Feminism in Deathly Hallows - or the lack thereof v.3

[birdi86]

Isn't that what happened in Harry Potter as well? Cho was his dream girl before Ginny.

They're love interests, yes but Lana really had no other consistent point of characterization beyond that. Every season her character was rebooted into something new, her being Clark's dream girl was her only consistent feature.

Cho, however, was very consistently drawn even when Harry's feelings for her changed. She was friendly and pleasant but prone to being high-strung. She was a Quidditch player and fan. She was loyal to those she cared about, she wasn't the type to be easily intimidated, and she was a member of the DA

She is the cheerleader-TYPE, in my opinion.

But she's not a cheerleader and I'm not even sure what a "cheerleader-type" is supposed to mean. Pretty, popular and... what? Do we even know she was popular? Or does having friends and dating make someone popular?

She never proved to be as smart as Hermione or as skilled at magic.

Cho was the only person in OOTP to point out how suspicious it was that in two years ago - when Sirius Black was on the loose - they had dementors guarding Hogwarts and now - with Death Eaters having escaped and rumors of Voldemort's return - the dementors were nowhere to be found.

No one else picked up on that very important little tidbit. Cho might not be as studious as Hermione but from that alone I'd say she has a "ready mind."

[OldMotherCrow]

Originally Posted by Trixa

The way I see it Luna believes all her father tells her so if you admire women who are independent thinkers than why do you consider her a good role model?

I don't see her as you see her. Certainly Luna and her father exist in their own little world, but I don't see all of Luna's thoughts and actions devoted to supporting him and his beliefs. I think that just because they share beliefs, and Luna admires and defends her father, that it is not the same thing as living and breathing for him. Xenophilius's initial defense of Harry Potter may have come via his daughter, so I see their rrelationship as a two-way street, with him trusting and supporting her beliefs also. IMO, Xeno crumbled and tried to sell out his daughter's friends to buy her protection, but Luna herself always was steadfast.

As to why I admire her, I think it is because she suffered a lot of ridicule and was picked on for her strange beliefs, but never hid them to appease anyone. She faced adversity with a matter-of-fact attitude that I found to be a refreshing change from so much angst and drama. I can't help but to admire her poise.

[Melaszka]

Originally Posted by Trixa

I would always admire an evil but strong female character more than a good but weak female character. Sorry, but I have quite enough of bimbos, stupid and unambitious female characters, passive types, damsels in distress and so on. I'm not saying that the women in HP are that way, just that women are unfortunately very often portrayed that way in other medias.

No, I can totally see this and can fully appreciate why you find Bellatrix a refreshing change.

Originally Posted by OldMotherCrow

As an adult woman role model in the series, I prefer Madam Bones. She had a strong personality and was devoted to justice, but was not under the thumb of Voldemort, Fudge, or Dumbledore. I like women who are independent thinkers, regardless of whether their background is student, housewife, or professional. I was disappointed that her role was so small, and then she was killed off .

I totally agree, and I liked Madam Bones, too. I really feel the absence of prominent adult female role models in HP.

I also like Augusta Longbottom, but (in addition to being a bit of a walk-on) she seems too mired in patriarchal notions of family honour. I also don't like the way that the narrative seems to be painting a harsh picture of her for not being very stereotypically maternal with Neville.

[NumberEight]

Originally Posted by Melaszka

I also like Augusta Longbottom, but (in addition to being a bit of a walk-on) she seems too mired in patriarchal notions of family honour. I also don't like the way that the narrative seems to be painting a harsh picture of her for not being very stereotypically maternal with Neville.

I never got this impression from reading the books. I got the impression that she is really harsh to Neville and belittles a career path he was thinking about following.

[MasterOfDeath]

I see it as the opposite. Argusta wanted Neville to follow a more traditional 'macho' career, but Minerva encourages Neville to be himself and follow his own interests even if it is 'soft' option.

