Come again?

[selenak]

You know, maybe it's just a coincidence, due to Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End and Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows being released/getting published with none too long a time span between them. But I noticed a disturbing phenomenon. No, not in the film and in the book. In the reaction of some fans. And it's starting not just to irritate me but freak me out.



It's the new definition of motherhood as a fate worse than death that seems to be en vogue. Seriously. Back before AWE got released, artaxastra wrote a kick ass post, "The Return of the Queen", in response to the reaction one spoiler got, to wit: "If Elizabeth has a baby she might as well be dead." As it turned out, this reaction multiplied once the film actually hit the screen, though thankfully not on a universal level. The fact that in a clip shown after the credits, Elizabeth Swann is shown with a child at her side ten years later, watching the Flying Dutchman with Will Turner reappear in it, was subject to endless wank. (And no, I'm not talking about the "does it count that the scriptwriters say Will is released from the curse after those ten years?" debate.) You could read post after post claiming Elizabeth's entire development as a character through three movies was negated by the fact she has a child, that from becoming not just a Pirate but the Pirate King she was reduced to "a housewife". Now the thought that Elizabeth gave up sailing through the decade between the last pre-credit scene and the post-credit clip never even occured to me, especially because the kid was there. She didn't have just herself to support, but a child. How would she do that? She can't claim her heritage from her father, because there's a death warrant on her head, and though Becket is dead, the warrant was actually issued for something she had done - helping a pirate escape - , and that's not counting her subsequent actions to which there were plenty of witnesses. And Will certainly won't be sending his salary from the Flying Dutchman any time soon. So I had no doubt that Elizabeth continued as a pirate, with the island as her base of operations, which makes sense, because it's the big pirate meeting place, and where she was elected king. That she did this while also raising a child? Made me love her all the more.

The idea that having a child "weakens" her as a character, that this makes her less Elizabeth instead of more so - I really can't understand this. I even find it faintly offensive. But not as offensive as some of the stuff I've read following the publication of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows.

First, you get complaints about Molly Weasley finishing off Bellatrix Lestrange, either because "this was supposed to be Neville's kill" or because Molly the mother and housewife defeating Bellatrix the Death Eater is supposedly unfeministic. Now, the Neville argument I don't agree with (Neville going "you tortured my parents, prepare to die" on Bellatrix might sound cool in theory, but see, one of the great things about Neville is that he's in this fight for the world at large, and when he kills Nagini, he does that for everyone, not for personal revenge), but it's absolutely a point one can raise, I have no problem with it. But I fail to see Bellatrix as even remotely feminist. She's an impressive villain... who outdoes Peter Pettigrew in bootlicking Voldemort and shows absolutely NO self respect in her complete subjugation to him. Meanwhile, through seven books, is there any doubt who rules the Weasley clan? Not Arthur, that's for sure. You can dislike Molly, if you like - she certainly has flaws (she jumps far too quickly to conclusions, see her reaction to Rita Skeeter's article about Hermione in book 4, or her reaction to Fleur in HBP, for example) - but how one can deny someone who managed to to raise seven children and keep even those complete anarchists, Fred and George, in line (when Hermione wants to stop the twins from using first years as experimental subjects, she threatens to tell their mother; not their father, their mother; and it works!) is a strong person beats me. What's more, Molly in Order of the Phoenix is shown to be one of the members of the original Order. She has fighting experience from the last war. Molly going after Bellatrix and defeating her? Was a splendid scene and I still feel like cheering when rereading it. So you can imagine how I feel about complaints that "Molly the baby machine" should not have either fought or won against Bellatrix.

Just a little less enraged than about posts that say the epilogue "reduces Hermione to another Weasley broodmare" or "shows Hermione and Ginny as baby machines". I don't care whether you like, dislike or hate the epilogue; whether it sank your ship, whether you feel you either wanted to know far more about the trio than that 19 years later, they're still around, still friends and have children, or didn't want to know anything at all. It's not even that two children in 19 years for Hermione and Ron and three children in nineteen years for Harry and Ginny (with the age of the oldest showing they waited at least six to eight years after the rest of the book) really do not qualify for imagery drawn from mechanical mass production. No, it's again, as with Elizabeth, the assumption that having a child - or in this case, children, plural, somewhow ruins a female character, makes her a lesser being, less interesting, that I find deeply offensive.

