July 26, 2007

Harry Potter

A Story of Race and Inheritance? Dana Goldstein at the American Prospect is irked that the Harry Potter books (not to mention Lord of the Rings) are full of sexism, racism, and hereditism:


Harry Potter and the Complicated Identity Politics

J.K. Rowling subtly critiques, yet ultimately hews to, a fantasy script dependent on stereotypes culled from real-life racism.


Gosh, I'm so astonished that the most popular children's literary work of our time reflects deep human archetypes about sex, family, and inheritance. I can't imagine why feminist ideology hasn't been able to produce anything remotely as appealing to kids. It must be society's fault. If only feminists and multiculturalists were given more control over the education system, children's interests could be social-engineered into perfection!

(My old essay "KidTV: A Guide for the Perplexed" explains why the things children like are so politically incorrect.)


My published articles are archived at iSteve.com -- Steve Sailer

60 comments:

Anonymous said...

Somewhat related: in Dungeons & Dragons, the rules of the game blithely assume that some races tend to be smarter than others. Granted, they're imaginary races, but still... may not that promote some dangerous thought patterns among roleplaying nerds?

jody said...

i do notice one thing about harry potter that is in step with PC rules about characters. the main bad guys are blond men. not sure if they are blond in the book, but they are blond in the movies.

yes, harry potter fans, i know the malfoy family is not the major bad guy, but they are the main bad guys, the ones that give harry potter the most regular trouble and the ones that have to be dealt with most often.

Mr. Noah said...

"I can't imagine why feminist ideology hasn't been able to produce anything remotely as appealing to kids."

Hmm, Harry Potter is not feminist? Women in Harry Potter appear to be career-focused and to enjoy high positions in academia, and even to be as skilled in combat as men...

Harry Potter also appears to be fairly multiculturalist, since the wizards at Hogwarts include people of various different races and nationalities coexisting effortlessly.

Anonymous said...

A writer at the UK Sunday Times joked about this a few days ago:

Hogwarts is a winner because boys will be sexist neocon boys

In the now-defunct thread at Lucianne, I got a kick out of this reply:

Reply 4 - Posted by: mossley, 7/22/2007 11:37:03 AM

Let’s see. The Harry Potter books teach kids that:

1) Good and evil really do exist;
2) Those who do not actively oppose evil in fact facilitate it;
3) Those who depend on the government bureaucracy are doomed;
4) The media lies to further its own agenda.

Gee, why in the world would the left have any problems with those messages?

Anonymous said...

I think the race flat earthers are increasingly worried about the loss of control over the flow of information.

With the rise of the internet and the decline of MSM propaganda organs like the NYSlimes, it is becoming harder to prevent the truth about race to be hidden from the public.

If the PTB can't control information about race (According the MSM race does not even exist!!!), then they cannot control what white people think about race.

YouTube and other vehicles could be very useful in educating millions of people about IQ, genetics, race, miscegnation and other unpleasant issues.

Old Right

Anonymous said...

Strange that Rowling would as a woman reject the endless search for class and status that characterizes most fiction. But she wanted to make money, I respect that.

Harry Potter has the classic, low-status boy rise to power through strength of character and courage and intelligence, adhering to his dead parent's values. King Arther with Arthur as Merlin I guess.

Not particularly original but a stinging rebuke to feminist ideology which boiled down represents finding the highest-status man and screwing him.

Svigor said...

Now this is a topic I can sink my teeth into! I can go on for ages...

:)

Somewhat related: in Dungeons & Dragons, the rules of the game blithely assume that some races tend to be smarter than others. Granted, they're imaginary races, but still... may not that promote some dangerous thought patterns among roleplaying nerds?

Hehehe, go to any RPG nerd forum and bring up the issue. Talk about denial! Top to bottom, a bunch of liberal drones. Exceptions are afraid to speak up. I got a thread locked once for using the term, "Islamic World." Can't go proving it's a term with scholarly precedent - God forbid!

It's amusing to see how rife the entire industry (especially the fantasy genre) and its fans are with love-hate for HBD, thinly disguised, and low-testosterone-PC-worship.

If you get bored and start such a conversation, keep an eye out for all the beigist middle class social/moral jockeying.

the main bad guys are blond men. not sure if they are blond in the book, but they are blond in the movies.

Yes, the villains stepped right out of the Lebensborn project, while the hero is a somewhat jewish-looking shaggy-headed bespectacled nebbishy type (total Beatles reject). Rowling probably could've written the villains as Chinese and the films still would've turned out this way.

Also, pay close attention to group dynamics; good guys (Griffendorks or whatever) brown(ish), bad guys (Slithering or whatever) white.

***

Add Star Wars to the list. I bet all the folks who converted to the Jedi religion would be scandalized by an honest appraisal of what the storyline really says about heredity and predestination.

Anonymous said...

Dana Goldstein is an idiot. The Harry Potter books are explicitly anti-racist, both in the pointed inclusion of Indian, Jewish, and Afro-Caribbean kids at British Hogwarts, and in the way the major obsession of Voldemort and the Death Eaters is enforcing blood purity in the Wizarding world.

