A flint is a author mistake - plot inconsistency, editing problem. I think it's so called in this fandom because of JKR having Marcus Flint (the Slytherin captain) in school a year later than he should have been. Interestingly she recently addressed this, saying that she'd rather Marcus made the mistake than her! ;)
I totally emphasise with Sirius' disinterest towards housecleaning, especially considering his circumstances and family situation; and I can see how Molly's constant petty domestic interjections could get real old, real fast. However, she's not being paid (as far as we know) to cook, clean and care for the residents of Grimmauld Place; and if I was her, I'd be pretty irritated with the implication that Sirius is somehow exempt from being useful, considering that he's basically under house arrest. Might as well get something done. Of course, Molly strikes me as the type of character who it wouldn't occur to to be irritated by things like sexism as regards to who cleans and cooks. Of course she'll do it! But then, I've never been impressed by JKR's portrayal of gender relations or her female characters, so...
My reading of Molly not wanting Fletcher at the table was less due to distaste at his criminality and more that -- as mentioned in the very next sentence -- she was pissed at him for running off when he was supposed to be guarding Harry, with such unfortunate results.
Can't it be both? She's not too impressed with him regaling the twins with his exploits...
Ah. Somehow the last time you mentioned a "flint" I was wondering if it was an Our Man Flint reference or something -- seemed to be in that kind of a context.
Molly Weasley is a topic worth considering at some length. Given that we've seen female Aurors and learned that the last Minister of Magic was a woman, and later on we learn that witches have been headmistresses of Hogwarts as well, and given that the girls at Hogwarts aren't sorted out of the more interesting classes and relegated to magical equivalents of home economics, I think it's safe to infer that witches have the same career options wizards do in the HPverse. (Given that the threat of physical force is ultimately what tends to keep women in a subservient social position in most societies, and that we've seen that magical ability is not determined by gender and is all-important in the wizarding world, it makes perfect sense that this would be so.) Which leads me to conclude that Molly Weasley is a fulltime homemaker by choice. (A point often missed in the feminist revolution is that some women are happy staying at home with the kids -- and they shouldn't be considered traitors to their gender.) Someone else has noted that, even though her youngest is now off at boarding school nine or ten months out of the year she's shown no sign of either getting a job or of taking a more active role in the Order.
That being said, I can't say what the cooking situation would be were Molly not doing it. There is a house elf, and that is his job -- but then, he hasn't exactly been cleaning the place up and they might not want to trust his cookery. In any case, Molly is the only person there who gives a damn about whether the house is clean or not, this including the house's owner, and I don't think I'm making a huge leap with the assumption that she's not cleaning at anyone's request. Rather, Molly Weasley, Domestic Goddess, is imposing her will on the domain she finds herself in, without questioning whether she has any right to turn herself into the Order's chatelaine or whether the house's owner wants her to do so. Her sense of self is based on being undisputed matriarch and ruler over her household (barring occasional interjections from Arthur, who in general submits amiably to her rule), and she is attempting to extend her dominance over the Order headquarters (and by extension in subtle way over the Order itself -- notice who was most emphatic about whether Harry should be told anything at all about what was going on?).
I just don't see Molly Weasley as a put-upon and subservient female who's been relegated to house elf status by the uncaring men surrounding her. She's marking her territory.
And she doesn't much like Fletcher, but I think she has at least enough sense of decency not to make his unsavory habits reason to bar him from the dinner table. Though she's got enough of a grudge against him to use his very real dereliction of duty as an excuse.
I just got my comp back after a virus, so forgive the late reply. You make some extremely interesting points. I think your assessment of Molly's character, in particular, is very sharp, and to clarify; if I gave the impression that I viewed her as some weak little flower who the men all boss, that's not my intention. I agree, her motivation seems to be territory, and I doubt she questions this any more than The Order seem to. As to general feminism in the WW and by extension, JKR's books, this essay is far more indepth than my comments could be and kind of explains things from my perspective (I didn't write it. But I do agree with it.) http://www.livejournal.com/users/no_remorse/47266.html
I've got a whole rant on where the feminist movement lost direction and the mess it's landed present day American women in that's been building for months -- one of these days I'm going to sit down and get it all thrashed out into an LJ post and get it out of my system, but until then I have the urge to pontificate in others' LJ comments whenever I run across a semi-related topic.