Just for the record: I don't have children. Considering I'm 38, chances are I won't have any in the future, either. But terms like "brood mare" or "baby machine" still hit me on a very personal level; I find them misogynistic, and the fact they seem to be used by other women (one can never be sure about gender on the internet, of course) makes me downright sick.

If you're saying you don't want every story about a female character to include a child: I get that. I love childless female characters as well as those who do have offspring, and I do want my characters to have the option, too. But if you call female characters with children deragatory names, you're not being feminist, you're being sexist. And you're making me disregard whatever other criticism you have about the text you're complaining about, no matter how valid it might be, because I'm too busy raging and clicking the hell away from your post.

Comments

[resolute.livejournal.com]

Well said.

[wee-warrior.livejournal.com]

I have to say that this part of the discussion honestly leaves me speechless. I haven't encountered this nonsense in Harry Potter myself (though I took notice of them through 12_12_12 and now your reactions), but I saw it in the glances I got of POTC discussion, and I kept wondering if those fans are incredibly young, and don't like it when characters get distanced from them by suddenly having children themselves and becoming by definition "adults." Given that the problem seems so wide-spread, however, it can hardly be that alone, so I fear it might be a gross misinterpretation of feminist ideals that condemns everything that remotely reeks of traditional roles without at least examining it.

I also can't help thinking that at least in case of the Weasleys, a good helping of social snobbery is involved, which equates poverty and a large number of children with low lives. In that vein, Molly beating the aristocratic and childless Bellatrix is of course doubly offensive, as she is just rabble.

[selenak.livejournal.com]

I saw it in the glances I got of POTC discussion, and I kept wondering if those fans are incredibly young, and don't like it when characters get distanced from them by suddenly having children themselves and becoming by definition "adults."

It might be in some cases; I'm a bit reminded of Joe Quesada vetoing Peter Parker having children because that would "age" Peter beyond any possible identification by teenage readers. However, as you say, that doesn't acount for posters whose lj info at least claims they're not teenagers anymore...

I also can't help thinking that at least in case of the Weasleys, a good helping of social snobbery is involved, which equates poverty and a large number of children with low lives. In that vein, Molly beating the aristocratic and childless Bellatrix is of course doubly offensive, as she is just rabble.

I suspect that is the case, though of course nobody would admit to such a prejudice and would pretend that wasn't their reason. But I do remember watching one of the film versions (CoS I think) and hearing people behind me saying how Molly was a "asoziale Zimtzicke", which...

[watervole.livejournal.com]

Hurrah!

To me, Molly was the natural person to take on Belletrix. We already know she's a skilled witch, but, as Harry said "You have to really mean it" And Fred was lying dead on that floor and the rest of her family was threatened.

As Kipling put it:

But the Woman that God gave him, every fibre of her frame
Proves her launched for one sole issue, armed and engined for the same;
And to serve that single issue, lest the generations fail,
The female of the species must be deadlier than the male.

I love strong female characters. The idea that children diminish them is a perception of society, but not of any intelligent individual. I KNOW I'm a stronger person than I was before I had kids.

[selenak.livejournal.com]

And Fred was lying dead on that floor and the rest of her family was threatened.

Oh yes. Enraged mama bear Molly was a force that nobody could have defeated at that moment, I felt. She had just sufferend a terrible loss and was fighting for her remaining children!


(BTW, I've heard the last line of your quote so often, but nobody ever told me it was from Kipling!)

[raincitygirl.livejournal.com]

ust for the record: I don't have children. Considering I'm 38, chances are I won't have any in the future, either. But terms like "brood mare" or "baby machine" still hit me on a very personal level; I find them misogynistic, and the fact they seem to be used by other women (one can never be sure about gender on the internet, of course) makes me downright sick.

If you're saying you don't want every story about a female character to include a child: I get that. I love childless female characters as well as those who do have offspring, and I do want my characters to have the option, too. But if you call female characters with children deragatory names, you're not being feminist, you're being sexist.

What you said. I'm afraid I have nothing more than bootlicking agreement, because, well, you're bloody right. Not being in PoC fandom, I didn't know about the other issue, but I can't say it surprises me TOO much.

[selenak.livejournal.com]

Now I'm wondering whether I missed something, because pre-PotC I hadn't noticed this phenomenon on such a massive scale. (As opposed to, say, the female character hatred if said character was seen as interfering with the pure love of two males.)

[syredronning.livejournal.com]

I know nothing about the Pirates of the Carribean, so no comment there.

