feminishblog:

Reader Submission: Hermione Granger and the Failures of Feminism

“Hermione Granger is JK Rowling’s feminist presence in the Harry Potter series, and she is a triumph. Hermione is a wonderful feminist character: smarter than anyone, brave and shrewd and assertive and just. As a Muggle-born witch, Hermione faces marginalization because of her birth and sex, but her concern about oppression extends beyond her own experience. Chally Kacelnik at Bitch wrote that Hermione “cares about social justice, as particularly embodied in her commitment to house elf rights where most of the wizarding world wouldn’t think twice about their status”.

But Hermione is not just a reflection of the wonderful things about feminism. In her work on behalf of the equality of magical people, Hermione often flaunts her human privilege and unintentionally enforces the oppression of the house-elves, giants, goblins, trolls, andcentaurs she claims to support.  In Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix in particular, Hermione ignores or minimizes house-elf and non-human magical beings’ opinions and autonomy, though she claims to have their best interest at heart. With SPEW, Hermione participates in the grand feminist tradition of devaluing, disregarding and silencing oppressed classes while centering herself and her opinions on their marginalization…”

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Well, this certainly was an interesting piece of text. It was very obviously well-thought out, considered, researched, and reviewed. It made me consider and re-consider, like any good text would. However, I do have a few serious issues with the piece as a whole, or perhaps the author? No personal matter, but perhaps her tone, or how she chose to present or showcase certain things.

Let me first start by addressing the title. I find it to be an incredible poor choice, and I’m not sure if it’s purpose was too just have a little extra sting and zing, but not only do I believe it is a complete exaggeration of an I accuracy at that, it seems to undermine herself and The feminist character in question, Hermoine Granger.

At one point in the article the author writes, “Hermoine participates in the grand feminist tradition of devaluing, disregarding and silencing oppressed classes while centering herself and her opinion on their marginalization”. Wow. This was incredibly confusing to me, because my understanding is that the author is herself a feminist, not too mention she was praising Hermoine’s actions and attitude moment s before. Now, I don’t live in a rainbow up in the clouds; I know I’m not perfect; I know feminists (being human after all) are not perfect - and I’m not trying to say we are, or avoid self-criticism and reflection. But seriously, what the hell is that? Yikes. Upon first reading that portion of the text, and did a doube-take thinking I must have miss-read something or been confused Alas, I did not, and was not, which now does leave me in fact, very confused.

there are more than a few instances where privilege, inequality, and exploitation are discussed. I found a lot of the points to be interesting, but once again, the tone, and some of the logic seemed unapologetically accusatory and flawed. It was not once or twice I felt like this, but at least a doze times during my read-through of the text. The author seemed to question all, if not most, of Hermoine’s motives after unveiling that she at times thought perhaps in her own best interest before others, or felt compelled to take charge when perhaps she was out of turn. These may be flaws, but they are not slights of character.

The piece fails to address many of her fascinating strengths, what makes her such a rare and unique, intelligent and witty, strong and beautiful young feminist character that we so rarely have the luxury of seeing on the big screen.

Femininity, feminism, and female privilege.

alijandra:

ryking:

As a woman …

1. I have a much lower chance of being murdered than a man.

2. I have a much lower chance of being driven to successfully commit suicide than a man.

[…] [click for full post]

24. My role in my child’s life is generally seen as more important than the child’s father’s role.

— Female Privilege Checklist

Now let’s see how many so-called feminists dismiss this with “LOL! What about teh MENZ!” or accuse me of being a misogynist, or engage in sexist/misandrist attacks on me rather than engage the substance of the article, or even resort to all of the above.

This list’s main flaw is that reducing, as it does, a multi-dimensional issue down to a single side is not constructive — rather, it obscures the real issues and fails to contribute to their solution.

Actually, let’s talk about this list format for a minute. There are a number of these lists and probably enough scope for discussion to fuel a college course. What seems to be the most notable male-privilege list is here, at Alas! A Blog. It was inspired by a list of similar nature discussing white privilege.  The list under discussion now is a response/rebuttal which also adopts the list-approach. 

Also, note that not everyone agrees on how to use the word “privilege.” Unfortunately, this problem occurs perpetually with language and we must persist in our attempts to communicate in its spite. On the topic of language: I mostly intend to describe the experience of cisgender folks when I say “women” and “men” here because trans* people interact with and experience the same gender rules and roles in different and more complicated ways. I’m sorry to neglect your experience.

