|
|
Post by monsie on Aug 23, 2007 3:04:36 GMT -5
I was wondering, what do you all think of the role of the women in HP? Do you think that JKR has depicted women in a believable manner? Is there anything you would have liked her to have changed/added in respect to the women in the series? And have they been represented enough?
This is not just a question for the women on the board, but for the men too.
In some respects, I do believe that the role of women could've been made more prominent, and I'm not saying that it should have been called Harriet Potter (though, that would be awesomely cool!) but like Lord of the Rings, I did find that there was a bit of a boy's club mentality going on. Both HP and LotR, in my opinion, were only saved by the few strong women figures that were shown. I'm sure, to many women out there, who are not as easily wooed by awesome effects and storytelling as I am, would have found LOTR sexist and very male orientated. In fact, I do too, but again, I am easily seduced by incredible storytelling (and Ian McKellen, Cate Blanchett, Miranda Otto, Viggo Mortersen and Liv Tyler).
I do, however, think JKR has done a better job with the women in HP than Tolkien (and Peter Jackson) did in LotR, in which, besides Eowyn's big scene in RotK, women are really not in the mix, so I've heard about the books and have seen in the movies. Whereas, some of the women that JKR wrote, Hermione and Minerva being the most prominent, were strong, independent characters that really stood out.
I particularly loved that they were not depicted as love sick women who had to fall in love with someone and that's all they ever do, like the women in LotR (except Cate's character). Hermione, to a degree, is somewhat like that but even for her, the character had so much more to do in the whole story than just be Ron's 'will they/won't they' love interest.
As for Minerva, I'm not saying her character would have been any less valued had she been with Albus, I would have loved that. I particularly loved that she could hold her own and, personally, I don't think being involved with Albus would have changed that at all.
It's a shame that there wasn't more Minerva in the series and that there were so few characters like both of them in the whole series. More specifically, so few female characters like them as the series has an abundance of such male characters (flaws and all).
Ask yourself this, Minerva (and Hermione, if you like her) aside, who are your favourite characters?
Mine are: Albus, Severus, Ron, Mad-Eye Moody, Remus Lupin, Fred, George, Neville and Luna. In the last book, I also liked Neville's grandmother and Molly (you know why!).
Not many admirable women in that list are there? And on that note, I will shut up.
I have just one last request before I leave - if I or someone else voices an opinion you don't agree with, please don't take it personally, I (and I'm sure everyone else) would greatly appreciate it. Please don't think me presumptious by requesting this. It's just that I think this could be a controversial issue to some and I would, honestly, hate for this discussion to be the cause of a disagreement on this wonderful board.
I hope I made sense and thank you!
|
|
|
|
Post by MinnieQuill on Aug 23, 2007 3:16:17 GMT -5
It's been said before, and I completely agree, female characters are greatly underused in Harry Potter (I won't comment on LoTR as I admit I could not get through the first book. Lengthy descriptions of forests really aren't my thing.)
A quick list of some of the female characters:
Hermione - generally described as brainy, smart and all around not too bad. A bit of an author-insert, but that's forgivable.
Minerva - bloody brilliant, though also described as stern etc. One of the few women who holds her own.
Bellatrix - insane and fawns over Voldemort; also quite intriguing.
Narcissa - fantastic at first and then a crying mess.
Molly - portrayed as fairly annoying for most of the seven books and then can suddenly defeat Voldemort's second-in-command.
Luna - described as quite insane.
Though you have to at least concede that there aren't that many female characters in comparison to male. And that's reasonably understandable; the book is told from a male POV.
