Harry Potter vs. Twilight
add a link
HP's girl trouble: The world of everyone's kegemaran kid wizard is a place where boys come first.
HP's girl trouble: The world of everyone's kegemaran kid wizard is a place where boys come first.
Sexism in Harry potter
kata kunci: Harry Potter, criticism, sexist
|
Ginny: develops. In the first few books, she is Ron's stupid little sister, but as they progress she becomes a female who is sure of herself and confident.
Hermione: To be honest, the notion that Hermione isn't an anti-feminist character is completely ridiculous to me. I'm not even going to debate that...
McGonagall: I don't think the author has read the books properly. Minerva has character, which develops (key word). She is strong (OoTP) and strong (HBP).
The author also claims that no woman fights on the evil side. One word: Bellatrix.
Additionally, I don't see how a book that has more male than female characters is sexist. There may be other factors, but not that. The world isn't 'male dominated', as the writer claims. The Wizarding world had their first female prime minister in the 16th century, for God's sake!
"She struggles so hard to get Harry and Ron's approval and respect, in spite of the boys' constant teasing and rejection. And she has no girlfriends. Indeed, there don't seem to be any other girls at the school worth her -- or our -- attention."
They only tease her before they become friends. I can't think of any serious teasing after that. And the point about having no girl friends, what's wrong with that? It's a small school and most of the girls in her year are annoying. I don't like a lot of the girls at my school; I find them stupid and annoying and shallow. They probably find me bookish and geeky. Does that somehow make is all bad, snooty people? No. It means we have different interests.
'But her relentless studying has all the characteristics of a disorder: It makes her ill-humored, renders her oblivious to her surroundings and threatens her health, especially in the third volume.'
No, she's just studious. I have a friend who studies like Hermione, by which I mean, sometimes we think he does too much. And we rease him about it. But if studying like that works for him, who's to judge?
And about making her oblivious to her surroundings. She just gets really into it, she's trying to concerntrate. Being ill-humoured when interrupted from doing something intently is not a bad thing, nor is it unusual.
'With her nose stuck in books, she's no fun'
We only see the action packed moments of Harry Potter, because they're key events in the story (unlike Twilight, Harry Potter actually has key events and action, so we don't spend as much time focusing on people's breath). Yes, Hermione reads a lot, but would Harry and Ron really be her friends if she was the person this authour paints her to be? Would Ron have fallen in love with her? No.
Having your nose stuck in a book doesn't make you no fun, by the way.
Hermione IS strong and the boys see her as a strong woman. AT the beginning of the series, the boys are actually JEALOUS of her when you look closely. They don't dislike Hermione because she is female. They dislike her because she is smart and she knows more spells than them. Eventually, Ron and Harry come to see her as a great friend. Often times, they will say that they need Hermione's help. In the Chamber of Secrets, they are completely lost without her.
At least Hermione doesn't sit home to cook and clean for the man. In DH, Harry is the one often cooking. They switch back and forth. There is no "You cook, you're the woman." They split every task evenly.
So Harry is the main character and he happens to be male. WHO CARES? Are we going to pick on every book that has a male main character? Harry happens to be the only one who can destroy Voldemort. Not his fault. It is the prophecy, because it specifically said that the Chosen One was male. Not because of sexism. Because that's just what it was. Just as the Chosen One would be born at the end of July. See? It is just a detail that helps specify which person could defeat Voldemort.
Besides, Harry never gloated or acted special. He never tried to be better than anyone else. He acccepted the task he was faced with and never made a big deal.
And no strong females? Are you kidding me?!?!!??! OF course we have Hermione. And then Ginny. Ginny is strong. She is one of the girls who fights in the Ministry with Dumbledore's Army. She has one of the strongest Bat-Bogey Hexes ever, and Ron often mentions it. She is smart and skilled, just as much as the boys.
Of course, there's Luna, as well. She is the one who never follows the crowd. She believes what she believes, adn she won't let anyone bring her down. She is gentle and kind, but has a strong spirit and is good at helping others and offering another opinion. And in HBP, she saves Harry after Draco hurts him on the train (yes, this is movie only.) In the books, Tonks is the one to save Harry, and she is also a very strong person. She is a real fighter and a great Auror. She never gives up when Lupin says they can't be together. She knows they are in love, adn she gets him to agree in the end. It was always hard for her, because Lupin is a werewolf. She is extremely strong.
