who is strict and disciplinarian, except when it comes to sports, which he pushes the girls in his house to participate in (and really, one must question how healthy that realationship is). Severa Snape, on the other hand, is perpetually described like she has permanent PMS--that focus on schoolgirl bullying, and inability to be objective about it! Of course, then there are the so-called "Marauders," a coffee-klatch of junior high school popular girls... of course the ones who really exercise their individuality (Jamie and Sirra, natch) are punished by the structure of the world, while Petra is a weepy, frightened thing who attaches to the dark side because of course this is what society determines women will do. (Not to mention that charm, Fidelius, and the "secret-keeper" business... how stereotypicaly girly is that? Undoubtedly, if these were men, it would have been a blood pact which was unbreakable, and the fact that it was women using an element of women's culture is what brought about the death of Lydell and Jamie.) The only one who survives is Remi Lupin, who accepts her feminine role as a teacher and childcare provider, and calmly takes all the misfortunes life lays at her feet--the patriarchy's notion of the perfect woman! Of course she's the only one left standing. Meanwhile, Lydell Evans (er, Potter) is shown as the only one willing to stand up for a bullied student, a icon of pure love, and, as you mentioned, the self-sacrificing one who dies to save his daughter--the exact glorified image of chivalric men.
And of course, let's look at Toma Riddle and her parents. Rowling expects us to despise her Muggle mother for "abandoning" her, but it's obvious from the text that she was, at best, duped by cad with powers she didn't understand--it's rape! She couldn't have been expected to stay with it. But of course, young Toma, brainwashed by the patriarchy, blames her mother rather than her guilty father, and goes on to pursue her patriarchal identity, because this character exemplifies the notion that people are raised to respect only their fathers...
Really, what sorts of images are these to show our daughters?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
From: mamadeb |
Date:
April 29th, 2005 05:28 pm (UTC)
|
| (Link) |
|
|
That's PERFECT. And beautiful, and so, so right.
I just read a Nimbus paper (okay, I started it, but couldn't finish) about how evil Rowling was on two counts:
1. She allowed Scholastic to "add a black character" because Dean Thomas was was not portrayed as black in the Brit editions.
2. She assumed that the default racial group in BRITAIN was white - of the Aurors in book 5, only Kingsley Shacklebolt's skin color was mentioned.
And and I started, um. Yelling at the paper. Because. 1. While the addition to the book was clumsily done, Rowling *did* identify Dean as black. It's just that Americans wouldn't know that West Ham was predominantly black. Which the writer of the article didn't seem to understand. And 2. It *is* - and when they're not white, they tend to be Asian or Indian, and thus identifiable by name.
Abd also - damned if she does, damned if she doesn't.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
From: gehayi |
Date:
April 29th, 2005 05:54 pm (UTC)
|
| (Link) |
|
I Had to Try This Too...
|
Of course, no discussion of the negative image of females in Rowling's work would be complete without the mention of Regina Black.
Regina Black is, quite obviously, a stereotypical upper-class girl. Her sister, Sirra, calls her "soft" and "a stupid idiot." She is depicted as a "go along to get along" kind of girl: morally weak and irresolute. The pampered younger daughter of a noble house, Regina is, unlike Sirra, the traditional girl that the Blacks expect their daughters to be. She joins Toma Riddle--now Lady Voldemort--apparently without realising what this will entail. She is obedient to the Dark Lady's wishes for a time, but at last refuses to do what Lady Voldemort wishes, and is slain.
Regina clearly sends a message to all girls that it is better not to rebel against the restrictions of society. After all, had Regina not decided to stand up for herself and to refuse to do something she found repellant, she would still be alive. Obedience leads, not only to survival, but to pampering and love; disobedience leads to cruel, premature--and, above all, unnecessary--death. Could a character BE more patriarchal?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
From: sophonax |
Date:
April 29th, 2005 06:10 pm (UTC)
|
| (Link) |
|
Re: I Had to Try This Too...
|
Great work! :) This, even more than Fern's original, I think, demonstrates what I hate *most* about this type of criticism...it focuses solely on the relationship between behavior and outcomes without any analysis whatsoever into what those behaviors and outcomes means within the moral context of the story; I could see a critic writing something sort of like this...maybe not quite this blatant, but similar...and you'd never have any idea from reading it that the Blacks were nasty people whose love and acceptance any person who hadn't grown up with them wouldn't WANT anyway, nor that Voldemort's act of ordering Miss Regina's death wasn't endorsed with a smile by the author as a shining example of just what ought to happen in any world where justice triumphs.
