Harry Potter Abridged! OotP Chapter 17

[sweettalkeress.livejournal.com]

[Now that so many students have pledged to resist Umbridge, Harry’s mood improves]

Harry: NOW they’ll see which of us is crazy!

[One day Harry and his friends see a worrisome message on the board]

Harry: Oh, no! Umbridge forbids any clubs that don’t have her permission to exist! But…how ever did she find out about us?!

Ron: I don’t know! It’s not like she was there!

Harry: Maybe one of the people who signed up betrayed us to Umbridge?! [Cries]

Ron: I’ll bet it’s that slimy, good-for-nothing Hufflepuff, Zacharias Smith!

Harry: Do you think Hermione knows?

Ron: Let’s tell her at once so she can get us out of this!

[They try to go up the stairs to the girls’ bedroom, but it turns into a stone slide and they fall down]

Ron: What the hell?! Hermione’s allowed in our bedroom!

Hermione: It’s a precaution to prevent the boys from raping the girls. After all, it’s not like girls could ever rape boys, or anything.

Ron: Well, never mind that now! Umbridge has banned our club!

[Hermione reads the notice]

Hermione: …What?!

Ron: So, who do you think sold us out?

Hermione: There’s no way anyone sold us out. I put a curse on the parchment to punish anyone who talked.

Ron: What? But I thought you specifically said that sign-up sheet was non-binding.

Hermione: You can’t tell me you fell for a denial that specific. Anyway, I wonder if anyone else in the school knows about this….

[They go to the Great Hall, where a group of fellow Gryffindors come up to them]

Ginny: So…what are we going to do about that notice?

Harry: We’ll just have to find a way to meet in secret, that’s all.

Fred: And…the Prefects are okay with this?

Hermione: You’ll get no resistance from Ron and me.

Ron: Hermione, several of our co-conspirators are coming over to us. Is that bad?

Hermione: Yes it is—we can’t let ourselves be caught meeting within sight of the teachers!

Ginny: I’ll go lure Michael Corner away for you.

Hermione: Good girl. [To the others] Sorry, we can’t meet in sight of the teachers. Go put yourselves into cold storage until we come up with a plan.

Ernie and Hannah: Awwww…. [Wander away]

[As they’re about to leave, Angelina comes up to them]

Angelina: Harry, Ron! Umbridge is forcing us to ask permission to continue Quidditch!

Harry and Ron: What?!

Angelina: Harry, if you don’t stop making Umbridge angry she might cancel Quidditch permanently!

Harry: Don’t worry, I’ll do better from now on.

Angelina: You expect me to believe that?!

Harry: Trust me. I’m the main character. All will work out in the end.

Angelina: I hope you’re right.

[They go to History of Magic…]

Ron: Oh, look. No Umbridge.

[Suddenly…]

Hermione: Look! It’s Hedwig in the window!

Harry: Hedwig?! But why?!

Hedwig: Help me! I’m injured!

Harry: Injured?! [Runs over to Hedwig] What happened to you?!

Hedwig: Owww, my wing hurts! Be gentle!

Harry: Professor Binns! Professor Binns!

Professor Binns: …Yes? What is it, you useless lump?

Harry: My owl’s—I mean, I’m not feeling well and I need to be excused.

Professor Binns: Whatever, it’s not like you contribute to my class.

Harry: Yay! [Runs off with Hedwig in tow] Let’s see…ordinarily I’d take her to Hagrid, but of course Hagrid’s not here…. Professor Grubbly-Plank it is, then! [Runs to staffroom]

Gargoyles: Alright, what’s the password?

Harry: Get the fuck out of my way, that’s what! I’m the main character and I don’t have to take orders from you!

McGonagall: What is all this commotion about?

Harry: Professor McGonagall! My owl’s been injured and I need to give her to Professor Grubbly-Plank!

Professor Grubbly-Plank: Hi!

Harry: There you are! Could you please fix my owl’s wing for me?

Professor Grubbly-Plank: [Takes Hedwig] It looks like she was attacked. It could be a Thestral, but the Thestrals around here are pretty well-trained….

McGonagall: Harry, where did your owl fly from?

Harry: Oh, you know…that one place….

McGonagall: Oh, yes—that place!

Professor Grubbly-Plank: …Could I be outside of an inside joke? [to Harry] I’ll take care of your owl for you, but she shouldn’t fly long distances for awhile.

Harry: Of course, of course!

Professor Grubbly-Plank: Alright, then I’ll take my leave.

McGonagall: Did Harry ever get his mail?

Professor Grubbly-Plank: …Oh, right. Here you go. [Hands Harry his letter and walks away]

McGonagall: You know what I think? I think someone opened your letter and read it.

Harry: Oh, shit…you’re probably right.

[Harry later relays this to Ron and Hermione]

Hermione: This isn’t good.

Harry: Maybe it didn’t happen that way? I mean, the letter was sealed. And it’s not like anyone would know what the message meant….