The portion relevant to this discussion is that the author of the essay notes that JKR has been doing what I think the feminist movement as a whole has done -- gotten very caught up in giving women equal access to careers and representation in positions of power, without having noted the underlying cultural attitudes persisting from earlier decades that also need altering. no_remorse says that the portrayals of Petunia and Molly are each in their way a slam at the stereotyped housewife, but I find it rather nonprogressive that the two families that shape Harry's view of "unpleasant" Muggle families and "welcoming" wizard families both have mothers who are housewives, though that's a rarer style of family nowadays in the US and UK both. (And for that matter, I find it an unhealthy trend in the feminist movement to slam housewives, period.)
There are some very good points, though, with the way most female characters (barring Umbridge and to a certain extent Bellatrix, Narcissa Malfoy, and Mrs. Longbottom) are divided into tomboyish/gender-neutral and interesting or feminine and vapid, and the way the sexually aggressive females suffer for their non-passivity. That does seem a symptom of a problem some women seem to suffer, of thinking of other women in terms of rivalry for male attention, as seen in the way too many fanfics treat female characters who aren't Mary Sues. Then again, it could be an almost-unconscious commentary on the difference between girls who place a strong emphasis on being attractive and other "feminine" things and the ones who have other concerns than the way they look or whatever man seems to be around -- though I would indeed have been happier if one of those girls with actual depth to their personality was shown being sexually aggressive. Still, there's a limit to the amount of romantic activity that will go on in a young adult series until the kids reach an age that won't squick the adult readers, and there's hope that either Hermione or Luna will show a bit of forwardness or else that Harry will learn even more about his parents' relationship (and especially about his mother -- though, again, a squick factor needs to be considered).
I find it an unhealthy trend in the feminist movement to slam housewives, period.
Really? Would you say that's more a problem with American feminism in particular, or worldwide?
Most female characters (barring Umbridge and to a certain extent Bellatrix, Narcissa Malfoy, and Mrs. Longbottom)
I would include Umbridge and Bellatrix in the feminine and negative, if not vapid, categories. The baby voices, for example. Narcissa Malfoy is described as attractive, which seems to be a mark against her for some reason; and Alice Longbottom seems to fit into Lily's category of Saintly Mothers (no_remorse did another essay on motherhood in hp, if you want to see it?http://www.livejournal.com/users/no_remorse/51084.html)
I can't speak very much for worldwide feminism, being an American living in America. I have no more than anecdotal evidence, as with my uncle (who spent much of several years living in France) noting that the French don't have any problem with powerful women retaining their femininity (as opposed to American women, who seem to have gotten the impression that feminine = vapid and useless), or as with the article that so caught my attention by pointing out that American women with only two or three months of family leave lag behind working women in every other industrialized country (Australia was listed by the article as having the next-least amount of family leave with a full year of unpaid maternity leave). My impression is that American women had gotten rather sidetracked in the feminist movement and in trying to prove that women are as good as men chose the road of trying to make women as like men as possible -- which led to women as well as men marginalizing and discriminating against femininity as unworthy and lesser. Which in turn led to a contempt for the role of wife and mother that hasn't made women's lives any easier -- because the business world resists making special allowances for women to fulfill these roles in addition to their careers, because men resist providing further assistance to their families in those roles precisely because of the contempt those roles are still held in, because it is denied that tending to home and family is a fulltime job and that working mothers have therefore two careers to juggle (and therefore that women who choose only one or the other are not either gender traitors or in some way "unfeminine" or "unnatural").
As for Umbridge and Bellatrix, they are negative and that essay perhaps makes a telling point that some of the worst villainesses are childless. But their femininity doesn't equate to powerlessness -- and I seem to dimly recall no_remorse noting in that other essay that use of women in evil roles leads to them being treated as commentary on female character whereas use of men in those roles leads to bewailing of the lack of "strong female roles."
If nothing else, Narcissa Malfoy is strong enough in character to have overruled her husband in the choice of Draco's school. And I wasn't even thinking of Alice Longbottom (though I thank you for the link to that essay) -- I should have said Emily Longbottom, Neville's grandmother. (Though at her age, sexuality is rather a past thing, still she manages to combine strength and motherhood -- or rather, grandmotherhood. Albeit a bit coldly, from what we saw of her in OotP, still she at least was a good judge of character and gave Neville appropriate guidance. Aside from that business of not watching his uncles around him more closely -- what with him being dropped off piers and out of windows -- and I'm guessing it was her doing that had him using his father's wand rather than getting his own.)
