people give jkr way too much credit for her depiction of female characters. Like she cannot even stand taking women (in her own fictional world) seriously when they're not catering to the desires/convenience to her male characters. That woman never had a feminist bone in her body, we were all in the TRENCHES in the 2000s when her brand of white feminism was considered progressive.
I think Rowling was given a lot of importance and relevance because she presents a character like Hermione, who is part of the main trio and is a character with her own agency. Thatâs something that wasnât very common in childrenâs fantasy novels, especially because we know perfectly well that the most well-known fantasy novels tend to have female characters whose only goal is to get a boyfriend, and in the end their boyfriend becomes more important than they are and we could talk about an endless list of those. But the problem is that Rowling hates women âshe hates women who arenât like her, to be more soecificâ and she clearly is a woman who has a deep need for male validation, and her projection of what a âvalidâ woman or a âvalidâ teenage girl is has a lot to do with her own self-image. She often says that Hermione is a kind of parody of herself, and she confesses that when she was in school she didnât have many friends, because since she was very smart and got very good grades and the teachers loved her, the rest of the kids ânot kids, but girlsâ were very jealous of her. And itâs like: no, J.K. Rowling, Iâm so sorry, but you were an unbearable jerk and you didnât know how to make female friends, and thatâs the problem you have.
Likewise, she projects herself onto Lily Potter, because Lily is that image of the Madonna, the almighty mother who can do everything, who gives her life for her son, that image of the ultimate woman, as if the paradigm of femininity is Lily, who embodies a female stereotype based on the Virgin Mary and the woman sacrificed for her offspring, who is so good, so holy, and so pure that she is capable of fixing men and making them change their paths of perdition.
All the women she portrays positively in her books are sexist and patriarchal stereotypes, and one of the things that most reinforces this idea is that precisely the women she criticises through the narrative âthe women who are constantly punished by the narrativeâ are women who escape the validation of the male gaze through which she constructs her âvalidâ female characters. I mean, her valid female characters are always Pick-Me Girls, Manic Pixie Dream Girls, or âIâm not like the other girls.â Theyâre all stereotypes validated by the male gaze, the typical girls you see in indie movies made by nerdy guys who clearly hate the popular girl because sheâs never going to look at them in her fucking life, so they invent an entire narrative about what the âcool girlâ is.
So we have Hermione, who is not like the other girls because sheâs very smart and reads books and doesnât read gossip magazines or spend all day talking about boys because that would be too much for a teenager, God forbid. Then we have Ginny Weasley, who is basically a nobody who doesnât matter for five whole books, but suddenly becomes some kind of sexual icon, but a sexual icon seen from a male-sexuality perspective, because she is the stereotype of the âGirl Broâ Basically: the girl who is hot as hell but at the same time behaves like a guy, does guy things, likes guy things, talks like a guy and is always surrounded by guys because she fits the male fantasy of the girl who is really your bro, has the same personality traits as an average male stereotype, but sheâs gorgeous and super hot and everyone wants to fuck her, but in the end you get to fuck her. Sheâs the typical girl that guys addicted to video games and hentai would jerk off to.
Then we have Luna, who is a bit of a Manic Pixie Dream Girl, but at the same time, for example, Ginny treats her like a fucking pet, so she doesnât actually get much agency.
And then we have the adult women: to be a âvalidâ adult woman in Rowlingâs world you have to be a mother and give everything up for your husband. Tonks is an Auror, sheâs totally independent, sheâs cool, she does her own thing and suddenly she falls in love with Lupin, loses absolutely all her personality, and on top of that sheâs able to forgive him after he gets her pregnant and then leaves. But sure, letâs understand the poor guy, because we women are caregivers above all, and we are nurses. So well, the poor man has mental health problems, weâll help him.
We have Fleur, who could have been a woman with her own agency, sheâs the only girl chosen for the Triwizard Tournament. By the way, of all the participants in the Triwizard Tournament sheâs the only woman, and sheâs the one who loses all the trials, because of course J.K. Rowling was never going to let a woman succeed at tasks designed for men, not ever. And on top of that, the other girls hate her for being pretty and for being French â which, okay, I understand hating her for being French, I am the first to hate the French â but they hate her for being beautiful and for not fitting into that dynamic where girls can only be cool through male validation. Itâs insane. And she only proves she is worthy as a woman when her husband is disfigured and she says, âNo, no, I love him just the same.â Like, what? When she says âAbove all, I am a wife,â thatâs when she becomes valid within the story.
The rest of the women are mothers. Molly Weasley has only one role: to be a mother. An unbearable mother, but a mother. Narcissa Malfoy gets redemption in the narrative because before being an elitist she is a mother, and thatâs why the story forgives her. Lily, what can we even say about Lily that hasnât been said already? She feels straight out of the Holy Bible. Itâs vomit-inducing. All of them achieve their validity as women through marriage and children.
And then we have the women who donât have children, who are constantly portrayed as horrible women. Aunt Marge doesnât have children and on top of that Rowling gives her masculine physical attributes, because of course for Rowling bad women have to be ugly as well. Then Umbridge doesnât have children, terrible person. Rita Skeeter doesnât have children, terrible person. The only people she spares who donât have children are those who perform maternal roles. For example, Madam Pomfrey has no children, but sheâs a nurse. McGonagall has no children but she is a maternal figure because she is a teacher. But then, for example, we have Bellatrix Lestrange, who of course not only doesnât have children, but is also a soldier, and on top of that sheâs married but devoted to another man, all the worst things a woman could be. Not having children, having ambitions in life other than being a good wife and mother, and treating your husband like a trophy while loving another man, so she has not only to be a villiam but also A PSYCHYATRIZED ONE lmao.
But she does the same thing with teenage girls. Because, for Rowling, anything traditionally feminine is stupid or shallow or invalid. Lavender Brown and the Patil sisters like gossip, horoscopes, and talking about boys. Horoscopes are dumb and shallow in Hermioneâs eyes and Hermione is so much better because she reads âinterestingâ books. And then we have Cho Chang, who is punished within the narrative for two reasons. The first reason is simply for being a girl and having feelings and expressing them, which Harry sees as something unbearably annoying. Not like Ginny, because Ginny doesnât cry, because crying is for girls, and what is for girls is bad. And she is punished within the narrative precisely for expressing her feelings and emotions when she is grieving deeply. But also Cho has a moment when her friend betrays Dumbledoreâs Army and instead of taking Harryâs side she takes her friendâs side. Because thatâs what girls do. We take our friendsâ side, even if our friends fucked up. Because they are our friends and we defend them. And this is portrayed as something awful within the narrative. Itâs a beautiful moment of sorority and Rowling condemns it because Rowling never had female friends. Rowling didnât have women friends. She has invented a fantasy in her head that the girls in her class didnât like her because she was the smartest. No, J.K. Rowling: they didnât like you because you have internalised misogyny. Because your entire work reeks of male gaze. Because the only thing you know how to do is give value to women through classic masculine stereotypes. And that is the great problem with J.K. Rowling, and itâs in all her novels. And well, whoever doesnât want to see it is either someone with a ton of internalised misogyny because they havenât read enough about feminism, or is a fucking idiot. But there it is.