Oh, wait, I HAVE read a criticism exactly like that! I forget who the author was, but she (I'm pretty sure it was a she) used Voldemort's description of Ginny as a stupid, spineless, easily manipulated, emotionally-overwrought girl as an example of ROWLING's attitude toward women in general. Extraordinary, but someone really did it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Isn't it terribly easy to write off everything as patriarchy? I've read textbooks (albeit about women directors instead of writers) sort of backhanding those who decide to use male protagonists as essentially doing nothing to advance their gender and less worthy of study. Never mind that Hermoine is a very strong character. She might not be Harry, but isn't in the position to be so. Voldemort didn't attack her as an infant. Um. As stands, Hermoine is very independent, self contained, and considering she's a teenager (why yes, more than 'considering she's a giiirl') she's able to go against the crowd remarkably consistently and even endure mockery from her close friends. Heh. S.P.E.W. anyone? Of course, some readers might insist that things like S.P.E.W. where Hermoine acts on her convictions and only her own are the areas where she's wrong and J.K. Rowling is poking fun, but that's ignoring that Hermoine tends to be the . . . general voice of reason, not just mirroring Harry and Ron, even if S.P.E.W marks a mistake. The thing is, a determined feminist critic can seize onto any character flaw or "lack" and decide this represents patriarchy in action. Sadly, this leads to a lack of complexity to female characters, not greater complexity. Even if you could write a book according to strict feminist standards. So, J.K. Rowling is a sell-out to the patriarchal agenda, the end.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Don't forget the message that final confrontation in the DoM sends us. John Rowling writes these senior supposedly powerful Death Eaters simpering about like a bunch of.. well, useless girls, actually. The dreaded Ms. Mulciber, who is supposed to be an expert in Imperius, well, she goes to pieces and uses a few lame curses. Lucy Malfoy is a typical brainless beautiful thing, chattering aimlessly instead of taking out our young friends. In fact, one wonders if these women would have ever *started* fighting, if the stereotypical action-oriented male, Bellerephon Lestrange, wasn't there to harry them along.
It's no coincidence he's the only one who kills anyone, is it?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
And how about the depiction of the Founders? Of course Slytherin, the house of back-stabbing, secretive schemers who are oh-so-wrong to dare to be ambitious is founded by a woman. Could there possibly be a more obvious example of the "ball-busting ice queen" stereotype of ambitious women? As our only contrasting example, we have Godiva Gryffindor's house - clearly sending the message that those women who don't completely repress their emotions are totally ruled by them and incapable of reaching rational decisions. (Notice how Herman, the most prominent male Gryffindor, is portrayed as much more intelligent and sensible than his peers, to the point of almost seeming to belong to a different house.)
Meanwhile, the two male Founders, Hugo Hufflepuff and Rowan Ravenclaw, are portrayed as "fair" and "wise" respectively. How much more clearly could Rowling send the signal that men in positions of power are balanced, logical leaders, while strong women are either completely volatile and irrational or unfeeling ice queens?
And let's not forget Harriet's family - notice how it's Peter Dursley who is now getting character development, while his ineffectual wife Verna (the classic overbearing mother figure who reacts irrationally to things her female brain cannot properly understand) and Dorothy (the spoiled, bullying fat girl, an extremely tired twist on the "ugly stepsister" mold) remain wholly one-dimensional. We see here that even "bad" men are portrayed as having a sense of duty and responsibility to the family, while the women are wholly wicked and selfish, ready to abandon an innocent child to a terrible fate without a second thought.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
From: sannalim |
Date:
April 29th, 2005 10:21 pm (UTC)
|
| (Link) |
|
And what about Quidditch?
|
I can't believe no-one has mentioned Olivia Wood yet! Now there's a negative image of a hellion woman in charge if I ever saw one. But, too, look at how Kenneth Bell and Angelo Johnson try to undermine her leadership of the team. Even when a woman is in charge, she can't be allowed to just do her job. Frida and Georgia Weasley undermine Olivia's leadership, too--such stereotypically catty behaviour! And then there's Leann Jordan, who is a bad-mouthed, insolent, uncontrollable wench.
The Diggory girl has already been mentioned, but what about her boyfriend Charles Chang? His unabated grief only underscores the message of Diggory's death. Harriet's ineffective romance with Charles reinforces the old patriarchal stereotype that the woman must wait for the man to seek her out, for the man to make all the moves. Meanwhile, Gene Weasley pursues a romance with Michaela Corner that ends when Michaela--in a stereotypically "girly" fashion--gets upset about Gene catching the Snitch out from under Charles's nose. Michaela's defection to Charles portrays women as flighty and fickle.
And before I forget, there's also Roberta Davies, who is the worst sort of althetic hussy imaginable--she goes around kissing every boy she can get to look her way, notably Florian Delacour.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Previous Next 