As for the DH complaints, well, I think that was brought upon fandom by the epilogue in which KJR makes it SOUND as if all they all do IS having kids. Not a little word about work or any other achievements. I think nobody would have minded if they had families and a life, but the epilogue gives the impression that the children ARE all their life, and that's really cheap selling Ginny and especially Hermione, who was the brightest of them all. Though IMO it's not much better for the male characters, who are reduced to simple FATHER status. It's JKR who gives the impression that having family, children and follow tradition is the most important thing for them all. And that makes it sound so...old-fashioned. Enid Blyton would have gotten away with it - JKR shouldn't.

Bah. Thinking about this makes me dislike the epilogue more than I originally did.

[selenak.livejournal.com]

Considering that I read the epilogue and didn't get the impression, I disagree. It didn't show them at their profession, no. It showed them sending their children of to Hogwarts, which echoes the start of the story. It's not a situation in which I expect them to talk about their jobs. (Whereas if, say, Harry had met Hermione in a coffee shop somewhere in London, I would have expected a "so, how's work these days?" from both of them.) I saw the epilogue as the equivalent of Sam Gamgee's last scene in LotR: "Well, I'm back."

But as I said. Even if I disliked the epilogue, I still would feel offended not by JKR but by the fans who use such terms as "brood mare", and the implication that having a child is something bad. It disqualifies any poster for me just as if they were using racist epitaphs.

[kernezelda]

Absolutely. Hear, hear.

[danel4d.livejournal.com]

I'm in complete agreement; I really intend to do a piece about the epilogue of DH at some point soon. I can't help but feel that those who comment on the epilogue being sexist are revealing their own prejudices rather than JKR's - the assumption seems to be that unless given information to the contrary, women can be assumed to be housewives while men are dynamic breadwinners. While some criticism of the epilogue is totally valid, a lot of it seems to be based upon a misunderstanding of what an epilogue is - people seemed to be expecting more a series of appendices in which the fates of every character is revealed unto the fourth generation.

The Bellatrix vs. Molly thing really annoys me, as well. Your comments re: Neville have also given me food for thought - most people wanted Neville to get her for revenge, but Molly ends up killing her to protect her children... defending the future rather than avenging the past.

[selenak.livejournal.com]

Your comments re: Neville have also given me food for thought - most people wanted Neville to get her for revenge, but Molly ends up killing her to protect her children... defending the future rather than avenging the past.

Yes, and given that the whole climax of PoA is rather sledgehammer-like pointing out that revenge = bad idea, I'm not surprised that Neville was not the one to kill Bellatrix anyway. Neville facing Bellatrix in OotP was him facing the demon of his past; after that, I don't think he needed personal closure with her anymore. He had moved on and become the defender of Hogwarts instead.

[paratti.livejournal.com]

Great post.

I'm also wondering how especially other women don't get that sending the kids off to boarding school hundreds of miles away makes it easier for both Hermione and Ron and Ginny and Harry to do time-hungry demanding jobs.

[selenak.livejournal.com]

Good point. It occurs to me that maybe there is also a difference between English and not-English readers? (Lack of boarding school popularity outside of Britain.)

[sionnain.livejournal.com]

Well said. I don't have children, but having them doesn't make you weak. And Molly---has anyone ever watched a nature show? Have you seen mothers when their nests are threatened?? She lost brothers, her cousin, and her son to the war, do you think she can't fight back?

Very well said, and I agree completely. It's a disturbing trend.

[selenak.livejournal.com]

She lost brothers, her cousin, and her son to the war, do you think she can't fight back?

Exactly.

[leviathanmuse.livejournal.com]

I agree with you totally (and at my age I'm never having kids, so, I, too, am childless). I also have to agree with syredronning in that the epilogue does not highlight anything in their lives other than their children. She could have easily tossed a few lines about work life, etc. into the mix and I think I might have been a little less displeased by it. It's the same for all the characters, no matter what their gender. I mean, why not have Harry say something like "Don't be nasty to little Scorpius (still howling about the name), I've got to work with his father." type of thing?

I haven't heard any of this particular venting and I'm glad I haven't (I live under a rock, y'see). Motherhood certainily does not weaken a strong woman especially if they either have to go it alone like Elizabeth or have to handle them in a hard situation like near poverty.

And anyone who thought that Arthur wore the pants in the house definitely wasn't reading the same books I was.