Hermione: Well, they could have resealed the letter by magic, and could be monitoring the Floo network as we speak….

Harry: …Oh, no….

[Later that day, they run into Draco]

Draco: So, yeah, Umbridge gave the Slytherins permission to play right away. Whereas you Gryffindors? Won’t get permission at all. Because Umbridge actually favors us for once.

Hermione: My friends will never rise to your provocations! Not if I have to tie them up on leashes!

Draco: By the way, Harry, it’s my professional opinion that you’ve lost your sanity and need to be put in St. Mungo’s. You poor insane man.

Neville: Hey! Don’t insult my parents like that! [Charges at Draco]

Harry: How dare you, Navel! I can’t allow you to antagonize Draco—he’s my archenemy! [grabs Neville’s robe]

Neville: He’s making light of my parent’s mental problems! Also my name’s not Navel!

Harry: Shut up! Don’t make Crabbe and Goyle come after you—you haven’t got main character immunity like we have!

Draco: Wow, Navel—I didn’t know you had a tragic past.

Neville: My…name…is…not…NAVEL!

Snape: You called?

Draco: Oh, hello Professor….

Snape: Alright, Gryffindors—you can stop fighting and embarrassing yourselves now. Just get into class.

Ron: Harry, I’ve never seen Navel so upset before!

Neville: I heard that! [Stalks off]

Harry: Don’t be too hard on him—his parents were tortured into insanity by Death Eaters. And his name sucks.

Neville: I heard that too!

[they get to Potions to find Umbridge there!]

Harry: Did I mention that I actually can’t choose whether I hate Umbridge or Snape more? I just might hate Snape even more than I hate the woman who tried to cut up my hand and read The Draco Trilogy to me.

Snape: Alright, so, you children can just make strengthening solutions while I show this woman who’s the boss in the dungeon.

Harry: This is boring. I’ll just eavesdrop on Umbridge and Snape.

Umbridge: Snape, Snape! Why are you teaching them how to make a strengthening solution of all things?

Snape: You have to ask? You…do realize this is my class, right?

Umbridge: Whatever. How long have you been teaching?

Snape: About fourteen years.

Umbridge: I see. I heard you really wanted to teach Defense Against the Dark Arts?

Snape: Yes, that is correct.

Umbridge: So why aren’t you teaching that right now?

Snape: Oh, you know how it is—Dumbledore thinks it’s improper for a Slytherin to teach that class. He says we’re not manly enough.

Umbridge: You’re sure that’s the story you want to go with?

Snape: Positive.

[Umbridge goes off to speak to some other students]

Harry: Aww, I was hoping for something more exciting.

Snape: I heard that, you! [Walks over to Harry] You made that potion wrong! [Vanishes potion] Honestly, you are quite hopeless.

Harry: No fair! It’s not my fault your battle of wits with Umbridge was so much more interesting than my stupid potion!

Snape: …You don’t say—I mean, you’d better start catching up on your studies soon, young man! Since you couldn’t make the potion write me an essay on it!

Harry: Oh, great! Can I get any more things piled on my head?!

[They go to Divination…]

Professor Trelawney: So…you kids just continue your lessons…and…and don’t mind me…. I’ll…I’ll just be off sulking in a corner and examining my life choices…!

Harry: Wow, she seems so gloomy!

Parvati: Professor, what happened to you?!

Professor Trelawney: It’s Umbridge! She’s…she’s put me on teaching probation, sold my prized children’s book to Disney, and forced me to read fanfiction pairing me with Professor Snape!

Harry: That exists?

Parvati: The indignity!

Professor Trelawney: But…other than that, everything’s fine.

[They go to Defense Against the Dark Arts…]

Harry: Hermione, you agree with Umbridge that Trelawney is a fraud, don’t you?

Hermione: No, I think she’s a fraud in a good way, while Umbridge thinks it in an evil way. It’s totally different.

Umbridge: Alright, continue reading your books and don’t bother me.

[Later on…]

Angelina: By the way, Umbridge won’t let us practice Quidditch right now.

Harry: NO! MY LIFE IS OVER!

Hermione: Well at least you have time to do Snape’s essay now.

Harry: THAT’S SUPPOSED TO MAKE ME FEEL BETTER?!

Angelina: You can stop capslocking now.

Harry: OH?! CAN I?!

[Meanwhile, Fred and George are demonstrating a Skiving Snackbox to their fellow students]

Fred: First I eat the orange half. [Eats an orange candy and vomits]

George: And then he eats the purple half.

Fred: I…can…do…this…. [Forces down purple candy] See? I’m all better!

Lee Jordan: We’re not responsible if you die of dehydration.

Gryffindors: Wow! This is awesome!

Hermione: Those two…. Grrrr….

Ron: Well, why don’t you stop them, then?

Hermione: Because they’re not breaking any school rules, and those snackboxes could be handy plot points someday.

Ron: I knew you’d understand!

