Originally posted by: ShadowKisses
It is an archetype,that , a mythic one, motherly love is purely sefless - I disagree. Bringing someone into the world or aborting a fetus, having absolute control over what beliefs the child follows etc seems pretty selfish to me as one is doing these things for themselves rather than the baby. So you'd rather just leave the baby alone since birth so that it brings itself up how it wants? Alright then, if that seems practical to you... Anyhow, I really don't want to get into the mother selfish/selfless debate. Me neither, because my beliefs about motherly love are prob very different from yours. The point still stands: anyone who isn't a mother is portrayed in negative light in the HP series. This is best evinced by Narcissa: her only redeeming quality in JK's world is that she is a mother. So what? I still stand by my belief that anyone as evil as Umbridge or Bellatrix would never make a good mother. I think JKR runs by the same belief. Motherly love is a pure thing, at least for me, not at all archetype. I've seen evidence in real life to support that. People with twisted thoughts who do bad deeds do not make good mothers, because they care nothing for the value of human life. This is my belief. I'm glad Umbridge and Bellatrix didn't have any kids. I'd feel sooooo sorry for them.
You are [grossly] misinterpreting what I said. For starters, I didn't call her anti-feminist and I never said her marriage in and of it self meant she was anti-feminist. I also disagree that "when you marry determines" whether the marriage is anti-feminist etc. On a factual note, it isn't stated in the text whether or not the trio married before the ink on H's grad certificate had dried. JKR is the author of the text we are talking about, and if she says something which is not in the text in an interview, I will believe that happened because she created both the text and what she said in the interview. You are acting as if the text is a different world or something. Ah but their careers are secondary -- or so it is implied. So? If they chose to make their careers secondary next to their marriages, why should it bother you? How do we see Hermione after 19 years? As a mother, not as a woman of authority. And that demeans her worth because....? Sure, we are *told* by JKR in her interviews that Hermione supposedly revolutionalized pro-pureblood laws but there isn't a single comment in the actual text to show that she is an activist. Refer to my above post. We are told that females did have authority in the magical world but we are never shown this. Before you state that Harry/Ron are presented as fathers as well - I would argue that we already *know* males can be in an powerful role while the same doesn't apply to females because JKR has never shown a woman in power who wasn't somehow abusing it. Amanda Bones was a good female and she was the Head of the Wizengamot. Anyhow, we see an equal number of males in power abusing it. It's not as if it is tipped towards females. JKR just showed us examples of different people abusing their powers, and there were an equal number of males and females. Anyhow, that isn't the point I was making. What I was point out about Hermione was that she is constantly and consistently defined by the males in her life. Either she is presented as Harry's tag-along friend (not sidekick because that is Ron's role) or Ron's romantic interest as she pines after him. But you see, that's your interpretation of the text, which I respect as your own opinion, because I have a totally different interpretation of this. I don't think Hermione was defined by the males around her. In the 3rd book, she went against both Harry and Ron to tell McGonagall about the firebolt and initially tried to help Hagrid about Buckbeak by herself. When Ron left them in DH, she was sad, yet, as is expected, but she didn't 'pine' for him. She fought and researched about the Deathly Hallows just like Harry. Although she is integral to the plot, her role is limited: to that of Harry's brainIn that case, all the characters are limited to Harry's brain because we all learn about them only through his feelings and throughts - deus-ex-machina in literary terms, or Ron's lover. She was a teenager. Teenagers do date, you know. But she never pined for Ron, nor did she ever act like a lovesick fool. She was a teenager with moderate love interests. That isn't to say that she isn't a strong woman, because I certainly think credit needs to be given to her for her resourcefulness, and her ability to transform her education into a way that is practical, her flaws which are realistic and evoke responses just as a male character's would but at the same time, I think her own identity is somewhat blurred (although it isn't to the same degree as Ginny's). Her self-identity is secondary to being Harry's encyclopedia - hell, she even obtains vengeance on Harry's behalf. There was also this tidbit in JKR's interviews where she claims Hermione waited for Ron to grow up and ask her out instead of initiating things herself. And how is that wrong? Hermione prob wanted to know if Ron really did care for her before thinking about marriage with him. If she was the only one with the love in their relationship, it wouldn't have worked out. I despise how she was portrayed as a crude female stereotype in HBP who attacks her friend with canaries due to her sexual passivity. We can say those are teenage hormones. Lots of teenagers act stupid sometimes, that's what defines their faults, but it no way makes them crude stereotypes.
