openmic.social is an uncensored community. You may encounter strong language, controversial opinions, and mature or NSFW material. You must be 18+ to browse. Illegal content is prohibited and removed on sight — please report it. By continuing, you accept that you may see content you personally disagree with.
I enjoyed it as a kid. As an adult, the flaws are really hard to look past. From the goblins with massive noses that run the wizarding worlds economy, and is in kahoots with wizard Hitler, to the eugenics related hereditarianism views, etc. etc.
Every single woman character in her books are ridiculed, or plain evil, if they take up space at all. There are like three non-white women, two are basically clones. And every single character is good or evil based on genes. Harry is a mix of both his parents, having personality traits from both, despite never having met them. That’s not how things work.
It perfectly explains why Rowling pushes the politics she does. Her ideology is based on the long since discredited sciences of the early to mid 1900s, the stuff the Nazis were basing their ubermensch stuff on. Also explains why they so readily go hand in hand with neo-Nazis.
Hermione is a hero, professor McGonagall is loved by everyone, as well as Molly Weasley and so on.
Just a couple of years ago “people with massive noses” having kahoots with Hitler would be oxymoron.
But now, after genocide of Palestinians…
You’re right, that was hyperbole. What I should’ve written is “every character that expresses traditionally feminine interests”, save for of course, the tradwife, like Molly Weasley whose entire character is just being a mother. Does she have interests beyond being a mother? No, with seven children who has time to be a person?
Hermione doesn’t engage with anything traditionally feminine, she’s a “not-like-other-girls” type character, hell she doesn’t really have any friends that aren’t boys. Even so, she’s often not taken seriously. She’s mocked for studying hard, and she’s mocked for her anti-slavery coalition, which people only really join half-heartedly in order to placate her.
There’s obviously Dolores Umbridge. She’s into cute, frilly, fluffy, pink things. She’s also a sadist. Her punishment for being bad is to be carried off by centaurs to get raped in a forest.
Luna Lovegood was introduced as another character to be bullied, and she remains on the outskirts throughout the book, but Rowling softened up on her once she got extremely popular with the fans of the series.
Ah right, the massive genocide of Jews, disabled people, LGBTQ+ people, and other minorities back in the mid 1900s was okay because the Israeli state is now running a genocide of their own. Rowling was correct to be antisemitic actually!
Excuse me, but I can’t agree with your position here.
Is a woman not allowed to realize itself through motherhood?
Also Molly was smart and fierce (remember fight with Bellatrix Lestrange?
And I personally know such girls.
It’s perfectly normal for a girl to be like that.
Also her persona and stance evoke respect in the reader, as well as a sense that she is being treated unfairly.
Haven’t you met cruel teachers / persons in power who acted all nice?
And it’s not like Dolores was the only villain in the books.
And her persona was revealed as a kind and brave hero.
It’s important for quirky children to feel represented.
Goblins didn’t strike me as jews exactly because they were friends with Harry Potter’s world Hitler.
A big nose and banking isn’t enough.
Of course. And according to Joanne KKK Rowling, that’s the only way you can be a woman; if you can produce children. Women are the ones with the large gametes! That’s the definition of woman, nothing else. Screw all cis-women who don’t fit the mold.
You’re not allowed to be too feminine, but also if you don’t adhere to white-feminine beauty standards you’re also bad.
I do! “NOT MY DAUGHTER YOU DON’T!”
No matter what, Molly is nothing but a mother. There’s no character there beyond that.
You’ve missed my point. My point is, there are many ways of being a person, and many ways of being a girl or a woman. Rowling doesn’t believe that, and the narrative she pushes explicitly defines what is and isn’t from her perspective, an acceptable way of being a woman. She very clearly values men over women.
Ember Green did an excellent video essay that touches on this topic.
There’s a Wikipedia entry on Jewish sterotypes. You could turn it into a drinking game, if you’d like to die of alcohol poisoning.
Edit: As a child I looked past these things. I didn’t see them, I lacked the cultural context. I’m no longer a child, and now it’s blatantly obvious.
These books were written by a grown-ass woman who couldn’t possibly be so stupid as to name the only fucking Chinese character Cho Chang on accident. Her name is almost Ching Chong!
She couldn’t have been ignorant to the nazi rhetoric she spewed out, or the pro-slavery bits.
The books are soaked with racism, ableism, and misogyny and I don’t understand how anyone can go back to them as an adult, having obtained the cultural context, and still think the stories are okay.
deleted by creator
Harry Potter books don’t have that assertion to me. There are different positive female figures in the books.
Did you read my comment? There were examples of characters beyond that. Your own examples, in fact.
Hermione is opposed to slavery, even though elves themselves don’t consider it so (who knows why - they are magical creatures).
And Hermione is a positive figure. I was sympathetic with her goal when I read the books.
Chang is a common Chinese surname. Cho - was a miss.
Overall it looked like the author wasn’t really bothered to choose some real real name and chose to construct one to emphasize the character’s origin.
By the way: Cho Chang was a positive figure also.
Sure. If it makes you feel better, then whatever.
That’s your argument? Ok.
There is no argument. You’re allowed to believe what you wish, wrong or not. I just don’t have the energy to waste on apologists and supporters of such heinous politics. Rowling’s politics are apparent in all of her writing, she’s always championed outdated eugenicist beliefs. If you choose to ignore that, that’s your prerogative and I don’t think anything I say or show you will convince you otherwise.
Ergo, this conversation here is just a waste of time for the two of us.
I actually didn’t notice that, I mean I never really put much thought into it and never finished watching the movies. That’s kind of weird though when you explained the details.