HBP Chapter Fourteen: "Felix Felicis"

[for-diddled.livejournal.com]

* First up, I’m not sure what the name “felix felicis” is about. It’s Latin for “happy of happy”, but that makes no sense whatsoever. If I were in a particularly cynical mood, I might suggest she looked up happy in a Latin dictionary, found felix felicis, and didn’t realise that the second word was just the genitive singular of the first.

* Ron correctly points out that Harry’s lessons with Dumbledore aren’t actually teaching him anything useful, although once again we’re probably expected to judge him for his lack of blind faith in whatever his superiors say ought to be done.

* Hermione’s defence, that the lessons help to find out Voldemort’s weaknesses, might be more convincing if Harry ever actually uses something from Voldemort’s childhood against him.

* I’m not sure why Harry’s so averse to attending Slug Club meetings. Yeah, Slughorn’s a bit obsequious, but not so bad as to justify Potter’s constant attempts to avoid him.

* This scene perfectly captures Ron and Hermione’s dynamic: Ron sneers at Hermione for being better than him, and Hermione puts Ron down and makes him feel jealous. If this is JKR’s idea of romance, I’d hate to be her husband.

* Still, at least Harry’s got his priorities right: how will he be affected if they start going out?

* “Under the influence of Butterbeer” makes it sound like an alcoholic drink, but I’m pretty sure we’ve seen no-one (or at least no-one human) get drunk off it before, and there’s never been any indication of an age limit for drinking it. Oh dear, continuity.

* Seamus slams his books and looks sour when Dean gets a place on the team instead of him. For all that fandom has Slytherins down as the Hogwarts drama queens, I think that Gryffindors are definitely the most stroppy.

* I can’t imagine where the rest of Gryffindor house gets the idea that Harry plays favourites from. Except perhaps from the fact that he chose his best friend Ron two years in a row, despite the fact that Ron always goes to pieces whenever there’s a game on. Perhaps that has something to do with it.

* Still, it’s a pity JKR had to resurrect nervouskeeper!Ron. Not only was it tedious enough in the last book, its inclusion here just makes the Quidditch scenes in Phoenix seem even more pointless, and Ron even more needlessly pathetic.

* Ginny, of course, looks even better than usual in this scene: not only does she score most of the goals against Ron (which is probably meant to increase his emasculation – even his little sister is better than him), but she also makes Harry laugh with her sassy put-downs. When she and Harry get married they can both bond over their mutual enjoyment of other people’s discomfort.

* And… here comes the chest monster! Honestly, Harry and his chest monster must be the second-worst romance I’ve ever read (the first, of course, is Ron and Hermione).

* We know Ginny’s going to be awesome in this scene when she begins by “tossing her long red hair and glaring at Ron”. Somebody kill me now.

* What’s with all this “let’s get this straight once and for all” business? Ginny’s choice of words seems to imply that Ron keeps prying into her love life, but we’ve never been given any indication that this is the case.

* I presume the thing Ron doesn’t want people calling Ginny is “slut”? I wish they would. Not because I think it’s true, but because Ginny’s just so irritating that anything which would annoy her is OK by me.

* Ginny has a go at Ron for not having enough experience. Because obviously, modern society isn’t nearly sexualised enough, we need a series of popular books telling children that anybody who hasn’t had enough sexual experience is pathetic.

* Man, Ginny’s just a total bitch in this scene. Yes, Ron was rude to her, but her response is really disproportionate and uncalled-for.

* It’s odd, but Ginny seems to get most worked up about the way Ron tries to get Fleur’s attention. She sounds rather like a spurned lover here. Hmm, maybe all that Weasleycest fic isn’t quite so out there as I’d assumed.

* No, Harry, don’t stop Ron from cursing her! Let Ginny get zapped for once!

* So Ginny flounces off, leaving Ron behind. I suppose he should count himself lucky she didn’t whip out her wand and perform a super-sassy Bat-Bogey Hex on him.

* “She’s Ron’s sister, Harry told himself firmly. Ron’s sister. She’s out of bounds.” Even though Ron practically threw her at him at the end of the last book. Plot-induced amnesia strikes again.

* Harry feels “dazed and confused” the next morning. So do I, after trying to make sense of this book.

* Hermione’s feeling “hurt and bewildered” by Ron’s “icy, sneering indifference”. If this was a semi-believable book, I’d say that Ron had finally had enough of Hermione’s constant passive aggressiveness and undermining, but as it is I think we’re supposed to assume he’s just upset at finding out Hermione had snogged Krum two years ago.