Harry: You know, Fred and George are actually pretty smart. I don’t know why they’re not doing better in school.

Hermione: Well, they don’t seem skilled with anything that doesn’t pertain to silly practical jokes.

Ron: And who’s to say silly practical jokes aren’t valuable, hm? Like you said, plot points.

[Sometime later, Sirius’s head appears in the fireplace!]

Sirius: Hi!

Harry: Hello, Sirius! It’s so good to hear from you!

Sirius: So how are things?

Harry: Well, Umbridge has banned our top-secret meetings to help destroy her evilness, but other than that, everything’s fine.

Sirius: So that’s why you met in the Hog’s Head?

Harry: How did you know we’ve been to the Hog’s Head?!

Sirius: News travels fast in Hogsmeade. Anyway, did it ever occur to you that you’d actually be less likely to be overheard in a more crowded pub like the Three Broomsticks?

Hermione: You mean… I made a miscalculation?! AAAARGH! Stupid stupid stupid!

Sirius: Anyway, it was Mundungus who reported to me. He’s been keeping an eye on you.

Harry: So that means…I’m still being followed.

Sirius: Yes. Anyway, Ron, your mother says she doesn’t want you to be a part of this Defense Against the Dark Arts group, lest you be expelled.

Ron: She says that now, but I know she’ll come around in the end.

Harry: Well, Sirius, what do you think?

Sirius: I think starting this club was the right choice, myself. You’re better off learning to defend yourself, even if you do get expelled.

Harry: Oh, Sirius! You understand me! [Cries tears of joy]

Sirius: So, anyway, where are you going to meet?

Harry: Oh, crap. We still don’t have a meeting place.

Sirius: The Shrieking Shack, perhaps?

Hermione: That won’t work. It’ll be too conspicuous if we all try to fit in there.

Sirius: Well…maybe there’s another secret hiding place you can use. Let me get back to you—

[Just then, Umbridge’s hand appears in the fire!]

Harry, Ron, and Hermione: RUN AWAY! [They return to their bedrooms]

EXTRAS:

Umbridge: Hermione, I saw you talking to Ernie Macmillan and Hannah Abbot earlier. You weren’t planning anything, were you?

Hermione: Ahaha—we were just…ah…trying to shoo those unworthy Hufflepuffs away from our totally superior Gryffindor table!

Umbridge: I’ll have you know I’m a graduate of Hufflepuff house!

Hermione: You? A Hufflepuff? Don’t make me laugh—you must be a Slytherin!

Umbridge: I tell you, I’m a Hufflepuff!

Hermione: Haha! That’s a good one! Next thing I know, you’ll be telling me about your sexually-abusive stepfather!

Umbridge: H-how did you know about that?!

Hermione: …Oh.... Okay then....

Comments

[annoni-no.livejournal.com]

"I might have used the term "A has nothing on B" wrongly, what I meant to convey is that even if we bash Ginny for dating a string of boys while hoping that Harry could only notice her, Mrs. Weasley's "no-big-deal"-ness regarding love potions is much, much worse"

There is no "we" bashing Ginny for dating multiple boys. There was one poster, Madderbrad, who refused to stop criticizing her dating despite being called out for the slut-shaming sexism of that criticism multiple times. Unless you agree that a female dating multiple males when all parties freely consent is immoral and should be punished, THERE IS NO COMPARISON TO BE MADE with the willful violation and rape of someone's mind and body.

If you do disagree with the idea that a girl dating multiple boys is worthy of censure, you shouldn't have made the comparison in the first place. If you agree with it, there are multiple, very long threads laying out in detail why those sentiments are sexist and unwelcome in this community. The most recent was in Mary_J_59's "A plea for tolerance?" Please do not bring this up again. I, and others, come here to relax, not be hit over the head with more bigotry and casual hate.

Also, FREE SPEECH!11!!!1eleventy1!!!! is not an excuse. Yes, you do have a right to free speech. You DO NOT have the right to an ***AUDIENCE***! Unless you are the owner of livejournal or moderator of this community, you have no more right to subject us to your bilge after being asked to stop than you do to harass someone in their private home, hijack a classroom to pontificate on your preferred topic, or graffiti your views on public walkways. Please. Just. Stop.
___

I don't expect children like Hermione and Ginny were at that time to know instinctively that Love Potions are immoral, especially when they are so romanticized by their culture. That cultural indoctrination is also important to remember when judging Molly.

Our current Enlightenment/Humanist value system is a recent development that grew out of centuries of activism and debate and struggle. People living in the millennia before that did not, by and large, treat their fellow humans with less dignity and deny them their freedom and rights out of willful ignorance and malice (there were exceptions). They did so because that was all they had ever known, and the assumptions on which that inequality was built were so ubiquitous they seemed as unobjectionable as pointing out that things fall to the ground when dropped. This is why visionaries who can imagine a more just and equitable world, and convince others to join them in creating it, are so rare and valuable.

