Working mothers, was Did the Slytherins come back

[horridporrid03]

No: HPFGUIDX 182106

> >>Magpie:
> <snip>
> I don't agree with Betsy's interpretation--I think it's far too    
> rigid and thought out. Though that goes for the other side too--I   
> don't think she's making any thought out statement either way. I   
> don't think she's laying down rules, I think she's doing what she   
> would consider telling it like it is, plain-speaking etc. based on 
> her experience of women and the world. I think it's more like the   
> way most of us react to the world, instinctively seeing things we   
> think are true and having emotional reactions to what's good or bad 
> or funny or just the way people are. Sometimes those reactions are 
> hypocritical or contradictory, and they often fall into patterns   
> that maybe say more about her particular pov.

Betsy Hp:
I do agree that JKR is writing more instinctively than with any sort 
of... I guess point or allegory in mind.  So I was more trying to 
look at the patterns than to say this is something JKR actually set 
out to do.  But I do think what she's written suggests a certain 
level of distaste towards, well, romance I suppose.  Female sexuality 
comes across as aggressive and frightening and male sexuality comes 
across as, gosh, almost impotent in a sense.

But at the same time that there's this distaste with romance, there's 
a real enjoyment in playing house.  That's what the epilogue is 
about, after all.  Not only do we learn who our main characters 
married, we get hints of how their children will hook-up as well.

Again, I don't think this is something JKR set out to do, or even 
thought about really (otherwise I'd think she'd catch the irony of 
Harry living the Dursley's dream), but there it is. 

(Though I will say, I think JKR presented a hard and fast rule that 
one should date at least one person before getting together with your 
mate.)

> >>Magpie:
> Otherwise we're talking about a world she's inverted artificially, 
> which would mean she's not giving us girl sexuality as she sees it 
> but rather intentionally mirroring a false view. I don't think     
> that's what she's doing at all. To me the tone sounds far more like 
> the tone of her interviews, a sort of *nudge nudge* you know what  
> I'm talking about because this is the way the world works. There's 
> no strict Puritanical judgment on sex, but there are judgments.    
> With all these characters and storylines, patterns appear.

Betsy Hp:
I agree that JKR isn't trying to insert an artifical construct in 
order to explore female (or human) sexuality.  But I do think there's 
a Puritanical view that comes across.  It's like how JKR embraces the 
old imperialist way of thinking (happy slaves, backwards and brutal 
natives) while at the same time giving lipservice to tolerance.  She 
introduces sex into her series but then I think falls down in dealing 
honestly with it.

I don't think she *means* to come across as Puritanical.  I think 
she's trying to be a feminist.  So Harry rarely (if ever?) notices 
the physical attractiveness of the girls and women around him.  And 
fourteen year old Hermione dates an eighteen year old international 
sports star, and handles herself with (IMO, unrealistic) adult 
aplomb. But it means that the women are either only noticable for 
their minds, or if we do notice them as sexually attractive, there's 
something fishy about them.  (ie. Fleur is described as sexually 
attractive, but that's due to her unnatural Veela blood.  Bellatrix 
is described as sexually attractive (hilariously, in the way she 
looks like Sirius), but she's evil.)

Again, I don't think this is something JKR has done on purpose.  At 
least, it doesn't read that way to me.  But it struck me as a pretty 
consistent.

Betsy Hp