[ SECRET POST #2629 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #2629 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.


__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.


__________________________________________________



09.


__________________________________________________



10.


__________________________________________________



11.

















Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 03 pages, 071 secrets from Secret Submission Post #376.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 1 - broken links ], [ 1 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 1 2 3 - too big ], [ 1 2 - repeat ], [ 1 - posted twice ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

Re: I don't understand the argument against the Weasleys

[intrigueing]

The Weasleys are low-class and poor, yet not saintly. Worse, they have self-esteem and don't think of themselves as worthless and therefore don't scurry around with their heads down, falling over themselves with shock whenever someone shows the magnanimity of not treating them like shit. Worse still, they don't prioritize raising themselves to middle-class above all other values, like, say, being loyal to your friends, helping people in trouble, or treating muggle-borns with respect and not being snooty about their long pure-blood pedigree.

Don't you know that if you have the audacity to be low-class and poor and still want the hero to lower himself to the point of associating with you, you had better be sweet tragic meek victimized saints who never treat each other with anything other than Cratchit-like picture-perfect reverence?

Re: I don't understand the argument against the Weasleys

[(Anonymous)]

They really do not read as poor to me. Relatively less affluent, yes. But they own their house. They meet their needs. If they were desperate Molly could look for a job, and there's no evidence she ever did. They just have their priorities, and their priorities are not material wealth. They're satisfied living frugally.

Re: I don't understand the argument against the Weasleys

[nyxelestia]

While it's rarely brought up outright, a lot of the arguments I've heard against the Weasely's over the years have some really classist undertones to them. They seem to come pervaded with this whole "because they are poor, they should be acting like THIS" attitude, and hell even a secret on here a while back criticized them for using prize money to go visit their son in another country and enjoy a vacation rather than pay for essentials that they could afford, even if they sometimes struggled for it.

No one enjoys being poor*, but the family was one that happened to value a lot of things way more than they wanted to be rich. Isn't "morals over money" an ideal that our culture is supposed to value? -_-

Re: I don't understand the argument against the Weasleys

[(Anonymous)]

Isn't "morals over money" an ideal that our culture is supposed to value? -_-

It's one of the capitalist fairy tales that we tell ourselves at night so we can sleep. Every culture has its bullshit to maintain a certain status quo and the West is no exception.

Re: I don't understand the argument against the Weasleys

[nyxelestia]

That's just it, though - if that's the fairytale value we're chasing after, then why are people so pissed that the prominent family of a children's book series are actually demonstrating those values?