Getting back to Molly, it's clear the WW has no problem with love potions. Unpleasant if YOU'RE dosed with one behind your back, perhaps, but generally silly and harmless. They seem to follow the reasoning that if you felt pleasure at the time, it couldn't have been that bad, rather like the people who still claim that if someone orgasmed, than obviously they couldn't have been raped. Which is harmful and toxic and just wrong on every level. Because Molly grew up in this toxic environment and was never really exposed to other viewpoints (nor did she realistically have an opportunity to be without expending massive resources and time - which she might never have had available - to research outside of her community), I don't fault her as harshly for not realizing how problematic love potions are as I would someone who grew up in a first world muggle country and should be well aware of the importance of consent (Rowling). That doesn't mean she's blameless for not looking at the matter critically and coming to her own conclusions. On the other hand, I don't think Molly is the type of person who is psychologically capable of that level of self-awareness, in which case it's rather unreasonable to demand of her something she just. can't. do.

If Rowling had deconstructed the use of love potions later, then I would have no problem with this scene. What we got instead in book 6 was... problematic at best, and thoroughly inadequate to the issues raised.

[vermouth1991.livejournal.com]

My apologies. It was very wrong of me to drag people down with that usage of "we". You expressed plainly and coherently why it was wrong to fault Ginny like that, and I shall do the best I can to understand that and amend my ways in future posting. However, nowhere in my previous comment as far as I can see did I play the free speech card or "demand an audience". I agreed with someone else's offensive and unplesant viewpoint and got called out on it. Good for you and boo to me. The criticisms you made came naturally and practically wrote themselves, how could I be asking for them if (until the point of posting my last comment, at least) I thought of my words as OK?

[annoni-no.livejournal.com]

My point that the right to free speech does not equal the right to an audience was intended as a preemptive rebuttal to an argument that many, many people, and Brad, in particular, have repeatedly raised as an excuse for offensive content and refusal to respect the wishes of others that they refrain in a particular community. I did not, under any circumstances, want to be drawn into another cycle of arguments over "FREEZE PEACH!!!!1!" rights when the subject has already been debated here ad nauseam. I truly cannot express in words how sick I am of free speech being used as an excuse to insult, harass, intimidate, denigrate, marginalize, slander, and even threaten others by claiming requests for simple courtesy in a private community is an abridgement of fundamental rights. If you want to talk about those horrible sluts not waiting long enough between boyfriends, or whatever it is that interests you personally, you are more than welcome to start your own blog on the subject if the community you've been posting in makes it clear they don't share that interest.

If this particular issue doesn't apply to you, then it doesn't apply to you. There are far too many people who don't share your enlightenment to take that as given.

The criticisms you made came naturally and practically wrote themselves, how could I be asking for them if (until the point of posting my last comment, at least) I thought of my words as OK?

I'm not sure what you mean by this. Do you mean you didn't expect anyone to object since you thought you were correct, and thus we would agree with you? Or did you think people might object but not be irritated at needing to deal (AGAIN!) with the same sexist sludge we had to wade through extensively less than a few months ago? Did you expect only a particular type of criticism? If so, how did you expect us to respond?

[vermouth1991.livejournal.com]

Please don't be mad. I don't even know what the heck I wrote anymore (it seemed so clear at the time), let me apoligize again:

I am now aware that the points I'd made before are sexist and wrong. Ridding myself of such a mindset, however, would not be so instantaneous (otherwise I'd just be a troll); so for the time being I shall try my best to never talk like that on LJ anymore, and if I'm lucky, I'd might have some real improvements in how I think. If I have any future lapses or display any other types of prejudice or bigotry, far be it for me to protest any of you calling out on my BS. It was not my intention to not let you critisize me, it's just that I'm not comforable with the usage of "preemptive" 'And don't say that—' kind of reasoning. I've used it on other people before and the results were never good. But maybe it's due to my fluctuation of empathy, most of the time I can't even attempt to understand what other people feel. And I have to change that.

[madderbrad.livejournal.com]

I am now aware that the points I'd made before are sexist and wrong.

I'm not sure they were. But if annoni_no had her way only her opinion as to 'right and wrong' would matter in this community, no other perspective would be necessary or welcome. Thankfully that's (currently) not the case, as far as I'm aware.

I came across this post only a few days ago and saw that my name was mentioned. You'll see that I expressed my disgust with annoni_no's attempts to lay down the law (all over you) in a comment below. As far as I know people are still allowed to express their opinions in this community ... even if they are not personally approved by annoni_no.

As to what you said originally:

This is boardering on slut-shaming, perhaps, but even the non-flattering evaluation of Ginny being "the girl who dates" has nothing on her dear mother.

'Slut shaming' is only vaguely connected to Ginny's title of The Girl Who Dates. annoni_no has to make several huge leaps to grant them equivalence. She's confused, I believe, thinking that a view of Ginny as The Girl Who Dates being *consistent* with (i.e. a 'subset of') 'Slut Shaming' means that one who holds the former view must surely agree with the latter. Whereas that is, of course, not the case. But annoni_no can't understand that one can see Ginny as The Girl Who Dates without making all of the jumps in illogic that she personally does to arrive at SLUT SHAMING OMG MUST SUPPRESS.

