Corporal Punishment And Harry Potter
Aug. 8th, 2006 11:03 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
tabular_rasaOne of my favorite things to do when I am bored is to look up militantly anti-Harry Potter sites and laugh at them. They're so over-the-top. It can't just be, "We don't recommend reading Harry Potter to your children." It's, "IF YOU READ HARRY POTTER TO YOUR CHILDREN, THE DEVIL WILL CONSUME YOUR HOUSE IN FLAMES AND YOU WILL FACE JUDGEMENT IN HELL AND BE DAMNED AS YOUR CHILDREN PRANCE GODLESSLY ABOUT CASTING SPELLS AND KILLING PEOPLE!!!"
Anyway, I've noticed an interesting correlation. The child-rearing sites that forbid Harry Potter also 90% of the time advocate corporal discipline. Interestingly, there's a direct correlation in that the more adamantly against Harry Potter they are, the more time they spend analyzing it/bashing it, the more severe the punishments they advocate-- more frequent and stronger in execution (such as with implements, etc . . . ).
So, basically, if your household allows the reading of Harry Potter, you're less likely to be spanked or beaten.
Of course, this all comes down to a basic control issue-- if you control what your kids read, particularly as adamantly as the sites advocate, you're also more likely to control your kids with brute force.
This also all has heavy roots in the Christian fundamentalist thing, too; the Bible both condemns witches and advocates corporal punishment, if interpreted literally (what does that "rod" really mean, anyway?). Yet I could point out this is possibly redundant if it is theorized that religion is but an advanced form of social control, anyway. Control.
This is all very ironic, because Danny and I have come up with a new theory about the books themselves.
Danny and I noticed that the good characters in the books all seem to have been corporal disciplined at least, if not outright abused. The bad characters all manage to get out of it.
THE GOOD CHARACTERS:
Harry Potter: He is clearly and undeniably abused by the Dursleys. He is kept locked in a cupboard under the stairs, he is forced to wear hand-me-downs, he receives no new or pleasant things, his hair is forcibly cut at one point, and he is fed on minimal soup at another. Vernon Dursley grabs him and chokes him on various occasions.
The Weasleys: At one point, Ron mentions his mother having "whalloped Fred with her broomstick" for having given Ron an acid-pop, and also that "Fred (poor Fred-- why never George?) reckons his left buttocks has never been the same" after Mr. Weasley responded to his trying to perform the Unbreakable Vow on Ron. It is likely this is generalized to the whole family-- with one possible exception (see Percy Weasley). It is not abuse, per se-- more likely meant to be average parental discipline, particularly in the case of such a large family. Yet it is physical.
Hermione Granger: I don't really see this one, but Danny suggests that her parents dentistry might have something to do with it. They want her to "carry on with her braces" even after her teeth are fixed in her fourth year. Abuse? Control-- related to physical discipline?
Neville Longbottom: He recalls the measures his relatives took to ensure he was a wizard, from dropping him into lakes to out a window. That is abuse in most people's books, I do believe, even if semi-comical.
Sirius Black: Even if it wasn't physical, as a kid he was clearly emotionally abused. I point him out mostly for the stark contrast between he and his more evil relatives; was he singled out for punishment? Were Sirius's and Regulus's parents stricter, punishing the two boys more often, and resulting in the two of them both turning out good in the end (we suspect)?
It should be noted Professor McGonagall is "strict and fair" with her students. It may not be physical abuse, but it is a contrast for the "good" Gryffindor House to face sterner discipline than the "evil" Slytherin House, which is spoiled rotten by its leaders.
By this logic, Merope Gaunt-Riddle is fundamentally good.
THE BAD CHARACTERS:
Tom Riddle: He got out of everything as a kid. Even at school he doesn't get in trouble. He charms his way or uses absolute control; even in his 1930s orphanage-- basically a pseudonym for physical abuse-- the matrons are all afraid of him, and he goes on untouched, it seems.
THE BORDERLINE CHARACTERS:
Draco Malfoy: For all the world, he really should be in the Bad Characters section. He's clearly spoiled rotten, especially by his mother-- and he's a little brat, to boot. However, a deleted scene in the Chamber of Secrets movie supplies me with an inkling of intrigue: When told to "touch nothing," Draco disobeys, and Lucius almost beheads him with the befabled snake-headed *pimp* cane. As Draco is starting to exhibit hopeful signs of redeemability, perhaps there is more to be revealed about his home life, and more to support this theory if he turns out alright.
Severus Snape: He spoils the Slytherins rotten, but as I pointed out to Danny, the correlation is "was abused" rather than "does the abusing." As much as Severus may cause evil by playing favorites with his students, his spoiling of them does NOT imply evil on his part. Rather, Severus exhibits every sign of having been abused, from his unkempt appearance to his paranoid and withdrawn persona. The flashbacks from Pensieve scenes suggest an unpleasant home life. Besides, the Marauders abused him, if peer-abuse counts. Therefore, Severus is good. *Cheers*
Percy Weasley: He does not fit the typical Weasley mold; most are mischeivous. Hence, in the Weasley household, they would have been punished in the established physical fashion. However, the calm, collected, rather anal Percy may have avoided this. On top of that, Ron, Fred and George complain that he gets more new things than they, and Mrs. Weasley clearly favors him at times-- though mostly on account of his good behavior. Therefore, by this logic, he is the most *lost* of the Weasleys.
