#you refuse to acknowledge the role ginny luna fleur and other female characters played in the text

[radlymona]

Well, you clearly weren't bored enough of this conversation to write a massive spiel a few days later but sure what the hell. Let's go another round. This shit funny af.

I called you a coloniser because you were obviously doing the typical Western European thing of "We're so much progressive than English speaking countries. That level of savagery would never fly here," when it came to your bullying comment. You also were trying to call yourself better for speaking in another language, and being like "im so much better than the cultural hegemonisers" I was reminding you that the Spanish don't have a high horse to stand on this lmao.

Second, I can't take you seriously because you can't do basic fact checking. Gen X is said to have started in 1965, the same year JKR was born. Even if you don't know the exact year Gen X started, it's commonly thought that Gen X began in the mid 60s.

We’re not talking about discrimination within the literary scene, nor about how male authors generally write poorly about their female characters or how poorly conceived they are.

The reason I brought up male authors is that is ridiculous to have the same circlejerk conversation of "wawah this female author wasn't 100% progressive" meanwhile Stephen King wrote a scene where a 12 year old girl has an orgy with a group of boys, and is still one of the world's most popular authors. The obvious point I was making is that sheer double standard of that female authors have their works endlessly dissected and nitpicked when it comes to their representation, meanwhile popular male authors can continue writing actual male gaze slop and no one gives a shit.

On another note, I see female characters as a whole that shape the vision of women in general within a novel. Focusing on the individual instead of the collective is absurd in terms of sociological and gender analysis.

But you simply cannot give that level of depth to every female supporting character. Hermione is the most important character to focus, on because you get to see what JKR is capable when given space and brevity. And again, Ginny and Luna’s level of development is consistent with other supporting male characters. 

But, I find genuinely laughable that you care about "gender analysis" when you've basically accused Lily of getting with James (in another post) because of his blood status/wealth. There's no evidence for this in text whatsoever, and you've covertly called her a golddigger because you're the misogynist. She isn't "shallow" for dating a handsome and wealthy guy as you so lovingly called her. You do this thing over and over where you're viewing female characters with a very narrow, misogynistic mindset, and wonder why they feel like such misogynistic archetypes. 

Simply, a lot of British people have told me that what you’re saying is not exactly like that, and well, I’m more inclined to believe someone who’s British than someone who lives on the other side of the world.

Yeah, I saw those anons and I saw the incident being referred to as a sexual assault. Which is laughable. This is the equivalent of a magical pantsing. Neither in the 1970s or 2003 would this have been considered sexual assault. If you asked someone in 2024 they'd likely ask for the context, read the passage, and realise that it's not sexual assault. You had anons legitimately claiming that was meant to "shock" Britons reading it in 2003. And I'm sorry, this is hilarious. No one in 2003 was like oh my god, a pantsing! The actual shocking part of that passage is that a) James and Sirius gain up on Snape b) They do it out of nowhere and c) it proves Snape right (at least in part) about what type of person James is. And that person isn't a sexual abuser, that's just ludicrous. 

Now because you're lovely anons are also pretending not to notice the obvious here (real brave of them to go to your inbox on anon, very believable)- the reason I brought up hazing and other more severe practices like fagging, was that if such horrible forms of bullying were permissible in the 1970s, do you really think a pantsing would have been considered particularly bad? No of course not, as would any non-sheltered student. And what I find particularly hysterical was that just because the British public was appalled about what was going on elite schools, that said things just stopped happening. Sure fagging was outlawed, a were other severe forms of hazing, but you have to be joking if you don't think places like Eton don't partake in heavy (if not more covert) bullying to this day. The idea that I, as an Australian, wouldn't know this is funny as hell. We all know what goes in UK schools, because we're culturally connected, receive enough of their news and have enough expats living here to learn about the UK. Physical distance tends to matter a lot less when the countries themselves are that politically and socially close.

But I don’t know, maybe you’re right, and for an adult woman who writes fanfiction, it’s a bit odd to laugh at people with zero financial resources for wearing dirty clothes. I

Teenagers are mean. They're not perfect. We've been through this. It's not worth paragraphs upon paragraphs of faux-class analysis. If you're going to continue to criticise Lily for this one-off incident, but refuse to acknowledge that a) Snape was getting chummy with future wizard-Nazis, b) then called her a slur (highly implied not to be the first time he used that word), then I just can't take you seriously. Having a mildly mean reaction isn't the same as genuine racism. Especially because I doubt Lily was ever thinking about Snape's poverty in that moment. Side note: if my supposed best friend called me a slur after I tried to help them, I'm beating their ass idgaf the context. Poor kids don't get to excuse being racist. Also, I don’t care that you write fanfiction. I find it hilarious that you write snape/oc fanfiction, and that’s clearly informed your strange hatred of Lily laughing at him (1) time. 

