add a link

HP's girl trouble: The world of everyone's kegemaran kid wizard is a place where boys come first.

save

125 comments

Pages: 1 2
« Older  |  Newer »
user photo
I disagree entirely with this article.

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!
posted hampir setahun yang lalu.
 
user photo
^ I will argue for Hermione, then. Since I have nothing else to do and this authour clearly has no idea what she's talking about.

"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.
posted hampir setahun yang lalu.
last edited hampir setahun yang lalu
 
user photo
*tease
posted hampir setahun yang lalu.
 
user photo
The author is grasping for things that aren't there.
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!
posted hampir setahun yang lalu.
 
user photo
I agree with everything the people before me have said. In Half-Blood Prince, Hermione argues with Harry the notion that the Half-Blood Prince could be a woman and Harry says, "How could I have hung round with you for six years and not think that girls are clever?" I certainly wouldn't call the author a feminist if she doesn't realise women can be feminine without being submissive, as in Harry Potter.
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.)
posted hampir setahun yang lalu.
last edited hampir setahun yang lalu
 
user photo
bri-marie said:
Did you post this once before? This seem really familiar . . . or maybe I saw it on the C.A.T. spot. Anyway:

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."
posted hampir setahun yang lalu.
last edited hampir setahun yang lalu
 
user photo
I just wanted to add this quote from DH:

"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."
posted hampir setahun yang lalu.
last edited hampir setahun yang lalu
 
user photo
I didn't post it before, I used examples from an article PMT posted by some unknown person.
posted hampir setahun yang lalu.
 
user photo
emilyroxx said:
I love it how they don’t mention how Ron and Harry always get saved by Hermione. In the second book, it’s very clear that Harry and Ron could never have discovered and opened the chamber of secrets without Hermione’s help. She pretty much single-handedly solves the puzzle and saves the school. How then, is she a damsel in distress?

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.
posted hampir setahun yang lalu.
last edited hampir setahun yang lalu
 
user photo
Exactly. Minerva McGonagall is so smart and so strong she pretty much pwnd' the Carrows, who are so thick they didn't even understand her anyway.
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.
posted hampir setahun yang lalu.
 
user photo
smirk
Hmm, it's funny how they seemed to forget all the strong female character moments when writing this...

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.
posted hampir setahun yang lalu.
 
user photo
Not even going to bother reading this, your opinions are so bigoted there not even worth considering.
posted hampir setahun yang lalu.
 
user photo
I like to see things from both sides, i see negatives and positives in just about everything including Harry Potter and Twilight! All you ever post is negative for Harry Potter and positive for Twilight! If someone opposes your opinion you immediately go on the defensive and attack them, making you bigoted, big example above by saying i'm not worth much!
posted hampir setahun yang lalu.
 
user photo
No, you never said you hated it because it was sexist, but you are pointing it out as one of your contributing factors why you don't like it. It's what you're IMPLYING.
posted hampir setahun yang lalu.
 
user photo
Well it would take more time than i am willing to give, its not too hard to find examples of how negative, rude and agressive you are to others on this site.
posted hampir setahun yang lalu.
 
user photo
please stay on topic
posted hampir setahun yang lalu.
 
user photo
laugh
Youknowit why did you delete your posts..........because you know i am right!!!!!
posted hampir setahun yang lalu.
 
user photo
tongue
You seriously deleted your comments?

Wow...
posted hampir setahun yang lalu.
 
user photo
I deleted my off topic posts to encourage you to do the same. i dont call people names. im not rude to anyone until they're rude to me first. pay close attention and you'll realize that. like here. i wasn't rude until you said this isnt worth reading just because its posted by me
posted hampir setahun yang lalu.
 
user photo
hmmm
^I think the reason she said that was because your posts tend to be a bit biased. The reason we're all so frustrated here is because you don't really admit some of Twilight's flaws... The Harry Potter series has flaws, but I except it. But the way you *usually* present yourself on here, Twilight is the most glorious, perfect and flawless book ever written, and Harry Potter must pale in comparison because it's not as "perfect" as Twilight.