I have to agree with you and oneandthetruth and others that "a middle-aged woman with grown children giggling about rape drugs is really sick and completely inexcusable." Well, perhaps not with quite the same vehemence as per oneandthetruth's statement. I suppose a Rowling apologist could try and 'weaken' the efficacy of love potions, try and make out that it wasn't a big deal. And yet we know, from HBP, how seriously mind-altering they can be, viz Romilda's potion's effects on Ron.

HP love potions actually make the victim want to jump you. Even fantasizing about that effect makes me highly uncomfortable.

Yeah. Rowling just *didn't think* about what she wrote. I guess when she wrote the line with Molly - in PoA, you said? - she hadn't worked out how *strong* love potions could be (as was the case for most of the series, which she was making up as she went along). And then by HBP she'd probably forgotten what she'd written in PoA, given as how she's said how she's never re-read any of her books.

Ultimately, if the Imperius Curse is held to be an Unforgiveable, I'd say love potions should be put in the same category. And not sold in joke shops. :-)

[seductivedark.livejournal.com]

Have to agree with Brad here. The attacks went on and on, even after an apology, and had the poor poster cyber-groveling, unsure of what s/he'd even written. It was brow-beating and, imo, humiliating. It made me very uncomfortable to read.

On Rowling's love potions, ugh. They're date-rape, nothing less. She's got a few little mean scenes involving unequal relationships - remember the guy who was his wife's coffee table? In fact, it seems to be a bid at a pseudo-feminist power play - I don't recall a man using a love potion, or forcing his wife to be a coffee table.

Why I say 'pseudo-feminist' - the women aren't winning the love game by being smart, personable, alluring, or even sexy, they're winning with an underhanded trick that only losers would use. That isn't feminist, it's despicable. Yes, I think that only losers would use something like a spell, love potion, or date rape drug to possess the object of their obsession.

[madderbrad.livejournal.com]

In fact, it seems to be a bid at a pseudo-feminist power play - I don't recall a man using a love potion, or forcing his wife to be a coffee table.

Or slapping a boy (like Hermione slapped Draco) or attacking a boy with killer canaries (Hermione and Ron) or assaulting a boy behind his back in sneak attacks (Ginny against Smith times two). Girls get away with assaults that we never see boys even try to attempt, it seems. Rowling's old school double-standards seeping through?

Yes, I think that only losers would use something like a spell, love potion, or date rape drug to possess the object of their obsession.

Which is definitely the case for Merope; she's portrayed as close to a squib and can't survive in her own in the Muggle world. (Not that I don't feel sorry for her, being raised with her father and brother. Ugh.)

On the other hand, Molly Weasley?!?!???

Male violence towards women

[terri-testing.livejournal.com]

Yeah, we once hear a boy threaten a girl at Hogwarts (the gallant James's "Don't make me hex you, Evans!") but we don't see anyone follow through--the one time Hermione was hexed at Hogwarts it was by accident (Draco aiming at Harry). Even with DE's in battle, we only ever see the very worst wizards, the scummiest of the scum, deliberately attack women (Dolohov attacking HG in DoM battle, Amycus apparently getting off on trying to cast the Cruciatus on Ginny during the invasion of Hogwarts, Fenrir threatening HG in Malfoy Manor)....

If Tom had ever realized this, he should have recruited preferentially among witches to give them an edge!

One exception, however: I can't find my COS, but isn't there a Quikspell testimonial featuring a gentleman who turned his wife into a yak?

Re: Male violence towards women

[lynn-waterfall.livejournal.com]

Yes:

"My wife used to sneer at my feeble charms, but one month into your fabulous Kwikspell course and I succeeded in turning her into a yak! Thank you, Kwikspell!"

Re: Male violence towards women

[madderbrad.livejournal.com]

Even with DE's in battle, we only ever see the very worst wizards, the scummiest of the scum, deliberately attack women -

Yes!

I can't find my COS, but isn't there a Quikspell testimonial featuring a gentleman who turned his wife into a yak?

What brilliant memories you folk have! (Thanks Lynn!)

Okay, so Rowling can't be accused of having gender inequality entrenched (subconsciously) within the background of her universe, given James and the Yak.

But when it came to the overt acts featured in her story she made women a protected gender every time. Even Bellatrix had to be finished off by a woman; I wonder if that's the real reason Molly was unbelievably promoted to dueller extraordinaire in the final battle?

Re: Male violence towards women

[oneandthetruth.livejournal.com]

I totally agree that it's really disgusting, the way some female writers think it's OK for women to assault men, but not the reverse. What's even worse is when they treat the attack like a joke, as in Hermione siccing canaries on Ron.