Basically, whilst the female characters could probably have been vamped up a little bit, they're not my books. I will live in awe of JKR for the rest of my life and am not about to argue with her. I may ignore some of her statements cough*MinervaISHeadmistress*cough but that's a personal thing.
|
|
|
|
Post by monsie on Aug 23, 2007 3:33:37 GMT -5
It's been said before, and I completely agree, female characters are greatly underused in Harry Potter (I won't comment on LoTR as I admit I could not get through the first book. Lengthy descriptions of forests really aren't my thing.) LOL @ LotR! I completely agree! The movies are fantabulous (and I've heard slightly more women friendly than the books). I didn't mention the other female characters, because really, they don't have much of a role except Luna, Bellatrix and, maybe, Ginny, in the last few books. One female character that was mentioned all too briefly was the Wizamegot (sp?) Bones. I forget her first name. Amelia? She sounded like a formidable female character. I agree with your descriptions btw, especially Molly. Absolutely! That is a very reasonable point. Again, I can't help but agree with you regarding JKR's talent and that the books are hers. As a woman, I am just disappointed that even today it is so hard to find strong female characters in a variety of mediums. Also, re: Minerva as the headmaster, this may not help, but I always interpreted JKR's comment to mean that she was headmaster for a while, but had retired by the time the next generation had arrived. |
|
|
|
Post by MinnieQuill on Aug 23, 2007 6:41:59 GMT -5
I know, but she would only have been 89. Dumbledore was 150. That's just me though, I want Minerva to always be Headmistress. If you want a book with great female characters, read 'The Shadow of the Wind.' The female characters are wonderful!!! It has my all-time favourite (tied with Minerva, of course) female, make that all of them actually. So my five favourite female literary characters.  |
|
|
|
Post by Blue on Aug 23, 2007 9:36:44 GMT -5
I know! I never want Minerva to leave, and as for her retiring, I just can't see it. She's too work-orientated.
And as for the rest of the female characters in the books, I really wan't that impressed. They laways seemed to be just the back-up for the male characters and not a character in thier own right. For example, I always thought that Tonks was created to be a love-interest for Lupin, and that Narcissa was just and extension of Lucius.
I wasn't even that keen on Hermione, she just seemed to become more and more mary-sueish. and Ginny (gah, don't mean to offend anyone, but I laways kinda hated her) was a mary sue.
And Molly Weasley developing super-powers and defeating Bella? I mean WTF?
Other than Min, I think Bella is the only female character I approve of. I mean, she is slightly cracked up, but she'd Voldie's second in command and totally hott while she's at it. And she gets mentioned more than her husband wootwoot.
But apart from Min and Bella I always thought the female characters in the book were very dissapointing and underdeveloped.
|
|
|
|
Post by Drake on Aug 23, 2007 10:25:05 GMT -5
I personally think that they are pretty much all kick-ass. The lack of a "Warrior Princess rowr boom boom you all DIIIIIIIIIIIIIIE look at mah shiny lebur armor" character =/= misanthropy. In fact, when people percieved Ginny's development in OotP as a thinly-veiled attempt to create a Warrior Princess rowr boom boom you all DIIIIIIIIIIIIIIE look at mah shiny lebur armor, they criticized it. With good reason, JKR would be at fault for creating such a character, because they do not exist in real life.
I mean, sure Bella's manic, Hermionie's not athletic, Minerva's ready to retire, and Luna's spacey, BUT Ron can really be an oblivious pig, Harry's got anger-crybaby issues, Dumbledore's a manipulative arse (in the noblest way possible), and Lupin's afraid of commitment. It evens out.
