I Am Begging You Please Read Another Book

To The People That Equate 'Harry Potter' Books To Modern Day Politics, Please Read Another Book

Fans of J.K. Rowling's famous book series are ruining political discourse.

1079
views

"Trump is Voldemort." "Mike Pence is Umbridge." "I'm a Hufflepuff but I'm still cool! I don't let people walk all over me!" Ma'am, this is a Burger King.

J.K. Rowling's Harry Potter series is predictably a huge part of Millenial and Generation Z culture since the first book was published in 1997. The books and the movies will no doubt have a lasting impact on the world for generations to come.

Building a massive fantasy world and creating its lore and characters is a daunting task that requires great skill and imagination. Credit where credit is due, good for you J.K. Rowling.

However, a lot of people believe liking the books and movies is a good replacement for their own lack of imagination.

You shouldn't expect anyone to know any more about you by telling them which house you believe you'd be sorted into. Being a Gryffindor because you took the Buzzfeed quiz really doesn't tell me anything about you.

I get liking things, I also like things. I really do not want to spend too much time demonizing people that like things, but I would like to point out that Harry Potter is… ruining political discourse in this country.

It is okay to love a series as a young adult, but there is a problem with using said series as the basis for all of your moral and political arguments.

This mainly is a message to people that compare Trump to Lord Voldemort, and to be fair, both have in fact weaponized bigotry to make political gains.

However, marginalized groups have been suffering the effects of the Trump presidency while the Death Eaters remain exclusively in the pages of fiction.

Telling an immigrant or an LGBT community member that Trump is synonymous with a fictitious wizard man with no nose… that may be why Harry Potter is mostly just for white people. Groups that don't have to deal with the real threat of a far-right government can play in a fantasy world.

And if you are going to base your politics off a fictional series, it certainly shouldn't be one with problematic politics like Harry Potter.

The protagonist is born to defeat Voldemort, he is the boy who lived making him a "chosen one." This is problematic because it shows that a superior specimen was needed to defeat Voldemort, someone who was advocating for ethnic cleansing of all wizards not born of wizard parents (they're called Mudbloods in the books.)

Wouldn't it be more of a poignant story if Harry was himself a Mudblood? No, his parents were incredibly privileged and left him a huge inheritance. This is just nitpicking but the left is supposed to fight inherited wealth.

The original Star Wars is problematic for the same reason. The fascist empire isn't defeated until someone with special powers shows up to save the day.

These stories suggest that only a special, unique person can fight fascism and save oppressed groups. The truth, however, is that fascism is ended when the oppressed groups themselves rise up.

It's easy to see why Rowling wrote a book with terrible politics. Her own politics are awful.

Rowling could make a career out of turning her characters into minorities because "diversity is in." We all know about the Dumbledore is gay controversy, and Rowling recently tried to run the "Hermione was black" up the flagpole when most people associate Hermione with the film portrayal with the talented and white Emma Watson.

Rowling also said there was totally "at least one Jewish kid at Hogwarts."

This is not being inclusive, this is a cynical attempt by Rowling to turn her series into something inclusive when it isn't. There was no benefit to making a bunch of gay and black characters in the late 90s. However, now that it is politically safe to do so, Rowling is trying to cash in on those markets.

Rowling could have been a huge leader in the normalization of diversity in fiction, but unfortunately, she chose the safe route. That would be forgivable if she was not masquerading as a progressive icon.

J.K. Rowling's views on real-life politics are also disturbing. Her militant opposition to Jeremy Corbyn's Labor platform is perplexing, why is Rowling so staunchly opposed to helping poor people? Could it be that she cares more about protecting her assets with economic conservatism than helping oppressed groups with social progressivism? Curious.

Popular Right Now

I'm The Girl Who'd Rather Raise A Family Than A Feminist Protest Sign

You raise your protest picket signs and I’ll raise my white picket fence.
496817
views

Social Media feeds are constantly filled with quotes on women's rights, protests with mobs of women, and an array of cleverly worded picket signs.

Good for them, standing up for their beliefs and opinions. Will I be joining my tight-knit family of the same gender?

Nope, no thank you.

Don't get me wrong, I am not going to be oblivious to my history and the advancements that women have fought to achieve. I am aware that the strides made by many women before me have provided us with voting rights, a voice, equality, and equal pay in the workforce.

SEE ALSO: To The Girl Who Would Rather Raise A Family Than A Feminist Protest Sign

For that, I am deeply thankful. But at this day in age, I know more female managers in the workforce than male. I know more women in business than men. I know more female students in STEM programs than male students. So what’s with all the hype? We are girl bosses, we can run the world, we don’t need to fight the system anymore.

Please stop.

Because it is insulting to the rest of us girls who are okay with being homemakers, wives, or stay-at-home moms. It's dividing our sisterhood, and it needs to stop.

All these protests and strong statements make us feel like now we HAVE to obtain a power position in our career. It's our rightful duty to our sisters. And if we do not, we are a disappointment to the gender and it makes us look weak.