I'm currently watching Outlander, the TV series based on Diana Gabaldon's books. I started reading the first book about 20 years ago, but I quit because I was so offended by a couple of the scenes. In one of them, a woman is trying to get her brother's attention. When he doesn't respond fast enough to suit her, she reaches up under his kilt and grabs his genitals. That's revolting on three different levels: (1) It's sexual assault. (2) She's grabbing her brother's junk, so it's semi-incestuous. (3) It's treated like a big joke in the text. Hideous all around!

Hey, here's an idea: How about nobody assaults anybody? That's what I'd like to see.

Re: Male violence towards women

[madderbrad.livejournal.com]

What's even worse is when they treat the attack like a joke, as in Hermione siccing canaries on Ron.

And don't forget Ginny's sneak attacks on Smith - both of them. No way would Rowling have written good-guy Harry as cursing a girl behind her back, or flying his broom into an enemy while the latter is sitting down and unaware, but Ginny was written as doing so with total impunity.

The acts are often cited as testimony to Ginny's brutish character but they're good as anti-feminist fodder against Rowling too. :-)

Re: Male violence towards women

[oneandthetruth.livejournal.com]

Oh, yeah, those attacks are very sexist. They feed into the patriarchal misogynist meme that women are sneaky, underhanded, and generally untrustworthy.

Now, once could argue that when a person is a member of an oppressed group, and/or they're physically smaller and weaker than their target, sneak attacks are valid, even necessary, because the assailant's social, political, cultural, and physical disadvantages require them to use whatever resources are available to them, including stealth, to even the odds in a fight.

However, that argument doesn't obtain in the wizarding world because magical strength is what matters there, not physical strength. A witch can easily overpower a wizard, if her magic and/or skills are more powerful than his. So witches have no reason to make sneak attacks on wizards, unless they're just underhanded people. And in that case, they should be in Slytherin, not Gryffindor. : D

Re: Male violence towards women

[aikaterini.livejournal.com]

/What's even worse is when they treat the attack like a joke, as in Hermione siccing canaries on Ron./

Oh, yes. I’m sure that there are some people who would argue that such a trope is only sexist towards men because violence towards men is viewed positively, but I would argue that it’s also sexist towards women because it’s patronizing. The fact that you laugh when a woman attacks a man shows that you don’t take her seriously. Yes, Harry got off with a slap on the wrist when he almost killed Draco in HBP, but at least that scene was never treated as a *joke.*

/I started reading the first book about 20 years ago, but I quit because I was so offended by a couple of the scenes./

When I heard the premise of this book, I knew that it wasn’t for me because adultery/cheating is a major turn-off for me when it comes to romance. The idea of a woman leaving her loving husband to cheat on him with another guy didn’t appeal to me at all.

But then when I heard about a certain incident that happens in this book, it cemented my decision to never read it. It’s the scene where Jamie ‘punishes’ Claire. You don’t know how many people I’ve seen defend that scene. “Oh, Jamie is a product of his times,” “Oh, it was legal back then,” “Oh, she eventually got better.”

I wonder if they would say the same if Jamie was a pre-Civil War American slaveowner who beat and raped his slaves. I wonder how many of them would excuse him by saying, “Oh, slavery was legal back then and a lot of people did that sort of thing.”

/How about nobody assaults anybody?/

I agree. But in the situations where it’s inevitable (i.e. in superhero comics, action movies, etc.), I would like to see both portrayed on equal footing. He shouldn't pussyfoot around her and she shouldn't be easily walloped by him (especially not in sexualized ways) just because she’s female.

In fact, one example of possibly doing it right would be the climax of “Monster,” a South Korean thriller. The heroine, played by Kim Go-Eun, faces off against the sociopathic killer, played by Lee Min-Ki. Not only is she shorter than him, she’s mentally challenged (i.e. she has the mental state and personality of a child). And yet it works. Why?

1) She may not be as tall as him, but she’s a big girl. Even though she may be mentally challenged, she’s fast, strong, and physically capable. Also, by the time of their fight, she’s already stabbed him in the side with a knife and he’s also had his head repeatedly bashed by his brother’s goons (it’s a long story).

2) She doesn’t have the body of a supermodel nor does she wear skimpy clothes. In no way is she portrayed as a sexual object.

3) There is absolutely no sexual tension between her and Lee. Oh, there’s probably someone out there who ships them (since the Internet has taught me that it’s possible to ship anything). But their fight isn’t framed as a “slap-slap-kiss-kiss” scene disguised by violence. No, both of them are clearly fighting to kill.

4) The nature of the fight itself. It’s messy and brutal and bloody. Lee and Kim don’t trade witty banter; in fact, they don’t speak to each other during the fight. They both come off as animalistic, clawing and screaming at each other.

Re: Male violence towards women

[oneandthetruth.livejournal.com]

When I heard the premise of this book, I knew that it wasn’t for me because adultery/cheating is a major turn-off for me when it comes to romance. The idea of a woman leaving her loving husband to cheat on him with another guy didn’t appeal to me at all.