As for Umbridge and Bellatrix, they are negative and that essay perhaps makes a telling point that some of the worst villainesses are childless. But their femininity doesn't equate to powerlessness -- and I seem to dimly recall no_remorse noting in that other essay that use of women in evil roles leads to them being treated as commentary on female character whereas use of men in those roles leads to bewailing of the lack of "strong female roles."
Although of course, both women in those cases are 'seconds' to male bosses - Umbridge has Fudge, Lestrange has Voldie.
It's difficult, when feminism and the idea of strong female role models have been around a relatively short time, not to treat every female character as one who could/should be an example. Maya wrote an interesting post on how females are glorified in the HP!verse, and whether or not this is JKR's attempts at feminism, and if so, how so successful they are (because of course, male characters are allowed to be flawed, and need not conform to being 'examples' of their gender, but personalities separate in their own right.) http://www.livejournal.com/users/mistful/61583.html
I totally emphasise with Sirius' disinterest towards housecleaning, especially considering his circumstances and family situation; and I can see how Molly's constant petty domestic interjections could get real old, real fast.
However, she's not being paid (as far as we know) to cook, clean and care for the residents of Grimmauld Place; and if I was her, I'd be pretty irritated with the implication that Sirius is somehow exempt from being useful, considering that he's basically under house arrest. Might as well get something done.
Of course, Molly strikes me as the type of character who it wouldn't occur to to be irritated by things like sexism as regards to who cleans and cooks. Of course she'll do it!
But then, I've never been impressed by JKR's portrayal of gender relations or her female characters, so...
My reading of Molly not wanting Fletcher at the table was less due to distaste at his criminality and more that -- as mentioned in the very next sentence -- she was pissed at him for running off when he was supposed to be guarding Harry, with such unfortunate results.
Can't it be both? She's not too impressed with him regaling the twins with his exploits...
Reply
Molly Weasley is a topic worth considering at some length. Given that we've seen female Aurors and learned that the last Minister of Magic was a woman, and later on we learn that witches have been headmistresses of Hogwarts as well, and given that the girls at Hogwarts aren't sorted out of the more interesting classes and relegated to magical equivalents of home economics, I think it's safe to infer that witches have the same career options wizards do in the HPverse. (Given that the threat of physical force is ultimately what tends to keep women in a subservient social position in most societies, and that we've seen that magical ability is not determined by gender and is all-important in the wizarding world, it makes perfect sense that this would be so.) Which leads me to conclude that Molly Weasley is a fulltime homemaker by choice. (A point often missed in the feminist revolution is that some women are happy staying at home with the kids -- and they shouldn't be considered traitors to their gender.) Someone else has noted that, even though her youngest is now off at boarding school nine or ten months out of the year she's shown no sign of either getting a job or of taking a more active role in the Order.
That being said, I can't say what the cooking situation would be were Molly not doing it. There is a house elf, and that is his job -- but then, he hasn't exactly been cleaning the place up and they might not want to trust his cookery. In any case, Molly is the only person there who gives a damn about whether the house is clean or not, this including the house's owner, and I don't think I'm making a huge leap with the assumption that she's not cleaning at anyone's request. Rather, Molly Weasley, Domestic Goddess, is imposing her will on the domain she finds herself in, without questioning whether she has any right to turn herself into the Order's chatelaine or whether the house's owner wants her to do so. Her sense of self is based on being undisputed matriarch and ruler over her household (barring occasional interjections from Arthur, who in general submits amiably to her rule), and she is attempting to extend her dominance over the Order headquarters (and by extension in subtle way over the Order itself -- notice who was most emphatic about whether Harry should be told anything at all about what was going on?).
I just don't see Molly Weasley as a put-upon and subservient female who's been relegated to house elf status by the uncaring men surrounding her. She's marking her territory.
And she doesn't much like Fletcher, but I think she has at least enough sense of decency not to make his unsavory habits reason to bar him from the dinner table. Though she's got enough of a grudge against him to use his very real dereliction of duty as an excuse.
Reply
You make some extremely interesting points.