Weak to the point where I feel ashamed to say to a friend “I want to be a stay at home mom someday.” Then have them look at me like I must have been brain-washed by a man because that can be the only explanation. I'm tired of feeling belittled for being a traditionalist.

Why?

Because why should I feel bad for wanting to create a comfortable home for my future family, cooking for my husband, being a soccer mom, keeping my house tidy? Because honestly, I cannot wait.

I will have no problem taking my future husband’s last name, and following his lead.

The Bible appoints men to be the head of a family, and for wives to submit to their husbands. (This can be interpreted in so many ways, so don't get your panties in a bunch at the word “submit”). God specifically made women to be gentle and caring, and we should not be afraid to embrace that. God created men to be leaders with the strength to carry the weight of a family.

However, in no way does this mean that the roles cannot be flipped. If you want to take on the responsibility, by all means, you go girl. But for me personally? I'm sensitive, I cry during horror movies, I'm afraid of basements and dark rooms. I, in no way, am strong enough to take on the tasks that men have been appointed to. And I'm okay with that.

So please, let me look forward to baking cookies for bake sales and driving a mom car.

And I'll support you in your endeavors and climb to the top of the corporate ladder. It doesn't matter what side you are on as long as we support each other, because we all need some girl power.

Cover Image Credit: Unsplash

Related Content

Connect with a generation
of new voices.

We are students, thinkers, influencers, and communities sharing our ideas with the world. Join our platform to create and discover content that actually matters to you.

Learn more Start Creating

Abortion Bans Are Only A Small Part Of The Republican War On Women

These bans expose the Republican Party for what it truly is.

466
views

This week, several states passed laws that ban abortion after six to eight weeks of pregnancy, before most women even know that they're pregnant. The most egregious of these is Alabama — the state has banned abortion except for in cases of danger to the mother. Exceptions in the cases of rape and incest were actively voted against by the state legislature. Under the new law, any doctor who is caught giving an abortion would be sentenced to 99 years in prison, and the woman would be charged with murder.

Apart from the fact that this explicitly violates the decision of Roe v. Wade (which is the point), this is only a small part of the slow but steady degradation of women's rights by Republicans in the United States. To anyone who believes that this is simply about people being "pro-life" or "saving the children," then tell them to look at what happens after the fetus is carried to term.

Republicans oppose forcing fathers to be involved in the lives of their children that were forcibly carried to term, desires to cut food stamps and make it more difficult to feed said child, cut funding for affordable housing to make it more difficult for them to find homes, cut spending to public education so these children can't move up the social ladder, and refuse to offer the woman or her child health insurance to keep them both healthy. What about efforts to prevent pregnancy? Republicans also oppose funding birth control and contraception, as well as opposing comprehensive sexual education. To them, the only feasible solution is to simply keep your legs shut. They oppose all of these things because it is, in their eyes, a violation of individual rights to force people to do something. The bill also makes women who get abortions felons, and felons can't vote. I'll let you finish putting those two together.

If you view it from this framework, it would seem like Republicans are being extremely hypocritical by violating the personal freedoms of pregnant women, but if you look at it from the view of restricting social mobility for women, then it makes perfect sense. The Republican dogma of "individual rights" and "personal responsibility" is a socially acceptable facade that they use to cover up their true intentions of protecting the status quo and protect those in power. About any Republican policy, ask yourself: does this disperse power or consolidate it? Whether it be education, healthcare, the environment, or the economy, Republicans love to keep power away from the average citizen and give it to the small number of people that they deem "deserving" of it because of their race, gender, wealth, or power. This is the case with abortion as well; Power is being taken from women, and being given back to men in a reversal of the Feminist Movement of the 1970s.

Republicans don't believe in systemic issues. They believe that everyone has the same opportunity to succeed regardless of what point they started. This is why they love capitalism so much. It acts as some sort of great filter in which only those who deserve power can make it to the top. It's also why they hate social policies; they think that helping people who can't help themselves changes the hierarchy in a negative way by giving people who don't "deserve" power, power. Of course, we know that just because you have money and power doesn't mean you earned it fair and square, and even if Republicans believe it, it wouldn't change anything because it wouldn't change how they want to distribute power.

In short, Republican policies, including abortion, leave the average American with less money, less protection, less education, worse health, less opportunity, fewer rights, and less freedom. This is NOT a side effect. This is the point. Regardless of what Republicans will tell you about "inalienable rights" and how everyone is equal, in reality, they believe that some people and groups are more deserving of rights than others, and the group that deserves rights the most are the ones "that will do the best with them." To Republicans, this group consists of the wealthy, the powerful, and the white — the mega-rich, the CEOs of large companies, gun owners and Christians.

So, who do Republicans think deserve power and give it to? People who look and think like them. This, however, begs the question: Who do they want to take it from?

Related Content

Facebook Comments