[FleurDeLaPointe]

As always I think people are missing the point about Cho. While Trixia may have a point about stereotyping, I think it's misguided by the fact that what Cho represents in the HP series isn't the shallowness (or cheerleading type personality) of characters, but the general lack of depth between Harry and Cho's relationship with it being Harry's first and Cho's rebound attempt. The entire point of showing Harry and Cho's relationship is how her perceived stereotyping relfects Harry's own attempt at his first relationship. While the relationship could have blossomed based upon an understanding and empathetic approach over losing a boyfriend and witnessing the murder of said boyfriend, instead the incompatability of Harry with Cho is emphasized as to how limited and awkward their execution was. Jealously, envy, exhausted topics about quidditch, an untouchable topic of discussing Cedric's death and an emphasis on loyalty to each respective party's friends really show that Cho perhaps has more in common with Harry than most people are readily to accept.

It's in this missed chance at exploring Cho's emotional depths that is hidden from the audience and only explained by Hermione to Harry post break-up. We only see a crying weak willed person but we don't understand is that she is grieving. I'm not going to make excuses about how grieving causes us to do weird things and OOC things, but I suppose that is the similarity with Harry and Cho when you take into context of Harry's own public media smearing as being the boy who lies. Everyone else might just see a boy in a shallow attempt to cry for attention but the truth is hidden from the public/audience. To assume that Cho is nothing more than a cheerleader sidebar in Harry's life is like dismissing Harry much like the wizarding world dismissed him in OoTP. But really what do I know?

[MasterOfDeath]

Originally Posted by FleurDeLaPointe

As always I think people are missing the point about Cho. While Trixia may have a point about stereotyping, I think it's misguided by the fact that what Cho represents in the HP series isn't the shallowness (or cheerleading type personality) of characters, but the general lack of depth between Harry and Cho's relationship with it being Harry's first and Cho's rebound attempt. The entire point of showing Harry and Cho's relationship is how her perceived stereotyping relfects Harry's own attempt at his first relationship. While the relationship could have blossomed based upon an understanding and empathetic approach over losing a boyfriend and witnessing the murder of said boyfriend, instead the incompatability of Harry with Cho is emphasized as to how limited and awkward their execution was. Jealously, envy, exhausted topics about quidditch, an untouchable topic of discussing Cedric's death and an emphasis on loyalty to each respective party's friends really show that Cho perhaps has more in common with Harry than most people are readily to accept.

It's in this missed chance at exploring Cho's emotional depths that is hidden from the audience and only explained by Hermione to Harry post break-up. We only see a crying weak willed person but we don't understand is that she is grieving. I'm not going to make excuses about how grieving causes us to do weird things and OOC things, but I suppose that is the similarity with Harry and Cho when you take into context of Harry's own public media smearing as being the boy who lies. Everyone else might just see a boy in a shallow attempt to cry for attention but the truth is hidden from the public/audience. To assume that Cho is nothing more than a cheerleader sidebar in Harry's life is like dismissing Harry much like the wizarding world dismissed him in OoTP. But really what do I know?

But this is brilliant, IMO. This is realistic. This is putting character over political messages. Not everything Harry does is 100% politically correct. He's human, he makes mistakes and screws up perfectly good opportunities.

This just enriches the series for me.

[RavenStar83]

Originally Posted by FleurDeLaPointe

It's in this missed chance at exploring Cho's emotional depths that is hidden from the audience and only explained by Hermione to Harry post break-up. We only see a crying weak willed person but we don't understand is that she is grieving. I'm not going to make excuses about how grieving causes us to do weird things and OOC things, but I suppose that is the similarity with Harry and Cho when you take into context of Harry's own public media smearing as being the boy who lies. Everyone else might just see a boy in a shallow attempt to cry for attention but the truth is hidden from the public/audience. To assume that Cho is nothing more than a cheerleader sidebar in Harry's life is like dismissing Harry much like the wizarding world dismissed him in OoTP. But really what do I know?

I don't know about anyone else, but I clearly understood Cho's grieving and why. Her boyfriend had just died some months before, and the entire wizarding world is split as to whether or not Voldy was back. Many of the students were confused to how to handle things, not even everyone in DA agreed with one another on some facts. Maybe it would have been more clearer if JKR had written that Harry understood why she was an emotional wreck or just something said in the narration itself. But given the circumstances of everything going on in 5th year, I would say the answers are right there.

