[HPforGrownups] Re: Article

[Laura Ingalls Huntley]

No: HPFGUIDX 41255

Porphyria:
>For this discussion question we are asked to consider whether the 
>Wizarding World is an elite unto itself, in which case this observation is 
>still good. Wizards have their own bizarre sport, which Muggles know 
>nothing of. This contributes to the image of wizards as having an elite, 
>rarified society that does not brook outsiders very easily.


^_~ But we have our own bizarre sports as well, don't we?  Ones that full and perhaps many half-bloods know nothing about.  Even Ron, whose father is "obsessed" with Muggles, knows hardly anything about them.  Remember how confused he was about football?  Imagine if he ever came in contact with *American* football -- that game is bizarre to *me*, and I've been roped into watching it many, many times. *long-suffering sigh*  Still don't have a clue what's going on.

Porphyria:
>He said "taken in" You don't have to have a sexual crush on someone to be 
>taken in by them. I don't recall any male characters going around the 
>school saying "oh, that Lockhart really knows his stuff, he's seen 
>everything." 

Ahem: to quote the illustrious Justin Finch-Fletchly:

"That Lockhart's something, isn't he?" said Justin happily as they
began filing their plant pots with dragon dung compost. "Awfully

brave chap. Have you read his books? Id have died of fear if Id been

cornered in a telephone booth by a werewolf, but he stayed cool and -

zap - just fantastic."


He's actually the only character to say anything good about him aside from Mrs. Weasley (who doesn't know anything about him besides from the one book of his that she owned -- and remember his books WERE well-researched and probably practically helpful) and Hermione, who I firmly maintain *did* have a physical crush on him, but that didn't stop her from using him to get what she needed now, did it?  

Porphyria:
>It is *also* only female students who are taken in by the 
>palpably ridiculous Trelawney, and I don't believe we are 
>meant to think that Lavender and Pavarti have sexual crushes 
>on Trelawney either, they are just "taken in." I believe >Adams point stands here too.


Oh?  She had Ron quite under her thumb for a little while there.  Although, perhaps this was more about being Anti-Hermione than Pro-Trelawney.  But he was very adamant that Harry was INDEED going to die because of the Grim Trelawney saw in his cup.  I should have thought, at least, that the kid would have taken Prof. McGonagall's word on the fact that Trelawney was a sham.  Harry also notes that "she was treated with respect bordering reverence by many of the class."  'Many' couldn't possibly refer to just Lavender and Pavarti, could it? 

And, when Lavender's rabbit dies, it says that: 

"Lavender Brown seemed to be crying. Parvati had her arm around her and was explaining something to Seamus Finnegan and Dean Thomas, who were looking very serious."  

Which indicates that they took the whole farce..erm, seriously.  And these aren't boys who fell for Lockhart's game, either.  It also says that:

"The sixteenth of October! 'That thing you're dreading, it will happen the sixteenth of October!' Remember? She was right, she was right!" The whole class was gathered around Lavender now. Seamus shook his head seriously."
Again, indicating that Seamus, at least, was gulping the whole story up. Furthermore, I think the old bat's got Neville in her thrall as well.

"She says the crystal ball's told her that if I tell you, I'll have a horrible accident!" squeaked Neville

And don't tell me that Neville doesn't count because he's *supposed* to be laughably silly like that -- because so are Pavarti and Lavender.  We're supposed to think they're *all* gullible and a little stupid.  

Also note that the people who react most violently towards her are female.  Harry doesn't really like her, b/c she's always predicting his death, but both he and Ron tolerate her fairly well.  It's Hermione who gets in an argument with her on the first day of class, and it's also Hermione who *walks out* on her towards the end of the year.  It is also apparent that McGonagall loathes the woman.  



It really alarms me the way people here can be so dead-set on one thing that they take little pieces of canon that support their views and completely disregard the rest of it.  I mean, I know I'm not innocent of it *at all*...but, esp. with this "is JKR sexist" debate -- to me, it seems like people just latch on to bits of the book where female characters behave "badly" and are blind to the fact that there are just as many male characters acting just as foolishly.  So, what?  To me, this suggests that the *readers* more readily forgive Colin, Neville, Justin, and Ron (think about all the inane theories and prejudices this one's come up with) for being silly/immature/etc. because they are male, but if Lavender or Pavarti do the same thing, WATCH OUT.  What's even more disturbing is that nearly all of the people I see doing this (on this list and off) *are* female.  So who's sexist? 

I mean, *I*, for one, find myself more deeply annoyed with Lavender and Pavarti (as opposed to the boys) because they represent a segment of the female teen-age population that I never was able to get along with.  And I can understand the fact that when JKR *has* girls like this in her books, the first instinct of many females (including myself) is to cry in outrage: "But we're not all like that!"

And I think that, for me at least, that reaction (when it's perfectly obvious that JKR has plenty of females who aren't like that and are certainly supposed to be considered "superior" to P&L) stems from the fact that I am most likely oversensitized to sexism.  And you know what?  No wonder I am -- I refuse to take the blame for that on any level.  *However*, I do recognize the need in certain instances to back up a bit and realize that not *everyone* is out to give women a bad name.

laura


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]