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.
posted hampir setahun yang lalu.
 
user photo
smirk
Took the words right out of my mouth.
posted hampir setahun yang lalu.
 
user photo
i think the same way most everyone else does here, but about something else. there are a lot of negative twilight links and articles. when i first came around, i didnt see any negative hp links or articles worth anything except posted by Cassie and she only did it to get people to stand up for what they like instead of only hating twilight all day. i continued where she left off. sometimes i even say i dont agree with everything i post. i post it for the sake of debate.
posted hampir setahun yang lalu.
 
user photo
you dont agree with all the negative hp stuff and i dont agree with all the negative twilight stuff. i dont know what the problem is
posted hampir setahun yang lalu.
 
user photo
^^I agree with you there. There were waaaaay too many anti-Twilight links. The problem is most sides go to the extremes on the links.
posted hampir setahun yang lalu.
last edited hampir setahun yang lalu
 
user photo
This article is obviously non factual from the comments, leaving certain things out to put Harry Potter in a negative light. Thats why i said 'Not even going to bother reading this, your 'OPINIONS' are so bigoted there not even worth considering.' NOT 'this isnt worth reading just because its posted by you'. Put something factual up and i will read it!

posted hampir setahun yang lalu.
 
user photo
these aren't my opinions. i didnt write it. you said you're not going to read it because my opinions are not worth considering. you didnt say anything about the other comments.
posted hampir setahun yang lalu.
 
user photo
smile
how do u agree to this link then?
posted hampir setahun yang lalu.
 
user photo
i agree partly with it. the writer said they only read the first three books. it gets less sexist as it continues. theyre just kids, so the boys and girls are more typical
posted hampir setahun yang lalu.
 
user photo
@youknowit: Well then, how come its totally unacceptable for HP fans to post anti-Twilight links, but when you or Cassie post an anti-HP link such as this it's fine and completely justifiable, no matter how wrong the article might be or whether they actually have any facts to back up their statements with, because you're only doing it to get people to stand up for what they like? We can use the same excuse.
posted hampir setahun yang lalu.
 
user photo
i didnt say its unacceptable. people dont accept the links i post because theyre against what they like. i think there should be links against both. i dont post links against twilight because there are a lot already here
posted hampir setahun yang lalu.
 
user photo
Criticism should be tolerated and at least taken into consideration.
posted hampir setahun yang lalu.
 
user photo
hmmm
emilyroxx said:
We have taken this into consideration; we've just found multiple flaws in this womyn's reasoning, so we're arguing against it. You and youknowit do the exact same thing when we criticize Twilight.
posted hampir setahun yang lalu.
 
user photo
she's talking to the people who dont want me posting criticism
posted hampir setahun yang lalu.
 
user photo
I dont mind reading critcism (in fact find it interesting) when its fact based!
posted hampir setahun yang lalu.
 
user photo
You don't know if it's factual if you won't even look..
That's just stubborn. and ignorant.
posted hampir setahun yang lalu.
 
user photo
You can't form your own conclusions?
posted hampir setahun yang lalu.
 
user photo
I based MY conclusion on everyones comments.... and youknowits bigoted and constant negative attitude against harry potter! Stubborn i may be but definately not ignorant! Why dont you take a leaf out of your own book and stop contradicting yourself by name calling and grow up yourself!
posted hampir setahun yang lalu.
 
user photo
I said your action, or lack there of, is stubborn and ignorant. I did not say it is a part of your lifestyle.

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.
posted hampir setahun yang lalu.
 
user photo
One thing I will call you is immature. As a lady almost in your 30s, I would think you would act as a lady almost in your 30s, or at least older than Youknowit and myself.
posted hampir setahun yang lalu.
 
user photo
Ugh, I wish you'd tell me your name. I don't like calling you Youknowit.
posted hampir setahun yang lalu.
 
user photo
As a lady of almost 22 i would think you had learned how to read, where in my post have i called you bigoted?????????? So every time i defend myself that makes me immature? purlease get over your ego! Everytime i write something, you or Youknowit are jumping down my throat and when i defend myself its me who is childish?
posted hampir setahun yang lalu.
 
user photo
Lol, call me Peter Facinelli.
posted hampir setahun yang lalu.
 
user photo
And as i have said before, if he wrote something factual and un-bigoted i would read it, it has nothing to do with liking or not liking him! Its to do with liking or not liking his posts because they are bigoted.
posted hampir setahun yang lalu.
 
user photo
I did not say you called me a bigot. I was using myself as an example of someone who is not a bigot, and relating his situation to mine, as a method to prove in non-bigotism.

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)
posted hampir setahun yang lalu.
 
user photo
You apparently don't know what "bigot" means. I explained it above, but here is the definition from my dictionary.

