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

[condwiramurs.livejournal.com]

Being a girl whose primary goal is BOYS BOYS BOYS just isn't very admirable, in my opinion.

Look, I'm tired of tiptoeing around this: that's a misogynist opinion to hold. It's a misogynist view no matter who is holding the opinion, because it asserts that a woman whose number of relationships and attitude toward sexuality don't neatly fit into a box defined for her by society is inherently tainted or less-than. (And no, when discussing these things in context you can't separate sexuality and 'dating' so neatly as you try to do, but even if you could it wouldn't make your opinion not misogynistic.)

There's valid reason to criticize the way Ginny handles some of her relationships as relationships, yes - when she's using them in an attempt to get at Harry. That would be equally unacceptable if it was Harry doing it to Ginny, Harry doing it to Draco, or Ginny doing it to Luna. It's unacceptable because it reduces the other person to a means, an object, rather than a person. And her characterization is poorly written in that we don't get to *see* other sides of her. But to criticize her simply for the number of relationships she has or how long she goes between relationships is a very traditional way of shaming women rooted in notions of 'purity' and women belonging to men rather than to themselves. If Ginny enjoys being in relationships rather than going it alone, there is nothing inherently wrong or less than admirable in that, as long as she treats her partners as people. But as soon as any given relationship ends, nobody but Ginny has any rightful claim to dictate what she does with her body or who she chooses to date next or when. There's no amount of time that Ginny should have to leave between partners for any reason other than that she did not want to be in a relationship at that moment.

Talking about women's "amorous activities" as if they had exchangable value like money - which is precisely what the word "cheapens" does - is also misogynistic, another classic misogynistic trope in fact. Women's "amorous activities" are not currency or goods up for barter, and she does not owe them to anyone such that she must give them to one person but not another/not too many people. A woman is not a vending machine or a set of sexual/"amorous" goods that are somehow up for sale or exchange. A woman engages in amorous activities for the same reason and with the same rights that a man does: because she enjoys it and her partner is willing. Period. Full stop. The fucking END.

I'm not telling you this just because I'm trying to change your mind, though a part of me hopes you will actually listen and consider what I am saying. I am saying this because I refuse to stand by silently while women get shamed over and over again in exactly the same fucking way as they have been for centuries, and I refuse to be drawn into even passively supporting it through silence just because it's a character I don't particularly like and who fandom loves to hate. I would say the same thing if it was Umbridge being discussed, and she's one of the few characters I despise almost as much as Dumbledore. You are free to hold whatever opinion you want, but be aware exactly what sort of opinion it is.

Tired, stale, misogyny.

[oneandthetruth.livejournal.com]

Look, I'm tired of tiptoeing around this: that's a misogynist opinion to hold. It's a misogynist view no matter who is holding the opinion, because it asserts that a woman whose number of relationships and attitude toward sexuality don't neatly fit into a box defined for her by society is inherently tainted or less-than. (And no, when discussing these things in context you can't separate sexuality and 'dating' so neatly as you try to do, but even if you could it wouldn't make your opinion not misogynistic.)

Yes, THANK YOU! You've just supplied the missing link for me. Madderbrad's problem is that he has madonna/whore attitudes towards women. Hermione is his madonna, so no matter how egregious her behavior, it's always completely justified by the horribleness of her victims, who are only getting exactly what they deserve. Ginny is his whore, so her every behavior has to be cast in the most negative possible light, with no extenuating circumstances, ever. He really is irrational regarding these two characters.

[madderbrad.livejournal.com]

Ha ha ha! Oh, goodness. TWO examples - TWO girls - and you're an expert on my 'attitudes towards women'. You can extrapolate from a sample space of TWO to deduce everything about me.

That's funny.

As is condwiramurs's sad and unthinking pattern-matching. "I am uncomfortable about this because it makes me think of other bad things so I must try and shame Brad to stop with unfair and silly comparisons. I will call him names and insult him. But he's still the bad guy, okay?"