I don’t understand why you refuse to let others use their personal context when you’re the one who initially brought up individual matters to discuss generalized sociological problems.

I legitimately didn't. If you're talking about my explanation of Hermione, I very clearly did not use the word "I" or talked about myself. That was about Hermione what meant to intelligent/unfeminine/socially insecure girls as a whole, and that's very clear from what I wrote. You're the one who brought your mother being more progressive, which is far more specific??

So, I assume you’re familiar with power structures and how they work, and it shouldn’t be too hard to put two and two together and understand that a person who, in their sociocultural and political environment, holds all the capitals—economic capital, social capital, and the capital granted by status (in this case, blood purity)—is something that significantly influences power dynamics against people who have none of that.

Ma'am it's a kid's book. It does not need this level of analysis, that's what I've been trying to tell you. Especially when you're fixated on one chapter in particularly .

And the fact that you don’t pay someone to bully your classmate or cover up the bullying doesn’t mean that being literally a millionaire bullying someone from a slum lacks clear class symbolism and social implications.

He bullies Snape because he's annoying and into the Dark Arts. Who came up with those terrible spells in the first place, and how did they spread if he didn't use them on other students first? It's not like James read Snape's mind to learn Levicorpus. He's also well on his way to becoming a wizard-nazi, and keeps sniffing around James’ best friend to "catch" him being a werewolf. He wants to expose Remus, and get him kicked out of school. He isn't bullying Snape because he's poor, he bullies him because Snape’s an awful person. 

What I’ve been criticizing from the beginning is that she uses the protagonist-narrator as an excuse not to bother explaining or clarifying certain things, and that’s a mistake because even with a protagonist-narrator, there are other resources to give the narrative a broader perspective. It’s not that hard to understand, really.

But what the hell is she supposed to explain/clarify. That they're both purebloods/wealthy? Over and over you're writing the most faux academic spiel but your words have no real meaning, because they aren't substantially connected to the actual text. Draco/James have the most surface level comparisons and that's why the narrative doesn't treat them similarly. James is far more like Ron, which the narrative does state. Maybe if you gave an example that makes any amount of sense, I could actually understand where you’re going with this. 

You’re a bit obsessed with the idea that I have something against Hermione, but that’s not the case

I'm going to keep it real here. When you said that you weren't friends with a lot of girls, and was too busy joining politics and being friends with boys, it all clicked for me. It's projection. You hate Hermione, because you were probably some version of her. Now if you had female friends at school, you would know that Ginny/Luna/Lavender/Parvati/Fleur/Pansy/Cho were all obviously based on how actual teenager girls act. Nothing about them is unrealistic or one-dimensional. 

I'm not going to dive into your male gaze spiel. Her female characters aren't sexualised and they're not for the male audience, which is the key parts to this theory. It really just does not apply to this case. A lot of female characters (especially Hermione and Luna) are absolutely meant for the female audience to specifically relate to. There's a reason why Hermione is the go-to-character for millions of little girls to dress up for Book Weeks at school.

find when discussing the only truly important female character in the saga and how this female character apparently has no girl friends and holds problematic views on things related to femininity.

She isn't the only 'truly important female character': Ginny/Luna/Molly/Tonks/Bellatrix/Narcissa/Fleur/Umbridge/McGonagall are all important. I’m not obsessed with Hermione, but you’re certainly obsessed with pretending the other female characters had no major plotlines/characterisations. But since the message doesn’t seem to be sticking: the reason Hermione doesn't have friends generally is because she has bad social skills. But she does get along with Ginny and Luna, and with Lavender/Parvati for most of the six years they've roomed together. If she supposedly hated women, then why is she immediately sympathetic to Cho and even says to Harry to belittle her for Cho's sake? The whole thing is that the golden trio don't have the wildest social circle beyond the Weasleys and Harry's other dormmates. There's simply not enough page time to delve into Hermione's friendships outside of that. Also Hermione doesn't have problematic views on femininity? Can you show a single example of that? Again, you're projecting what you think Hermione would act like.

You might find that normal and not problematic, but I don’t, precisely because it’s a book for children and teenagers and is influential during a key time in cognitive development and worldview formation. I think it’s important to establish positive roles when we’re talking about girls.

Actually, I think it’s important to treat female and male characters as they are in reality, rather than forcing a hyper-sanitised representation of how teenage girls act. Which, has still very much been exaggerated on your end. You still can’t refute the point that the female characters don't treat other female characters with persistent, major misogyny-driven derision, instead of having minor, situational conflicts. 