[Moriath]

Cho has her own thread though and you are welcome to discuss her relationship with Harry in Legilimency Studies.

[Lunatic]

Lots of wonderful posts that have a lot to do with feminism and Harry Potter, especially the Cho based ones.

Cho's situation says a lot about feminism both real world and the HP world. It's very interesting that JKR's reaction to Cho is very "stereotypical male" in the "suck it up, you weak pathetic [insert non family friendly explicative of your choice]" or perhaps it's just British stiff upper lip or some of both.

Cho in many ways though is a what a girl is "supposed" to be. She is popular, a jock, exotic, smart, loyal and attractive to men. When she "fails" we are encouraged to hate her and I think JKR encourages us, in a very schoolgirl way, to gloat at her fall. Also when she fails she becomes less attractive to men and supposedly ends up marrying a muggle, even though she did recover enough to fight in DH (Yea!).

Then Ginny comes in and is all those things, except loyal to Harry instead of her close friends and perhaps not quite as smart.

Talk about a wish fulfillment for so many girls to see their romantic rival fall in the dirt and become a crying whiny pathetic loser.

Talk about wish fulfilment for guys to have a smart (but not smart enough to challenge you), exotic (red headed), popular, jock girl who is loyal to you first and foremost.

Talk about a really twisted message from a feminist standpoint.

All the Best,

Lunatic

[birdi86]

When she "fails" we are encouraged to hate her and I think JKR encourages us, in a very schoolgirl way, to gloat at her fall.

I never got that. I never hated Cho. I sympathized with her. She had experienced something very tragic and something few people seemed to understand. I think the lack of understanding Cho receives is consistent with the cold attitude the British wizarding world takes towards emotional distress and mental problems.

I also think JKR was trying to realistically portray the kind of emotions a teenage girl would go through at that time while also keeping a light-hearted tone for the books since they are intended for children.

Quite honestly, the only character I think JKR hates is the only one she's gone on record as hating - Pansy Parkinson.

Talk about wish fulfilment for guys to have a smart (but not smart enough to challenge you), exotic (red headed), popular, jock girl who is loyal to you first and foremost.

Eh, neither Harry nor Ginny struck me as terribly academic sorts. To put it kindly. Ginny probably has the attitude towards schoolwork shared by Ron, the Twins and well, Harry. Maybe not as flagrantly defiant about it as the twins but more along the lines of Ron and Harry's "homework is stuff you have to do".

Also, red-heads aren't exotic in England. They're common and often maligned. The UK's history of hating on the gingers is part of the reason JKR choose to make the Weasleys a family of red-heads as she always felt some sympathy towards gingers.

who is loyal to you first and foremost.

Ginny never proved that she was loyal to Harry first and foremost. Unlike Cho, she was lucky that her close friends were either too unimportant to give names to or were Luna and Neville who were also Harry's friends and that her family had taken Harry in as one of their own. Because of the Weasley family allegiances and status as blood traitors, Harry's cause was Ginny's cause long before there was a Harry in the picture.

In the very small world they shared, their spheres overlapped almost completely.

Also when she fails she becomes less attractive to men and supposedly ends up marrying a muggle

How did she become less attractive to men? It looks like Michael Corner swooped in to comfort her and stuck around for a while afterwards. (One day, Ginny and Cho need to get together and talk about their shared boyfriends.)

And what's wrong with marrying a Muggle?

[Melaszka]

Originally Posted by birdi86

Also, red-heads aren't exotic in England. They're common and often maligned. The UK's history of hating on the gingers is part of the reason JKR choose to make the Weasleys a family of red-heads as she always felt some sympathy towards gingers.

A bit off-topic, but I wouldn't call redheads common - it's still a relatively rare hair colour in England (although I agree that they do tend to get teased). I think you do get a few more redhaired people in Scotland (probably the Viking or Celtic blood?).

I also agree with Lunatic about Ginny. To me she's always seemed a bit of a male fantasy figure. I didn't think Lunatic meant smart in the Hermione-ish academic sense, merely quickwitted, sassy and emotionally strong enough to not bother him with needs for support, but not quite quickwitted and strong enough to be a rival as hero. And note how she's interested in and good enough at sport to not bore her boyfriend by expecting him to listen to separate interests of her own, but not quite good enough to threaten his status as No 1 Seeker?