And what about Lily Potter? She was the one who gave Harry his protection. Many men, including Peter Pettigrew, had surrendered to Voldemort, but Lily chose what was right over what was easy. She is one of the strongest characters in the series because she stood up to Voldemort and died to protect her son. If she hadn't, Harry would have died and Voldemort would never have been defeated. So technically, Lily defeated Voldemort.
McGonagall is not Dumbledore, it's true. But that doesn't mean she is weaker. She has a very different personality. She lead most of the Battle at Hogwarts, something that Dumbledore never did. She stood strong when ridiculed by Death Eaters and never lost her temper, something that Harry was nto as good at. She stood up to Umbridge, she had the most control over the Weasley's than any other teacher, and the list goes on.
And of course I can't forget to mention Bellatrix, my favorite character. She is extremely strong. She fought the idea that a pureblood woman's job was to stay at home and raise children. She joined the Death Eaters and opened the doors for other pureblood women to do the same (Alecto Carrow). Bellatrix is all about fighting sexism. She defeated many men and women alike and has earned the respect of many.
Besides, the first woman Minister of Magic was in the 16th century! Women in the Muggle world couldn't even get jobs at that time!
Women in Harry Potter play very big roles, actually. Umbridge was very corrupt but she was also very high up in the Ministry of Magic, and Hermione becomes one of the most famous and talented lawyers around and works to undo years of prejudice. Luna Lovegood, the quirky but clever girl, grows up to be a famous naturalist and discover all manner of new species, and even when she gets married and has children (long after any of her friends), she doesn't give up on her career.
Then there is Bellatrix Lestrange, who is obviously a woman, and one of the most talented duellists around. She is described as the most loyal, faithful Death Eater, his "last, best lieutenant" and her insanity, cruelty and skills are second only to Voldemort's. NOT because he is a man, but because he is the Dark Lord and did many things, including splitting his soul and drinking unicorn blood, to be as evil as he is. Bellatrix is eventually defeated - by another woman. Molly Weasley has chosen to look after her many children, her put-upon husband Arthur and their household, but that doesn't mean she is in any way weak and Jo wanted to show that because she chose to do that, it doesn't mean she isn't a strong woman. When Bellatrix taunted her, Molly defeated her and killed her on the grounds during the Battle of Hogwarts.
In the rough game of Quidditch, there are many talented female players; Angelina Johnson (the captain), Katie Bell, Alicia Spinnet, Ginny and Cho. The Holyhead Harpies is a professional all-women's Quidditch team, which Ginny grows up to play for, and one of the most popular.
*Some examples & quotes used from an article by an unknown source (who was totally awesome.)
This person is grasping at straws with these examples. There is sexism, prejudice, and racism in Harry Potter, but these examples don't show it.
Hermione is a smart, goody-goody, who always reminds the boys of the school rules.
Which is why they found her annoying. It wasn't that she was a girl, it was that they were eleven year old boys and wanted to go exploring and she kept stopping them, or trying to stop them. I found her annoying for this too. Many times even I went, "Geez, Hermione! Let them have their fun!" I said the same thing of Neville, when he adorably tried to stop them from sneaking past Fluffy.
[...]at the sight of a troll she "sinks to the floor in fright, her mouth open in terror."
Duh? She was just snuck up on by a troll. Ron was also terrified and it took him a moment to get his bearings.
You have to remember, Hermione had no idea about the troll. Harry and Ron did. Hermione was in the bathroom, alone, turned around and came face to face with a fully grown mountain troll that, seemingly, came out of nowhere. Of course she froze up!
[...]she also has no girlfriends.
Depending on the definition of "girlfriend," this isn't true. Is the definition a girl who's a friend, or is it a very close friend who's a girl? Hermione is well acquainted (and even friendly) with Lavender and Parvati (or which ever twin was in Gryffindor). There are several mentions of her speaking to them. We also know that she's very good friends with Ginny (as stated in the series). No, they aren't "best friends" but that's just who Hermione is. Some girls, like myself, don't want girlfriends. We function and get along much better with the guys.