Look, between the two of us, if you want to talk about Madderbrad? I'm frankly the expert. And I can assure you that he doesn't ... *snigger* ... have a 'madonna/whore attitude towards women'.

He simply thinks Hermione is, overall, a positive character and a good witch; and that Ginny Weasley was a not-very-nice little girl.

OH MY GOD THIS MEANS BRAD IS A MISOGYNIST!!!!

Hee. :-)

I'll be gracious and not put you on the spot by asking you to tell me where I've used the word whore, because I know that will make you feel even sillier.

At least you've come out and disagreed with condwiramurs that I'm a misogynist; if I adore half the women and call the other half 'whores' then, on average, I'm neutral, right? And not a women-hater at all. You can't be a misogynist if you adore half the women around.

*laughs*

[mage-989.livejournal.com]

If Ginny enjoys being in relationships rather than going it alone, there is nothing inherently wrong or less than admirable in that, as long as she treats her partners as people.

Thank you. I am frankly sick and tired of seeing this attitude in fandom that Ginny is such a horrible person because she has the gall to date people. In fact I initially really liked this about Ginny. When I first read the books I liked that it seemed to be sending the subtle message that sometimes you just get over people. When Ginny looked like she had gotten over her crush on Harry and realized that she could go out and see other people and enjoy being with them. I was glad to see that someone at Hogwarts could apparently date people and not horribly screw it up like Harry with Cho and the obvious Ron Hermione crap.

The problem as you say comes when it's reveled that Ginny never got over Harry. That everyone else were basically stepping stones to her one true love, because the people she dates aren't people to her; they're tools. And that since she bases her behavior on getting a specific partner, along with her 'spunky' put-downs so people will be impressed with her, implies that she may seek validation for herself not from her own internal self-love, but from what others think of her.

[condwiramurs.livejournal.com]

The problem as you say comes when it's reveled that Ginny never got over Harry. That everyone else were basically stepping stones to her one true love, because the people she dates aren't people to her; they're tools. And that since she bases her behavior on getting a specific partner, along with her 'spunky' put-downs so people will be impressed with her, implies that she may seek validation for herself not from her own internal self-love, but from what others think of her.

Yes, I could see something like that being at work in Ginny's mind possibly. It'd be interesting to look at that in relation to her being the youngest and the only daughter, or the WW's attitudes towards women in general. (The books are not nearly as feminist as JKR seems to think they are, really.)

It's not that Ginny has multiple partners over a span of time that is the problem. It's how she treats the people she's with, and how she treats herself if she is looking so desperately for external validation. I'm not 100% sure how much the latter is the case yet, but I definitely can see it being a possibility given how the WW encourages people that way in general, and women in particular. Also Molly seems to gain much of her sense of self from her role as wife and mother, in a way that doesn't seem to truly make her happy, so Ginny doesn't have the best model there. (That is, there's nothing wrong with enjoying being a wife and mother when that's freely chosen and truly fulfilling, but Molly seems more insecure and controlling in those roles than happy.)

ETA: And yeah, I hear you about the reasons fandom goes after Ginny. I don't really like her that much, but that's due to her having the sort of hex-happy, practical-jokester, not very empathetic personality type that turns me off of most of the Weasleys and many Gryffindors in general. Though I could imagine a decent fanfic showing this as the result of the CoS debacle changing my mind a bit. But hating her because of how many boys she dates? Just, no.

[mage-989.livejournal.com]

Yes the idea that Ginny's personality was affected by the events of CoS has always been my headcanon when dealing with the switch over from Ginny 1.0, who I really identified with as shy young girl myself, and Ginny 2.0. The change started to happen in OoTP and what happened just before that? Dumbledore announced that Voldemort had returned. I always imagined that that put Ginny in a state of terror and she thought 'I can't be anything like I was when Tom possessed me. I have to be totally different person otherwise he'll use me to hurt people again.' So she works to be the exact opposite of who she really is. Now whether or not she really likes being that hex-happy person is another thing entirely.

