In which I ramble and rant and ponder the treatment of fictional women
Why is it that a character always has to live up to our personal expectations of love or else they're bad, wrong, fake, stupid, immature, silly, dependent, weak, etc.? And why do we harp so much on how a character acts as a teenager, or at certain moments during their teenage years, in defining how they "truly are" and how they will grow as adults?
In most cases, we freely admit that they are flawed in certain ways - and we mostly want flawed characters because they're more interesting - yet if they act a certain way based on said flaws, we as fandom pounce, chastise and flame them for it.
Yes, they are characters in a fictional book, but does that mean that they are not allowed to be human?
Merope Gaunt
So much is made of her upbringing, and how we should pity her, and how weak she was. Her own son loathes her for being weak, yet as someone who has never been in love, how is Voldemort in a position to judge her? And how are we? Because there has never been a woman who has been in love (with a man or a woman), has been rejected by that man/woman, and been completely devastated by the rejection as a result. Is that it? What feminist utopian world are you living in?
Why must every single woman in literature be strong and overcome her all of her so-called weaknesses when real life doesn't reflect this. It's not about what we want in a character, but acknowledging what is.
Did anyone focus on how brave it was of Merope to decide to stop giving Riddle the love potion? To, in a sense, make the choice between what is right and what is easy? Of course what she did in the in the first place was wrong from a moral standpoint, so was she simply getting her 'just desserts' for erring in the first place when he rejected her? And then she died after giving birth because she didn't have the will to live. Not something I like, as I'll get to later, but is it a human reaction? Yes.
Tonks
I freely admit that I was personally disappointed by Tonks' 'magical' transformation - from having had brown mousy hair and being generally preoccupied all book long, to suddenly having her pink hair again at Dumbledore's funeral. I also personally loathe the Hospital Wing scene at the end of HBP.
But the more I think about it, what exactly is wrong with Tonks being upset over being rejected? From what we are shown in HBP, (sorry fellow R/S shippers) Lupin did return her feelings to some extent, so it wasn't as if she was forcing herself upon a man who absolutely didn't want her. Whether or not Lupin felt he was ready for or wanted a relationship with Tonks is not really the issue. (And I should note that Tonks didn't display any behaviors that would indicate she was trying to make Lupin jealous either)
Yes, it's certainly not a 'feminist' ideal, but as far as we can see, it doesn't detrimentally affect her performance in her job. She still realized Harry hadn't disembarked from the train, and she seemed to be doing her job for both Ministry and Order well enough. No, it's not an attractive quality to mope about over someone you love, but it IS a human one.
Dying or becoming depressed or incapacitated in some way from a supposed broken heart - showing any "weakness in character" over love is shunned so deeply and labeled as "weak" or "pathetic", yet when they do "move on with their lives" they're still vilified, which brings me to...
Ginny Weasley
Yes, Ginny had a crush on Harry. She also got over it in the sense that she moved on in her life, dating other boys, making new friends and excelling at Quidditch - a sport she loved and which had nothing to do with Harry's love of Quidditch, I might add.
So when Harry finally decides he likes her, sees her for who she is and not as Ron's little sister, it's Ginny who is vilified because she had the audacity to still like him? You have a crush on Person A, but they don't show interest in you. You later meet Person B whom you like; you date them and are happy, but still think Person A is desirable in some way - cute, nice, funny or whatever. So does this mean that if Person A ever shows interest in you, you must not go out with them (even if and especially if, you and person B have broken up) because that implies that you never really liked Person B and were obviously just using them? That you never truly moved on? Does the definition of "getting over a crush and moving on" mean that you have to dislike, loathe or hate said crush before you can be deemed "cured"? That's rather ridiculous.
Furthermore, to theorize that Ginny only dated Michael or Dean, or 'acted a certain way' with the sole intention of making Harry jealous or 'wooing' him, is equally ridiculous and trite. Yes, some women do this - date someone to make another jealous - but to ascribe this behavior to all women? Ginny broke up with Michael because she realized she didn't really like certain things about him, and she and Dean broke up - well, hell, if you ascribe to the idea that the Felix Felicis potion makes people do things they wouldn't normally do, then Harry is actually at fault, no? Either way, they had a fight and broke up. And if you want to tell me teens, much less adults don't have fights with their significant others and break up over it...