Ginny can't help blushing and stammering around Harry.
Yeah, because it's totally "weak" and "sexist" when an eleven year old girl can't talk to a cute hot guy. Really. I mean, it's so totally the opposite of what happens in real life that . . . oh. Wait. Grown, strong, independent women blush and stammer when a famous hot guy comes into their house too. Hmm . . . I'm beginning to sense a pattern here.
Ah, yes, I did see this here before - it was in an article, but I can't find it. Anyway, I remember exactly what I had to say for this part:
Those quotes were said by Voldemort. Not by Harry, or Hermione, or Severus, or Dumbledore. By Voldemort, the most evil, and one of the most powerful wizards alive. My original comparison was "Imagine Voldemort being the Bill Gates of the wizarding world." They're both powerful, famous, and smart as hell. Now, imagine Bill Gates going into a fifth grade computer class. Do you honestly think he's going to be riveted by what they can do? Do you think he's going to be interested? No. He's going to be bored out of his mind, secretly thinking that they're all morons. It's just like Voldemort and Ginny. Ginny is an eleven year old girl, crying over a boy. Do you honestly think she's going to say anything of interest to him? Do you think he's going to listen to her going, "I really like him, but I can't talk to him" and go, "Oh, sweetie. You poor thing. Here, this is what you should do . . ."
No! He's freakin' Voldemort!
the only female authority figure is McGonagall.
Untill, ya know, the other female authority figures are introduced into the story. Petunia (who's introduced in the first chapter), Umbridge, the Ministry workers . . .
she looses herself in her emotions when Harry arrives from the Chamber of Secrets.
Oh. You mean the hidden chamber that held a monster that was attacking the student body? That chamber? The one Dumbledore knew he would come out of (at least I'm assuming he realized his pet bird, the Sorting Hat, and giant sword were missing from his office. But since he's so unobservant I could be wrong there) but nobody else did?
I'd also like to point out that Arthur (who's, as far as we know, a man. We hope he's a man :x) was also shocked and "emotional" when his kidnapped daughter also walked into the room relatively unharmed.
Trewlany's visions are subject to ridicule.
Psst! I'll tell you a secret: she's only had two real predictions. The others are fake.
She's also a drunk (as shown throughout the series). So, yeah.
funny little witches
Because going from women wearing jeans to woman wearing pointy hats and capes wouldn't look "funny" at all. Nope.
Sexism is not when the characters are realistic. As the great Indigo once said: "you keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."
"Harry caught the fish and I did my best with it! I notice I'm always the one who ends up sorting out the food, because I'm a girl, I suppose!"
"No, it's because you're supposed to be the best at magic!" shot back Ron.
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Chapter 15 - The Goblin's Revenge, page 293.
See? Ron even admits she's the best at magic >.>
Whoever wrote this article has not read the books properly. Notice how he stopped reading at "Volume 3."
It seems to me that we can never win with these people. If Hermione WASN’T a know-it-all, they would complain that she had no flaws. The fact that she’s a book worm helps Harry and Ron all throughout the series. Ron even says, “Where’s Hermione when you need her?”
They also never mention Alicia Spinnet (did I spell that right?) and Katie Bell, who are two very good Quiddich players in the Harry Potter world. In fact, there’re a lot of famous female Quiddich players mentioned in the book. I like it how there isn’t a men’s Quiddich team and a womyns Quiddich team, there’s just… Quiddich.
They say that JKR displays Trelawney as a “misty, dreamy, dewy charlatan”, but in truth she’s so much more. She is the one who first made the prophecy that started it all. Yes, she doesn’t remember her prophecies after she makes them, but that’s a common thin among prophesiers; it has nothing to do with her being a womyn.
And don’t even get me started on Professor McGonagall. Yes, she’s more emotional than Dumbledore, but it’s a proven fact that womyn are more emotional than men. How then is that sexist? Minerva McGonagall was the only teacher in the school brave enough to attack a group of Ministry employees in the fifth book. If that’s weak, then I want to be a wimp.