Rowling does some interesting layering and nuance of course, especially in the way she tends to give the good kids old Anglo-Saxon trade names (Potter, Granger) while the bad guys have Latin and French-derived ones (Malfoy, Voldemort, LeStrange.) She also with her ongoing House-elf storyline manages to strike an anti-racist tone while gently satirizing the excesses of liberal do-gooding (via the painfully earnest Hermione and her house elf rights movement.)

Rowling also rather unapologetically celebrates maternal love and devotion as the strongest force in the universe (in the Lily Potter and Molly Weasley characters), which probably rubs a certain strain of humorless feminist the wrong way, but strikes a major chord with most readers.

SFG said...

Rowling does some interesting layering and nuance of course, especially in the way she tends to give the good kids old Anglo-Saxon trade names (Potter, Granger) while the bad guys have Latin and French-derived ones (Malfoy, Voldemort, LeStrange.)

Makes it easier to identify with for British commoners' kids (her original audience). Notice that those who trace their descent back are the bad guys...but remember, Rowling's a Brit, not a Yank. This is likely a class distinction, with the British upper class as the bad guys. As for the French being evil, well...she is British, no? ;) Don't confuse Hollywood's prejudices with Rowling's. ;)

Svigor: my general experience with nerds is that we lean to the left. All that time in high school getting ragged on for liking math, science, and video games, and it's hard for us to turn around and piss on gay people and other races, etc. In general nerds will root against the alpha-male athletic Aryan character...but because he's athletic, not because he's Aryan. ;) Except of course if we've been harassed by other races...

Oh, and the lack of nerdiness around here means you guys miss one of the most memorable thing about the drow: their cruelty and female domination. I doubt Gygax sat around thinking this stuff up consciously, but he was certainly in tune with his audience.

Anonymous said...

Daniel Radcliffe is "somewhat Jewish looking"? Are you so obsessed with Jews that you see them everywhere? Radcliffe looks like a young John Lennon -- you can't get much more British-looking than that.

Anonymous said...

I followed the link and read the precious thoughts of miss Goldstein. I don't know jack about H Potter stories. But I do know a commissar when I hear one.

What a stomach-turning glimpse into the Frankfurt School perspective.

Apparently the sun of our solar system will at some point in the future implode and then supernova. At that time (hopefully) it will be safe to say that Marxism has been destroyed.

Until then I guess we are saddled with these losers.

Alex said...

Anon 6:54--

Come on, he's got *glasses*! NEED WE SAY MORE?

Anonymous said...

...I'm so astonished that the most popular children's literary work of our time reflects deep human archetypes about sex, family, and heredity...

Hey, Steve, your contribution to the American Prospect link comment thread is incisive...but it jumps out as out of place on that web page.

Yes, the author is just another angry red diaper baby.

But it's funny and ironic how the commenters, even at a hard Left website like American Prospect, are just Potter fans trying to have a pleasant escape with their favorite, familiar and comforting fiction.

If we can assume the commenters are mostly regular readers of that site, then that thread is very interesting indeed. It's another example of the radical charismatic leader (Jewish), of course a true believer in the revolution - yunno, the energy behind the revolution - meeting resistance from her own flock (gentiles)...who naturally don't feel the same contempt for their own humanity. They just want to enjoy the damn book!

Oh well. A Leftist's work is never done.

Thursday said...

Most Sci-Fi and Fantasy have different races with different average characteristics. Even the relentlessly PC Star Trek has its various races.

Karen said...

Ms. G's article was based entirely on one character -- Molly Weasley. She ignored any number of other non-traditional women in the books, as well as other plot elements that undermine her point. The biggest one is that quidditch is a coed sport. In the last book, Ginny Weasley has a poster on her wall of an all-witch pro team, the house teams are all coed, and we don't even know the genders of the World Cup teams, other than Victor Krum and, I think, a couple of Irish players Fred discusses. (The game description in Goblet of Fire only uses surnames.)

She also misses the most important non-traditional gender role moment in popular fiction, when Harry insults Remus Lupin into going home and staying with his pregant wife. Think about that one for a minute; an important member of the Order of the Phoenix gets told he's a coward for preferring derring-do to housework.

Oh, and don't forget that Neville's mother was an Auror, the most dangerous and noble of wizarding jobs. The scene where she gives Neville the worthless thing as a Christmas gift reduced me to a sobbing mess.

In my own opinion, the entire series could be named "Joanne Rowling and the Guide for Good Parents." What distinguishes the good Harry from the evil Voldemort, both of whom were raised by unfeeling parent-replacements, is that Harry's mother died to save him, even knowing her husband was dead. Merope Gaunt, on the other hand, gave up and died when she realized she couldn't make Tom Sr. love her. (It's not specified, but the description of her death uses all the tropes of Brit fiction for the Fallen Woman Dying, so I think we're meant to conclude she just quit.)