Hermione
Yes, Hermione sic-ced birds on Ron, and performed a Confundus Charm on McLaggen, and OMG! That was SO awful and SO not a Hermione thing to do! I beg to differ, as, in book one she petrified Neville, it was her idea to make the Polyjuice Potion, and it was Hermione who captured Rita Skeeter and held her as a temporary prisoner in a jar and then blackmailed her. But of course those other instances were acceptable because they weren't motivated by love or attraction.
Why is it that Hermione is so perfect and logical and independent, but she's not allowed to get jealous or upset over love?
~*~
It seems as if we have this double standard - that women need to act more like a man would in order to be seen as 'strong' or 'worthy'. But women are not men. Why is 'the "masculine" standard' deemed acceptable and ideal? Why can't women be women and men be men? It's no different than men being described as "feminine" for crying. Biologically we both have tear ducts after all.
Don't get me wrong - I'm not anti-feminist by any means. Sometimes though, I really don't understand the logic behind certain sentiments, and I think that there's a world of difference between common courtesy and being condescending or patronizing.
Whether we like or approve of, or even agree with the way JKR writes her female characters is not the issue. My point in outlining the above is not to say that you should change your opinions of the characters, like them or dislike them because I say so.
To be honest, the "woman dying from heartbreak" concept annoys me. It annoyed me in HBP with Merope, and it annoyed me in Star Wars with Padme. In another sense, I've been devastated by relationship breakups myself, and have done things and acted in ways that I'm not particularly proud of as a result - as a teen and as an adult. I've gotten a bit depressed on occasion, cried, gone on drinking binges, lashed out in anger... and other times I've simply nodded, maybe cried for a few minutes, but then simply turned around and gone on with my life. All perfectly human reactions and there is no single rule to dictate how I will/would/should react to a breakup - nor is there for any other woman. It's always different and dependent on other factors in our lives at the time, as well as our age, personalities, maturity and experiences.
As a teenager, I was silly and giggly about boys plenty of times. I got irrationally angry when a boy did something that made me angry or jealous. Did that mean I was supposed to grow up and remain as such? That my teenage behavior defined my adulthood? That I wasn't allowed to mature and learn from my experiences? Some people never 'grow up'. Some people continue what would be considered childish behavior into their adulthood. But to condemn Lavender Brown to a life as an air-headed gossip because of the way she acted with Ron? That seems so limiting, as well as a disservice. Are we saying, "Here is your childhood, but whatever you do, don't ever act like a child!"?
We mock Mary Sues, scoff at women who are too perfect, scoff at certain women who get the guy because we don't feel they "deserve" it, or that they "deserve" more or less than what the author "gives" them. Hermione "deserves" Harry because Ron isn't good enough for her. Tonks doesn't "deserve" Lupin because they don't suit each other and she'll never understand him the way Sirius did. Merope didn't "deserve" for Riddle, Sr. to love her because what she did to him was morally wrong. Ginny doesn't "deserve" Harry because that's a bad lesson to show to girls about how persistence in a crush always pays off.
We're collectively an unforgiving and opinionated bunch, aren't we? Of course we are. I'm being opinionated right now, and part of the fun of fandom in the first place is debating and discussing our opinions and observations, our wacky theories, and moaning or gloating when they're shot down, disproved or confirmed. The only thing the HP fandom as a whole has in common is that we all enjoy at least some aspect of the Harry Potter books/movies. After that, it's a free-for-all of organized, semi-organized and completely unorganized chaos.
But what it comes down to, and what I'm asking with all of my above rambling is:
If we're allowed to be human and imperfect in our own behaviors when it comes to love, romance and sex, when exactly did we stop allowing characters to be human and imperfect, too? Must they always be an example or can they not occasionally be a reflection?
ETA: I should add that I'm not trying to apologize for the characters or for JKR's choices in how she chooses to write them. I obviously don't agree with many of her choices. And it's not a matter of accepting stereotypes or what is right and what is wrong morally - we all have different answers to that and it's futile to debate that. It's about allowing characters to be human, to be a reflection of humanity perhaps, which in many cases is for them to NOT be something we idealize or desire for ourselves.