[borg-princess.livejournal.com]

I love this comment- that ties into my head!canon as well. JKR doesn't do the best job at realistically showing how the trauma the kids suffer would affect them in the future (it's kind of like 'yay, break for the holidays and now that's done, I'm all good now, no probs whatsoever!') but I completely agree with your analysis of Ginny's change.

It makes a lot of sense- I mean, the only person who noticed something was up with Ginny that entire year was her stuffy older brother nobody really likes! It must've been awful to have been so alone and friendless that nobody noticed what was going on- I can see her thinking she needs to change, she needs to be outgoing and forceful and make herself noticed, because being meek and shy and a loner was what made her an easy target the first time round. She's not going to be the lame antelope singled out by the lion next time round, oh no.

I also really liked and identified with Ginny v 1.0, as I was the shy type myself, it's too bad she was done away with.

[terri-testing.livejournal.com]

Oh, dear.

That would actually be quite an excellent reason NOT to wait between boyfriends, wouldn't it? Needing to know at all times that one person at least is paying attention to you (and would hopefully notice if anything were going wrong).....

And one might use sex or flirtation to purchase that level of attention. It's a not uncommon reaction among abused adolescents.

Ouch. Remembering that Ginny is a surviror of quite horrific abuse (and that her only apparent therapy was a cup of hot chocolate) does rather change the dynamic, doesn't it?

[terri-testing.livejournal.com]

In fact, that also makes her continued fixation on Harry more understandable.

He's the one who saved her from Tom; according to Albus et al, he's the only one who can.

If she's using her body to buy protection, he's the ultimate protector. Never mind his personality; it's really irrelevant to her purposes.

And of course she'd have to make herself into someone, not just noticeable, but preferably desirable. To him.

All this, of course, is not conscious at all.

No wonder she snaps at Dean for helping her through the portrait hole, but obeys Harry unblinkingly when he tells her to do something she doesn't like "for your protection."

That's what their relationship is all about, for her.

[oryx_leucoryx]

So what happens once Tom is gone?

[danajsparks.livejournal.com]

It's certainly worth considering the long-term effects of Diary!Tom's abuse upon Ginny. However, I'm not sure that Ginny's dating behavior, by itself, is necessarily a sign that something was wrong. If Ginny were ten years older, I might be more concerned, but her relationship behavior is really pretty normal for a teenager.

It's quite normal for teenagers to have a few different boyfriends or girlfriends during high school. It's quite normal for teenagers to not be all that emotionally invested in each of their relationships (nor would you want them to be). It's quite normal for teenagers to be interested in more than one person at the same time. And it's quite normal for teenagers to get into relationships for the "wrong" reasons or to "use" each other. (When I was 15, I dated a certain boy for a few months because I was trying to get over a previous boyfriend and because he drove his own car!)

Really, the only thing that isn't quite normal about Ginny's relationship history is that she wound up marrying a boy whom she started dating when she was only 15.

[madderbrad.livejournal.com]

The change started to happen in OoTP and what happened just before that? Dumbledore announced that Voldemort had returned.

Wow, that's a neat theory. Way over Rowling's head, I reckon, and sadly not the way it turned out - Ginny 2.0 was an artificial construct built to attract her crush!hero!target.

There are so many ways Rowling could have used Ginny's possession to generate maximum drama and angst, as well as provide reasons for Harry and her to get close. But Rowling ignored it all. :-(

[sunnyskywalker]

Yes. There are many things to criticize Ginny for, but for dating more than some arbitrarily-defined standard of the "right" number of partners? Ugh. No, that is just the same old slut-shaming, and it's as ugly as it ever was.

