View Single Post
Old April 6th, 2012, 8:37 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 StarryVeil View Post

She did? Iíve never seen that statement! Could you tell me where she says that? Because, if she has said it, I do not agree. I donít find Bellatrix as singularly feminine. To me, sheís just a mentally disturbed, cruel person. I donít believe the duel between her and Molly was any sort of lesson in ďfemale proprietyĒ. I donít think weíre supposed to draw the conclusion that itís OK for men to act the way Bellatrix does but that it destroys some sort of feminine code of honor to treat children cruelly and be as sadistic as Bellatrix is.
This is what Rowling had to say about it:
Originally Posted by JKR
The first reason was I always saw Molly as a very good witch but someone whose light is necessarily hidden under a bushel, because she isn't in the kitchen a lot and she has had to raise, among others, and george which is like, enough... I wanted Molly to have her moment and to show that because a woman had dedicated herself to her family does not mean that she doesn't have a lot of other talents.

Second reason: It was the meeting of two kinds of - if you call what Bellatrix feels for Voldemort love, I guess we'll call it love, she has a kind of obsession with him, it's a very sick obsession ... and I wanted to match that kind of obsession with maternal love... the power that you give someone by loving them. So Molly was really an amazing exemplar of maternal love. ... There was something very satisfying about putting those two women together.
So even if you don't agree that this is the symbolism of the scene, we still have the problem of JKR's intentions being, as I see it, to portray one type of woman as better than another. This is offensive to me.
I'm not saying a person cannot interpret the duel different from Rowling, of course that it both allowable and very possible. But even if I pretend to have never heard Rowling's motivation for the duel it still strikes me as odd that Molly,the most porminent mother of the series, who has never partook actively in the war until the duel, just happens to have her duelling debut against a woman who is portrayed as anti-maternal, uninterested in family life and by Molly's standards most likely a "scarlet woman".

This marked instance of female-glorification bugs me most.
I see it rather as a limitation of women instead of a glorification. Sure she emphasizes motherhood over fatherhood quite a few times in the series but I see it as a symptom of the series' traditional view of women and their proper role. This is why I cannot find it insulting towards men but rather a small part of the unfair treatment that female characters get. I'm not saying the books want us to believe all women should stay at home and raise children since most female characters don't even have children, at least not when we are first introduced to them. But I do think motherhood is seen as such a powerful force for good that not being maternal or particularly fond of children (especially if you are a woman) is portrayed as well.... a bad thing.

Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links