But you gave me a spiel about how you felt awful during your childhood and Hermione helped you not feel alone

I didn't. Not once lmao. Also, you're personal experiences aren’t like “this is just what’s it liked to be a teenager” i.e something a lot of people can relate to. You instead write a massive paragraph about how you would never have treated another girl the same way. It’s a false equivalence. How surprising from the person who thinks Lily laughing one time is like a moment of abject horror, meanwhile you’ve refused to acknowledge Slurverus Snape. A lawyer through and through. 

It’s invalidated from the perspective that just because someone is a woman and grew up in the '70s doesn’t necessarily mean they must have a conservative view, because there are women raised in the '60s in even more oppressive and sexist contexts who don’t hold that view.

Yes, but JKR's view was the norm. Your mother being as progressive as she is considering her circumstances is unlikely. Outliers don’t “counter” the average public opinion. What I'm saying is that JKR's representation of female characters is not out of the ordinary if not progressive for the time period she wrote in. If she had been considered regressive at the time, then why were her female characters so widely praised when the books were released?

And that’s why I have to stop criticizing how in her work, traditional, mythified motherhood is rewarded by the narrative while the lack of motherhood or non-conventional motherhood is condemned? What the hell?

No, but is called having empathy ma’am. “Hmm why would a single mother who’s just escaped an abusive husband have such a high esteem for mothers and not fathers?” Key to any literacy criticism, is understanding an author’s personal context. Sure you can critique it, but it’s a very rather unfair criticism especially to delve into with the severity that you have. And honestly, considering the sheer shit she and other single mothers like her have been through, why the hell should it be up to us to judge she decides to portray motherhood? Like for all your spiels on socio-economic and gender analysis, you have more empathy for a bullied (male) fictional character than you do to JKR, who was an actual living, poor, single and abused mother. 

Also, a lack of motherhood/non-conventional motherhood is never condemned. You still haven't given a single example of that happening.

But if we’re doing a gender perspective critique, it’s normal to highlight what’s questionable from a feminist point of view.

But why though? It's a children's fantasy novel from the 90s/00s. There's no reason to hyper-nitpick it for not being a perfect representation of women. There are plenty of other writers who have written about JKR’s representation of women more succinctly, accurately and without hyperbole. You would have a point at times, if so many of you're arguments weren't completely exaggerated/taken out of context. Also, refer to the above. You don’t genuinely care about women and representation. If you did, you would have an atom of empathy towards a real life woman. 

The term Judeo-Christian is used because Christianity—and thus all cultures profoundly influenced by it, especially the Catholic branch in Europe—has a significant influence from Judaism; it literally stems from it

And plenty of Jewish people have a problem with the term "Judeo-Christian" especially in cases when you're talking about the New Testatament specifically. Yes, Judaism obviously influenced Christianity, but Christianity has very specific notions of sacrifice/morality that are very different from Judaism. You've applied this term wrongly, and you would think you could at least admit that. Also why do you keep taking up sentences upon sentences to write things everyone knows? "It literally stems from it". Man I can't thank you enough for telling me this entirely new information.

Anyways, I don't think you're wrong about what the Virgin Mary represents, I think you're wrong about how it's being applied to Harry Potter. I think it’s entirely unnecessary to even mention the Madonna-Whore complex, as that’s entirely irrelevant to what we’re discussing…like a lot of what else you’ve written. Regardless, I think the idea that parents would sacrifice themselves for their children, especially in wartime, is apparent in all cultures and in mythos around the world. JKR representing a basic part of the human condition is not a slam dunk against her work.  

It’s not just that they have jobs, it’s that all the male secondary characters are much more developed, better narrated, and more fully constructed than the female ones.

But the examples you use don’t make sense. Molly and Narcissa are entirely in line with the gender and class roles being represented. Also, there are examples of female characters who end up being better narrated/developed than male equivalents. Fleur quite literally becomes better developed than either Cedric or Krum. McGonagall is the most developed of the “supporting” professors. Umbridge is the most important antagonist after Voldemort, and Bellatrix is the single most important Death Eater who takes over Lucius’ role in the story from OOTP onwards. And Lucius really isn’t all that complex of a character, Narcissa is far more interesting. Of all the Dursleys, Petunia is the most complex and important to the narrative.�� Of the three most developed DA characters (Neville/Luna/Ginny), two are girls Lily’s background ends up being more narratively important than James’ does. There are plenty of instances where female characters shine, but you just pretend they don’t. 

