Your opinion about Ginny is interesting, because I've seen so many people claim that she's a good character in the books, not in the movies, but honestly... She's not very well written. She looks good in comparison with her movie counterpart, but that's only because movie Ginny doesn't have much of a personality.
I wouldn't mind her being a "tomboy", there are plenty of girls who are like that. The problem is that the narrative looks down on other female characters who are traditionally feminine.
The story seems to imply that most girls are too emotional and vain, unlike Ginny, who is cool, sporty and "not like other girls". I think Hermione also gets a similar treatment, but she's the "book smart, intelligent girl" trope, a different type of "not like other girls".
Again, there's nothing wrong with any of these characteristics. The issue is acting like they are "superior" for being that way.
I agree 100%. The issue with Ginny—and honestly, Rowling's female characters in general—goes way beyond just the individual tropes. It's not about Ginny being a "tomboy" or Hermione being "book smart"; it's about how the narrative frames those traits in a deeply sexist way.
Rowling consistently pits her female characters against traditional "girly" traits, like being emotional, vain, or caring about appearances, as if those traits are inherently shallow or inferior. Ginny gets to be "cool" because she's sporty, tough, and “not like other girls.” Hermione is valued for her intelligence and practicality but is often shown to be above "silly" things like divination or gossips (unless, of course, she's being awkward or it’s for comic relief). Even Luna, who’s supposed to be this unique, whimsical character, only really gets respect as a manic pixie dream girl—a quirky outsider that fits neatly into a masculine fantasy of the "weird but lovable" girl.
And let’s not even get started on how motherhood is practically the only "redeeming" role for older women. You're either a nurturing, self-sacrificing mother (Molly Weasley) or you're a caricature of bitterness and cruelty (Aunt Marge, Umbridge). There's no middle ground.
The problem is that Rowling doesn't just use these traits as character details—she assigns value to them in a way that reflects a masculinized view of women. Women who exhibit traditionally "feminine" traits are mocked or dismissed, while those who embody masculine-coded traits (strength, independence, intelligence in a way that doesn't challenge male characters) are put on a pedestal. It’s not inherently bad to have a “cool tomboy” or a “nerdy girl” in your story, but when you repeatedly present them as better than other women just for not being “girly,” it reinforces the idea that femininity is lesser.
From a feminist perspective, this plays right into patriarchal ideas about the "right way" to be a woman. You're only worth something if you cater to male ideals: the “chill girl” who likes sports and doesn’t nag, the hyper-competent intellectual who doesn’t threaten the male ego, or the kooky outsider who exists to spice up someone else’s life. Anything else? Forget it. You're either a joke, a villain, or invisible.
So yeah, the problem isn’t the traits themselves. It’s that Rowling uses them to perpetuate these tired, sexist hierarchies about what makes a woman "good" or "worthy."