I'm concerned that maybe Ginny thinks she needs to be in a relationship because that seems like a pressure that exists in the wizarding world as well as ours. But that's concern for her sake, for being put in the bind of on the one hand being pressured into "getting a man" but on the other hand being shamed for getting another one if the first doesn't work out. (You just can't win there.) And we can't guarantee that she does actually think that rather than just being fortunate in having a selection of guys she wants to date at the time.

[madderbrad.livejournal.com]

It's more the *density* of the dating. Ginny moves on, from one boy to the next, with only the briefest pauses between them. From that and what she says it's clear she views dating as important to her. The only thing that is important to her, other than Quidditch.

So it's that, and the one-dimensional aspect of her being the hero's love interest, and Rowling's clumsy writing of same, and the slant at the end that Ginny 'used' the boyfriends to attract Harry, which cheapens the girl. Not the number.

[madderbrad.livejournal.com]

Your comment is full of flaws. First up -

And no, when discussing these things in context you can't separate sexuality and 'dating' so neatly as you try to do -

Yes I can. What *you* can't do is say "oh, Brad can't say that, what he *meant* was this", construct a strawman and then call it (not me) misogynistic. Shame!

that's a misogynist opinion to hold.

No it isn't. Nothing I've said applies only to women; only, in this case, to Ginny Weasley.

If you wanted to prove me a misogynist you'd have to find a case where I've deliberately passed over a boy doing the same thing. Harry dating multiple girls, say. Brad's a misogynistic hypocrite who hates women, he measures their behaviour differently!

But you can't say that. Because I didn't do that.

... is a very traditional way of shaming women ...

More strawmen.

I didn't 'shame women' in my posts. If I had done so, fine, call me a misogynist.

But saying "people who have shamed women say things like Brad!!" doesn't mean Brad is shaming women. What they do is say things *like* what I've said *and then add to it*, extend it, leverage it onto women-only attacks or whatever.

Seeing a *faint resemblance* between what I've said and the utterances of a misogynist means you've skipped over the traffic island and you're in the wrong lane, that's all.

Talking about women's "amorous activities" as if they had exchangable value like money -

Good grief. We're not talking about the same thing at all, are we?

Tired, stale, misogyny.

No. That topic is next door. This one is about Ginny Weasley's paucity of character, how all she does is date. But the proximity of the two topics is apparently confusing you.

[oryx_leucoryx]

By your criteria Harry dated Parvati, Cho, Luna and Ginny. Four!!11!!

But it is misogynistic anyway, because it is a misogynistic trope to judge women's total morality and value by their sexual behavior. You keep stating the 'wrongness' of Ginny's dating behavior.

[madderbrad.livejournal.com]

By your criteria Harry dated Parvati, Cho, Luna and Ginny.

He certainly did. Single dates for two of them, a couple with Cho.

And the rest of his time at Hogwarts he was dateless, doing non-date things.

Unlike Ginny (from when she was thirteen).

But it is misogynistic anyway ... You keep stating the 'wrongness' of Ginny's dating behavior.

And if it was Neville I'd be stating the same of him.

Therefore, misogynistic, not.

[malic-ba.livejournal.com]

Sorry, Brad, I have to agree with condwiramurs et al here. You've said a couple of times that Ginny dates too many people and doesn't wait long enough between them, and that makes her a 'not very nice girl' and not good enough for the hero. That implies that there's a right number of people to date and that dating more is wrong. That's an age old criticism of women particularly and it's noticeable that how many people the 'hero' or Ron dated didn't come up.

Ginny's dating history doesn't seem very unusual to me. As to what it says about her values - Sadly, the idea that you have to be dating and be attractive to boys to not be a 'loser' is common among high school girls IRL. It's a very insecure time of life (for boys and girls). She's got school, sport, family and friends. Why does she have to be promoting world peace or conducting nuclear research to have a well rounded character?

For me, what's loathesome is the way she does it. If she's actually dating these people just to get at Harry, which it seems she is, she's using them and playing with their feelings and that's totally wrong whoever you are.