[selenak.livejournal.com]

I mean, why not have Harry say something like "Don't be nasty to little Scorpius (still howling about the name), I've got to work with his father." type of thing?

See, that's the kind of epilogue criticism which works for me, and I agree, it could have been inserted without a problem. Though see my reply to S. why I also didn't miss it; I assumed that they were all working, plain and simple, because that was the default option for me.

[12-12-12.livejournal.com]

A truckload of WORD to this. You've really said it all for me--I haven't done much more than point, and laugh, and boggle with amazement the last few days, but yeah. Sometimes it does make me angry.

I agree with whomever it was who said that people pointing to the Epilogue and DH in general as "sexist" are revealing much more about themselves, and their own petty prejudices, than JKR's. Ugh. And as I mentioned in my review, I thought it was entirely appropriate, on multiple levels, that Molly killed Bellatrix. The unglamorous, overlooked woman who's often dismissed as "just a housewife" taking on the biggest, baddest Death Eater of them all? Hell yeah.

Meanwhile, through seven books, is there any doubt who rules the Weasley clan? Not Arthur, that's for sure.

And you know Ron is totally, totally whipped. And loving it.

[selenak.livejournal.com]

And you know Ron is totally, totally whipped. And loving it.

Absolutely. (Incidentally, I think the same goes for Bill with Fleur.) He fell in love with Hermione knowing full well how bossy she can be. Of course they'll always have disagreements, like any couple, and sometimes one will give in and sometimes the other, but I bet if you want to intimidate Rose and Hugo, you bring up Mom, too...

[skywaterblue.livejournal.com]

While I agree with you in general, I have to raise the traditional point that women are generally not considered 'complete' until they have become stay-at-home mothers. Particularly in America, where despite positive efforts to change that and the mass of women here in the workforce, it is still seen as the traditional happy ending. Motherhood completes a woman. Staying at home with the kids is the best choice, and a woman is not a good mother unless she makes the Best Choices for her children. Ad nauseum.

So when the last scene of ATWE came on and showed Elizabeth, alone, with her little boy, the natural assumption of filling in the gaps for me was not 'oh hey, she's been a tough working single mother for ten years, go her!' but 'aw, she settled down and had a kid and a husband.' Simply because that is usually how you are supposed to read the ending in America.

I can't say much about the Potter epilogue. I read it in Carpetbook, and to be honest, my first thought was that that sort of ending no doubt appeals to a formerly single woman who spent most of her life struggling to raise her kids above the poverty line. No surprise, because the series has always had that accusation of middle class, heteronormative values. I'm not sure what else people expected. Would have been nice if the epilogue had been more expansive than that, including jobs, or the wizarding world becoming less of a secret, but no. Not so much.

In any case, I agree with your points that we shouldn't rag on such endings, but unfortunately that is going to be the predominant reading, especially with such sketchy material. (The epilogue is what, 3 pages? The end clip is a minute. No time to put in Elizabeth's illustrious attempts at reforming Pirate Law and Hermione's on-going struggle to end the slavery of sentient beings in the Wizard World.)

[yahtzee63.livejournal.com]

It's only the predominant reading if we let it be. We can take things however we choose -- I mean, slash goggles, hello? Fandom is GREAT at taking small points in canon and coming up with the reading that gives us joy; why can't we do it to give women credit and power, particularly when it's not such a huge stretch?

[yahtzee63.livejournal.com]

Very well said. The amount of hatred heaped upon female characters for doing anything maternal (or, for that matter, sometimes just doing anything) boggles me and really weakens my idea of fandom as a kind of female space. If we can't have broader viewpoints here, what hope is there?

[londonkds.livejournal.com]

I agree with you about the general issue of disgust at characters becoming mothers. I think, though, that some of the hostility over the PotC case might be that the films throw out enough hard historical realism that it seems a bit nasty to show Elisabeth becoming pregnant through a single night with Will. I do think that reliable contraception and the existence of a stage for self-exploration between the literal periods as Maiden and Mother are an important part of female liberation.

And the "curse is broken if she's there after ten years" makes it worse. I'm really in self-sacrificial-Morden-style "NOT IN MY F***ING CANON" territory when it comes to that, because I think it goes too far in the direction of putting the moral responsibility for the Jones horrowshow on Calypso for being a slapper, instead of him for reacting to being dumped by going on a centuries-long killing spree...

[selenak.livejournal.com]

And the "curse is broken if she's there after ten years" makes it worse.