This is really quite funny. Who knows if it's of any validity. Yet I find it endlessly amusing . . . and rather intriguing . . .
It is interesting and ironic that this book series, with its rather Christian principles of the good created through trials and suffering, is so condemned by such great portions of the Christian community . . .
Anyway, I've noticed an interesting correlation. The child-rearing sites that forbid Harry Potter also 90% of the time advocate corporal discipline. Interestingly, there's a direct correlation in that the more adamantly against Harry Potter they are, the more time they spend analyzing it/bashing it, the more severe the punishments they advocate-- more frequent and stronger in execution (such as with implements, etc . . . ).
So, basically, if your household allows the reading of Harry Potter, you're less likely to be spanked or beaten.
Of course, this all comes down to a basic control issue-- if you control what your kids read, particularly as adamantly as the sites advocate, you're also more likely to control your kids with brute force.
This also all has heavy roots in the Christian fundamentalist thing, too; the Bible both condemns witches and advocates corporal punishment, if interpreted literally (what does that "rod" really mean, anyway?). Yet I could point out this is possibly redundant if it is theorized that religion is but an advanced form of social control, anyway. Control.
This is all very ironic, because Danny and I have come up with a new theory about the books themselves.
Danny and I noticed that the good characters in the books all seem to have been corporal disciplined at least, if not outright abused. The bad characters all manage to get out of it.
THE GOOD CHARACTERS:
Harry Potter: He is clearly and undeniably abused by the Dursleys. He is kept locked in a cupboard under the stairs, he is forced to wear hand-me-downs, he receives no new or pleasant things, his hair is forcibly cut at one point, and he is fed on minimal soup at another. Vernon Dursley grabs him and chokes him on various occasions.
The Weasleys: At one point, Ron mentions his mother having "whalloped Fred with her broomstick" for having given Ron an acid-pop, and also that "Fred (poor Fred-- why never George?) reckons his left buttocks has never been the same" after Mr. Weasley responded to his trying to perform the Unbreakable Vow on Ron. It is likely this is generalized to the whole family-- with one possible exception (see Percy Weasley). It is not abuse, per se-- more likely meant to be average parental discipline, particularly in the case of such a large family. Yet it is physical.
Hermione Granger: I don't really see this one, but Danny suggests that her parents dentistry might have something to do with it. They want her to "carry on with her braces" even after her teeth are fixed in her fourth year. Abuse? Control-- related to physical discipline?
Neville Longbottom: He recalls the measures his relatives took to ensure he was a wizard, from dropping him into lakes to out a window. That is abuse in most people's books, I do believe, even if semi-comical.
Sirius Black: Even if it wasn't physical, as a kid he was clearly emotionally abused. I point him out mostly for the stark contrast between he and his more evil relatives; was he singled out for punishment? Were Sirius's and Regulus's parents stricter, punishing the two boys more often, and resulting in the two of them both turning out good in the end (we suspect)?
It should be noted Professor McGonagall is "strict and fair" with her students. It may not be physical abuse, but it is a contrast for the "good" Gryffindor House to face sterner discipline than the "evil" Slytherin House, which is spoiled rotten by its leaders.
By this logic, Merope Gaunt-Riddle is fundamentally good.
THE BAD CHARACTERS:
Tom Riddle: He got out of everything as a kid. Even at school he doesn't get in trouble. He charms his way or uses absolute control; even in his 1930s orphanage-- basically a pseudonym for physical abuse-- the matrons are all afraid of him, and he goes on untouched, it seems.
THE BORDERLINE CHARACTERS:
Draco Malfoy: For all the world, he really should be in the Bad Characters section. He's clearly spoiled rotten, especially by his mother-- and he's a little brat, to boot. However, a deleted scene in the Chamber of Secrets movie supplies me with an inkling of intrigue: When told to "touch nothing," Draco disobeys, and Lucius almost beheads him with the befabled snake-headed *pimp* cane. As Draco is starting to exhibit hopeful signs of redeemability, perhaps there is more to be revealed about his home life, and more to support this theory if he turns out alright.
Severus Snape: He spoils the Slytherins rotten, but as I pointed out to Danny, the correlation is "was abused" rather than "does the abusing." As much as Severus may cause evil by playing favorites with his students, his spoiling of them does NOT imply evil on his part. Rather, Severus exhibits every sign of having been abused, from his unkempt appearance to his paranoid and withdrawn persona. The flashbacks from Pensieve scenes suggest an unpleasant home life. Besides, the Marauders abused him, if peer-abuse counts. Therefore, Severus is good. *Cheers*
Percy Weasley: He does not fit the typical Weasley mold; most are mischeivous. Hence, in the Weasley household, they would have been punished in the established physical fashion. However, the calm, collected, rather anal Percy may have avoided this. On top of that, Ron, Fred and George complain that he gets more new things than they, and Mrs. Weasley clearly favors him at times-- though mostly on account of his good behavior. Therefore, by this logic, he is the most *lost* of the Weasleys.
This is really quite funny. Who knows if it's of any validity. Yet I find it endlessly amusing . . . and rather intriguing . . .
It is interesting and ironic that this book series, with its rather Christian principles of the good created through trials and suffering, is so condemned by such great portions of the Christian community . . .