The message is quite clear: good parents care for and protect their children. Harry's mother is clearly a Christ-figure, chosing to be killed in order to save her child. Neville's mother is tortured into insanity to make the world her son lives in better. Molly Weasley creates a beautiful and safe home for her children. Harry shames Remus into returning to help his wife and child. Even the Malfoys have some sort of redemption by caring more for Draco than for Voldemort's power.

As to the race thing, I suppose if you ignore the entire Death Eater storyline you can argue she thinks race matters, but it takes a lot of work. See, the thing is that goblins and house elves are entirely different sentient species. Naturally they have different psychology, but do note that when humans respect them, they respond nobly, and when they're mistreated, they react badly. Really, though, the race analogy only applies to Muggles, Mudbloods and Purebloods, and it should be painfully obvious to anyone who reads the books that the best character in the entire saga is the Mudblood Lily Potter. Not exactly an endorsement of the StormFront mentality, is it?

Finally, I really wish I could put the Cruciatus Curse on the next person who wants to make a political point out of a kid's book, even a very good one. Rowling wanted to write a ripping yarn, not a position paper for the Labour Party. To treat her work as a polemic is to insult it.

Anonymous said...

This is absolutely ridiculous, you saying that these books are racist is downright stupid. They fight AGAINST someone who is for keeping wizard blood pure, and bringing LOTR into this is absolutely offensive to me. LOTR was written by a European man who had no ties with racism or races at all, he just wrote of his surroundings, many people even say that the Orcs represent black people, while they are meant to be Genghis Khan's Mongol hordes. Promoting multiculturalism anyway is stupid, it destroys diversity and leads to loss of national identity. so, to you sir i say, go get cancer. This probably won't get past your moderation, but i just hope you get to read it. so, like said before, ya know, get cancer.

Mark said...

The Harry Potter actor looks Jewish? Who knew?

Whatever the bit players look like, you have to admit that the three central characters are all extremely Anglo-Saxon. One of them is even a redhead. What could be more Anglo-Saxon than a redhead - the UK has the highest percentage of them in the world?

Rowling's fantasy world is still a good old Anglo-Celtic one: the names of the major characters are very British: Albus Dumbledore, Minerva McGonagall, etc. And Hagrid looks like he just walked out of the Scottish Highlands around the time of Bravheart.

Mark said...

Most Sci-Fi and Fantasy have different races with different average characteristics. Even the relentlessly PC Star Trek has its various races.

It's funny that no one mentions Lord of the Rings - "racist" to the hilt. Orcs, Urukhai, Elfs, Hobbits, Men Wizards & Dwarves. All of the generally good races are white, while nearly all of the enemy (save a few traitors and madmen) are swarthy or dark? And the frequently blonde elfs were the smartest, most advanced race of all.

I love the fact that Peter Jackson didn't give in to any pressure to make some of the good guys non-white.

What does it say that two of the most popular fantasy series of all time (popular across every culture - are almost completely un-PC, especially in regards to race/ Somehow I think that part of the popularity is, for a lot of people, a subconscious expression of nationalism.

Vol-in-Law said...

Re Tolkien, an Indian Sikh-descended friend of mine complained about the lack of white bad guys in the trilogy - all I could think of in response was Grima Wormtongue. I guess the Corsairs of Umbar are white, being of Numenorean descent, but they don't feature much. But really Tolkien was explicitly writing a mythology for the Anglo-Saxon peoples, and like CS Lewis was doing so before the rise of cultural Marxism, so it's not surprising.

jerk said...

"hereditism"

What's next? I'm sorry that I am alive and the way I am!

Seriously Steve, you need to give us some education into why the liberal jetset is so obsessed with multiculturalism and feminist roles.

I don't get around much but I have yet to see many people hanging out with other races (unless married/liased to them) or freaked-out feminists during their free time. Usually men like to drink beer with their very similar buddies or go to soccer matches which are notorious for ther racism and sexism. What women are up to I don't know.

Engelbrektsson said...

Didn't Harry Potter fall in love with an asian girl or something in the last movie? Wouldn't that be pro-mixing propaganda.

SFG said...

If we can assume the commenters are mostly regular readers of that site, then that thread is very interesting indeed. It's another example of the radical charismatic leader (Jewish), of course a true believer in the revolution - yunno, the energy behind the revolution - meeting resistance from her own flock (gentiles)...who naturally don't feel the same contempt for their own humanity. They just want to enjoy the damn book!
I think you're reading way too much into this. ;)

As for Marxism being destroyed when the sun explodes--if the human race lasts that long, I'm sure we'll have spread to other planets. Even if Marxism itself goes away, people still don't like it when their neighbor has too much stuff. There were peasant revolts before Marx, you know.

David said...

The actor who plays Harry Potter, Daniel Radcliffe, is racially Jewish. Here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Radcliffe

Also interesting: his mom, Marcia Gresham Jacobson, is a casting agent for the BBC.

His features plainly indicate Jewishness. I would detail them, but I don't want to be accused of anti-semitism, so I will be silent.

Anonymous said...

Perhaps your Sikh friend can account for the lack of whites as good guys in Sikh and Indian traditional literature. Or indeed I suspect the lack of whites entirely.