Ah, but that, while clearly inspired by the Wagnerian version of the Dutchman legend, is not on screen. Now we know the scriptwriters intended it to be because they said so interviews afterwards, but still, it's not on screen. On screen, we never hear about the curse being broken at all, so I don't think all the "Elizabeth as a mother is the end of the character!" complaints can be justified by this. Canon is only what is on screen/on the page. Anything additional is something you can take or leave at your leisure.

because I think it goes too far in the direction of putting the moral responsibility for the Jones horrowshow on Calypso for being a slapper, instead of him for reacting to being dumped by going on a centuries-long killing spree...

Same as above, though if you do want to take interviews into account, than you also have to take into account T&T said that Jones has himself to blame for that, his own reaction. If Elizabeth had not been there, they continued, Will still would have continued as a good man, as opposed to Davy Jones.

...but to reiterate: whatever they intended, on screen we only hear Calypso wasn't there the first time they were supposed to meet; we do NOT hear this was supposed to have ended Jones' term as the Flying Dutchman. Ditto for Will and Elizabeth.

[artaxastra.livejournal.com]

You know I agree with you verse and letter!

The thing I don't get about the criticism of the epilogue is that people don't seem to understand what an epilogue does, either in the epilogue scene in PotC or in Deathly Hallows. It's not supposed to tell us everything that's happened in the intervening years, but to clarify one important point. It's not a brain dump.

We don't know what Hermione is doing in terms of a career -- but we don't know what Harry, Ron or Draco is doing either. That's not the point. She doesn't show us Percy's future or who the current Minister of Magic is, or whether McGonagall is still Headmistress, etc. because it's not the point. The point is that Harry has a family, and Voldemort is really gone this time, never to return.

In PotC, the epilogue doesn't show us what Barbossa's doing now, or where Jack is or whatever happened to Ragetti and Pintel, because that's not the point. The point is to show that Will and Elizabeth have both remembered to meet on that day as they promised, and that Will is not going to be fishified like Davy Jones.

I don't think this is a problem with epilogues -- I think it's a problem with readers/viewers wanting to assume that the things they see are the entirety of the characters' lives. If Hermione is on Platform 9 3/4 with her kids to see them off to school, obviously she does nothing else with her life.

[sionnain.livejournal.com]

I have told you lately that I <3 you, right? Because I do. <333333

[elz.livejournal.com]

Amen! I think Bellatrix Lestrange as feminist icon qualifies as an extremely radical interpretation of the text. And yes, it would be nice to see the occasional character for whom marriage and parenthood isn't the only possible happy ending, but it's not like there's anything wrong with the idea that mothers can be complex, kickass characters (and vice versa). If *no* smart, talented women wanted to pass along their genes, we'd be in a lot of trouble, and I hardly see that as one of the goals of feminism.

[sionnain.livejournal.com]

Yay! *claps for you* I like how you've said this. Word.

[likeadeuce.livejournal.com]

Yes yes! I've managed to avoid these posts, but I've heard second-hand that people are being derogatory about Tonks and Molly, and I don't suppose the criticism of Ginny and Hermione surprises me, either. There are some things about this aspect of Harry Potter fandom that make this reaction particularly baffling. These are books that were primarily -- at least, originally -- aimed at young adults. These are stories that were begun by a mother who was telling them to her children. (I mean, if Elizabeth and Molly suck, how much more does JK Rowling suck? She was never even a pirate king or a witch who fought Voldemort!) Why in the world should it surprise anybody that the finale of the series is unabashedly pro-Motherhood -- not overly sentimentalizing the relationship, at least not relative to a lot of writing about mothers and children, but treating motherhood as a powerful, dynamic force.

It occurred to me, recently, when I was talking about the series to a friend who has sons within the Hogwarts age group, that parents of teens are a large part of the audience that JKR is writing for; I know if I were a mother I'd be refreshed to read this series rather than one of the (many) where mothers are inexplicably absent.

[sionnain.livejournal.com]

Oh, that's a very good point.

I think it is so very dangerous to take two things--women being mothers, and women being career-oriented--and villainze one of them. BOTH choices are fine, both are acceptable, and both bring their own rewards. Sometimes, fandom, it's OKAY to be straight, married, middle-class and have kids. No, it's not the ONLY ACCEPTABLE way to be. But that doesn't make it inherently wrong.

I don't think anyone should be made to feel ashamed of how they live their lives.

Oh, don't get me started.