"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
posted hampir setahun yang lalu.
 
user photo
hatred AND intolerence.
posted hampir setahun yang lalu.
 
user photo
I think the problem is barely anyone on this spot agrees with youknowit101's links in the first place, so when we see something posted by him we immediately jump to the conclusion that we won't agree with this one, because we don't agree with any of his other links. I know we shouldn't do that, but I guess it's just what some people do. We have impressions of somebody, and when we see somebody we don't like do something like this, we assume we're not going to like it this time, based on what we remember how much we disagreed with his other links... And haven't we already gone over this? (This was from the argument before.)
posted hampir setahun yang lalu.
last edited hampir setahun yang lalu
 
user photo
It's okay to follow a link thinking you won't agree with it. That's at least tolerent.
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.
posted hampir setahun yang lalu.
 
user photo
I agree.
posted hampir setahun yang lalu.
 
user photo
You and youknowit are two totally different people (i think), the ???????? and the purlease get over your ego! (never put omg get over yourself) came after you called me immature, ignorant and stubborn. I expressed my view that i can read criticism when it comes in a fact based way, i based my conclusions on peoples comments that it wasn't.
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.....
posted hampir setahun yang lalu.
 
user photo
I was going to bleeding read the thing until i read the comments..........fgs i dont avoid all his articles just the ones that are bigoted AND NON FACTUAL!

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.
posted hampir setahun yang lalu.
last edited hampir setahun yang lalu
 
user photo
He told me he read all the books and seen most of the movies.
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.
posted hampir setahun yang lalu.
 
user photo
we were just disagreein this article as this is the OPPOSITE of wat harry potter does as it is not sexist and puts females in their spotlight too
posted hampir setahun yang lalu.
 
user photo
Lmao im not intolerent i disagree a lot. Thanks Cassie, you knocked it out of the park
posted hampir setahun yang lalu.
 
user photo
Yup i didn't tell anyone to agree with me or gtfo
posted hampir setahun yang lalu.
 
user photo
its called "debating"
posted hampir setahun yang lalu.
 
user photo
I came on prepared to read it, i read the comments, much like a someone does before they buy a book or watch a movie, does that make them all intolerant,stubborn, ignorant, intolerant and bigoted because they dont like it.
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!
posted hampir setahun yang lalu.
 
user photo
cloudy
My dictionary is in English too.. It's a Merriam-Webster.

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?
posted hampir setahun yang lalu.
 
user photo
I called his ARTICLE bigoted, there is a difference. From everyones comments i don't need to read it to know what the basis of the article is about, it has left a lot of truths out to make Harry Potter seem sexist. If it were based on facts i would find it interesting but it isn't as stated in every comment. Everything Youknowit posts are always 'anti HarryPotter' so that also added to my decision not to read it. My 'view' is that his ARTICLE is bigoted, i did not reach this conclusion because of how he treats others so stop twisting my words!
posted hampir setahun yang lalu.
 
user photo
"Not even going to bother reading this, your opinions are so bigoted there not even worth considering. "
^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..
posted hampir setahun yang lalu.
last edited hampir setahun yang lalu
 
user photo
I don't see why you expect him to post any "pro-Harry potter" links if he doesn't like Harry Potter, or for him to post "anti-Twilight" links, if he likes Twilight.

Not everybody likes both.
posted hampir setahun yang lalu.
last edited hampir setahun yang lalu
 
user photo
we dont, they wer just wrong
posted hampir setahun yang lalu.
 
user photo
This article IS bigoted, its based on NON-FACTS from a bigoted opinion, the fact Youknowit posted it, he has previously shown a bigoted OPINION towards Harry Potter on MANY occasions and VERBALLY ATTACKED others INCLUDING ME when comments are against Twilight or not to his beliefs! Yes he did state that he didn't 100% agree so if you look back you can see i dropped it. Then i agreed with you about criticism and YOU jumped down my throat..


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!
posted hampir setahun yang lalu.
 
user photo
I think thw word you're looking for is 'biased' rather that 'bigot"

This article is far from bigotted.
posted hampir setahun yang lalu.
 
user photo
Being biased is okay. Most everyone and everything here is biased. that's what debate is.
posted hampir setahun yang lalu.
 
user photo
I'm trying to post my full thoughts, but my phone won't allow me to post much at once, so i'll post it in pieces.
posted hampir setahun yang lalu.
 
user photo
You wouldn't know this because you refused to view the article, but the writer was tolerent enough to read the first three books
posted hampir setahun yang lalu.
 
user photo
It would have been bigoted if the writer decided to come to these conclusions without at lease giving the series a chance, much like what you are doing with this article.
posted hampir setahun yang lalu.
 
user photo
The writer even said he or she enjoyed the story and really wanted to enjoy the whole thing. again, something you wouldn't know.
posted hampir setahun yang lalu.
 