Listen lady, I’m a feminist too, but even I don’t see how Harry Potter is sexist.
And youknowit101, why don’t you try backing your articles for once? If you want to be taken siriusly, then DEFEND YOURSELF. God.
Anyway, what about Lily Potter? Like I think Snuffles said, it was this woman's love and bravery that protected her son for many years. If it wasn't for Lily sacrificing herself, Voldemort probably would have never died as his powers wouldn't have been shattered.
Anyway, what about the part where Ginny argues with her mother about being in Dumbledore's Army and being allowed to fight? One of the best points of the book is character development; when Ginny was younger she was in awe of Harry for being older and more famous and she couldn't even look him in the eye and never thought he'd like someone like her. But as she progresses into an older and more confident figure, she is actually the one who takes charge in their relationship - she kissed him first, she insinuated the relationship first and when Harry leaves at the end of I think Half-Blood Prince (?), she joins him on the Battle of Hogwarts instead of staying at home all the time with her family.
It's the same with Hermione - she campaigns for elf welfare, argues with the boys, puts her point across, does research, fights (especially with Ron, like the flock of canaries), and she kissed Ron first.
Also, the author is just insulting any woman with a head on her shoulders instead of her head in the clouds, by calling Hermione "no fun" and "annoying" for the crime of being bookish? Being intelligent and hard-working and a bookworm is not boring, it's amazing. Anyway, I'd love to be Hermione's friend. It's not like she spends ALL her time in a book, she does her homework, studies and enjoys reading. What's wrong with that? She and Ginny joke a lot, she just doesn't have the same sense of humour as Ron.
I'm confused, youknowit101. If you think HARRY POTTER is sexist, than how can you be blinded by the whole "Bella needs a man to be happy" fact? Really. If you hate books because they are sexist or anti-feminist, then you should be detesting Twilight, which is one of the most anti-feminist books I've ever read, right now. But that's apparently not the case. That's like me saying, "I love Harry Potter, but I hate Twilight because it has too much death". It's beyond hypocrisy, it's moronic.
Wow...
And I know, that's probably not what you mean. And that doesn't mean you believe it. But when you don't even admit that Twilight has some flaws (heck, every book does), it makes you appear like you believe you are on a higher pedestal than everyone else. That's why whenever you post a link on this spot, people have given up on you, because we already know the gist of what the article you linked to will be about. And in our opinion, they're usually wrong, so we've just given up on ever reasoning with you...
Well, that's just what I THINK she meant.
That's just stubborn. and ignorant.
Not liking and/or criticizing something does not make one a bigot. I don't like Chinese food or skinny jeans, just as Youknowit doesn't like Harry Potter. This does not make me a bigot. A bigot would be one who does not like something without giving it a chance at all. He read all the books and saw most of the movies. He tolerates Harry Potter, but does not enjoy it.
I can say this lack of tolerence is bigoted. You will not even give this link and the information a chance. You will not tolerate it just because it was posted by Youknowit and you don't like him.
Defending yourself does not make you immature. Your methode of going about it does. All the ????????????? and "omg get over yourself!" Makes you look immature. We are not jumping down your throat because you are defending youself.
You called Youknowit/Peter a bigot, and he defended himself. You jumped down his throat for doing so. I stepped in because he's not doing a great job in defending himself and I wanted to help him, and you are jumping down my throat for doing so.
The defense alone is not childish.
(I turned 21 only three months ago. Please don't say I am almost 22 without knowing so. I said you are almost in your 30s because you are closer to 30 than 20. I am closer to 21 than 22. I'm just saying)
"one who regards or treats members of a group with hatred and intolerence"
He is not intolerent of Harry Potter. You are intolerent of this link
It's also okay to simply ignore or avoid a link.
It's not so wise to assume you know what it's all about, declare you don't agree with it, and insult the person who provided the link without even considering to take a look at what the link holds.
Do you know youknowit well enough to know he has read all the books and watched all the movies? As from his views, comments, posts and articles he posts it doesn't appear that way to me. If someone jumps down my throat i will do it back! As for the age thing is that relevant? Who cares how old you are, seems kind of pointless that you even had to point that out.....
big·ot·ed /ˈbɪgətɪd/ Show Spelled
[big-uh-tid] Show IPA
–adjective
utterly intolerant of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own.
