View Single Post
Old April 15th, 2012, 3:14 pm
Sereena's Avatar
Sereena  Female.gif Sereena is offline
Fourth Year
Join Date: 20th February 2012
Age: 33
Posts: 599
Re: Feminism in Deathly Hallows - or the lack thereof v.3

Originally Posted by kittling View Post
And yet the mothers are only mothers, they are simple and uncomplicated and while Harry does on a couple of occasions (I can actually only think of one but I’m giving the benefit of the doubt so to speak ) show a desire for the kind of nurturing that a mother is seen as able to provide, it is his father and soragate father figures that dominate Harry’s thoughts. Eg
Simple and uncomplicated yes. I wonder if this is a symptom of the fact that female characters are in general less complicated than the male. I'm not sayng they are less interesting since I think this is subjective but it seems to me that female characters are either bad or evil while men are sometimes in between. I can't actually think of any woman who is in the grey area while there are plenty of men there (Snape, Dumbledore even Sirius and the Marauders). The only woman who might fit is Petunia but I'm not sure about her either. The other are either good (Molly, Hermione, Ginny, Tonks, Minerva) or evil (Umbridge, Bellatrix, Narcissa) with less shades of grey. The men are often flawed but good but women, even if they have flaws are often seen as somehow "better" than the men unless they are the ultimate evil.

Originally Posted by HedwigOwl View Post
I don't view it that way, as telling all the details of every secondary character's life would needlessly bog down the story.
It's impossible for an author to show us everything that doesn't happen in a story though. JKR has never shown us that Draco doesn't have a little sister or that Voldemort doesn't have a crush on Dumbledore or that Ron never went out with Millicent Bulstrode (just to take a few ridiculous examples). Does that mean all of these things are possible? If we aren't shown something we can simply assume that that particular thing didn't happen, IMO.

She's very committed to caring for her family, but is more complex than that; every person is. I think the point of a feminist viewpoint is recognizing that women are not defined by any one thing.
But is there more to Molly than motherhood? Do we ever see her in another role. I take the points about Lockhart and Celestina but those things are too small to count as character development. She seems to be on good terms with Tonks but that relationship is also very underdeveloped. Whenever Molly does something proactive she is driven by motherhood. There's nothing wrong about that but I personally would have liked to see more sides to her.

Originally Posted by JackIanto View Post
Molly may be a modest woman living a pretty ordinary life (though in un-ordinary circumstances) but she wields power, power of a different form. She has, again to quote Greer: "The be a person, with dignity, integrity, nobility, passion, pride that constitute personhood. Freedom to run, shout, talk loudly and sit with your knees apart."
That to me is Molly.
Yes, it's possible that Molly has chosen her path in life instead of it being "forced" upon her by tradition, though I do think the pureblood families were very conservative so this is a possible interpretation as well, IMO. However to me she seems relatively powerless. She seems to get angry a lot and while she is right many times the people around her either ridicule her, ignore her or write her off as being overprotective. When the male characters say something or want to protect the children it is seen as noble and taken very seriously. Molly spends so much of her time worrying and the only time she takes matters into her own hands is in the final battle. She doesn't seem particularly empowered to me.

Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links