[madderbrad.livejournal.com]

You've said a couple of times that Ginny dates too many people and doesn't wait long enough between them, and that makes her a 'not very nice girl' and not good enough for the hero.

No, I've taken care not to place stress on the NUMBER of people that Ginny dated. Show me where I've said FOUR IS TOO MANY and I'll either correct you or correct me (by retracting).

My understanding/memory right now - it's been 13 days since I had time to get back to this - is that I was very careful NOT to say that. It's some other sloppy people here who have created that strawman.

That implies that ... dating more is wrong.

Dedicating your (school) life to dating, expressing a belief/need that you MUST be dating, you MUST have a boyfriend, I've-broken-up-with-one-and-I've-decided-I-must-move-on-to-another-automatically is ... mmm ... not 'wrong', but certainly nothing to laud. 'Wrong' in an absence of anything else. Young women are capable of so much more than simply - and solely - dating, don't you think? Oh, and playing one quidditch game every three months.

But Ginny wasn't. She played quidditch and dated. Because her sole purpose was to ultimately date the hero. Unfortunately Rowling didn't bother to give her any other qualities than quiddith playing and dating skills.

If she's actually dating these people just to get at Harry, which it seems she is, she's using them and playing with their feelings and that's totally wrong whoever you are.

At least most people here seem to be agreed on that point, even if they can't help but make leaps of logic/emotion between 'criticism of Ginny's dating' and 'OMG MISOGYNY!!!'.

[malic-ba.livejournal.com]

Well, madderbrad, that reaction from people is probably because you're using words like 'not a slut, but the g-rated equivalent' and 'not a nice girl, shouldn't be dating the hero'. That her dating behaviour makes her not good enough for him. That despite, as I mentioned above, her having family, friends, school, and team sport, you condemn her as not only shallow but 'not a nice girl' for 'taking no pains to keep her dalliances private' and being 'okay with everyone kissing'. There's something wrong with that even though pretty much everyone we see dating is equally public about it.

Very few people get any screen time in these books doing anything not directly relevant to Harry, and two dimensional as she is, Ginny has more documented elements to her life than pretty much any other girl in the books except Hermione (Harry's close friend), but that's not enough for you because she doesn't wait long enough between boyfriends for you. (Not the number of boyfriends, I was wrong about that and I apologise.) You also don't like that some people think she's attractive or notice who she's going out with.

When was the last time you heard any male condemned in those terms? A g-rated slut equivalent? Of course you're going to get this reaction!

OK, maybe you personally would be equally scandalised by a boy, since apparently there is something shameful about 'being OK with everyone kissing'. In this instance, though, you are echoing a tired double standard which is still used in many parts of the world to limit women's lives, and it's not surprising or unreasonable that it comes across as sexist.

I'm sorry I am getting angry. I have no problem with you, but I am getting increasingly irritated by some of the recent discussions.

[madderbrad.livejournal.com]

Well, madderbrad, that reaction from people is probably because you're using words like 'not a slut, but the g-rated equivalent' -

Yes. The first key word there is 'reaction'. Or as I've called it, 'pattern matching'. Oh, this *looks a bit like* something I don't like, Brad must be saying *exactly that*, close enough for me! *emotive reaction time*.

By the time they've worked up a head of steam they're a few miles away from what I actually said. Brad says "not a slut", I will abuse him for calling her ... a slut!!

Sigh.

That her dating behaviour makes her ... as not only shallow

I've connected the two dots in those couple of sentences. The 'not a nice girl' conclusion as to Ginny Weasley comes mostly from lots of other anti-Ginny canon evidence.

Her being written as the Girl Who Dates contributes to her being shallow, yes.

... two dimensional as she is, Ginny has more documented elements to her life ...

But that's not true. In terms of *significant* documented elements Ginny has but two; she plays Quidditch four times a year ... and dates for the rest of it. :-)

Not the number of boyfriends, I was wrong about that and I apologise.