Re Harry Potter, I managed to read the first three books. After that I dont know but all the conveniently multicultural charcaters seem to be there in the film only. They are not there on the page.

Multiculturalism & Sci Fi. Ive noticed a tendency for otherwise hard SF authors to suddenly get all PC. Gregory Benford has a hyper competent black woman physicist in 'COSM'. Two for the price of one!

Vernor Vinge in 'Across Realtime' has a black theoretical physicist in part one. In part two the main character is a black detective, the Sherlock Holmes of his day.

Stephen Baxter seems to be nodding towards race realism in 'Origin' but throws in liberal sentiments in other books happily enough.

bill said...

"But really Tolkien was explicitly writing a mythology for the Anglo-Saxon peoples, and like CS Lewis was doing so before the rise of cultural Marxism, so it's not surprising."

-Vol-in-law

I am always surprised by how few know that LOTR is actually a deeply Catholic work of art. Tolkien said so himself, and the epic battles recall Christendom's existential clashes with Arab and Turk.

Harry Potter is, well... Forgettable. But I've never seen a more hyped book -- ever.

mepo said...

Jerk:

By contrast, I work in an office where people of several different races work together very well. But it's at the high end of the ability/accomplishment distribution, so the racial mix doesn't "look like America." Lots of whites, East Asians, South Asians, and a couple blacks and hispanics.

Around here, there are a stunning number of East Asian/white couples, and there are heavily white/East Asian mixed neighborhoods. These tend to be very nice neighborhoods, with great schools (since it's hard to have a really bad school with a high average IQ for your students).

There are also a fair number of South Asian/white and hispanic/non-hispanic couples (in this case, hispanic = significant American Indian ancestry). ISTM that most of those couples are white male/nonwhite female. By contrast, there are also a lot of black/white couples, which are usually (probably 80%) black male/white female. And a lot of American black/African black couples, which seem to be radically culturally different from normal black cultures.

Vol-in-Law said...

Anon:
"Perhaps your Sikh friend can account for the lack of whites as good guys in Sikh and Indian traditional literature. Or indeed I suspect the lack of whites entirely."

As I understand Hindu mythology, white Aryans are the good guys and black devils are the bad guys. At least that's what the Islamic propaganda in my local (London) Indian-Tamil restaurants says - "You (black) Tamils are the villains in your own Hindu religion! Convert to Islam and be equal!" or words to that effect.

Anonymous said...

Jerk --

Feminism and multi-culturalism are signaling devices used to convey socio-economic status in mating or friendship/alliance formation.

Women desire the highest status man they can find, and the "expensive" mindset of PC and feminism and multi-culturalism is usually found in high-income liberals. So that's what women look for to start off.

Of course the progression is on attributes of wealth: cars, clothes, jewelry, houses especially and status within a man's group. But Multi-culti and Feminism is how it starts.

As far as catering to PC/Multi-culti and feminism, writers craving critical acceptance or female readers will do this of course, even in fairly male sci-fi or fantasy. But as they do that they tend to lose male readers just as little boys won't watch girl's animation.

Women like stories where advances from lower-status males are fended off and the highest-status man is landed by the ever-young-beautiful woman. Men like stories about the average/low-status guy climbing to the top and getting the girl from high-status rivals. These story elements are basically incompatible, and PC/Multi-culti/feminism are markers of high-status/class (like an expensive biologically darwninian display, ala male Peacock tail feathers).

Svigor said...

Oh, and the lack of nerdiness around here means you guys miss one of the most memorable thing about the drow: their cruelty and female domination.

I didn't miss that at all, though I am missing your point. :)

Moi? Lacking in nerdiness? Ha! One needn't lack nerdiness to lambaste nerds in general; there's something unsavory about nerdish conformity to PC. They're supposed to be perspicacious iconoclasts, but they can't even get that right (falling instead for the thoroughly establishment-driven faux iconoclasm of liberalism). Kind of pathetic, really.

Are you so obsessed with Jews that you see them everywhere?

No, I only see them in threatening roles once in a blue moon, so I'm probably still sane for now. :)

****

Not unusual for Americans to see jews under every television set:

http://www.counterpunch.org/brenner10242003.html

The actor who plays Harry Potter, Daniel Radcliffe, is racially Jewish.

That aside, I'd like to point out that I was going strictly by my own Jewdar. :)

Svigor said...

By contrast, I work in an office where people of several different races work together very well.

Let's all celebrate our common love of lucre.

:)

Fred said...

"The actor who plays Harry Potter, Daniel Radcliffe, is racially Jewish."

And Amanda Peet too... who knew? And also Amanda Peet's husband, the screenwriter of The 25th Hour (interesting that Spike Lee's two best movies were written by Jews).

"I would detail them, but I don't want to be accused of anti-semitism, so I will be silent."

How could anyone call you an anti-semite with such a nice Jewish name, David? It would be like calling a guy named Tyrone an anti-black racist.

Anonymous said...