* Incidentally, why is this supposed to be such a big and shocking revelation? Surely when two teenagers go out, the natural assumption is that they’ll end up snogging?

* Luckily for Ron, he’s got no need to worry: Hermione’s just getting her necessary practice in to hone her technique for her true man.

* FOR GOD’S SAKE ROWLING SHUT UP ABOUT THAT SODDING BAT-BOGEY HEX GINNY IS COOL AND SASSY WE GET IT ALREADY STOP RAMMING IT DOWN OUR THROATS AAARGH… *takes deep breaths*

* Lavender’s trying to make Ron feel better. Keep away from him, you hussy! Ron doesn’t need a nice, friendly girlfriend, he needs a scornful and contemptuous one to keep him down in his rightful place.

* Well, at least the Slytherins are sensible enough to have substitute players.

* Harry gets his hand crushed by the Slytherin captain, and I seem to recall Flint used to do the same thing to Oliver Wood. Is hand-crushing a typical Slytherin trait then? Maybe all their parents told them about the importance of a good firm handshake, and they just take it a bit too far.

* Harry dislikes Zacharias heartily… presumably because he can just sense the latent evil in the boy, even though he hasn’t done anything yet which would merit such dislike. If anything, surely Harry ought to feel friendly towards a fellow DA member?

* Ginny scores four of Gryffindor’s six goals. Colour me shocked.

* The game goes pretty much unremarkably: Gryffindor score a few goals, and then Harry’s broom wins the game, rendering everything which came before totally pointless.

* “Oi, Harper! How much did Malfoy pay you to make you come on instead of him?” I’d say that distracting an opposing seeker like this was a very Slytherin thing to do, were it not for the fact that we hardly ever see Slytherins actually doing cunning and sneaky things like this.

* Not that playing on superior brooms and deliberately psyching out opponents makes the Gryffindors any less chivalrous, you understand.

* Ginny flies into Zach for his insufficiently fawning commentary, placing the crowning turd on the mountain of raw sewage that is this Quidditch game.

* “I never said you couldn’t [save goals]!” No, Hermione, you just implied it really, really strongly, such that nobody could miss that that was what you were thinking.

* Ron “looks like he’s eating [Lavender’s face],” unlike Ginny, who daintily glues herself to her boyfriend’s mouth.

* Unfortunately Ginny’s probably right: most first romances in these books seem to be for people to “refine their technique” before moving on to their true love.

* Hermione seems rather surprised that Ron got tired of her hectoring and decided to hook up with somebody who actually respects him instead. Maybe she’s been getting all her dating advice from The Game or whatever the wizarding equivalent is.

Comments

[oryx_leucoryx]

So you are going to insult his mother for his misbehavior? I want to do away with language that always somehow puts the blame and the shame on women, if you don't mind.

[condwiramurs.livejournal.com]

I think what oryx is getting at is that the insulting nature of the word derives from it having been socially unacceptable for his mother to be unwed/not married to the father, not from any personal bias on oryx's part. That is, it's only an insult because of the mother's status in *society's* eyes. And yes society, not so long ago, did assume that the woman was tainted/at fault in the above scenarios because misogyny. I think it's unfair to accuse *oryx* of believing those things, when it's the broader social context of the word that is at issue.

[malic-ba.livejournal.com]

What condwiramurs said. Even though the word is now used more generally to indicate selfish behaviour, as you used it marionros, and we aren't so hung up on 'wedlock' and see that the examples you gave aren't the woman's fault, the reason it is an insult is due to society's past condemnation of the parents, mainly the mother, and not the behaviour of the boy. Oryx was pointing that out, not buying into it.

It's pretty telling that we don't have an insult for male promiscuity that has the baggage of 'slut'.

I wouldn't be surprised if that *was* the word in Ron's head. He's pretty unreconstructed. But much as I loathe Ginny (if she is actually using Dean to make Harry jealous, that's despicable), I think using that word would be way out of line. The whole 'slut-shaming' thing is buying right back into the double standard in a very ugly way and has to stop.

[malic-ba.livejournal.com]

Well I think we'll have to disagree, then. Words have a lot of baggage associated with them whether we mean to use them that way or not. I consider myself pretty laid back about this generally, I have no problem about gendered language as a rule, but 'slut' is a really extreme example. Let's face it, 'bastard' has changed usage now, but 'slut' hasn't.