But the reason why it feels like there’s so many more boys boils down to: a) a lot of the major supporting characters are Weasleys and Ron’s character doesn’t work if he isn’t the sixth born boy in the family, b) Harry’s is a *gasp* a boy and therefore is going to get to know his male dormmates better + have schoolyard feuds with other boys, and c) the presence of the marauders. Yeah, on a numerical level there are more male characters, but I think it is for the most part justified by the narrative.  I think you’re too busy looking at it from a faux-academic point of view, to actually interact with the text itself. It’s why you genuinely can’t refute any of the arguments I’ve written pertaining to the text, and have to resort to writing paragraphs about the male gaze.

The fact is that several women mock Fleur, women that the narrative portrays as good, women considered important enough to be protagonists or the protagonist's girlfriend. The fact is that Fleur is the only girl in the tournament, and out of the four participants, she gets the worst treatment. No matter how much you try to theorize and rationalize the reasons, the reality is that when you look at it from a broader perspective, there’s a clear gender differentiation in the story that disadvantages women. And that’s it, nothing more to it.

Actually there are entirely rational reasons to how Fleur is treated by characters and the narrative as a whole. I explained them. Ginny/Hermione = insecure, Molly = scared mother-in-law to be. Fleur did poorly in the Triwizard tournament because Beauxbatons doesn’t matter. She doesn’t get the worst treatment in the long run- we leave DH knowing far more about Fleur than we do about Krum or Cedric. For all your complaints about not knowing women’s inner lives, we meet Fleur’s family, we see how she interacts with her loved ones vs. the Weasleys and co. We see her mellow out through GoF, and see her proved narratively ‘right’ against Molly in HBP. We see that even though this conflict exists entirely in a different nation, she becomes an important member of the Order. Again, you can’t refute me from a text-based perspective, so you deride my arguments as “irrational”...but provide no counter argument based on the text itself. 

J.K. Rowling at all costs, in case your official financier of radfem takes a hit. 

It’s not about radical feminism lmao, it’s about the fact that you just don’t know the books all that well. You spend a ridiculous amount of time writing incorrect “meta” statements that aren’t at all accurate reflections of the text itself. It’s about the fact that you’ve become so obsessed with your headcanons (like Lily is shallow and got with James for his status??) that you’re entirely unable to engage with the canon text. This tends to happen when you’re too busy writing self insert fanfiction.

Lily doesn’t seem to think she’s done anything wrong by insulting his poverty and aligning herself with his abusers - only Severus is remorseful, and the trauma that caused him to lash out was considerably worse than the trauma that caused her to lash out. She believes he deserves it, as apparently she believed his abuse was amusing. And I’d be totally fine with this from a character perspective because it’s the teenage condition to be self-centred and poor at self-reflection. But the *narrative* (and the author in interviews) doesn’t believe Lily was in the wrong here. And it believes Lily made the correct moral judgment on the two boys when she casts Severus off for his crime and falls in love with James despite his. But I just don’t buy into that framing, and I didn’t even when I was 10. The use of the word ‘mudblood’ while in considerable distress is not a greater sin than sexual assault.

Lily feels no remorse, nor does she think it's wrong to half-smile at the bully who’s targeting your so-called friend. She doesn’t even consider that this might be why your supposed best friend insulted you in the first place. But here’s the thing: this isn't Lily's fault. It's J.K. Rowling's fault, and the way she portrays ethical dilemmas throughout the series, blurring the lines between what's morally right and wrong. Now, if you’ll allow me, before diving into the dynamics between Lily and Severus, I’d like to provide some context as to why I believe the biggest issue with many of the characters’ attitudes in the series lies in Rowling’s constant attempt to project her own moral compass through her writing. In doing so, she falls into repeated inconsistencies and creates a narrative that’s all over the place when it comes to how certain characters are treated.

Rowling is never consistent. She portrays Draco Malfoy as an irredeemable, terrible character because he’s a rich kid spoiled by his parents, using his power and influence to bully those weaker than him. Yet, she gives James the benefit of the doubt, even though he behaved exactly the same way: a rich bully who used his status and his friends to gang up on the vulnerable. From early interviews, Rowling claimed Pansy Parkinson is practically the reincarnation of Satan, even though, of all the antagonists, Pansy is probably one of the least relevant and harmless. This is simply because Rowling projected onto her the stereotypical “mean girls” who mock those who read and study—something Rowling clearly couldn’t stand. On the other hand, she glorifies characters like Ginny, who has a pretty nasty attitude towards any girl she doesn’t consider cool or "not like the other girls." Ginny treats Fleur like a witch when Fleur has done nothing wrong—her only crime is being incredibly beautiful, knowing it, and not constantly apologizing for it. And this treatment of female characters throughout the series deserves a proper gendered critique, because they fall into every stereotype and archetype set by the traditional male gaze.