Vol-in-Law: Re Tolkien, an Indian Sikh-descended friend of mine complained about the lack of white bad guys in the trilogy - all I could think of in response was Grima Wormtongue. I guess the Corsairs of Umbar are white, being of Numenorean descent, but they don't feature much. But really Tolkien was explicitly writing a mythology for the Anglo-Saxon peoples, and like CS Lewis was doing so before the rise of cultural Marxism, so it's not surprising.

Three Rings for the Elven-kings under the sky,
Seven for the Dwarf-lords in their halls of stone,
Nine for Mortal Men doomed to die,
One for the Dark Lord on his dark throne...

Those who used the Nine Rings became mighty in their day, kings, sorcerers, and warriors of old. They obtained glory and great wealth, yet it turned to their undoing. They had, as it seemed, unending life, yet life became unendurable to them. They could walk, if they would, unseen by all eyes in this world beneath the sun, and they could see things in worlds invisible to mortal men; but too often they beheld only the phantoms and delusions of Sauron. And one by one, sooner or later, according to their native strength and to the good or evil of their wills in the beginning, they fell under the thralldom of the ring that they bore and of the domination of the One which was Sauron's. And they became forever invisible save to him that wore the Ruling Ring, and they entered into the realm of shadows. The Nazgûl were they, the Ringwraiths, the Enemy's most terrible servants; darkness went with them, and they cried with the voices of death" (The Silmarillion: "Of the Rings of Power and the Third Age", 346).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazgûl

Anonymous said...

Well, well, Steve,

I enjoy reading the PC drivel that appears regularly on your site now that the Amnesty bill is almost completely defeated. I wonder if your racist insults about Mexican mestizos being stupid and prone to criminal activity will resume now that Arlen Specter is presenting the legalization part of the bill without the path to citizenship.

You are a hypocrite and a fraud. And Fred there is a sleaze bag who thinks that mating with a Mexican gives him some kind of PC credibility. Guess what, Fred, the Hunter Thompson schtick doesn't look good on you.

I'm sick of the sexist remarks lampooning women for the kind of sexual promiscuity that has always been typical of the male of the species. Fred no doubt has a series of ex-wives to prove that he is among them. I'm sick of the games, the double standards, the math brains trying to be sociologists and theologians. God forbid you challenge one of you to a debate on a topic he can barely grasp. Of course the halo effect of high IQ means that you are a polymath, equally good in all endeavors, right?

Wrong. Resorting to the orthodoxy of "an Ivy league professor wrote this so it must be true" is bogus. I'm not sure any one of you could do empirical research but certainly you can read a book and like the petty, misogynistic, middle class drones you are, you know exactly which authors are credible and which aren't.

And as for the non sequiturs at the end of your movie reviews that are intended to give us moral instruction. What makes you a moral authority on anything, Steve?

Thanks for ruining the American Conservative for me. Why don't you change the name to American Assimilation for Those with Genius IQ and Sexist Views? You're a jerk, Steve, and not nearly as smart as you think you are.

David Davenport said...

Harry Potter has the classic, low-status boy rise to power through strength of character and courage and intelligence, adhering to his dead parent's values.

No, Harry has also inherited innate wizardly powers. He does NOT rise to power strictly though his own efforts. Harry is predestined to be an alpha wizard. ... royal blood tells.

King Arther with Arthur as Merlin I guess.

No, Dumbledore as Merlin and Harry as young Arturus Rex.

One of them is even a redhead. What could be more Anglo-Saxon than a redhead - the UK has the highest percentage of them in the world?

Ireland or Scotland, not England.
The Prince Valiant picture of a Saxon would have him blondish, but maybe a bit shorter and stockier than a Norman.

Didn't Harry Potter fall in love with an asian girl or something in the last movie? Wouldn't that be pro-mixing propaganda.

J.K. Rowling doesn't have control over all the movie stuff.

Crtics have commented that she espouses old-fashioned Toryism, which is not necessarily the same as racism: some born to lead, others, such as elves and goblins, to assist, but all members of the same ultimately harmonious, albeit stratified, community.

Svigor said...

I find it a bit odd that Jackson made the conflict as racially explicit as he did. He certainly didn't stick to canon vis-a-vis orchish physique; Tolkien gives every indication that orcs are smaller than men, not bigger - even Uruk-Hai were described as "huge" if they were nearly as big as a man (if my memory serves, and the orc that stuck Frodo was an Uruk).

Too bad Tolkien never really described alien physique in detail; I think Jackson's trolls sucked the big one (apart from being way too big - never got the impression from Tolkien that killing a troll would be a task for Hercules).

David Davenport said...

Thanks for ruining the American Conservative for me. Why don't you change the name to American Assimilation for Those with Genius IQ and Sexist Views? You're a jerk, Steve, and not nearly as smart as you think you are.

She's got a crush on you, Steve. She's trying to get your attention.

( DD has been wondering if iSteve fans are 95-99 percent M's. This one sounds like a gen-u-whine F. Maybe she's the 1 %. ))

Svigor said...

I wonder if your racist insults about Mexican mestizos being stupid and prone to criminal activity will resume now that Arlen Specter is presenting the legalization part of the bill without the path to citizenship.