|
|
|
|
Post by morgainegaunt on Aug 23, 2007 10:44:30 GMT -5
But apart from Min and Bella I always thought the female characters in the book were very dissapointing and underdeveloped. Exactly what I think. I mean, Hermione was okay before she started fancying Ron (I don't mean to offened anyone, but what does she see in someone this inferior to her?  ). Ginny is THE Mary-Sue. Molly normally stays at home and cares for her family (which is okay) but what she does in the 7th book: WHF? Tonks is quite cool I think but why did she have to end up with Lupin?. I think the problem is as follows: What is the role of women in the series? 1. Protecting their family (Lily, Molly) 2. cooking (Molly, Hermione, Fleur) 3. being the males' additions (Tonks, Fleur, Ginny) 4. having children (lots of them) - (Molly, Fleur, Ginny, Hermione) Kind of too traditional and unbalanced (hardly anyone has a job we know about - except Tonks). And for the Min retires thing: She is way younger than Dumbledore. So what's the problem? |
|
|
|
Post by Blue on Aug 23, 2007 16:46:24 GMT -5
I agree, but I'm kinda one of these people that thinks woen have had to do it for long enough, so now men should stay and home and look after the kids while the woman has a kick ass career, and i the HP books....I got nothing.
And another thing I just thought of that really bugs me but it completely unrelated but I'm going to write it anyway, is JK Rowling's attitude to gay people. She disapproves of slash because she wrote it as a children's book and she doesn't think children should be introduced to the idea of gay people. I mean WTF?!?!? You shield children from things that are bad until they are old enough to handle it, so I really think that she's saying she thinks gay people are bad. And that really really bothers me. I mean, compared to that I don't even care she sunk our ship.
...Back on topic, I don't want all the female characters to be all really kick ass fighter types, I just want them to have lives of their own that aren't just extensions of their husband. Or to completely change their character just because it suits the plot. I mean Narcissa, the calm cool and collected wife of a death eater and the whoosh! snivelling wreck when it would suit the plot to have one just to save Harry's life. And Molly....*bangs head against wall*
|
|
|
|
Post by tabbycat on Aug 23, 2007 16:53:08 GMT -5
I didn't find the women to be any more undeveloped than the men. Lily, especially, was of such huge important even if we didn't get inside of her head. Even though we didn't actually get introduced to her character and experience what was going on inside of her head for the scenes that she was in, we can see the results of her kindness on the other characters and that's a very strong thing to see in itself. I really love the differences between Hermione and Minerva, who I used to think were identical. Minerva was on her own, while Hermione chose to marry. I think that both of their decisions about their status, even though they were different, never cheapened their intelligence or character. They did was right for them, and it's strong to see them do that. Also, some people don't believe in marriage. (I won't stick my thoughts about that in here  ) I don't believe that just because Minerva never married didn't mean that she had never been in love. I don't think that just because we can't know as much about the women as the men means that they are underdeveloped. To me, underdeveloped is a character like Hannah Abbott. She just sort of existed, you know? edit: I loved Molly, of course ;D She was similar to Narcissa in some ways, but completely different as well. They both used the traits that their houses were known for to protect their children. Narcissa cunningly spared Harry in order to find her son, while Molly fought bravely. At their best, that is how slytherins and gryffindors behave. No matter what house they were in, they both used their traits to save somebody that they loved. And in the end, that's what proved to matter. Albus was interested in Alchemy, so it is no wonder his health and age were extended. Also, Minerva retiring might be a positive thing. Albus was weakened by his thirst for power. This was not such a strong thing, was it? Minerva being able to have a nice retirement says a lot about her will power. Women still have trouble in the workforce, as well. JK knows this, coming from the background that she has come from. She didn't sugarcoat everything, she never has, and I think that she's done a fine job. I normally don't voice personal opinions or things but I love how we can all see things differently and repect each other. *internet huggles everyone* |