user photo
but we were defendin our series and sayin that it was wrong b/c females do actually stand out in the series
posted hampir setahun yang lalu.
 
user photo
I know, it's fine to defend, but calling it bigotted (especially when someone hasn't even read it) is untrue.
posted hampir setahun yang lalu.
 
user photo
nobody told anyone to stop defending stuff
posted hampir setahun yang lalu.
 
user photo
how do u know they didnt read it?
posted hampir setahun yang lalu.
 
user photo
she was talking about lokita
posted hampir setahun yang lalu.
 
user photo
No no, that was only aimed toward lakota. People who read it have every right to come to any conclusion they want. People who don't read it can't pass any valid judgment.
posted hampir setahun yang lalu.
 
user photo
thanks again Cass
posted hampir setahun yang lalu.
 
user photo
:)
posted hampir setahun yang lalu.
 
user photo
lmao, i could read these comments all day
posted hampir setahun yang lalu.
 
user photo
Well i read it and stand by, if not more that this article is BIGOTED and a load of BS!!!!!!!!!! That is the word i am looking for. The article funnily enough was exactly as i thought it would be... rubbish and non factual! Just out of interest why do you feel the need to defend IT how are my comments anything to do with you? I have a different opinion to you, whats your problem?
posted hampir setahun yang lalu.
 
user photo
Now that you've read it and can form a valid opinion (even though it still doesn't fit the definition of bigoted), all is well.
posted hampir setahun yang lalu.
 
user photo
Yoe mean it doesn't fit your definition of 'bigoted'.
posted hampir setahun yang lalu.
 
user photo
Or the dictionary's.
posted hampir setahun yang lalu.
 
user photo
Not the English Dictionary look it up
link
link
link
posted hampir setahun yang lalu.
 
user photo
Yes.. Please find examples in this article that applies to the definitions. If you don't, I'm just going to assume that you can't.
posted hampir setahun yang lalu.
 
user photo
Examples of hatred, intolerence, and superiority, I mean.
posted hampir setahun yang lalu.
 
user photo
It's a very civil article where a person simply states their opinions.
posted hampir setahun yang lalu.
 
user photo
just admit you made a mistake. even i do that
posted hampir setahun yang lalu.
 
user photo
Where have i said this article is made up of hatred, intolerence, and superiority? I said it is Bigoted as are (youknow)ITS opinions.

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.
posted hampir setahun yang lalu.
 
user photo
Various definitions say hatred, intolerence, and superiority.

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.
posted hampir setahun yang lalu.
 
user photo
Not any variation i have ever come across, so according to you i have strong, unreasonable beliefs because i think this article is bigoted (claiming Harry Potter is sexist is the basis of the article = strong, unreasonable beliefs/misinformation to back up their article = bigotism). I didn't claim the writer said people were wrong for not believing it. youknowit stated that hence the statement that his opinions are bigoted funnily enough he deleted those comments.
posted hampir setahun yang lalu.
 
user photo
I saw his statements, he did not say anything about the article. He said your worthless and that he does not hate Harry Potter because it's sexist. I told him to delete his comments because they were disrespectful.

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.
posted hampir setahun yang lalu.
 
user photo
Unreasonable as in misinformation/leaving factual knowledge out, put in a strong way as all it went on about was how sexist Harry Potter is. Youknowit said a lot more than that and i think if you read back someone elses comment backs that up. Sorry i dont want to get others involved as i can fight my own battles but the proof is right there.
posted hampir setahun yang lalu.
 
user photo
Oh and as for been disrespectful, maybe you should go read your comments and the verbal attack you and youknowit have given me.
posted hampir setahun yang lalu.
 
user photo
I'm not calling you worthless. I'm not being 100% nice, but I'm not being incredibly rude. You're not being the nicest person either, but who cares.

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.
posted hampir setahun yang lalu.
 
user photo
No you didn't but i think calling someone stubborn, ignorant and immature is disrespectful and nasty (note i haven't called you one name!) Just tried over and over to explain myself to your verbal onslaught, which has been nasty and rude on both your parts.

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!
posted hampir setahun yang lalu.
 
user photo
i think you overreact. or not good at understanding words. XD and :P probably works better for you
posted hampir setahun yang lalu.
 
user photo
What do you mean?
posted hampir setahun yang lalu.
 
user photo
do we need to explain y this article is incorrect?
posted hampir setahun yang lalu.
 
user photo
hmmm
I'm not saying it's true.
posted hampir setahun yang lalu.
 
user photo
I just don't like lakota throwing around the word bigot
posted hampir setahun yang lalu.