Best define racism before we open that can of worms: your definition, or the dictionary's, or liberalism's, or the one in common parlance, or what? They vary widely.

Note I'm not playing semantics. I don't dodge the racism accusation (got over that ages ago).

I ask because one question sticks out in my mind: since Mexicans are in fact less intelligent and more prone to crime than Americans of Euro stock, and since racism is usually intended as a synonym for "evil," do you really want to set up words like "honest" and "observant" in conflict with "racism"? If you do, I think the latter, and by extension, liberalism, will be the long-term casualties.

I'm sick of the sexist remarks lampooning women for the kind of sexual promiscuity that has always been typical of the male of the species.

You seem to be implying that there should be common standards of sexual conduct across sexes. Why?

Male reproductive capacity is cheap. Female reproductive capacity is not. This is no doubt intimately related to how and why our sexual mores evolved.

The thin gloss of liberalism can't, won't change that.

I'm sick of the games, the double standards

I assume you are a liberal. If so, that's a pretty ironic statement. Liberalism is a mass of convoluted double-standards (many of them intersecting at feminism). Not that I have anything against double-standards, per se. In fact I'm all for double-standards, when they're healthy ones.

As for your classist references to misogyny, get a grip. Your feminism blinds you to the fact that HBD-types don't pull punches. Men are the vast majority of violent criminals. Men are relentlessly profiled by law enforcement, as they should be.

None of these statements ever elicits so much as a blink from anyone. That's because males aren't a part of your liberal narrative.

Now, if their skin is black, that's probably another story, right?

Anonymous said...

: Crtics have commented that she espouses old-fashioned Toryism

Sshhh!

Don't tell anyone, but JK Rowling just might be the last person in the British Isles who believes in God:

http://www.leakylounge.com/index.php?showtopic=19605

http://www.internetwritingjournal.com/aug05/rowling2.htm

http://www.wnd.com/news/printer-friendly.asp?ARTICLE_ID=56634

http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?articleId=6142

Roger said...

Peter Jackson also got into hot water for making the natives, in his remake of King Kong, a little too realistic.

John Boy said...

Being a WASP I have noticed sort of a backlash against all things Anglo-American. My ancestors wrote the US Constitution, spoke English, invented the airplane ...

Many people have immigrated to the English speaking world both black and white and for the most part adopted the language and through it my culture and past. There is no question about whos root run deepest in this culture.

Everything from Harry Potter and Lord of the Rings to Civil War enactments are upholding a tradition that rings of a time before mass immigration from other parts of the world. A Japaneese-American can speak perfect English, have gone to the best Universities, and have a million dollars but he can never claim to have had an ancestor who fought in the American Revolution unless it is from an ancestor who was not Japaneese.

The reality is that Harry Potter books are very English. The food they eat, the schools they go to, the clothes they wear look like the ones my grreat great great grandfather might have worn.

I could read sun tzeu's art of war 100 times but it will never make me chineese. They have a great culture. So do I.

Anonymous said...

"You seem to be implying that there should be common standards of sexual conduct across sexes. Why?

Male reproductive capacity is cheap. Female reproductive capacity is not. This is no doubt intimately related to how and why our sexual mores evolved."

If her Daddy's poor, do what you like...

I can't believe you are so obtuse, Svigor. Parity between the sexes in number of sexual partners and in freedom to express sexuality is a good thing. Note I say parity not promiscuity. The days of married men whose wives turn a blind eye to their adulterous liasons are over.

Why does it matter whether or not a man can control his sexual urges as well as a woman? Men can get STDs too and pass them on to the fragile flowers they deem suitable for marriage. A woman who is so sheltered that she can't distinguish between men who will be ruled by their sex drive and men who won't is limited in her capacity to choose a mate wisely.

I know you hate anecdotal evidence but this one is particularly relevant. I grew up around a family whose father spent all his time outside of work chasing women. The mother spent her free time outside of her 9 - 5 job whining about it. The four children they produced ended up being raised by the eldest sibling by default. They turned out surprisingly well. I guess due to the fact that mom and dad were mostly unavailable.

A philandering father is an absent father. The woman in the relationship might focus on her children instead of reveling in her victim status. Even so, she will feel less attractive, unloved and set a bad example for her children - just as the father does. Very few men are capable of being good fathers despite their sexual escapades outside the home. They are taking risks that can ultimately affect their children.

Most women would rather not be so naive and inexperienced that they can't pick one of these men out in a crowd. Maybe they will have an affair with him but save their heart for a guy who will be too concerned about the well-being of his family to risk everything for an adrenaline rush. Maybe they'll ignore such a guy, knowing he's narcissistic and immature - the kind of person who never grows up.

You're being frivolous, Svigor. This isn't really a feminist/liberal argument. A feminist isn't concerned about the sanctity of marriage.

Anonymous said...

"The days of married men whose wives turn a blind eye to their adulterous liasons are over."