|
|
|
Post by monsie on Aug 23, 2007 17:19:15 GMT -5
I personally think that they are pretty much all kick-ass. The lack of a "Warrior Princess rowr boom boom you all DIIIIIIIIIIIIIIE look at mah shiny lebur armor" character =/= misanthropy. In fact, when people percieved Ginny's development in OotP as a thinly-veiled attempt to create a Warrior Princess rowr boom boom you all DIIIIIIIIIIIIIIE look at mah shiny lebur armor, they criticized it. With good reason, JKR would be at fault for creating such a character, because they do not exist in real life. I mean, sure Bella's manic, Hermionie's not athletic, Minerva's ready to retire, and Luna's spacey, BUT Ron can really be an oblivious pig, Harry's got anger-crybaby issues, Dumbledore's a manipulative arse (in the noblest way possible), and Lupin's afraid of commitment. It evens out. Love the "Warrior Princess rowr boom boom you all DIIIIIIIIIIIIIIE look at mah shiny lebur armor" expression. I, personally, would not expect the characters to be like Joan of Arc or something like that. The flaws they have are what make them more believable and I like that in both JKR's male and female characters. I actually quite enjoy that there are times in the book when I don't actually like Harry at all. I think it's quite refreshing to have a lead character who is far from perfect and that his faults are not unknown. I just think that it would've been nice to see more women in the story. Of course, as MinnieQuill said, the book is written from a male's perspective so there are limitations. |
|
|
|
Post by monsie on Aug 23, 2007 17:21:28 GMT -5
I know, but she would only have been 89. Dumbledore was 150. That's just me though, I want Minerva to always be Headmistress. If you want a book with great female characters, read 'The Shadow of the Wind.' The female characters are wonderful!!! It has my all-time favourite (tied with Minerva, of course) female, make that all of them actually. So my five favourite female literary characters. Yeah, I know... It kinda sucks that she wasn't headmistress for as long as Albus was. And thank you for the rec! I'm gonna have a look for it the next time I get to a bookstore (or the library). |
|
|
|
Post by monsie on Aug 23, 2007 17:29:07 GMT -5
But apart from Min and Bella I always thought the female characters in the book were very dissapointing and underdeveloped. I can completely see why Bella would be considered such an interesting character, as a whole, not just as a woman (even if I don't appreciate her character that much). She's really...committed. It's kind of fascinating to watch her devotion to Voldie. And it's not in a romantic manner, though I do not doubt for a second that if he wanted her as a partner she would not hesitate for even a nanosecond. Do you think that Minerva has any flaws? Just curious. I don't think so, personally, but then I don't think we're told of any of her flaws? Besides the 'no nonsense' attitude, which is not necessarily a flaw, but it seems to show that she's very focussed? Maybe? Speculation here! Sorry! |
|
|
|
Post by Blue on Aug 23, 2007 17:41:47 GMT -5
I think a flaw Minerva would have would that she would find it difficult to trust and so would find it difficult o let people close to her. I'm not sure why I think that, it's just something I've always blieved. It might explain her apparant isolation though.
I agree that Bella would become Voldie's partner if he wished for it. i don't think it would be out of any kind of romantic duty though, I think it would be a sense of duty and I think she would also want to be closer than anyone else to someone that powerful.
I don't think its that JK gave the women faults thats the problem really, I mean when I think about the people that I'm close to, I know they're faults and I might not like them, but there a part of them and if they weren't there they wouldn't be the same person, which wouldn't be good. So its not that JK gave them faults, I think its more that she just didn't make them incredibly credible characters. And, I may have got the wrong end of the stick here, but why does it make it more likely that the book would concentrate on the men because it's from Harry's POV? I mean, f someone were going to write a book about me, or probably anyone else, there are of course times when other women are a more important part of my life, but the men in my life are incredibly important too, and if there was a book then it would have to concentrate on the men just as much as the women.
....did that make sense?