[birdi86]

but not quite quickwitted and strong enough to be a rival as hero.

I have no idea where the quick-witted thing comes from so I can't comment beyond saying the Twins probably have everyone beat on that score.

Not strong enough? Really. Getting possessed by a Dark Lord when you're 12 and living to tell the tale, fighting against Death Eaters at 14 and 15 and surviving a year under the Carrows reign and Ginny's not strong-enough.

Well, I guess if Ginny's not strong than neither are Ron, Hermione, Luna or Neville because she's been through as much as they have and yet none of them have been through as much as Harry.

And note how she's interested in and good enough at sport to not bore her boyfriend by expecting him to listen to separate interests of her own, but not quite good enough to threaten his status as No 1 Seeker?

No one is good enough to challenge Harry's position as Seeker. Not Cho, not Ron, not the Twins, not Cedric, not Draco. The only ones who might come close are Viktor or Charlie and that's based on what we've heard of their skill. Harry was ludicrously gifted at Seeking, a natural-born talent without any practice - without even having heard of the sport until a few weeks before.

And frankly, I shudder to think what the fan reaction would have been if Ginny had been that good. Because the fact of the matter is - Ginny can't win. She's either not good enough or so good she's a Mary Sue. The expectations for her character are unreasonable and no matter what JKR did with the character, it would have been picked apart and criticized.

(Largely because people didn't like the Harry/Ginny ship and favored another person for Harry but few people will admit that.)

Besides, maybe Ginny likes Chasing better? It was what she tried out for after all.

[RavenStar83]

Originally Posted by birdi86

And frankly, I shudder to think what the fan reaction would have been if Ginny had been that good. Because the fact of the matter is - Ginny can't win. She's either not good enough or so good she's a Mary Sue. The expectations for her character are unreasonable and no matter what JKR did with the character, it would have been picked apart and criticized.

This is what I'm tired of as well. It's something to wonder, was it the writer's fault that the character turned out to be a [insert sexist label for female here], or is it the reader's own projection based on their own bias and ignorance? (And I truly do not mean this as an attack. I think it is a valid observation as we're all guilty of it to some degree.)

(Largely because people didn't like the Harry/Ginny ship and favored another person for Harry but few people will admit that.)

[Trixa]

Originally Posted by birdi86

(Largely because people didn't like the Harry/Ginny ship and favored another person for Harry but few people will admit that.)

Even if that were true isn't that like saying that just because you are a H/G shipper you are unreliable when it comes to debating Harry and Ginny compatibility?

Personally, I think Ginny and Harry are good together. I don't like the way the relationship was written but that's another issue. However. Ginny is the only character I consider to be a truly bad role model when it comes to feminism in the books. It's not that I hate her, because she's just a character but the way she has been written and the way her relationship with Harry has been written are in my opinion, quite negative from a feminist standpoint. Long story short, I wouldn't want a potential daughter of mine to have Ginny as her role model, even though I am aware of the fact that most people do consider her to be feminist and well written. I agree with Melaszka and Lunatic.

[OldMotherCrow]

Originally Posted by Melaszka

I also agree with Lunatic about Ginny. To me she's always seemed a bit of a male fantasy figure. I didn't think Lunatic meant smart in the Hermione-ish academic sense, merely quickwitted, sassy and emotionally strong enough to not bother him with needs for support, but not quite quickwitted and strong enough to be a rival as hero. And note how she's interested in and good enough at sport to not bore her boyfriend by expecting him to listen to separate interests of her own, but not quite good enough to threaten his status as No 1 Seeker?

I like Ginny, but, yeah, there were bits that made her seem like the Perfect Constructed "The Girl" for our Hero, Harry. Namely what you mention are the parts that annoyed me.

Originally Posted by birdie86

(Largely because people didn't like the Harry/Ginny ship and favored another person for Harry but few people will admit that.)