In Rowling's world, there are always two kinds of women. When it comes to younger, adolescent characters, there are the "good" women—those who don’t fit the typical feminine mold, the weird ones (like Luna), the tomboys who are “one of the guys” (like Ginny), or the overly studious ones who don’t have time for frivolous things like reading magazines or talking about boys (like Hermione). In other words, the cool girls, the ones who are supposed to be role models, are those who "aren’t like the other girls." But not because they’re deconstructing gender roles consciously—they just happen to embody the fantasy of the woman who can give you kids while still being one of your bros. It’s a common male fantasy, where women abandon the graceful, ethereal, delicate image to fit into a set of needs the modern man has. These are "manic pixie dream girls," hiding a deeply internalized misogyny as they are presented as individuals opposed to the “other” women—the “other” being less cool because they lack traditionally masculine traits, and thus are less than. We see this not only with how Fleur is treated but also with the disdain or prejudice Hermione shows towards girls like Lavender or the Patil sisters, just because they act like normal teenagers instead of validating themselves through academia to compensate for their inferiority complex (cough, cough).

Then we have the adult female characters, where Rowling’s toxic and incredibly conservative view of motherhood kicks in. Except for McGonagall, the rest of the adult women who are seen in a positive light are either already mothers or end up becoming mothers. And for them, motherhood is everything. They are mothers first and women second, in every case. Lily is Harry’s mother, who sacrifices herself for him. Molly is the Weasley matriarch, whose entire life revolves around her kids—she hasn’t even looked for a job (which wouldn’t be a bad idea, considering the family’s financial situation), nor does she have any aspirations beyond knitting sweaters and worrying about her children. Even Narcissa, a negative character throughout most of the saga, earns her redemption solely because she loves her son and is willing to risk everything for him. Nymphadora Tonks, a 25-year-old woman, ends up pregnant by a man 13 years older than her and goes from being an independent Auror with her own life to a passive housewife waiting for her man, who is off having an existential crisis. The adult women in the saga aren’t independent individuals—they’re extensions of their children. And any woman who isn’t a perfect, self-sacrificing mother (like Merope Gaunt) is either a psychopath or portrayed as a terrible person.

What I’m getting at is that Rowling is far from impartial in the moral narrative of the story. In fact, she’s absolutely inconsistent. She presents characters she sells as "good," whose attitudes are absolute trash, yet she continues to insist that they’re good and perfect. This is especially obvious with her female characters, because throughout the seven books, she constantly emphasizes her ideal of the "perfect woman" in terms of tastes, motivations, and behavior. Hermione is a self-insert, Ginny is probably a projection of who Rowling wishes she could’ve been, and Luna is the quirky girl who isn’t “threatening” to other women, and is treated with a condescending, paternalistic lens. They are either Rowling’s aspirational figures or archetypes that don’t bother her, or they’re reduced to filler characters who are mistreated by the narrative.

When it comes to Lily, the problem is that Rowling spends half the saga painting her as some kind of Mother Teresa. She’s the quintessence of motherhood—but not a conscious, modern motherhood, but one rooted in traditional Judeo-Christian ideals. This is the kind of motherhood that can do no wrong, the one that represents women because, in this view, a woman can’t be fulfilled unless she’s a mother. Lily dies for her son, and that love creates a divine, protective magic. She’s beautiful, popular, and one of the most popular guys at school is after her. Clearly, she must be a saint, because everyone describes her as such. And while the narrative does question James’s perfection, even if vaguely and unsuccessfully, it doesn’t do the same with Lily. Harry questions his father’s actions but never his mother’s. He never stops to think about how problematic it is that his mother almost laughed at Severus or refused to hear his apology, or that she couldn’t empathize with what he was going through, knowing full well the kind of situation Severus had at home. When a narrative tells you something but never shows it, and worse, never questions it, that’s a problem. Something doesn’t add up. Rowling is obsessed with showing her own moral line through her characters and doesn’t realize how incoherent it is to portray Lily as someone who always does the right thing when what we actually see of her suggests that, if she really liked James all along, not only is she a hypocrite, but she’s also quite superficial with questionable principles. But this is never addressed, never explored. It would be fascinating if it were, giving the character more depth and making her more relatable. But Rowling brushes all this aside, as she does with so many other things, because to her, Lily was a role model, despite the fact that anyone with common sense can see she was just a terrible friend who got tired of justifying why she hung out with a poor, scruffy kid and ultimately decided it made more sense to date the rich, handsome bully.