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.
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.
Book: has one character whose main sense of identity is being a mother
Critic: “THIS BOOK IS SAYING THE ONLY VALID WAY TO BE A WOMAN IS TO BE A MOTHER!!1!!1!1!1!”
It’s obnoxiously close to this broader view in society:
Woman: is a mother
Society: “SO YOU THINK A WOMAN’S SOLE PURPOSE IS TO BE A MOTHER?!?!?!?!!?!”
Also, are we just going to ignore Professor McGonagall being childless and devoted to her career in academia in which she thrives and holds the respect of her peers and pupils?
Also, are we just going to ignore Professor McGonagall being childless and devoted to her career in academia in which she thrives and holds the respect of her peers and pupils?
You know what, that’s fair. McGonagall is a mostly unproblematic character, I feel. There are some moments where I feel like she meted out very strange punishments, like sending the kids out into a dangerous forest they were prohibited from being in because it’s potentially lethal, or when she locked Neville out of the Gryffindor common room while a murderer was on the loose.
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 Rowling’s politics are apparent in all of her writing, she’s always championed outdated eugenicist beliefs.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.
Given that Rowling is still making money and is actively using that money to harm people, you cannot extricate the art from the artist.
If one want a whimsical world of magic, I’d recommend Terry Pratchett’s Discworld series. If one wants a little darker story about a magical school, I’d recommend the Scholomance series by Naomi Novik.
Pirating Harry Potter media is the only ethical way of consuming it. When I quoted the books here it was from an epub I obtained the same way the big corpos do it.
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.
“Character” as in personality, not other fictional people.
What do you mean?
Book: has one character whose main sense of identity is being a mother
Critic: “THIS BOOK IS SAYING THE ONLY VALID WAY TO BE A WOMAN IS TO BE A MOTHER!!1!!1!1!1!”
It’s obnoxiously close to this broader view in society:
Woman: is a mother
Society: “SO YOU THINK A WOMAN’S SOLE PURPOSE IS TO BE A MOTHER?!?!?!?!!?!”
Also, are we just going to ignore Professor McGonagall being childless and devoted to her career in academia in which she thrives and holds the respect of her peers and pupils?
You know what, that’s fair. McGonagall is a mostly unproblematic character, I feel. There are some moments where I feel like she meted out very strange punishments, like sending the kids out into a dangerous forest they were prohibited from being in because it’s potentially lethal, or when she locked Neville out of the Gryffindor common room while a murderer was on the loose.
That said, Caroline Easom did a video on the female characters that appear in the top 100 characters by mention in the books and there are some less savoury patterns in how Joanne portrays women.
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.
If you’re under the impression that I support Rowling - I’m not. Fuck her.
I’m protecting the books.
Given that Rowling is still making money and is actively using that money to harm people, you cannot extricate the art from the artist.
If one want a whimsical world of magic, I’d recommend Terry Pratchett’s Discworld series. If one wants a little darker story about a magical school, I’d recommend the Scholomance series by Naomi Novik.
By the way: you can pirate those books.
Pirating Harry Potter media is the only ethical way of consuming it. When I quoted the books here it was from an epub I obtained the same way the big corpos do it.
Yet you can. The books (plot) themselves don’t become bad because of that.
No, they’re bad entirely on their own merit.
That’s separate from whether you separate them from the artist