[alara-r.livejournal.com]

I was having a discussion somewhere or another where a woman talked about how enraged she was when Honor Harrington had a child in the eleventh book of the Honor Harrington series. I've never read the series, but apparently Honor is an admiral and also a noblewoman with lands and a requirement to produce an heir, who's in a relationship with two men at once. And they were enraged because after years of being a spy, and a soldier, and a leader of soldiers, Honor has a kid and so this reduces her to a walking uterus, so they were infuriated and refuse to read the rest of the series. The character has been ruined because she became a mother.

I read a detailed synopsis on Amazon. Apparently the issue of Honor needing to have a kid because she must have an heir has existed for several books, so if they couldn't see this coming, it's because they had "mothers are icky" blinders on. And Honor dumps the baby into a uterine replicator so that she can lead her fleet into battle without risking her child's life. This resembles being a walking uterus how?

It's like these people cannot see any way to imagine that being a mother does not degrade and damage a woman. And this is because there is enormous, ENORMOUS, cultural emphasis on the idea that becoming a mother negates a woman's personhood; that once a mother, she is only a mother, and lives entirely for her children. The larger culture insists that this is a good thing; women who have been brainwashed by the larger culture into taking the central premise as true, but who don't want kids and fear the loss of themselves, are often all too quick to assume that yes it *is* true that motherhood destroys a woman's personality, even as they say that this is a bad thing and they reject the cultural insistence that it's great. It's like they took one step toward feminism but couldn't make the final leap -- the idea that you can be human *and* a mother is as alien to these people as it is to conservabots, but the difference is the conservabots think it's a good thing for women to stop being people because they never really thought women were people in the first place, whereas the mother-despising childfree at least figured out that it's important to maintain their sense of selfhood, but haven't figured out that the part about women ceasing to be people when they reproduce is just as much a lie as the part about it being great to lose your identity.

The only way to counter this, of course is to do exactly what they don't want to see -- fill the culture with images of strong, powerful women who are mothers. For this reason I am not interested in seeing strong, powerful childfree women anymore in fiction. Yeah, yeah, the decision to not have kids is an important one that our culture does pressure you against, but the idea that you can be important and powerful and still have children is even more alien than the idea that you can choose not to have kids. Every time we see a strong mature woman (ie, in her 40's, 50's or older) who does not have children, and is powerful, it reinforces the meme that to be a powerful woman you must not have kids. I want to see *more* mothers kicking ass, not fewer. (I don't mind presenting a few childfree mature women in a story if there are a large number of mature mothers who are powerful, but if there are very few mature women at all, I want them to be mothers. Because we don't get to see mothers being people, and powerful people, as often as we get to see women choosing not to have kids so they can be powerful.)

Oh, just so I'm clear

[alara-r.livejournal.com]

When I say "mother-despising childfree" I don't mean to say that all childfree women despise mothers, not at all. I am qualifying the condition of being childfree with the added condition of despising mothers. I believe very strongly that women should make whatever reproductive choices work for them, and that if they don't want kids they shouldn't have them, and I am very much against pressuring women to have children or acting as if women who don't have kids are incomplete. But the people who despise women for having children are, if not male, mostly childfree women themselves (I imagine few mothers despise female characters for being mothers.) Those are the specific people I'm talking about, not every woman who would rather not have kids.

[faroutgal.livejournal.com]

After reading this, the image of Aeryn Sun, baby strapped to her body and guns loaded came to mind (blame "Scorpius" Malfoy). I remember thinking, "now she's really dangerous" :)

I loved the scene of Molly, who really meant that killing curse, protecting her daughter and those she loved. It felt very real to me. The class issue (between Molly and Bellatrix) is a fascinating point that one of your commentators raised and I can see it being an issue (an unconscious one) for some.

Americans like to talk about a reverence for motherhood, but in reality, the minute you become one, you are looked down upon for making this choice, particularly if you stay home. These commentators assume Ginny and Hermione and Elizabeth do not work and therefore they are somehow less. Just like non paid working mothers in real life. Their adventure has ended. Yes, its very antifeminist and very revealing

I wonder if non-americans feel differently.

I also suspect that these commentators are under 25 and therefore can't quite imagine having children or even being 37 years old (which they all are in the epilogue). I know I couldn't at the time :)

For the record, I'm 43 and have 2 children.

BTW - Another word that I loathe and someone once called me was "breeder".