Just to make it clear, I understand that you and for_diddled aren't making horrible sexist comments (and I agree with the OP's feelings on Ginny!) and I'm not accusing anyone of horrible sexist attitudes. I just believe that that is one word we should stay away from.

[oryx_leucoryx]

Gendered insults are being used in society to shut women up, to keep them in 'their place' etc. Slut-shaming is used to delegitimize women pursuing sexual expression as well as to shame women who were harmed sexually by others. The word 'bitch' is used to shut up women who are standing up for themselves. I think it is better to express criticism and disapproval of a woman's behavior by words that don't make her gender part of what is being criticized.

[condwiramurs.livejournal.com]

I agree with this. It's not about intent or what sort of person the one using the word is. It's about not using the words anymore because they hurt people regardless of intent.

[borg-princess.livejournal.com]

ITA, imo, intent is meaningless - the person giving offense doesn't get to decide whether the term is offensive, it's enough that another person was hurt by it.

[annoni-no.livejournal.com]

Definitely. Intent != magic. That being said, I don't think judging the acceptability of a comment purely on whether the other person is hurt by it is appropriate either. For example, if someone believes that blacks are just naturally lazy, less intelligent, and more belligerent than whites, but we shouldn't hold it against them because it's their fault, then that person is racist. They need to be called out on that fact even though most people would take great offense at such an accusation. It should also be noted that such beliefs do not make them a bad person per se. They may be unbelievably kind and lovely and generous and always try to see the best in everyone. But they do have incredibly harmful and misguided views about the world and the people around them, and these have to be called out, no matter how painful it is, otherwise the issues fester beneath the surface of false civility and the rot continues to spread. It's the same with calling out sexism and the various other -isms in our culture.

Where language becomes harmful is when it is 1) lies and slander, or 2) used to reinforce the marginalization and dehumanization of already disenfranchised groups, such as women, people of color, the disabled, etc.... Slut-shaming unambiguously falls under the latter category.

[600ants.livejournal.com]

That's like saying it was words like "negro" what held black people in slavery. The double standars go right back to Adam, Eve and their apple, and were introduced and reinforced, surprise, surprise, by church. People calling one another this or that seriously wouldn't be enough.

[oryx_leucoryx]

Othering, dehumanizing words did not create the inequality, but they perpetuate it. That you think they lack the power to do so indicates unchecked privilege on your part. Are you not familiar with 'bitches ain't shit'? Over the last two years on the internet I have seen again and again instances of misogynistic language being used in attempt to shut women up for calling out male-majority sub-cultures for their sexist environment - the online atheist community, the gamer community, assorted fandoms, and even professional philosophers. Enough already!

[600ants.livejournal.com]

I quite agree with you. Except it might be the woman's own decision to become a single mother, and there's still nothing wrong with that.

From where I stand, you are also very right about oryx_leucoryx's assumptions regarding the word bastard, s/he nicely fell into hir own trap, if I may say so. It's as obvious as the light of the day that some people are just hypocrites.

Personally I've no idea what the fuss is supposed to be about. If some people think gender-specified insults are worse than "neutral" insults, they seriously need to reconsider their relationship to "gender". I have no problem with men or women, therefore I have no problem with male or female insults, and don't consider one to be worse than the other. What's the difference between calling a woman bitch and a man dick? Unless you think there's this vast difference between men and women, and calling anyone (esp. a woman) anything female is insulting by default.

Off the top of my head, Lupin has been called a wimp (= not macho enough by someone's standards, a clearly sexist insult) more than one time, and I didn't notice people rallying to his defense. Just like racism, sexism go both ways. Some people would do well to remember it. (Obviously I agree that Lupin IS a flaming wimp, lol, but I'm not the one who whines about every little word.)

[oryx_leucoryx]

Wimp is sexist? I thought it was the gender-neutral equivalent of sissy and pussy. And encompasses more than simply coward.

Racism and sexism sort of go both ways, but when one side is more privileged in society than the other(s) the two ways are not equal in weight and impact.

[600ants.livejournal.com]

People don't usually hold the lack of balls against a woman, do they? :-) I know technically the word is neutral and can be used on anyone, but I couldn't think of another example at that moment, and let's face it, you really rarely see a woman insulted as a "weakling". (Outside HP I mean. :p) And anyway, you know very well what I meant. :-) That even around here some groups of people enjoy more protection than other groups.

