Molly Weasley is a feminist

Molly WeasleyMolly Weasley is in fact a feminist. Some people think that she isn’t a feminist because she’s so grounded in domesticity, but her motherhood does not negate her feminism.

Some people have argued that the final fight scene between Molly Weasley and Bellatrix Lestrange is a symbolic fight between motherhood/domesticity and feminism. They say that motherhood is chocked full of characteristics that feminists despise. They say that J.K. Rowling wrote from a Christian perspective to show the value of true womanhood or some other bull like that.

It’s not true, because feminists don’t hate motherhood. Feminism is about equality between the sexes. Giving women every opportunity that a man has, and every advantage, and every right to do so. A woman should be able to do whatever she wants with her life, and should be able to accomplish that goal if she works hard and is good at that particular thing. She shouldn’t be held back just because she has ovaries. This encompasses everything from a Fortune 500 CEO to a stay at home mom. To each her own.

Not my daughter, you bitch!

Not my daughter, you bitch!

The very idea that feminists could somehow despise motherhood is beyond. That’s just blatant anti-feminist propaganda  Feminists clearly want us all to stop be loving, nurturing, and warm. Of course those evil feminists want all women to be barren so they don’t have to be afflicted with the sexist burden of children.
Molly Weasley Chuck NorrisIt’s true that Molly doesn’t fit the traditional feminist roll; nonetheless, Molly Weasley is a feminist. She’s strong, independent, nurturing, determined, intelligent, strong-willed, loyal, loving, egalitarian, the head of her household–a house filled with mostly boys, and she can fight. She is a fierce warrior who is deadly with a wand. Molly Weasley is not the embodiment of family fighting against the embodiment of something else. She’s a feminist fighting for family.

Advertisements

Women are NOT allowed to wear pants. (Or belly dance.)

 In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel…”
—1st Timothy 2:9

Women are to dress in ‘modest apparel.’ That is what the Bible commands. It is not a matter of opinion.”

I read this on someone else’s blog, an appeal by some dude named David Stewart to all the righteous pious God-loving women out there to stop wearing pants, lest they be smote for being a lewd harlot. Yes, I realize it’s the internet, but seriously? What is up with this guy? Let me tell you more.

Women who wear pants either do not recognize, or do not care, about the spiritual dangers of lasciviousness. The clothes that women wear send a message.”

Well, here he has a point. Not about the lasciviousness, but that clothes send a message. We do use clothes to send signals to one another, such as I am a girl, or I am a goth, or sometimes I am Batman, none of these are a signal to the Devil to drag you to hell. Jesus, it’s not as if I murdered someone. 

Belly dancing is the most filthy trash on earth. Plays and theatre performances are nothing but whore shows. Get right with God America!”

Okay… what? First of all, belling dancing is not from America, it’s from Western Asia. It is a cultural dance that is not strictly performed by women. Belly dancing goes back all the way to Ancient Greece, where women wore white while dancing to emulate the Goddesses, or wore nothing at all to symbolize purity. They’re not strip teasing for you.

Second, plays and theatre? Come on. That’s just plain misogynistic. What could women dressed in costume, singing, repeating lines, acting out Shakespeare and the like, possibly have to do with this? How could they be whore shows? Don’t you find it more likely that whore shows are whore shows, and not the arts? (And how does this relate to sinning pant-wearing women?)

This guy goes on to say that Taylor Swift is a sinful whore, Katy Perry is a demon-possessed lesbian-lusting loser, and Walt Disney is a whoremonger. (Really, David? A whoremonger? What, are we pimping Snow White now or something?)

And last but not least, here is an entire paragraph, my favorite in fact, quoted from his page:

Any idiot knows that men are sexually aroused by SIGHT. This is the great danger of women wearing pants. Lest you think this a trifle matter, Jesus condemned the lusts of the heart as being equivalent to ADULTERY in Matthew 5:28, “But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.” Maybe you don’t care, but God does. Immodestly dressed women cause men to lust. Sadly, many women enjoy such sensual attraction, making them feel good about themselves; but that is a very shallow and selfish attitude to have, and sinful I might add. John 12:43 tells us to seek the praise of God, not men.”

There are soooo many things wrong here. First, he’s putting the blame on women. It’s clearly not mens’ faults if they’re aroused by sight, that’s just nature, it’s clearly the woman’s doing! How dare she dress in pants. It is her fault the men are lusting and sinning.

But since these men are aroused by sight, shouldn’t we poke out their eyes, then? That way they won’t lust and commit adultery? No, condemn the women! How dare they feel good about themselves! How shallow! How selfish! Damn them to Hell! The women are clearly forcing men to ogle and fantasize about them. They bring it upon themselves, the salty she-devils!

What the fuck.

Pants are form-fitting, forcing men to stare at women’s legs…”

No, shut up.

… pants on women are OBSCENE by every definition of the—”

Seriously, shut your hole! Pants are not obscene, they’re a symbol of women’s power, strength, and equality.

During World War II was really when pants started to become popular. After the men went to war, the women had to step up and take on the jobs the men had left behind at home. They built fighter jets, made ammunition, tested machine guns, operated drill presses, volunteered as firefighters, etc, etc. And during this time, women started wearing their husband’s trousers in order to work. Then when the war was over, women lost their pants when they lost their jobs during the whole 1950’s resurgence of ” true womanhood”, and women’s God-given work was in the home… over a stove… in a dress and high heels and a pearl necklace.

I don’t have to tell you women have every right to wear pants, and it’s ridiculous to say otherwise. We’re busy as shit. We have things to do, places to go, worlds to conquer. We don’t have time to worry if the wind is going to blow up our skirts. We don’t want to worry about crossing our legs at the ankles instead of at the knee so people don’t see our panties. What if I went commando? I forgot to do the laundry, alright? I had to figure out if Rhino Tuscan had three apples and Silvia Plath had fifteen goats, how long would it take aliens to impregnate Rhi…..yeah, I didn’t do that. So I baked cupcakes instead! I’m normal, I swear.

It’s funny how everything always seems to be our fault. Don’t wear pants, because it tricks the men into lusting over you. Don’t wear sexy clothes, because you’re just teasing the guys. And don’t you dare walk home by yourself after you dressed like that, if the guy rapes you it’s your fault for wearing a short dress. The guy can’t help himself. Make sure you have birth control and condoms, if you get pregnant, you only have yourself to blame.

Guys are slutty, girls are monogamous. Guys can’t help themselves, women don’t like sex. As all dichotomies are false dichotomies, none of this is true, but we believe it’s true because everyone keeps telling us it’s true. Whether it’s abstinence-only education textbooks, or media, or Republicans, or Snooki, these sorts of ideas keep popping up, pounding these idiotic vibrations into our skulls. And if we keep hearing it enough, and saying it enough, and thinking it enough, we may just end up believing it.

So wear pants! And do your laundry. And eat cupcakes. And hell, belly dance! Why not? There’s nothing holding you back.