[queenofthorns.livejournal.com]

After reading this, the image of Aeryn Sun, baby strapped to her body and guns loaded came to mind (blame "Scorpius" Malfoy). I remember thinking, "now she's really dangerous" :)


Man, I totally forgot about that, but yes, does ANYONE think Aeryn is not both a mother and a kickass person? I don't think so!

These commentators assume Ginny and Hermione and Elizabeth do not work and therefore they are somehow less.

Indeed! And there's absolutely nothing in the text (at least HP, I haven't seen POTC) that suggests anything of the kind. (And even if they DID stop working, as long as that was THEIR choice, I don't see how it's "feminist" to despise them for it.)

[shezan.livejournal.com]

Word, son of word, daughter of word, and all the little word kiddies.

[queenofthorns.livejournal.com]

It's the new definition of motherhood as a fate worse than death that seems to be en vogue.... if you call female characters with children deragatory names, you're not being feminist, you're being sexist....

OMG, THANK YOU FOR THIS RANT!!! I've been increasingly incensed by the same kinds of posts that I've seen post-DH (both the Molly Weasley-related ones and the Hermione and Ginny-related ones) - I thought I was just extra-sensitive about this issue because I'm expecting my first, but yes, I TOTALLY agree that it's incredibly NOT feminist to dismiss women with children as "breeders" or argue that they've somehow been "reduced" because they have kids. Ugh!

[faroutgal.livejournal.com]

Congratulations!

I was constantly outraged when I was pregnant with my first child. Its one thing to read about issues related to motherhood, personhood, my body, my choice. Quite another to actually live it.

BTW - The correct response to the person who tells you that you shouldn't be having, well, take your pick of anything, in my case it was an afternoon coffee is:

"oh, this, it helps counteract my 6:00 vodka"

or

"bite me"

Enjoy!

[aycheb.livejournal.com]

Bellatrix Lestrange is a feminist icon? Her and Unity Mitford both then.

There are criticisms to be made of the Harry Potter books but one thing this last one in particular did extremely well was provide not one or two ‘kickass’ female characters but a great and diverse range from Molly to McGonagal and from Hermoine to Luna. In a series that’s as popular with boys as with girls I think that’s something to be celebrated.

Excellent and timely post.

[selenak.livejournal.com]

Bellatrix Lestrange is a feminist icon? Her and Unity Mitford both then.

OT, I think it was legionseagle who first pointed out that the Mitford sisters were obvious precedents for the Black sisters. Untiy = Bellatrix and Decca = Andromeda is clear, but Narcissa? Diana or Debo? (Can't be Nancy the novelist.)

one thing this last one in particular did extremely well was provide not one or two ‘kickass’ female characters but a great and diverse range from Molly to McGonagal and from Hermoine to Luna. In a series that’s as popular with boys as with girls I think that’s something to be celebrated.

Absolutely. We don't just have one or two girls and the rest all boys/men, we have many interesting female characters, and I wish I had had more books like that to read when I was a girl.

[ffutures.livejournal.com]

Stuff like that makes me very glad I steer clear of the HP fangroups.

[harmonyangel.livejournal.com]

I haven't actually read all of DH yet, but I have read the epilogue (and lots of spoilers), and any problems I had with it came from what I saw as poor writing (So many children named without any identifying details! Confusing, rushed pacing! Lack of concrete detail!), rather than the actual content. I really, really don't understand fandom's reaction that you've described, especially to Molly - my own mother is a lot like Molly, and she's one of the strongest people I've ever met. No one would ever dare call her anti-feminist. And it just sort of boggles me, because... don't we all have mothers? Doesn't the human race have to, you know, reproduce? A mother isn't all that a woman can, or should, be, but if no one was having babies the human race would die out pretty damn quickly. Clearly motherhood is pretty damn important for society, and to disdainfully condemn it simply because of the historical implications of the women's sphere is just idiotic. Isn't feminism about being able to choose what you want to do with your life, be that having babies or having a career or both?

Fandom is silly.

[sionnain.livejournal.com]

Reason 4563085630445 I adore you, Jen. <3

[honorh.livejournal.com]

THANK YOU! For God's sake, having a child is not the end of a woman's kick-butt days. It's offensive to imply, let alone state outright, that a woman who has a child somehow loses whatever qualities made her interesting and/or kick-butt. No, a kickass woman who has a baby becomes a kickass woman with a child.

I can't believe people can make these statements and consider themselves feminists. Jackie Tyler would like a word with them.