As in you're white, so what are you complaining about? I don't believe in this. Equality for everyone.

[oryx_leucoryx]

As I suspected, the word 'wimp' is not sexist and has nothing to do with having or lacking balls. It may have had racist origins, but this isn't clear.

Wiktionary gives the following etymology:
Contraction of "whimper", a sound a wimp might make. The term is rumored to have come from "Wimps", a group of French Roma who were kicked out of France, then moved to England and were kicked out again, then moved to the United States. The term was understood in the United States by the 1930s, as it was incorporated into the names of two famous media characters known for living up to that name: The devious but cowardly Popeye supporting character called "J. Wellington Wimpy", and the soft-spoken character "Wallace Wimple" from the radio show Fibber McGee and Molly.

The discussion about Teddy's paternity had me confused for several rounds, I must admit. When I finally caught on I should have said something.

At this point I'll quote Pratchett:
Lord Vetinari seldom had balls. There was a popular song about it, in fact. But now it
was going to be balls all the way.
--Guards! Guards!


As for equality, when people are starting from unequal positions there can't be equality without first leveling the field. A racist comment against a white person is bad, but it doesn't have the impact of the ever-present oppression that many black people experience.

[600ants.livejournal.com]

As with "bastard", I recommend you consult reality. "Slut" used to mean "slovenly", too. In retrospect, I should have used THAT as my argument. :)

I suppose I could parrot you a bit and say that despite it technically being neutral, in our macho-crazed (lol!) society men will be more offended by this word than women, but I simply don't believe sexist sh*t.

All people start from the womb, seems pretty equal to me.
Since when are YOU the judge of that impact?!
We're not all living in America, you know. There's one nation that used to be rather racist in history indeed, but there has never been black slavery in the whole of Europe, Australia and most of Asia, for example. I get it that it's the fashion these days for Americans to whip themselves for something that ended 150 years ago, but kindly don't blame the whole race for some select people's failures.
Perhaps black people are "constantly opressed" where you live (my guess being the USA), but other countries do NOT and never did tolerate racism in any shape or form, and you have no right to imply the opposite. There are, on the other hand, places where white people are discriminated and treated different because of their color. But I don't suppose that would fit into your narrow worldview.

I wonder if you've ever been subject (or indeed witness) to some sort of actual discrimination, or if you just really enjoy fighting windmills.

[annoni-no.livejournal.com]

We're not all living in America, you know. There's one nation that used to be rather racist in history indeed, but there has never been black slavery in the whole of Europe, Australia and most of Asia, for example. I get it that it's the fashion these days for Americans to whip themselves for something that ended 150 years ago, but kindly don't blame the whole race for some select people's failures.

Quoi? Did you conveniently forget that it was theEuropean colonial powers (Portugal, Spain, Great Britain, etc...) who were the primary drivers of the Atlantic Slave Trade? American slavers placed very low on that list in terms of raw volume of slaves trafficked. At the time of the industrial revolution slavery was ~5% of Great Britain's GDP. There's a long history of African slaves in India (which is part of Asia), and even rumors of African slaves in Japan. Australia might not have a significant history African enslavement per se (though it was also a colony of Great Britain), but there was widespread enslavement of Pacific Islanders, also People of Color.

This took me all of 5 minutes to google. It's not hard.

Perhaps black people are "constantly opressed" where you live (my guess being the USA), but other countries do NOT and never did tolerate racism in any shape or form, and you have no right to imply the opposite.

Which countries are these? Name names, please. Because quite frankly I doubt you can come up with a single one completely free of racism and discrimination. The ascendant Golden Dawn party in Greece is a neo-Nazi group with a plank of racial purity. There are widespread problems of discrimination in hiring and wages throughout the Western hemisphere at large - against Muslims in France, people of African and Afro-Caribbean descent in Britain, etc....

In the US a white man convicted of a felony has an equal chance of gaining employment as a black man with no criminal record whatsoever when all other qualifications are held equal. And this is somehow not indicative of a racist society? Racism ended with The Civil War 150 years ago, we have nothing more to address? Evidence, please.

There are, on the other hand, places where white people are discriminated and treated different because of their color. But I don't suppose that would fit into your narrow worldview.