It is a man and a woman's *CHOICE* whether they value their career more. One simply cannot assign a certain criteria that dictates what someone else should and shouldn't do - Don't get married unless you're ready to have X be the sole focus of your life and so on- that is far too restrictive. People have different priorities, choices, lives: some value ambition more than commitment; vice versa for others. You mentioned that life sholdn't revolve around career - but I would argue that life shouldn't revolve around one other person either. You need a compromise between the two. And if some chose to give more credence to career, I really can't see how that would deem them "unfit" to commit legally to one partner. Fine, but I really dislike how some people look down on those who are married and consider their careers secondary. If people can choose to value their careers more, than people can have the right to value marriage and children more as well. It's not always about careers and job, job, job.
Firstly, you have the definition of feminism wrong or at least different from how I understand it as per the first-wave movement. While a lot of feminist doctrines and the actual feminist movements have focused on oppression of woman, due to it being omnipresent, and the influence of patriarchal ideals in society, feminism is the philosophy that advocates equality between both genders. The emphasis on personal choice comes from the idea of feminism not the other way around. Feminism, in a word, is equality. Read up on some of the first-wave feminists like Margaret Sanger, Susan B. Anthony, if you don't believe what I am saying.
Secondly, no - a feminist is not someone who both works and is a wife, or one who makes decisions purely about herself (although that is a factor of it) or career. A feminist, despite the name, is someone who believes that neither gender is superior than the other. You made an inference that she married Ron after she had a stable career ---> not included in actual text nor verified by Rowling. Actually it is, I'll hunt up the interview for you.
Yet again, you've fed words into my mouth. I wasn't implicating that a mother or wife is anti-feminist nor did I say Hermione was anti-feminist. You know what is anti-feminist? When mothers are the most prominent/sole caregivers to the child while the father is magically absolved of responsibility because he works. While it is not something I pretend to understand or even admire, it is great that woman are making the *choice* to stay at home but the fact that the father isn't showing the same amount of responsibility IS anti-feminist because there is an UNEQUAL distribution of child-rearing and domestic labour tasks. Not really. If someone chooses to stay home because they honestly enjoy bringing up their kids, the other has to work and bring in the money, or else how would the house run, and that person who works will have a less role in the children's lives because they are working all the time. It is something that cannot be helped. I've seen cases where the father stays home with the kids and the mother works, and both are content with their lives. One of them at least has to work if they want their household to survive, and it is inevitable that that person has less of a role in bringing up the kids. That is another reason why I think the Weasley household is anti-feminist despite being run by a female. Molly, presented through the stereotype of a shrew, shoulders a lot more responsibility of childrearing than Arthur. This leads me to postulate, given the Oedipal connotations in the text, that Hermione and Ron's household - despite her job - would not be that different either. Oh, ok. So if the woman stays home with the kids, it is anti-feminist but if the man does, it isn't. I get it now.🥱 Molly dared to make such a choice as to stay home so she is anti-feminist, and Arthur dared to work so he is as well.
So, marrying right out of high school makes someone anti-feminist? ... um How?... Why wasn't I sent this memorandum?
Based on the theory of feminism -- I would say that Twilight series as a whole are anti-feminist, even misogynistic, because there exists a gender inequality that is so pronounced that it induces nausea. Men in Twilight hold doctrates whereas women are discouraged from further education. Women who chose to become mothers are revered whereas those who don't turn into monsters because they must feel incomplete and unloved etc. Women in Twilight are passive (both sexually and otherwise): the man must make the first move.
Bindi
Udne Ki Aasha
Kyunki Saas Bhi Kabhi Bahu Thi 2