|
|
|
|
Post by monsie on Aug 23, 2007 19:15:32 GMT -5
Lily, especially, was of such huge important even if we didn't get inside of her head. Even though we didn't actually get introduced to her character and experience what was going on inside of her head for the scenes that she was in, we can see the results of her kindness on the other characters and that's a very strong thing to see in itself. I really liked that. When I started reading the books, I expected Harry's parents to be nice from the get go. I would never have thought that JKR would go to the effort of showing that even the famous Potters are not all they're cracked up to be - except Lily. I am going to be completely biased and say that I also love that we have these two opposites in the book - Lily and Voldemort. Love and self-love. And (don't shoot me!) woman and man. Okay... As sudden as this may sound, that changes things for me now. I think I love JKR. She might have done that unintentionally, but I absolutely dig it! *raises hand over marriage issue* But we won't go into why. I, too, thought Minerva and Hermione were very alike. They might still be, sort of. We don't know much about Minerva's past (do we?) so it is possible that she had been married at some point. Or maybe, as someone suggested (I think), she has trust issues? I don't remember now. Sorry. I have to admit, my take on the Minerva-Hermione similarity has a lot to do with a fan fiction I read. The way the author wrote Minerva, honestly, you could have just changed Minerva's name to Hermione and I would've believed it was Hermione having a super crush on Albus. That's gross, isn't it? I apologise. I think a lot of the characters just sort of existed. I believe that's a way of showing the size of the school. Does that make sense? Probably not. *sigh* I snipped a bit of your post, but I loved the way you compared Molly and Narcissa (sp?). I had never thought of it that way before! Regarding Minerva retiring, she seems like the a person who is beyond the need to prove herself. Has anyone found that? She is very level-headed and the type of person who can deal with any situation given to her. We've seen in the books that she has been in charge of the school on no less than two occasions, the second time being after Albus died and she composed herself with incredible dignity. Hmm... What's my point? Uhm... If she was removed, or resigned, she would have done it without making a scene unless she felt that the school were somehow being jeopardised. Oh and the age thing... You could be right about Albus' interest in alchemy and his advanced age, though... Would his brother have taken something similar too? I imagine they would not be that far apart in age and he was still alive during the last book. We're never told whether he dies are we? *hugs back* So am I! And now I'm shutting up. I apologise, as per usual, for not making sense, if I didn't make sense. Uh...yeah. |
|
|
|
Post by monsie on Aug 23, 2007 19:46:43 GMT -5
I don't think its that JK gave the women faults thats the problem really, I mean when I think about the people that I'm close to, I know they're faults and I might not like them, but there a part of them and if they weren't there they wouldn't be the same person, which wouldn't be good. So its not that JK gave them faults, I think its more that she just didn't make them incredibly credible characters. And, I may have got the wrong end of the stick here, but why does it make it more likely that the book would concentrate on the men because it's from Harry's POV?I mean, f someone were going to write a book about me, or probably anyone else, there are of course times when other women are a more important part of my life, but the men in my life are incredibly important too, and if there was a book then it would have to concentrate on the men just as much as the women. ....did that make sense? Okay, I think I get what you mean. From my understanding, what we see and understand through Harry is limited to his interpretation of things. As for the reason why there are less women and what that has to do with Harry being a male, this may be completely generalised, but most males are more likely to hang out with other guys and vice versa for women. The fact that Harry is friends with Hermione, best friends with Hermione, is something I haven't seen very often. I haven't had a close male friend since I was in primary school and I, sadly, admit that my brother and I are almost like strangers now. As for other decent male role models, in my life, they are very few and very, very far apart, so if I wrote a book about myself, it would be highly focused on the women in my life which, at the moment, is on a ratio of about 6:1, women to men. I hope I didn't blab too much and that made sense. |
|
|
|
Post by Drake on Aug 23, 2007 22:10:22 GMT -5
Minerva's flaw, I think, is her total devotion to Dumbledore. She's almost as bad as Bellatrix.* I think it's very likely that she could (and probably did) blind herself to his flaws, because seriously guys, she is the worst kind of fangirl. That's one of the reasons I love her. For example, Luna is not wicked awesome in spite of her whacko, she is wicked awesome because of it. If she wasn't nuts, she'd be like Hannah Abbot or Padma Patil. They just are. And I totally agree that having characters like Hannah and Padma shows the size of the school. For most of my life, I went to a very small school, and I knew everyone really well, but I went to High-School in the largest school in the state (and I live in a big state!) and there were lots of people I knew of, but didn't really know. You know? *Yes, I can back this up with quotes and my analysis of them if need be.  |
|
|
|
Post by MinnieQuill on Aug 23, 2007 23:02:56 GMT -5
My two favourite characters are Bellatrix and Minerva, they're both described as powerful and strong, and their actions are equal to (or surpass) most men in the book.