When did anyone here ever say there weren't? Discrimination is wrong regardless of who's on the receiving end, but the fact remains that in the Western world (where most contributors here are from) whites are not discriminated against in any meaningful way, while people of color and other marginalized groups, such as women and the disabled are. Using language that relies on those power imbalances for its meaning (insult) contributes to that societal oppression.

I wonder if you've ever been subject (or indeed witness) to some sort of actual discrimination, or if you just really enjoy fighting windmills.

Why do I need to experience something personally to know its wrong and harmful? There have been many, many studies showing that racism, sexism, etc... are real and inflict real harm on real people. There are thousands, millions of people sharing their stories of pain and discrimination in every country, in every venue. Where are you that you've never seen this?

Since when are YOU the judge of that impact?!
Since when are you?

[malic-ba.livejournal.com]

I've got a feeling this is pointless, but I have to say something anyway.

Europe and Australia ban racism now, but have horribly racist pasts.

I am Australian. In my home state, Aboriginal people were forced off their land into controlled settlements and forced to work for free (their wages stolen by the government) until the 1970s, and what is that if not slavery? That is a well documented fact which the government does not dispute. Aboriginal people did not have freedom of movement, let alone the vote, within living memory. Then there were the massacres and dispossession during colonisation - while there are arguments about the details like just how many people the overall picture is indisputable. For other examples we have the treatment of the Kanakas and Chinese. Such outrages are now banned, but prejudice exists today, though it is no longer widely acceptable. The Cronulla riots of a few years ago are a visible example.

As for Europe, not only were European countries the founders of openly and proudly racist colonial systems and the transatlantic slave trade itself, but the Nazi extermination of Jews and Roma (among other 'undesirables') is the very definition of attempted genocide. Really, one could go on and on.

That's not to single the West out as especially racist, now or in the past. Racism exists in all societies. And things are changing for the better. Racism is generally seen as unacceptable in Europe and Australia today, as well as the USA.

To claim that only the USA has a racist past and that other countries have never tolerated it, though, is not just wrong, it's ludicrous.

To use that as part of an argument that sexist or racist language shouldn't bother anyone (I think that was your point?) is irrelevant as well as it being factually wrong.

[600ants.livejournal.com]

Oh please do elaborate. I'd love to know how implying that she had a child out of wedlock is insulting a woman. And while you're at it., please explain how it's at the same time NOT insulting a man. (As you only mentioned "his mother".)

Also, general understanding of the word bastard has changed over the last 100 years or so. We're not in the middle ages anymore. Hearing it, most people would imagine a person of bad character rather than a filthy woman who had sinned.

[oryx_leucoryx]

The woman is more likely to be known and to be present to be insulted, for once. And more often than not, people do insult the woman and not the man for non-marital sex. Has nothing to do with whether either *should* be insulted for it - neither should, but with the way people actually do.

(On top of that, there are people whose lives are ruined by having the term 'bastard' attached to them. The full term is 'bastard, son/daughter of the whore' also known as 'the wrong that cannot be righted'. Look up 'mamzer'. I know, it's culture-specific, but still alive.)

[600ants.livejournal.com]

But YOU were the only one who said anything about the woman. It would be nice if you waited until people actually are awful, and then called them on it. This way it backfired kinda like those "spot a racist" posters. (of course now I'm sure you meant well)

I know that it's a serious issue, extramarital sex used to be punishable by death (thanks, church), but in my part of the world this is very much behind us. Even religious people don't seem to care anymore if one is a single parent, much less ostracize the child. I guess that's why I was so shocked by your reaction. :)

You don't need to tell ME that religion is sick (disease of the mind and character, really).

[oryx_leucoryx]

Looks like you didn't look up the term 'mamzer' then. Can't post links, but this is from Jewish Virtual Library:

MAMZER (Heb. מַמְזֵר), usually translated as "bastard."
Definition

"If she cannot contract a legally valid marriage to this man, but can contract a legally valid marriage to others, her offspring [from the former] is a mamzer. Such is the case when a man has sexual relations with any of the ervot ["forbidden"; see *Incest] in the Torah" (Kid. 3:12; cf. Yev. 4:13). Thus, a mamzer is the issue of a couple whose sexual relationship is forbidden according to the Torah and punishable by *karet or death. Because of this a marriage between them is void (Sh. Ar., EH 4:13), and thus, for example, the issue of a union between brother and sister or between a man and a woman validly married to another at the time is a mamzer (see *Adultery; Yev. 45b; Maim., Yad, Issurei Bi'ah 15:1; Tur and Beit Yosef, EH 4; Sh. Ar., EH 4:13). On the other hand, in Jewish law – unlike in other systems of law – the mere fact that a child is born (or conceived) out of lawful wedlock does not make him a mamzer and he is not an illegitimate child, i.e., one whose status or rights are impaired. The parents of the mamzer are indeed unmarried – either in fact or since they are so considered in law because of an absolute legal bar to a marriage between them – but unlike a man and a woman who, from the legal point of view, can marry each other but do not want to, the parents of the mamzer, owing to the said legal bar, cannot marry each other even if they want to. If one parent is non-Jewish this fact alone does not make the child a mamzer (see *Marriage; Yev. 45b; Maim., Yad, Issurei Bi'ah 15:3; Tur, EH 4; Sh. Ar., EH 4:19).
---------------------

From 'The Mamzer Problem' by Rabbi Louis Jacobs

-------------------------
Contemporary Concerns

In lands where there is civil marriage it is not uncommon for a married woman who has been divorced in civil law to remarry in civil law without obtaining a get, the Jewish bill of divorce, from her first husband. Any children born to her from the second marriage are technically mamzerim, rendering the problem in modern times far more acute than in the time when civil marriage and divorce were unknown.

Reform Judaism rejects the whole concept of mamzerut. Many Conservative and all Orthodox Rabbis do accept the traditional law in this matter but generally follow the Talmudic precedence of adopting various legal remedies in order to avoid the taint of mamzerut, and the ruling of Isserles is also followed that no investigation is to be made in order to expose mamzerut.

It is certainly contrary to the tradition to compile, as unfortunately some few Orthodox Rabbis do, a register of mamzerim.

-----------------------------

This is a contemporary problem among Orthodox Jews worldwide and among Israeli Jews of all levels of observance and all denominations (including secular Jews). Notice that it is the married woman's adultery that is considered the source of the problem. Adultery by a married man with an unmarried woman does not create mamzerim. While Rabbi Jacobs claims 'few' Orthodox Rabbis compile lists of mamzerim at least in Israel, the Chief Rabbinate has such lists.

Another link that pops up on the first Google page in my search is Mamzer Alert:

--------------------
THIS BLOG WAS CREATED TO ALERT THE JEWISH PUBLIC OF JEWISH WOMEN WHO MIGHT BE PROLIFERATING MAMZERIM OR MIGHT BE TRYING TO REMARRY WITHOUT A GET OR WITH ONE THAT WAS PROCURED THROUGH COERCIVE METHODS WHICH IS INVALID.SEE THE LETTER BELOW FROM 50 RABBIS STATING THAT NAMES OF RABBIS/MEN/WOMEN WHO VIOLATE THE HALOCHOT OF GITTIN SHOULD BE PUBLICIZED. ONE SHOULD DISCUSS WITH A COMPETENT RABBI AS TO THE STATUS OF THE LISTED WOMAN.BUT NOT FROM A TYPE OF RABBI LISTED IN THE EDITORIAL BELOW
---------------

(Sorry for the all-caps, they are in the original.)

[600ants.livejournal.com]

But what on earth has this got to do with anything? Globally speaking, very few people these days care about Judaism's opinion on anything. And if some do, it's their own problem. They (thankfully) can't force their shallow "values" on anybody else anymore. If someone trusts some priest's opinion more than hir own common sense, I don't know how could I help such a person.

If some "orthodox" fool wants to wank over his list of Untermenschen, he can go right ahead. Me and the rest of the world don't give rat's ass if someone was born from this intercourse or other.

No problem, I like to learn about... well, everything. :)

[annoni-no.livejournal.com]

These are still real people experiencing real harm. What on earth does it matter how many there are? If the larger society makes clear that 'bastardry' is an inappropriate standard and not tolerated as a basis of discrimination, that puts pressure on religious groups that want to continue using it to either conform to the broader societal mores or become increasingly marginalized, losing influence, prestige, and followers.

What can one person do? They can start by not perpetuating the idea that bastardry is something to be ashamed of by using the term to try and shame people. Does one person objecting make a noticeable difference? No. But neither does any single vote. It is only in aggregate, as a society, that we can effect change, but as individual members of society it is our duty as citizens to work for that change where we can. This applies no matter where one lives or what values one thinks should be championed.