Thanks! It's been amusing seeing how other people here have leaped off with that particular strawman.

You also don't like that some people think she's attractive or notice who she's going out with.

Not quite. That all contributes to how Rowling built her up as the Girl Who Dates. Does anyone else get so much attention regarding their good looks or dating activities? Such that their good looks and dating activities comprise such a *large part* of what we know about the character?

No.

When was the last time you heard any male condemned in those terms?

In Harry Potter? I don't think there is a Boy Who Dates drawn like Ginny.

But don't blame me for that. Blame J. Rowling.

And reaching *outside* the HP books is exactly the problem with some of the reactions here; these people are *over-reaching*. We were discussing HP and the Girl Who Dates, but then some people get uncomfortable, this is too close to things I don't like in real life, ugh, I can either stop reading, I can think about this logically, I can separate Harry Potter fiction and the real world or I can insult Brad.

Sigh.

... you are echoing a tired double standard which is still used in many parts of the world to limit women's lives, and it's not surprising or unreasonable that it comes across as sexist.

Yes it is. It's also surprising that it comes across in a debate about Harry Potter characters.

Do I have to specifically state at the top of my every comment GINNY WEASLEY, THE GIRL WHO DATES, IS A FICTIONAL CHARACTER, WRITTEN BY SOMEONE NOT BRAD? That should be understood!

I'm sorry I am getting angry.

I'm sorry too. Unlike others you've been unfailingly polite. But I can't help what J. Rowling wrote. If you've uneasy with how Ginny compares - in a G-rated way - with more unpleasant scenarios in real life, maybe you should take it up with her? Ask her why she wrote Ginny as the Girl Who Dates!

[malic-ba.livejournal.com]

Hi madderbrad

I don't want to fight with anyone here, certainly not you, so I'm not going to go on and on about it.

I believe your main point was that Rowling did a terrible job of building up the Harry/Ginny thing as based on real attraction between real people. I completely agree with that. The whole thing is ridiculously shallow. Harry likes 'spunkiness', quidditch, and gets jealous, and yeah, that's about it. Rowling seems to want to prove that Ginny is thought desirable by people so that she's 'good enough' for the hero. The attraction doesn't seem to be based on anything else. (Oh, maybe that he gets to join his dream family, too.)

My problem is with some of the way you went about it. I totally get that this is a fictional character that you did not write. However, calling had 'the girl who dates', and the other elements I mentioned above, are labelling the whole problem with her dating behaviour. Fictional character or not, you are saying that dating this way is wrong and labels the person. OK, maybe you don't mean that as a sexist thing. But you are saying the same thing, about the same type of person, using the same values about what's shameful, as people who mean it exactly that way have done for a long time. It comes across as sexist whatever you had in your head. I don't think you should be surprised that that is how people react.

When I was in school, there were quite a few girls who did, indeed, believe that they had to have a boyfriend at all times to be attractive and not a loser. From what I hear that's not uncommon. That attitude is pushed a lot by sections of the media in our society. I thought that attitude was pathetic and still do. But I would never judge these people as 'not good enough' for someone because of it.

I do not believe that there is anything wrong with Ginny's dating except using people to get to Harry. I believe that although not well developed, there are a normal number of elements to her life. So she only plays a couple of games of quidditch a season that we see, but she's in a team. She trains, she follows the game, she has friends in the team. There's also the DA and the normal elements of school and home life. We don't get to hear about any unusual interests like stargazing or civil rights or tropical fish, so maybe she's not into anything like that, but she seems normal enough to me. Labelling her as 'the girl who dates' is objectionable.

[malic-ba.livejournal.com]

Trying *again* to edit or add another reply to this. It's working fine on the other thread, I don't know what the problem is!

What I wanted to say was -

OK, that's not really a short post, so maybe I am going to go 'on and on' about it a bit. Sorry.
I think I've put it as clearly as I can now, though, so if you still disagree I'll leave it at that.
Sorry for any bad feelings.