In most cases, we freely admit that they are flawed in certain ways - and we mostly want flawed characters because they're more interesting - yet if they act a certain way based on said flaws, we as fandom pounce, chastise and flame them for it.
Yes, they are characters in a fictional book, but does that mean that they are not allowed to be human?
Merope Gaunt
So much is made of her upbringing, and how we should pity her, and how weak she was. Her own son loathes her for being weak, yet as someone who has never been in love, how is Voldemort in a position to judge her? And how are we? Because there has never been a woman who has been in love (with a man or a woman), has been rejected by that man/woman, and been completely devastated by the rejection as a result. Is that it? What feminist utopian world are you living in?
Why must every single woman in literature be strong and overcome her all of her so-called weaknesses when real life doesn't reflect this. It's not about what we want in a character, but acknowledging what is.
Did anyone focus on how brave it was of Merope to decide to stop giving Riddle the love potion? To, in a sense, make the choice between what is right and what is easy? Of course what she did in the in the first place was wrong from a moral standpoint, so was she simply getting her 'just desserts' for erring in the first place when he rejected her? And then she died after giving birth because she didn't have the will to live. Not something I like, as I'll get to later, but is it a human reaction? Yes.
Tonks
I freely admit that I was personally disappointed by Tonks' 'magical' transformation - from having had brown mousy hair and being generally preoccupied all book long, to suddenly having her pink hair again at Dumbledore's funeral. I also personally loathe the Hospital Wing scene at the end of HBP.
But the more I think about it, what exactly is wrong with Tonks being upset over being rejected? From what we are shown in HBP, (sorry fellow R/S shippers) Lupin did return her feelings to some extent, so it wasn't as if she was forcing herself upon a man who absolutely didn't want her. Whether or not Lupin felt he was ready for or wanted a relationship with Tonks is not really the issue. (And I should note that Tonks didn't display any behaviors that would indicate she was trying to make Lupin jealous either)
Yes, it's certainly not a 'feminist' ideal, but as far as we can see, it doesn't detrimentally affect her performance in her job. She still realized Harry hadn't disembarked from the train, and she seemed to be doing her job for both Ministry and Order well enough. No, it's not an attractive quality to mope about over someone you love, but it IS a human one.
Dying or becoming depressed or incapacitated in some way from a supposed broken heart - showing any "weakness in character" over love is shunned so deeply and labeled as "weak" or "pathetic", yet when they do "move on with their lives" they're still vilified, which brings me to...
Ginny Weasley
Yes, Ginny had a crush on Harry. She also got over it in the sense that she moved on in her life, dating other boys, making new friends and excelling at Quidditch - a sport she loved and which had nothing to do with Harry's love of Quidditch, I might add.
So when Harry finally decides he likes her, sees her for who she is and not as Ron's little sister, it's Ginny who is vilified because she had the audacity to still like him? You have a crush on Person A, but they don't show interest in you. You later meet Person B whom you like; you date them and are happy, but still think Person A is desirable in some way - cute, nice, funny or whatever. So does this mean that if Person A ever shows interest in you, you must not go out with them (even if and especially if, you and person B have broken up) because that implies that you never really liked Person B and were obviously just using them? That you never truly moved on? Does the definition of "getting over a crush and moving on" mean that you have to dislike, loathe or hate said crush before you can be deemed "cured"? That's rather ridiculous.
Furthermore, to theorize that Ginny only dated Michael or Dean, or 'acted a certain way' with the sole intention of making Harry jealous or 'wooing' him, is equally ridiculous and trite. Yes, some women do this - date someone to make another jealous - but to ascribe this behavior to all women? Ginny broke up with Michael because she realized she didn't really like certain things about him, and she and Dean broke up - well, hell, if you ascribe to the idea that the Felix Felicis potion makes people do things they wouldn't normally do, then Harry is actually at fault, no? Either way, they had a fight and broke up. And if you want to tell me teens, much less adults don't have fights with their significant others and break up over it...