I think your assessment of Molly's character, in particular, is very sharp, and to clarify; if I gave the impression that I viewed her as some weak little flower who the men all boss, that's not my intention. I agree, her motivation seems to be territory, and I doubt she questions this any more than The Order seem to.
As to general feminism in the WW and by extension, JKR's books, this essay is far more indepth than my comments could be and kind of explains things from my perspective (I didn't write it. But I do agree with it.)
http://www.livejournal.com/users/no_remorse/47266.html
Reply
The portion relevant to this discussion is that the author of the essay notes that JKR has been doing what I think the feminist movement as a whole has done -- gotten very caught up in giving women equal access to careers and representation in positions of power, without having noted the underlying cultural attitudes persisting from earlier decades that also need altering. no_remorse says that the portrayals of Petunia and Molly are each in their way a slam at the stereotyped housewife, but I find it rather nonprogressive that the two families that shape Harry's view of "unpleasant" Muggle families and "welcoming" wizard families both have mothers who are housewives, though that's a rarer style of family nowadays in the US and UK both. (And for that matter, I find it an unhealthy trend in the feminist movement to slam housewives, period.)
There are some very good points, though, with the way most female characters (barring Umbridge and to a certain extent Bellatrix, Narcissa Malfoy, and Mrs. Longbottom) are divided into tomboyish/gender-neutral and interesting or feminine and vapid, and the way the sexually aggressive females suffer for their non-passivity. That does seem a symptom of a problem some women seem to suffer, of thinking of other women in terms of rivalry for male attention, as seen in the way too many fanfics treat female characters who aren't Mary Sues. Then again, it could be an almost-unconscious commentary on the difference between girls who place a strong emphasis on being attractive and other "feminine" things and the ones who have other concerns than the way they look or whatever man seems to be around -- though I would indeed have been happier if one of those girls with actual depth to their personality was shown being sexually aggressive. Still, there's a limit to the amount of romantic activity that will go on in a young adult series until the kids reach an age that won't squick the adult readers, and there's hope that either Hermione or Luna will show a bit of forwardness or else that Harry will learn even more about his parents' relationship (and especially about his mother -- though, again, a squick factor needs to be considered).
Reply
Really? Would you say that's more a problem with American feminism in particular, or worldwide?
Most female characters (barring Umbridge and to a certain extent Bellatrix, Narcissa Malfoy, and Mrs. Longbottom)
I would include Umbridge and Bellatrix in the feminine and negative, if not vapid, categories.
The baby voices, for example.
Narcissa Malfoy is described as attractive, which seems to be a mark against her for some reason; and Alice Longbottom seems to fit into Lily's category of Saintly Mothers (no_remorse did another essay on motherhood in hp, if you want to see it?http://www.livejournal.com/users/no_remorse/51084.html)
Reply
As for Umbridge and Bellatrix, they are negative and that essay perhaps makes a telling point that some of the worst villainesses are childless. But their femininity doesn't equate to powerlessness -- and I seem to dimly recall no_remorse noting in that other essay that use of women in evil roles leads to them being treated as commentary on female character whereas use of men in those roles leads to bewailing of the lack of "strong female roles."
If nothing else, Narcissa Malfoy is strong enough in character to have overruled her husband in the choice of Draco's school. And I wasn't even thinking of Alice Longbottom (though I thank you for the link to that essay) -- I should have said Emily Longbottom, Neville's grandmother. (Though at her age, sexuality is rather a past thing, still she manages to combine strength and motherhood -- or rather, grandmotherhood. Albeit a bit coldly, from what we saw of her in OotP, still she at least was a good judge of character and gave Neville appropriate guidance. Aside from that business of not watching his uncles around him more closely -- what with him being dropped off piers and out of windows -- and I'm guessing it was her doing that had him using his father's wand rather than getting his own.)
Reply
Although of course, both women in those cases are 'seconds' to male bosses - Umbridge has Fudge, Lestrange has Voldie.
It's difficult, when feminism and the idea of strong female role models have been around a relatively short time, not to treat every female character as one who could/should be an example. Maya wrote an interesting post on how females are glorified in the HP!verse, and whether or not this is JKR's attempts at feminism, and if so, how so successful they are (because of course, male characters are allowed to be flawed, and need not conform to being 'examples' of their gender, but personalities separate in their own right.) http://www.livejournal.com/users/mistful/61583.html
Reply
Leave a comment