That sounds very dismissive, and suspiciously like a strawman: "All aguments X can be ignored because they are automatically based on reason Y even if those making such arguments say otherwise because they are lying".

[RavenStar83]

Originally Posted by OldMotherCrow

That sounds very dismissive, and suspiciously like a strawman: "All aguments X can be ignored because they are automatically based on reason Y even if those making such arguments say otherwise because they are lying".

Have you seen the shipping wars???

Also to note, many of the arguements that have been said else where and on these boards on why H/G was bad ended up involving giving Ginny some type of sexist/misogynistic label or description. Like the love potion theory, even though there's no proof in canon for that.

[Melaszka]

Originally Posted by birdi86

I have no idea where the quick-witted thing comes from so I can't comment beyond saying the Twins probably have everyone beat on that score.

Not strong enough? Really. Getting possessed by a Dark Lord when you're 12 and living to tell the tale, fighting against Death Eaters at 14 and 15 and surviving a year under the Carrows reign and Ginny's not strong-enough.

Well, I guess if Ginny's not strong than neither are Ron, Hermione, Luna or Neville because she's been through as much as they have and yet none of them have been through as much as Harry.

I agree that Ginny is as strong as a lot of the other characters. My post wasn't intended as a bit of Ginny bashing. It comes back to my main complaints about the series as a whole:

(a) being entirely rooted in Harry's viewpoint, it (IMO) privileges male consciousness to an extreme degree. In this particular instance, JKR has created for Harry a partner who is perfect for Harry, well matched to meet Harry's needs. there is nothing wrong with that, per se, but I do not feel that the text lays enough emphasis on Ginny's needs or the autonomy of her character, except as the perfect partner for Harry

(b) women repeatedly being deputies, second in commands, what have you. Ginny, like a lot of the female characters is strong, sassy, capable, far superior to many of the male characters. But just not quite as good as the male hero.

No one is good enough to challenge Harry's position as Seeker. Not Cho, not Ron, not the Twins, not Cedric, not Draco. The only ones who might come close are Viktor or Charlie and that's based on what we've heard of their skill. Harry was ludicrously gifted at Seeking, a natural-born talent without any practice - without even having heard of the sport until a few weeks before.

But that's my point - I'm not arguing that all female characters are portrayed as inferior to all male characters. Female characters frequently seem to be portrayed as very capable, more capable than most male characters. But not quite as capable as the top males. I still feel that the series enshrines the myth that some men are rubbish, some women are very, very good, but the truly exceptional geniuses tend to be men.

And frankly, I shudder to think what the fan reaction would have been if Ginny had been that good. Because the fact of the matter is - Ginny can't win. She's either not good enough or so good she's a Mary Sue. The expectations for her character are unreasonable and no matter what JKR did with the character, it would have been picked apart and criticized.

No author can ever win in any situation, because different readers have different viewpoints and expectations. I refuse to be silenced from expressing my view simply because other people have expressed a diametrically opposite view.

(Largely because people didn't like the Harry/Ginny ship and favored another person for Harry but few people will admit that.)

Absolutely not true in my case - I wasn't particularly interested in the romances of the teenaged characters, one way or the other. It wouldn't have bothered me if Harry had ended up celibate, dead or partnered to Hermione, Draco or Squiddy.

[OldMotherCrow]

Originally Posted by RavenStar83

Have you seen the shipping wars???

Also to note, many of the arguements that have been said else where and on these boards on why H/G was bad ended up involving giving Ginny some type of sexist/misogynistic label or description. Like the love potion theory, even though there's no proof in canon for that.

No, I can honestly say that I have no interest in shipping wars, or going to the battlefields where they are fought. Just not my thing.

If Birdie's comment was aimed at something specific that was going on with G/H wars elsewhere and elsewhen, I don't think that it was clear to me because I am unfamiliar with the context, so I possibly misconstrued that his or her comment was aimed at the conversation here, now.

[Lunatic]

Originally Posted by birdi86

I never got that. I never hated Cho. I sympathized with her. She had experienced something very tragic and something few people seemed to understand. I think the lack of understanding Cho receives is consistent with the cold attitude the British wizarding world takes towards emotional distress and mental problems.