Look at Bella in the Department of Mysteries:
Duels Tonks - beats her easily
Duels Sirius - kills him
Duels Kingsley - beats him
Deflects a curse from Dumbledore
Duels Harry - duel interrupted
That's pretty bloody impressive in anyone's books seeing as most of the above are proficient wizards.
However, both she and Minerva behind Voldemort and Dumbledore respectively as if they're just meant to obey and have no choice in the matter.
Think back to GOF where Minerva wanted to take Harry and Albus just *expected* her to obey instantly, there was no question in the tone or wording. It was an order through and through. Which I loathe to high heaven.
My parents have, quite possibly, the world's most equal relationship so that's what I'm used and consequently lie to see. For god's sake, they've been each other's bosses; they're at the same level in the same occupation (though Dad became a lawyer, but that's besides the point.) If they go out, they instinctively know what the other is going to be doing and they allow each other their privacy. It sounds too good to be true, but it is and that's what I am used to.
Look at Fleur, smart and brave enough to be able to get into the Triwizard Tournament, and yet not able to fend off Grindylows. Ginny, completely obsessed with Harry, extremely meek, then hits fourth year and is the girl most want. Hermione, brains of the trio and neither Harry nor Ron treat her that well. Tonks, quivering mess when Lupin's not there. Luna, well she didn't really do much more than look barmy.
It doesn't really add up. Sirius, good-looking with a bit of a mean streak, but that's okay; highly doubtful it would be the same if it were Bellatrix. Snape ... the words speaks for itself. Dumbledore ... we won't go there, I can't stand the man but Harry still names one of his children after him.
I don't know, it's personal opinion and that's all you can really say.
|
|
|
|
Post by monsie on Aug 23, 2007 23:15:11 GMT -5
*Yes, I can back this up with quotes and my analysis of them if need be. I'm good. Thanks for the offer. Minerva as Albus' biggest fangirl. Okay, that is just giving me images of Minerva being very un-Minerva-ish and squeeing when she sees him. lol. Sorry, but I think I understand what you mean. And, I absolutely know what you mean about the schools. Though, my schools were never particularly big either, I just didn't have the...uh...inclination to remember people who I didn't need to know. Even in my own class sometimes. My friends thought it was both pathetic and amusing! |
|
|
|
Post by monsie on Aug 23, 2007 23:49:52 GMT -5
MinnieQuill, I don't think I'll have time to reply to properly, but I'll try. Favouritism has a lot to do with the way you see a character, doesn't it? I honestly wrote Bellatrix off completely because of what she's done. But again, from your points, I can see why people would like her character. I still don't like her, though. However, both she and Minerva behind Voldemort and Dumbledore respectively as if they're just meant to obey and have no choice in the matter. I hadn't thought of it that until you put it that way, but that's what I mean! Women are still portrayed as being beneath men. That's sad. I remember reading somewhere, that Minerva and Albus could never have a relationship because they could never be equals. Dumbledore was just such an extroadinary wizard that Minerva would never be able to match him. Why is that though? In a world where one's strength is defined by their wand not their physical strength, why is that? Moving on, because my mum is yelling for me to go and pick up my grandmother. Quickly... I'm happy to know your parents are in an equal relationship. And you don't like Dumbledore. I find that interesting. Why do you ship Albus/Minerva then? Also, re: Fleur, I found myself a little surprised that Fleur was so ready to just marry and settle down... As you said, a Tri Wizard Champion! Apparently it is not a little thing in their world. I have to go. Sorry. I hope this post wasn't too chaotic. |
|
|
|
Post by MinnieQuill on Aug 24, 2007 3:21:43 GMT -5
I was using the fight at the Ministry as an example as it was easy. There are many others, I just had OOTP to my right, saw it and that's what came out. I could have used Ginny, but really don't like her and thus try not to think of her character more than necessary.