Hillary Clinton? Corinna Villaraigosa? [The latter endured numerous affairs including one with the wife of Tony's campaign manager then best-friend, and allegedly a whole lot of bimbos he had in addition to the Telemundo hottie: the LAPD officer assigned by his demand to his protective detail, the Korean Fashion Designer he took a "Big Love" trip to Seoul with, the various hottie lobbyists, etc.] Women will not LIKE cheating, but if the guy is powerful and famous enough, they'll put up with for a good long time.

"Why does it matter whether or not a man can control his sexual urges as well as a woman? Men can get STDs too .." True and monogamy of course works best for ordinary men, it's an Anglo-Saxon/European institution, but Feminists were happy to destroy that in their relentless pursuit of the Alpha Male.

"I know you hate anecdotal evidence but this one is particularly relevant."

No it's not relevant. I once saw a 7'2" giant. His name is Shaquille O'Neil. Guess what? He's an outlier, hardly any men at all have his size.

"Most women would rather not be so naive and inexperienced that they can't pick one of these men out in a crowd. Maybe they will have an affair with him but save their heart for a guy who will be too concerned about the well-being of his family to risk everything for an adrenaline rush. Maybe they'll ignore such a guy, knowing he's narcissistic and immature - the kind of person who never grows up."

Available evidence suggests that's not what women actually do. Women generally pursue the most high-status men in their available reach. Monogamy benefits average men because he has exclusive access, his children are his own ("Non-parental events" aka the kid's not "his" can run to 20% or more of some groups). It's not a benefit for women because sharing the resources of a powerful/wealthy man is better than all the wealth/attention of an ordinary man. It's why Mayor Tony, Bill Clinton, and other famous/powerful men have strings of simultaneous girlfriends. [Clinton had Gennifer Flowers, and Miss Arksansas and actress "Amanda" on Highlander, Elizabeth Gracen]

Rap guys get criticized for being misogynistic, but their defense that they report what they see seems accurate. It's very common among poor black neighborhoods to see young women with three kids by three different men. Such behavior does not generate positive opinions about women, but rather push black men into competition for status (being the "hardest hard man" gangsta basically). You wonder why the crime rates are highest in black communities, next in Mexican, and lower in White, lowest in wealthy Asian (Japanese and upper-class Chinese)? Heck it's how women select men. Which is markedly different according to each community. Blacks and Mexicans select on violent status and so get violent men (the ultimate Darwinian reward is reproductive success which defines "fitness"). White and some Asian women select off fame/power/wider social status and avoid obvious criminals.

The zilch investment in kids behavior though, is classic "I don't know which is mine" Darwinian behavior. It's common in parts of Africa where promiscuity among both sexes leaves parentage up in the air. Natural selection guarantees that male behavior (zilch investment in kids or marriage) when parentage is uncertain, because it's the only strategy that has reproductive success (i.e. spread your seed far and wide). That the Black and to some extent Mexican community have this is due to probably uncertainty in parentage.

Harry Potter's world of his parent's marriage is a lost world. Nowdays the triumph of feminists has led to fairly large scale polygamy -- a great deal for women and elite men, but a guaranteed source of continued strife and misogyny among the loser beta males.

The serfs and peasants and slaves generally had low regard for the Sultan's harem.

Anonymous said...

David, Rowling is a Labourite who named her daughter after left wing muckraking journalist Jessica Mitford and made her books' villains blood purity obsessed racists. The repeated stated moral is that ability is less important than choice. And in the later books, it's pretty explicitly stated that the entire Wizarding world is built on the oppression of nonhuman species (elves, centaurs, and goblins in particular). It's true that her fictional world is detailed and robust enough for conservatives to find things in it to like, but it's silly to deny the Potterverse's essentially left wing sympathies.

Anonymous said...

"Harry Potter Doesn’t Cast Much of a Spell on Most Americans" from the Rasmussen website

"Overall, 76% of Americans have not read any of the Harry Potter books. Ten percent (10%), however, have read all of the books in the Harry Potter series. Twenty-four percent (24%) of men under 40 say they have read all of the Harry Potter books (99.9% of these men are gay). This compares to just 8% of women under 40 who have read all the books.

Twenty-one (21%) hold a very favorable view of Harry Potter author and creator, J.K. Rowling. Another 20% have a somewhat favorable opinion. Meanwhile, 21% have an unfavorable opinion of her. Thirty-seven percent (37%) don’t know enough to have an opinion one way or the other."

James Kabala said...

I heard it claimed once that there are hints in Lord of the Rings that Hobbits are actually brownish in color, not white as often assumed. Can anyone with detailed knowledge of the books comment?

Svigor said...

I'm not suggesting men shouldn't be subject to limits, just that the standards are different for good reason (I didn't even mention cuckoldry).

I see the idea that men and women should have a single standard of sexual conduct as coming from way out in left field. Why? Why should the standards be the same? Are the sexes the same?

Anonymous said...

"By contrast, I work in an office where people of several different races work together very well."

And where do they live?

Many different animals at the watering hole.

Anonymous said...

I think That Multi-cultis are trying to dictate what everyone says and does. Harry Potter is a wonderful adventure in Fantasy for Children and Adults.


Debbie

Mark said...