I also think JKR was trying to realistically portray the kind of emotions a teenage girl would go through at that time while also keeping a light-hearted tone for the books since they are intended for children.

Quite honestly, the only character I think JKR hates is the only one she's gone on record as hating - Pansy Parkinson.

Agree with the first part, disagree with the second part. I do think JKR dislikes, possibly hates Cho. The minute she "fell from" grace Ginny was shown to be better in every way, even though she was two years younger. This goes even to when Cho speaks up and offers information relavant to what an area she knows, she's essentially told to "shut up" by Ginny.
You and I don't hate Cho. However, many fans do hate her. I think the fact that JKR, in the books or in the post-DH interviews, has done nothing to discourage this attitude is telling of her position on Cho.

Originally Posted by birdi86

Eh, neither Harry nor Ginny struck me as terribly academic sorts. To put it kindly. Ginny probably has the attitude towards schoolwork shared by Ron, the Twins and well, Harry. Maybe not as flagrantly defiant about it as the twins but more along the lines of Ron and Harry's "homework is stuff you have to do".

Aside, one of my least favorite stereotypes is that academic success=intelligence and I hate it even more when it it's used to assume that Ravenclaws spend all there time in the library. Just ask those Academic failures Thomas Edison, Albert Einestein, and Benjamin Franklin. They would be, many have argued, by modern standards considered "learning disabled" and put in "special" classes.
Suffice it to say, I think the Weasley twins with their original spellwork and inventive application of said spells come closer to being "almost Ravenclaw" then the academically minded Hermione, whose spellwork is advanced, but, in the case of coins based off of well honed theory and a well known example, the dark marks.

Cho is intelligent and as you yourself pointed out, noticed details that others missed in OotP. Ginny is intelligent because of her rather inventive boagy bot hex. But Ginny never challenges Harry's assumptions and has, in some circles of fandom earned the title Ginny-bot (after Buffy-Bot). Not one I agree with but one that is telling.

Originally Posted by birdi86

Also, red-heads aren't exotic in England. They're common and often maligned. The UK's history of hating on the gingers is part of the reason JKR choose to make the Weasleys a family of red-heads as she always felt some sympathy towards gingers.

They are more maligned but they are still less then five percent of the population.

Originally Posted by birdi86

Ginny never proved that she was loyal to Harry first and foremost. Unlike Cho, she was lucky that her close friends were either too unimportant to give names to or were Luna and Neville who were also Harry's friends and that her family had taken Harry in as one of their own. Because of the Weasley family allegiances and status as blood traitors, Harry's cause was Ginny's cause long before there was a Harry in the picture.

In the very small world they shared, their spheres overlapped almost completely.

This one is open to interpretation. I do agree that Ginny shared a small world with Harry, but she could have chosen otherwise. Lets just say she never took an action that could be seen as non-loyal to Harry.

Originally Posted by birdi86

How did she become less attractive to men? It looks like Michael Corner swooped in to comfort her and stuck around for a while afterwards.

It could be seen as getting Ginny's leftovers. Especially if you believe Ginny was truthful about Micheal being a whining about the Ravenclaw defeat. Essentially, we are encouraged to see them as a whiner and crybaby comforting each other.

Again, this isn't the interpretation I favor but it is the one I think JKR wants us to favor.

Originally Posted by birdi86

(One day, Ginny and Cho need to get together and talk about their shared boyfriends.)

Hopefully at Albus' wedding, the one where Cho is the mother of the bride.

Originally Posted by birdi86

And what's wrong with marrying a Muggle?

Nothing, I even wrote a drabble on the subject. But I do think it was an attempt by JKR to degrade Cho. If JKR didn't want to dismiss the character, she could have married her off to say, Charlie Weasley or Micheal Corner. Instead she married her off with a name impared Muggle.

Originally Posted by birdi86

And frankly, I shudder to think what the fan reaction would have been if Ginny had been that good. Because the fact of the matter is - Ginny can't win. She's either not good enough or so good she's a Mary Sue. The expectations for her character are unreasonable and no matter what JKR did with the character, it would have been picked apart and criticized.

Agreed.

All the Best,

Lunatic