Bellatrix is not a likeable character, I can completely see why people don't like her. I just loved that scene in GOF. I was (sort of) a Bellatrix fangirl right from 'Throw us into Azkaban, Crouch. We will wait!...'
I don't. I used to, that I grudgingly admit, but now do not. I just like this place and somehow have managed not to get kicked out. Not sure how really ...
|
|
|
|
Post by monsie on Aug 24, 2007 3:39:05 GMT -5
I was using the fight at the Ministry as an example as it was easy. There are many others, I just had OOTP to my right, saw it and that's what came out. I could have used Ginny, but really don't like her and thus try not to think of her character more than necessary. Bellatrix is not a likeable character, I can completely see why people don't like her. I just loved that scene in GOF. I was (sort of) a Bellatrix fangirl right from 'Throw us into Azkaban, Crouch. We will wait!...' I watched OotP before I'd even read up to Goblet of Fire and by the time I did read that scene in GoF, I'd all ready made my mind up about her. I see. Yeah, I had a friend who was in a similar situation. She now runs the board. |
|
|
|
Post by Drake on Aug 24, 2007 12:48:34 GMT -5
Think back to GOF where Minerva wanted to take Harry and Albus just *expected* her to obey instantly, there was no question in the tone or wording. It was an order through and through. Which I loathe to high heaven. But she WORKS for him. She's his assistant/flunky* person. It's her job to obey him. If your job involves laminating things, and your boss wants you to laminate a sheet, he or she will tell you to. And then, if you want to keep your job, you will do what your boss tells you to do and laminate the sheet. It's not like they're married. If they were, I can see where this would be a problem. But there is going to be an imbalance of power in a employee/employer relationship, regardless of gender. *She is a flunky. She's a terribly important flunky, but she is still totally a flunky. Look at GOF, once again. In a school full of House-Elves, guess who CARRIES THE DAMN STOOL for the Sorting. That's right: Minerva. I'm sure it's an honor to officiate the Sorting Ceremony and all, but she is still carrying stools. Which is a little ridiculous, but once again, that's her job. Dumbledore probably had to do the same thing when he was Deputy Headmaster. Once again, it has nothing to do with gender. |
|
|
|
Post by misshoneychurch88 on Aug 24, 2007 21:50:34 GMT -5
This just kind of reminds me of this article I read once about the idea of "Professional Wives". The article focused on Bush, so I'll stay with it, but he is a powerful man, but he surrounds himself with smart women(Karen Hughs, Harriet Miers and most of all Condoleezza Rice) adn it's a actually a very prevalent ocurance. Lots of men who are in powerful positions have a woman right behind him helping him. We could argue the reasonons for this until the cows come home, but the basic idea is true. Now wether JK did it on purpose or not, but every powerful man in HP has a woman second in command who is extreamly capable, but doesn't take the glory. Albus has Minerva, Voldemort has Bellatrix, Fudge had Unbridge and even Harry has Hermione. Just an observation Oh and in regards to characters being underdevelopted, remember this is being told from one persons point of view. We know a lot of information about a few of his closest friends, adn then there are lots of other people who we know a good deal about, and then some that just kinda exist, but thats how most people are. I think we all could look arounf and say we have a few really closre friends that we could probably write a biography about, a bunch of people we know well and are friends with, and then all those people that are there, but we don't really have a lot to do with. Seemed logical to me oh and one last thing about Molly. I didn't really think it was that out of hte blue. Yes it was slightly suprising, but she was a member of the Order for both wars and survived the first, so she has to have some pretty good skills about her. Also, I know its a bit cliche, but never stand between a mother and her child. I live in Black Bear country, and the only deaths are people playing with a cub who get killed by the mother. ok, enough ranting |
|
|
|
Post by MinnieQuill on Aug 24, 2007 23:39:49 GMT -5
I'm a boss at one of my jobs and I can safely say I do not treat anyone the way Albus does. There are ways of getting things done, which does involve delegating, that are far more polite and bloody demanding than how Albus does it. For heaven's sake, would it kill him to say 'please'? Or if not please, at least ask in not such an arsehole tone.