Well, in fairness, she doesn't leave him. She goes to some standing stones at Halloween and is transported from 1945 to 1743. One could argue it's not adultery because her husband hasn't been born yet. She also obsesses over getting back to the stones so she can get back to her husband. And she marries Jamie because it's the only way the Scots can protect her from a sadistic redcoat who also happens to be her 20th century husband's direct ancestor (and who looks just like him, which is very weird). She also feels guilty about being an adulteress and bigamist (in her eyes). I'm basing this on the TV show, since it's been decades since I tried to read the book. However, the show is apparently close to the book. Having looked at the wiki page, I see that Claire does decide to stay with Jamie rather than Frank, so you're at least partially correct.

And may I say how refreshing it is to see somebody condemn adultery and cheating as turn-offs! I totally agree.

But then when I heard about a certain incident that happens in this book, it cemented my decision to never read it. It’s the scene where Jamie ‘punishes’ Claire. You don’t know how many people I’ve seen defend that scene. “Oh, Jamie is a product of his times,” “Oh, it was legal back then,” “Oh, she eventually got better.”

I didn't read that far. However, I found a description of it in an Amazon review (1 star). What I found really disgusting about it was that Jamie got turned on by beating Claire. Later, he rapes her, and she enjoys it! Frankly, I think you have to be a serious sicko to consider abuse of any kind evidence of "true love."

After reading several reviews that describe repeated beatings and rapes in the rest of the book, including of Jamie himself, I think I'll quit watching after the mid-season finale tonight. It sounds like it's definitely going downhill from here.

I thought you might enjoy this description of Jamie by a reviewer: "He seems like a big, dirty, lice-infested, boorish cad to me and the thought of him anywhere near me gives me the heebie jeebies and makes me want to take a shower."

Re: Male violence towards women

[oneandthetruth.livejournal.com]

I wonder if they would say the same if Jamie was a pre-Civil War American slaveowner who beat and raped his slaves. I wonder how many of them would excuse him by saying, “Oh, slavery was legal back then and a lot of people did that sort of thing.”

I think the movie 12 Years a Slave answered that. You can portray those things, but they'd better be shown as violent, disgusting, and degrading to all parties, NOT sexy and romantic. Granted, that movie is based on fact, but I think it would happen with fiction, too. Even Gone with the Wind, one of the most egregious examples of whitewashing (pun intended) slavery, doesn't show anything more violent than a slap between mistress and slave--and it was made 75 years ago.

As for the cop-out, "Everybody did it then," as mothers like to say, "If everybody were jumping off a cliff, would you do that, too?" Besides, it's not true. The story takes place in 1743, not 1243. I've never heard of wife-beating being acceptable in 18th century Germany/Austria (in reading about Beethoven) or America (in reading about the Revolution). The Founding Fathers have been criticized many times for allowing slavery into the Constitution; I've never heard of them condoning wife-beating.

In addition, one of the things that makes people and characters heroic is that they stand up against bad-but-acceptable contemporary behavior norms. For example, in late 19th century Britain, it was legal for a man to rape his wife, even if he had an STD (which were then incurable) and knew it, because his rights over her body trumped her right to continued good health. But in the Sherlock Holmes Canon, Holmes repeatedly makes it clear (with Watson's backing) that men who abuse women in any way deserve a flogging at best (for playing a cruel trick in A Case of Identity) or death at worst (for beating or killing a woman in The Abbey Grange and The Devil's Foot). There are many other examples besides the ones I cite here. That's why it really pisses me off when people call Holmes a misogynist.

This incontrovertible Canonical evidence is a major reason I find those Mary Russell atrocities so abominable: At the end of the second book, a character, who is named Sherlock Holmes for marketing purposes (but who clearly is not) knocks Mary unconscious(just like Ray Rice), calls his attack chivalrous, and treats it like a goddamned joke! It gets sicker: We're supposed to believe Mary is a feminist because she slaps him and makes a token protest. Then he kisses her, and the kiss's force is compared with that of the blow on the head. We are obviously supposed to find this arousing. Then she marries him, even though he never swears not to hit her again, and she never asks him for such an oath. Not that it would be worth anything, anyway.

On top of that, the author and her fans all insist Mary is a feminist, badass, and role model, and that they are feminists, too! I have not seen one fan of this series object to this violent attack. Not one! If anything, they find it funny, and think the kiss is a turn-on.

I'll go vomit now.

Re: Male violence towards women

[oryx_leucoryx]

Maybe the next Dark Lord (or Lady) will do so. Start recruiting Gryffindor girls - they fight the dirtiest and are easy to enrage.

(BTW, glad to see you posting, Terri.)

