Bigotry in the Potterverse

[dumbledore11214]

No: HPFGUIDX 188090

Magpie:
I don't think they're *supposed to act* any one way. In the books there's a
pretty common pattern of girls scheming, always a few steps ahead of the boys,
using love potions or other forms of manipulations. Girls who are too obvious
about crushing on boys are okay when they're pre-adolescent (so too young to
know better), but women who are too direct in their sexual aggression fter that
are grotesque or figures of ridicule (especially if they're not attractive).

Alla:

Who are the women who are too direct in their sexual aggression in the books and accordingly being figures of ridicule? I certainly remember teenage girls being figures of ridicule for that, but women?

So sure if we are talking about teenage girls, like Romilda Wane for example, I completely agree that she is being ridiculed. Basically author is saying that girls whose only goal in mind is to catch a boy are sort of shallow in her view unless they really love him, right? Well, I am going to say that yeah, if teenage girl OR boy has the only thing on their mind to catch the boy or girl with love potion, I agree that I would call such person pretty shallow unless it is a true love. I do not believe in true love in school, but I have heard RL stories, so I have to say that books insistense on it must be based on some sort of reality. Or am I completely misreading you? See I not well read in feminism  and may not  fully understand what is it exactly that feminism considers antifeminist portrayal of women in literature and accordingly why these books are antifeminist. Or maybe I am misreading you completely and you are not arguing that these books are antifeminist?

I am trying hard to find where in the books she portrays that thinking about boys is bad per se, if you have other things going on in your life. Certainly Ginny and Hermione's crushes are not being portrayed as something to be ashamed of, no?


Magpie:
Basically, it's the men's job to pursue, but the women are probably already
pursuing in their indirect way. Males are for the most part the confounded object
of female romantic wiles.

Alla:

Okay now I am even more confused, so you are saying it is a bad thing for women to do? Or is it demeaning for them to be portrayed that way? Oh, wait you are saying that women are portrayed as being better in these games than men and this is bad or antifeminist?

Magpie:
We do eventually get 3 more predatory males I can
think of. Fenrir (a DE), Cormac (who doesn't know he's part of Hermione's
romantic scheme) and Viktor, who started out seemingly shy but by DH seems to be
scanning the wedding and complaining there aren't enough good looking girls.

Alla:

But but Fenrir is a monster and therefore a predator. He is not portrayed as being good at romantic games, he is just a monster. I do not understand  your argument at all. Victor is portrayed as being a nice guy anytime he appears, right? So he became more alfa-male (to use romance literature terminology) is it bad or demeaning? For whom? For men or for women? Cormac is, I guess to me he is a plot device to advance Hermione and Ron's love story, I would not call him bad either.

Magpie:
Plot-wise, male friendships and male relationships with each other change
history and move the plot, while females have their most important relationships
with men, with their friendships with each other presented in ways that rather
hint of a relative shallowness. <SNIP>

Alla:

I agree with Linda on this, in a book about a boy I fully expect a male friendships to take front and center stage. But even in these books we have Hermione and to me her relationships are not shallow.

JMO,

Alla