Hermione
Yes, Hermione sic-ced birds on Ron, and performed a Confundus Charm on McLaggen, and OMG! That was SO awful and SO not a Hermione thing to do! I beg to differ, as, in book one she petrified Neville, it was her idea to make the Polyjuice Potion, and it was Hermione who captured Rita Skeeter and held her as a temporary prisoner in a jar and then blackmailed her. But of course those other instances were acceptable because they weren't motivated by love or attraction.
Why is it that Hermione is so perfect and logical and independent, but she's not allowed to get jealous or upset over love?
~*~
It seems as if we have this double standard - that women need to act more like a man would in order to be seen as 'strong' or 'worthy'. But women are not men. Why is 'the "masculine" standard' deemed acceptable and ideal? Why can't women be women and men be men? It's no different than men being described as "feminine" for crying. Biologically we both have tear ducts after all.
Don't get me wrong - I'm not anti-feminist by any means. Sometimes though, I really don't understand the logic behind certain sentiments, and I think that there's a world of difference between common courtesy and being condescending or patronizing.
Whether we like or approve of, or even agree with the way JKR writes her female characters is not the issue. My point in outlining the above is not to say that you should change your opinions of the characters, like them or dislike them because I say so.
To be honest, the "woman dying from heartbreak" concept annoys me. It annoyed me in HBP with Merope, and it annoyed me in Star Wars with Padme. In another sense, I've been devastated by relationship breakups myself, and have done things and acted in ways that I'm not particularly proud of as a result - as a teen and as an adult. I've gotten a bit depressed on occasion, cried, gone on drinking binges, lashed out in anger... and other times I've simply nodded, maybe cried for a few minutes, but then simply turned around and gone on with my life. All perfectly human reactions and there is no single rule to dictate how I will/would/should react to a breakup - nor is there for any other woman. It's always different and dependent on other factors in our lives at the time, as well as our age, personalities, maturity and experiences.
As a teenager, I was silly and giggly about boys plenty of times. I got irrationally angry when a boy did something that made me angry or jealous. Did that mean I was supposed to grow up and remain as such? That my teenage behavior defined my adulthood? That I wasn't allowed to mature and learn from my experiences? Some people never 'grow up'. Some people continue what would be considered childish behavior into their adulthood. But to condemn Lavender Brown to a life as an air-headed gossip because of the way she acted with Ron? That seems so limiting, as well as a disservice. Are we saying, "Here is your childhood, but whatever you do, don't ever act like a child!"?
We mock Mary Sues, scoff at women who are too perfect, scoff at certain women who get the guy because we don't feel they "deserve" it, or that they "deserve" more or less than what the author "gives" them. Hermione "deserves" Harry because Ron isn't good enough for her. Tonks doesn't "deserve" Lupin because they don't suit each other and she'll never understand him the way Sirius did. Merope didn't "deserve" for Riddle, Sr. to love her because what she did to him was morally wrong. Ginny doesn't "deserve" Harry because that's a bad lesson to show to girls about how persistence in a crush always pays off.
We're collectively an unforgiving and opinionated bunch, aren't we? Of course we are. I'm being opinionated right now, and part of the fun of fandom in the first place is debating and discussing our opinions and observations, our wacky theories, and moaning or gloating when they're shot down, disproved or confirmed. The only thing the HP fandom as a whole has in common is that we all enjoy at least some aspect of the Harry Potter books/movies. After that, it's a free-for-all of organized, semi-organized and completely unorganized chaos.
But what it comes down to, and what I'm asking with all of my above rambling is:
If we're allowed to be human and imperfect in our own behaviors when it comes to love, romance and sex, when exactly did we stop allowing characters to be human and imperfect, too? Must they always be an example or can they not occasionally be a reflection?
ETA: I should add that I'm not trying to apologize for the characters or for JKR's choices in how she chooses to write them. I obviously don't agree with many of her choices. And it's not a matter of accepting stereotypes or what is right and what is wrong morally - we all have different answers to that and it's futile to debate that. It's about allowing characters to be human, to be a reflection of humanity perhaps, which in many cases is for them to NOT be something we idealize or desire for ourselves.