I wish specifically to discuss one list, the list which has been absorbed into, and is now circulating, tumblr (links above). I’m am attempting neither to confirm nor to refute the validity of the concept of “privilege” in the context of feminism (or the multiplicity of lists employing it). Just this list. Let’s get started.

Bullet numbers 4, 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, 18 and 19 all concern our perceptions of what is masculine vs. feminine:

4. I have probably been taught that it is acceptable to cry.

11. If I shy away from fights, it is unlikely that this will damage my standing in my peer group or call into question my worthiness as a sex partner.
12. I am not generally expected to be capable of violence. If I lack this capacity, this will generally not be seen as a damning personal deficiency.

14. If I attempt to hug a friend in joy, it’s much less likely that my friend will wonder about my sexuality or pull away in unease.
15. If I seek a hug in solace from a close friend, I’ll have much less concern about how my friend will interpret the gesture or whether my worthiness as a member of my gender will be called into question.
16. I generally am not compelled by the rules of my sex to wear emotional armor in interactions with most people.

18. I am allowed to wear clothes that signify ‘vulnerability’, ‘playful openness’, and ’softness’.
19. I am allowed to BE vulnerable, playful, and soft without calling my worthiness as a human being into question.

Traits like vulnerability and softness, and the display of emotion, are really what’s under attack here. They are considered weak, negative, inferior, and feminine. When a man displays emotion or admits weakness, he is exhibiting traditionally feminine traits and this is to his detriment. We (including myself) expect women (such as myself) to do this because women are already feminine by default — they have no masculinity to relinquish; their is no demotion. A woman who cries does not have her worthiness as a member of her gender questioned but she does have her status as a rational, strong person questioned — and this is questioned every day regardless, because she is a woman.

This is a good point to note that a woman who behaves more aggressively — in a more masculine manner, that is — is not considered more masculine and does not have her femininity called into question. She’s labeled a “bitch,” which is a very female-associated term.

The phrase “whether my worthiness as a member of my gender will be called into question” is very telling. Masculinity, it seems, is preferable, and must be earned. Much of homophobia (against gay men) is rooted here, which is why men must hesitate to be affectionate with one another. Many derogatory words for gay men highlight weakness and femininity — “pansy”, “nancy boy”. Gay men are considered inferior because their masculinity is suspect. It’s funny because you’ve gotta be tough to put up with that shit.

It’s interesting that it’s considered a privilege not to have your sexual orientation questioned. And by ‘interesting’ I mean ‘implicitly homophobic.’

Additionally, women tend not to have their orientation questioned by men because many men are unlikely to suspect or believe that women might prefer women. Among women, it’s lesbians who have their orientation questioned. Every. Freaking. Day.

This disrespect of vulnerability&c. hurts everyone — everyone who suppresses their feelings, everyone who can’t express themselves, everyone who does and is shamed for it, and everyone who wishes to have any kind of relationship with such a person. No one, regardless of gender, should be ashamed to experience or exhibit emotions.

You know what? It’s not easy to express yourself, it’s not easy to allow intimacy. It takes strength, not weakness. It takes strength and wisdom to understand yourself and to communicate that understanding.

If the concepts of weakness, emotion, softness and vulnerablity were uncoupled from femininity AND femininity uncoupled from inferiority, both sexes would reap the benefits. Let’s fight that fight that instead of quibbling about who has the short end of the stick.

That’s the important bulk of my argument, but I will address the remaining points below the cut (this statement only makes sense if you view this post from a tumblr dashboard).

PSA from @feministhulk:

Read More

[x]

Male and female characters are subject to different forms of characterization and they are exploited as plot devices in different ways. One overarching way is the active-male/passive-female dichotomy. Women are judged more by their passive attributes and men by their actions. Within that dynamic is a sub-dynamic in which women’s interior world of emotional reactions is expected to exert more of an influence on the actions of others than men’s interior world [is expected to exert].

— “Gender Dynamics Index”, tvtropes.org

Discussion question: Can anyone think of specific examples of how this does or does not apply to characters in the Potterverse? I’m interested in your thoughts & discussions on this.

It just occurred to me that since I am one of those people who draws I can, like, draw a picture of what Daniel Radcliffe would look like as a girl.