He also stated so elsewhere on this spot.
He is not intolerent, noting what I said in my previous two sencentes.
This is an opinionated article. It states facts to support this person's opinion. Many people do not agree with the person's opinion because ALL the facts are not present. (not all facts are true. A fact is something that can be proven right or wrong)
Than definition of bigot is similar to the one I provided. He is not utterly intolerent. his opinion differs. Being a bitgot does not mean you disagree. He di not tell the people who commented on this link that they are wrong. That is called tolerence.
As for insulting him.... i wonder how many people he has offended and insulted before and is always telling people they are wrong as are you right now! My definition of bigot is from the English Dictionary!
As I said before, refusing to read something is not bad. Not liking something is not bad. Coming to the conclusion that you do not agree something, whether it be an article, a movie, a bok, a recipe, or anything, without giving it a chance is. It's "utterly intolerent". You cannot possibly know that you disagree with everything stated in the article without reading it. You're just saying you don't because you see that other people don't.
I'm not telling you that you have to read it. I'm just saying it's not very wise to assume so much and conclude that you campletely disagree without knowing what's in it.
As far as I know, I don't think he's ever told people they are wrong, unless it's something that can be genuinely proven. Mostly, he just disagrees and calls something stupid. (that's not saying the person is incorrect. It just means he doesn't like it)
He's offended people with his views, and has called a few people annoying and children. (Those aren't bad insults if you ask me. He's been called a lot worse than anything I've seen him call anyone) Anyways, the fact that he has insulted people gives you the right to call him a bigot, which isn't even true?
^Not at all twisted. It's copy and pasted.
This was directed at Youknowit, correct?
Realize that he did not write this article. He mearly provided a link to it. He even stated that he did not agree 100% with it.
If you had clicked it, you would not have jumped to this conclusion.
If he has wrote it, he would have added it as an original article rather than a link.
What I don't understand is why you continued to call him a bigot, if you were referring to the article in the link, rather than him as an individual..
Not everybody likes both.
lakota_spirit said:
I dont mind reading critcism (in fact find it interesting) when its fact based! posted 3 hours ago.
Are you sure you want to delete this comment? YES NO
cassie-1-2-3 said:
You don't know if it's factual if you won't even look..
That's just stubborn. and ignorant. posted 3 hours ago.
youknowit101 said:
You can't form your own conclusions?
also copied and pasted!
This article is far from bigotted.
link
link
link
bigot noun /ˈbɪg.ət/ n [C] a person who has STRONG, UNREASONABLE BELIEFS and who thinks that anyone who does not have the same beliefs is wrong.
the article is made up of unreasonable beliefs based on misinformation making it bigoted.
But whatever. Have STRONG, UNREASONABLE BELIEFS about what you want.
I have civil beliefs that the writer never said people are wrong, and (even though I don't agree entirely with his or her opinions) the reasoning process is very clear.
Reread the definitions you gave. It's right there.
This article is not unreasonable because you don't agree. You are not unreasonable anymore for not agreeing. Nothing here is unreasonable. I don't see anything incredible strong or forecul in the article either. They are simple statements.
The comments by someone else don't back up anything. She stated (respectfully) what she believed he was implying. The only person who could possibly know the motives of Youknowit is Youknowit, and he explained his intentions (also respectfully)
The only facts that were left out were the facts provided in books the writer had not read. That is very reasonable and understandable.
Like i said i dont want to drag other people into this, i know what he said and meant, but he deleted it. I accepted his intentions and dropped it (as i have already told you) then a comment was made that i wanted to agree to about criticism and it should be based on facts. And you jumped down my throat (as already stated) and began a nasty verbal attack, to which i defended my opinion and basis of it, that wasn't good enough for you, then you brought up anything and everything to which i defended myself with youknowit joining in for good measure. Then when i read it just to shut you both up you still carried on, picking at every word of my answers.
Where in there have i been nasty?
And leaving facts out because they hadn't read the books is untrue, they obviously state they have read the books and have based their opinions from such!
daftar masuk atau sertai Fanpop untuk menambah komen anda