Looking back, that comment wasn't even really about gender; it was a general statement of how Albus treats everyone. Look how he speaks to Snape in particular. However, Minerva and Bella both cop the most from their male 'superiors'.
Urgh, why can't there just be equality? *goes to brood*
|
|
|
|
Post by morgainegaunt on Aug 25, 2007 11:45:33 GMT -5
Urgh, why can't there just be equality? What is fanfiction for? ;D  |
|
|
|
Post by Blue on Aug 25, 2007 16:51:10 GMT -5
Exactly, fanfiction is the answer to all problems On a serious note though, I don't think there will ever be equality, I think one gender will always have the upper hand in every situation, and its not just always men. I was thinking about this today, women are always considered to be more 'family' people, and if there was a woman giving a child or a younger person a hug I think people would assume that the child was just upset or something, but if it was a guy giving a child a hug I think it would be easier to assume there was something a bit wrong there. I think that's really wrong. That's just one example of inequality, there are so many more I cn't even imagine. |
|
|
|
Post by monsie on Aug 26, 2007 3:20:59 GMT -5
Lol @ fan fiction. Yes. I have to say that fan fiction has honestly made up for a lot that the books were lacking in respect to ADMM (I don't really read any other kind in the HP fandom). And Blue, I wouldn't go so far as to say they that equality will never be achieved (though if it were the case, I would rather women be the superior sex. ) but I do concede that it will not happen in my life time. And given my age and the fact that I may live for another sixty years, I find that to be a terribly sad realisation. |
|
|
|
Post by Blue on Aug 26, 2007 10:36:34 GMT -5
Mmm, well I guess we can't know what's going to happen years in the future, but I think as long as people hold onto their ideas and stereotypes then when they have children they're going to learn the same prejudices from their parents, so they'll continue, which is so sad. I'm really lucky, I only live with my mum and she is so open-minded to the things I choose and the choices I make that honestly, I'm amazed her brains haven't fallen out.
|
|
|
|
Post by monsie on Aug 26, 2007 10:48:28 GMT -5
Your point is very valid, and you may be absolutely right about the prejudices of a family passing onto their children. But sometimes, in those situations, the children see that their parents' views on things aren't always right. It happened to me, but then my cirtcumstances may have been unique, if not rare.
My mother, like yours, has been very kind by putting up with my eccentricities and I love her for it. She has a lot to do with my belief that women can do anything just as well, if not better, than men because she believes in me.
|
|
|
|
Post by MinnieQuill on Aug 26, 2007 16:30:14 GMT -5
Absolutely, I agree. My mothers parents are extremely sexist and go by the doctrine 'the woman stays at home whilst the man goes and works.' That's what mum believed, and when my parents actually got married, she went part-time straight away because 'that was the thing to do.'
My dad's response to this?
'Why'd you go part-time?"
"Because I'm a woman and..."
"Your point being?"
Hence, they now have an extremely equal relationship after Mum kind of went 'hang on, that'd not right. My parents are wrong...'
I kind of go by the motto 'men and women are the same and yet different' because there are always jobs which men are better suited to, and those which women are better suited to. There's no getting around that.
However, I'm well aware that this isn't really the 'norm' if you like. I've been quite spoilt growing up with that because work is simply not that way. Women generally still have to work twice as hard to receive the same position. Lord knows, my mother has had to.
|
|
).
) I don't believe that just because Minerva never married didn't mean that she had never been in love. 