Re: Male violence towards women

[jana-ch.livejournal.com]

It was the custom in Marvel comics of the Sixties and Seventies that when a superhero team would fight a supervillain team in a large battle, the token superheroine and the token supervillainess (no team ever had more than one) were required to fight each other, no matter how mis-matched their superpowers. There would sometimes be a scene in which the heroes would hesitate to attack the villainess (the only one left standing after the ‘important’—i.e. male—bad guys has been disposed of), and the heroine would push forward to take her on as rightful prey.

What happens with Bellatrix in the Final Battle fits this pattern: first she kills Tonks, then she fights three junior witches, then she is finished off by a witch of her own generation, but she is never shown fighting a wizard. This does not hold in the Battle of the Department of Mysteries, where she duels both Sirius and Harry.

Re: Male violence towards women

[vermouth1991.livejournal.com]

Bella does have the dubious honor of dueling with all three of the Trio. (Harry in the DoM, Ron during the 7-H's, and Hermione in the end).

Bellatrix a counterexample?

[terri-testing.livejournal.com]

Um. In the DoM, she casts the Cruciatus on a disarmed and immobilized boy. Then she Stuns Tonks. Then... she may be "dueling" Sirius, but he's not dueling her--he's laughing at her, and is taken by surprise when her second spell (red light) knocks him through the Veil. As for Harry, she runs from him until she's knocked down by his Cruciatus. Then none of HER spells can hit HIM--she's only rescued by Tom's appearance, trapped by a statue when Albus & Tom start dueling, and pulled to safety by Tom, Diasapparated away, when Fudge & the other MoM personnel arrive. So, no, we don't exactly ever see her duel a wizard effectively or as his equal; she has to be rescued from a boy wizard by a man.

As for 7P, Ron "stunned" (probably killed) one of the DE's, probably Rodolphus, and we're told Bellatrix was trying to get Tonks (even more then Tonks's "Harry," Ron), but if Bellatrix cast at Ron, again, it was ineffectively.

(And, of course, it all happens off-screen.)

So, no, we're not actually shown Bella dueling as an equal with the big boys, whatever her conceit of herself.

Re: Bellatrix a counterexample?

[jana-ch.livejournal.com]

By “dueling” I just meant fighting wand-to-wand against an identified opponent, rather than as part of a melee.

[jana-ch.livejournal.com]

Only Madderbrad seems to have objected to 'serial dating' per se, but 'dating a string of boys while hoping that Harry would notice her' IS a problem if Ginny is consciously leading boys to think she likes them when in fact she's just using them to attract Harry. This is not fair to the boys who believe she's sincere in her affections. So there can indeed be room for criticism of her social life without 'slut-shaming.'

On the other hand, it's possible Ginny was genuinely trying to get over her crush on Harry and become interested in other boys, but it simply didn't work out. Michael and Dean were okay, but in the end they didn't measure up to Harry. Interpreted in those terms, there's no reason at all to object to Ginny's dating behavior at all. Canon allows for either interpretation.

[vermouth1991.livejournal.com]

Agreed. It's just that we won't be sure how much of Ginny's holding-out-for-Harry affected her relationships with the other boys, and how much was they're-not-meant-to-be-anyway.

[jana-ch.livejournal.com]

Everyone has an emotional history that effects their relationships. If only the Pure of Heart (in the sense of having zero emotional baggage) were allowed to date, we’d all be monks and nuns.

[madderbrad.livejournal.com]

... there are multiple, very long threads laying out in detail why those sentiments are sexist and unwelcome in this community. The most recent was in Mary_J_59's "A plea for tolerance?"

Which had absolutely nothing to do with Ginny's serial dating.

And which did not have anything like unanimous concurrence to her plea on self-censorship.

Yes, you do have a right to free speech. You DO NOT have the right to an ***AUDIENCE***!

What a horrible, horrible machination to destroy fair play in this LJ community.

Unless you are the owner of livejournal or moderator of this community, you have no more right to subject us to your bilge ...

And you don't have any more right to slap 'BILGE! BECAUSE I SAY SO!' stickers on posts you don't like and proclaim them forbidden with authority you do not possess. (My understanding being that *you* are not an owner of Livejournal or a moderator of this community.)

... after being asked to stop ...

As I said, one person - Mary J - put up a 'please stop' post - regarding attacks on J. Rowling, nothing to do with Ginny being the Girl Who Dates - and she did NOT get unanimous agreement.

With every fibre of my being I detest people who forbid all speech that they personally don't like, no matter the rules that they would normally accept and condone. If this was your journal then you would have ultimate power to do whatever you liked - fair or otherwise.

But you don't have that power here, and it is disingenuous to the extreme for you to jump up and down in your jackboots and pretend that you do. Or that the entire community, minus big bad Brad, is behind you.

I'm not going to discuss the 'Ginny serial dater' thing because - as I think I mentioned in that long-ago thread - there's a chance that your draconian histrionics will snowball into ugliness in a community that, absent your bullying, is typically free from such. I'm making this comment to register my resistance to you laying down the law to others on how you think this community should run. Your hounding of vermouth1991 in this case was sickening.

Please. Just. Stop.