Peter Jackson also got into hot water for making the natives, in his remake of King Kong, a little too realistic.

From what I've heard, Jackson is out of "The Hobbit" movie. Perhaps his (apparent) willingness to ignore multiculturalism will go with him. If so, then it doesn't bode well for "The Hobbit." I wouldn't be shocked if half the Dwarves, or maybe the people of the Long Lake, wind up being black or Hispanic.

Hypothesis: The more multicultural and PC a fantasy world gets, the less popular it is. The first Star Wars movie was an all-white affair. It was excellent. The more PC/multiculti it got, the worse the movies got, untit in the end it was absolute dreck.

Same goes for Star Trek. The first Star Trek was multiracial, but not really multicultural. The more multiculti it got, the further south it went.

Anonymous said...

What I found mildly amusing about the last Harry Potter book was the dichotomy regarding breeding with non-magical humans. The bad guy essentially want to preserve the dwindling magical lineage whereas the good guys admit reproduction with non-magical humans is inevitable. Now although non-magical couples can have magical children and magical couples can have non-magical children, in the books it seems either case is an except rather than the rule. The solution of reproduction with non-magical beings to save the magical
"genes" is counterintuitive.

It should also be mentioned that none of the major characters in the book end up with a non-magical partner despite fighting for that right.

Perhaps they should have solved it similarly to desegregation. Bus in Muggles to Hogwarts, and when they inevitably fail the magical curriculum have them band together and blame institutional discrimination.

ben tillman said...

"PC/Multi-culti/feminism are markers of high-status/class (like an expensive biologically darwninian display, ala male Peacock tail feathers)."

Actually, they're precisely the opposite of the peacock's tail.

There is a positive correlation between a man's resources and his conformity to PC dogma, but that correlation follows from the fact that resources are directed to those who "play the game". Such conformity is not expensive in the least; in fact, it's an easy way to *acquire* resources.

Numan said...

The BBC's Dr. Who is another sci-fi series which has gone PC. There hasn't been a female or ethnic Doctor yet, though it's only a matter of time.

Anonymous said...

"The actor who plays Harry Potter, Daniel Radcliffe, is racially Jewish." According to wikipedia his mother is Jewish and his father is a Protestant from Northern Ireland. So it would be equally accurate (or inaccurate) to state that Radcliffe is racially North Irish. Or does the one drop rule kick in here?

Anonymous said...

Svigor,

It's obvious you are in need of an older sister. This is how the modern world works. A woman who plays the field just might get pregnant. A man who plays the field just might get one or more of his many lovers pregnant.

Which gender has the choice whether or not to have the child?

Be careful out there, young man.

And as for that guy ranting about high status males and their harems. Note your main example was Hispanic w/ most of his women being from collectivist/authoritarian cultures. As for the Clintons, they are actually from an earlier generation. I don't know why we tend to think of them as being younger. Also, they are left wingnuts.

Women my age, from my culture really don't cling to philandering males no matter what you want to believe. I've also noticed a trend towards marrying guys a few years younger which is a move away from the all-powerful alpha male who can both giveth and taketh away. Your examples mixed cultures and generations.

Charlotte said...

"Women my age, from my culture really don't cling to philandering males no matter what you want to believe. I've also noticed a trend towards marrying guys a few years younger which is a move away from the all-powerful alpha male who can both giveth and taketh away."

I hear you Anon., but we said the same thing 35 years ago (when Hilary & Bill were young and fuller of beans). Really--I remember.
To an extent, I agree society is moving away from Svigor's norms, but not as fast as you think. Interview some of the yung'uns to whom you refer in, oh, 20 or 30 years. Then we can draw some conclusions.

David said...

According to Anon. 7/31/2007 12:07 PM, "it would be equally accurate (or inaccurate) to state that Radcliffe is racially North Irish. Or does the one drop rule kick in here?"

What kicks in here is the rule of matrilineal descent. According to the longest, traditional (Halakhic) definition of Jewishness, if your mother is a Jew, you are a Jew.

Read a little:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Who_is_a_Jew%3F#Traditional_.28Halakhic.29_perspective

Anonymous said...

David
You said he was "racially Jewish." It has nothing to do with Halakha.

David said...

"You said he was 'racially Jewish.' It has nothing to do with Halakha."

Traditional Judaism states that the child of a Jewish mother is Jewish. It is a biological concern. Jews traditionally were very concerned with maintaining their racial purity - and many still are (why intermarry with the dumb goyim?).

The idea that race has nothing to do with millenium-old tribal rules regarding matrilineal descent is absurd on its face.

Anonymous said...

If you had said Radcliffe as a Jew, or according to Halakha Radcliffe is a Jew, I wouldn't have argued. But you said he is "racially a jew" from a biological perspective half his genes came from a Irishman, unless you claim that "Jewish racial traits" are limited to mitochondrial DNA or all "dumb goy" genes can be found exclusively on the Y chromosome, my original comment holds. In this context halakha is irrelevant.

David said...

"halakha is irrelevant"

You reject Halakha. I don't. Nor do I deny it is effective eugenically.