Also, I should have said "/I find/ labelling her as 'the girl who dates' objectionable."

[madderbrad.livejournal.com]

I don't want to fight with anyone here, certainly not you -

I appreciate that, and ditto. As long as both of us stays civilised and mature and don't stoop to name-calling and such I can't see that we can 'fight'.

These sort of things only devolve into ugly 'fights' when ad hominem personal attacks are launched by people who can't otherwise refute their opponents' arguments (but also can't say "you're right, I'm wrong"). condwiramurs calling me a 'misogynist' and oneandthetruth saying that I have a 'madonna/whore complex' (!!!) are attempts to 'fight'. They can't play the game so they attack the player.

We'll behave better than that.

... calling had 'the girl who dates', and the other elements I mentioned above, are labelling the whole problem with her dating behaviour.

No. I'm labelling Ginny as The Girl Who Dates because that's what she is. At small moments in time she plays quidditch. Over an almost continuous period of three (two and a half?) school years she is dating. She expresses a need to be dating. And she dates because she defines herself as someone who dates. "Be yourself" she is advised. I am a girl who must date. I went to the ball with Neville and picked up Michael. I've dumped Michael, it therefore follows that I must date someone else, I'm picking Dean. I've dumped Dean, I'm throwing myself at Harry, he's kissing me, he's looking to MY BROTHER for permission, well that's okay, I need a boyfriend and I've landed my crush!hero!

But 'the whole problem'? No. There are many many reasons to dislike Ginny Weasley. Please don't fixate on one label I've given her and condemn me for condemning her *entirely* on that.

When I was in school, there were quite a few girls who did, indeed, believe that they had to have a boyfriend at all times to be attractive and not a loser. ... I thought that attitude was pathetic and still do.

And so do I. I see Ginny as one of those people - somewhat - Ginny wasn't dating to 'not be a loser', she was dating because that's how who thought 'the real Ginny' was, a girl who dates, and she was also using her boyfriends to attract the boy she *really* liked - and I think she's the lesser for it.

And we seem to be agreed on this point. The attitude that girls - boys - people feel in that they HAVE to have a dating partner is 'pathetic', to quote yourself. So why am I the sexist?

Labelling her as 'the girl who dates' is objectionable.

I'm more concerned about the label being *accurate* than it being found to be 'objectionable'.

Am I not allowed to label Ginny as the Girl Who Dates because there are real people like her in the real world? Is that all this boils down to?

Look, if we were discussing real people then there'd be perhaps a reason to say that the label is 'objectionable'. Basically because the *entire topic* would be objectionable. How dare people look at Brad's dating record, that's his business and no-one else's!

But this is Ginny Weasley, a fictional character. Who we are analysing as part of a literary critique.

It's TWO DIFFERENT THINGS entirely. Real world versus fiction. That's part of why I said that condwiramurs was confused, because she did some simplistic word association between my analysis of Ginny and what she sees in the real world and couldn't tell the difference. OMG Brad must call people like Ginny the same thing in real life or no well other people do if not Brad so it's all the same thing anyway and I don't like it so Brad mustn't do it for a fictional character.

We're talking about the Girl Who Dates of the Harry Potter world. No similarities between any real-world identities, live or dead, is intended by the makers of these comments. :-)

[malic-ba.livejournal.com]

You continue using that label. You have completely ignored everything I said about the rest of her life being apparently quite normal and there being nothing wrong or really that unusual about her dating behaviour. You are putting words into the character's mouth by saying she defines herself as 'someone who dates', apparently based on the lack of screen time between boyfriends and her saying she sees nothing wrong with 'everyone kissing'. You say that makes her not good enough for the hero. And you think that's OK because we're not taking about a real person, just judging a type of behaviour?
No. You're promoting a value system with which I disagree. She's a normal, if unlikeable character and she can date as much as she jolly well likes without it becoming her whole character or making herself less 'worthy', let alone of some boy.