Do you believe that there is a lack of strong female characters so far?

I understand that the series is focussed on Harry, but it seems, at least to me, that the series lack female characters that are multi-dimensional. For example (and for the sake of length, I've kept my qualms somewhat superficial):

McGonagell - She's portrayed as the stern disciplinarian that can run either hot or cold when it comes to the students; nothing more, nothing less. It's difficult to even form theories on the woman (for me, anyway) because we don't know much about her background, which baffles me since she is important enough to be Deputy Headmistress of Hogwarts.

Molly Weasley - She, too, is shown to either run hot or cold with the kids, except she's more one-dimensional in that her identity as a "woman" is often martyred to her role as a "mother."

Fleur Delacour/Ginny Weasley - While there is a bit more depth to Fleur (in that she was a TWT champion), she, just as Ginny, has been portrayed as nothing more than a "damsel in distress" that depends on the chivalry of a gallant knight (Harry) to make all things better.

Albeit, we do have Lily. And, we also have Hermoine who, I think, is the most powerful witch/wizard among the trio of friends. Still, Hermoine is, as yet, not described in as much depth as Ron, and she is equally Harry's best friend.

So, considering all of this - would you agree that the number of strong, multi-dimensional female characters is lacking in the novels, thus far?

And, considering that JK has 3 more books to write, which female character would you like to see JK develop more?

I think that Hermione will play a very important role in future books. She and McGonagall have much in common. Molly Weasly treats Harry almost like mother, so she is rather important, too. I agree about Fleur and Ginny - I haven't noticed anything special in them, but maybe in other book they will be more important.
There will be a big revalation(sp?) about Lily in book 5. As I said before, I'm pretty sure that the character of Hermione will be developed. I would like it very much :)

:yell: computer, second try:angry:

I think Hermione is an interesting character. Yes, she is teacher's pet but she grows up in a very interesting way. She is getting more complex and she will become a strong interesting female character.

Ginny is also a good candidate. We don't know much about her yer, but after all she is the only girl who got close to Voldemort. I know if she is alive it is not because of her courage, but I believe in her.

Otherwise I agree.

Look at the adult wizards in Hogwarts: Ddore, Snape, Flitwick, Black, Lupin, Binns (kind of).

Now look at the adult withches there: McGonagall!

I decide to boycot JKR,until the fifth book is available!

Wait, Benz, there's also Professors Sprout, Sinistra, & Trelawney and Madames Hooch & Pince. Still, we only ever see McGonagall & Trelawney. :sigh:

I agree that there's a lack of strong female characters in the books. Yes, we have Hermione, who is great-- but she and McGonagall are pretty much it. There's Ginny, but she's a flimsy little character at the moment; Fleur, I think, has played out her biggest role; I don't see Mrs. Weasley being a major character (though she's really tough). :shrug:

I do think that we'll see more ladies in the future. We've been promised more about Lily (my fave), and I think we can look forward to more about Arabella Figg. She'll be very interesting. I hope that the female DADA that we get will be new character-- it's a good role.

But I wouldn't want more females for the sake of more. The truth is, they haven't really been needed so far. The books are from Harry's POV, and he'd obviously bond with other guys. And there isn't a void of females. . . it'd still be nice to have a few more, well-developed ladies. But we'll take who we get. :smile:

I don't think there is a lack of females. There are plenty. They mainly focus on the boy students because boys (Harry) normally make friends or enemys with other boys.

I don't think there's a lack of strong female characters, we just haven't seen all sides of everyone yet. There hasn't been a reason to develop certain characters yet, male and female, because they haven't needed to show another side from Harry's perspective. In the story so far, there's been no need to describe all sides to, say, Mrs. Weasley, because the books are based from Harry's life and he wouldn't have been exposed to that. The most described character in the book is a boy, so the male perspective is covered, and it leaves people looking for the female perspective. But the lack of character development goes both ways. McGonagall is one dimensional with the appearance of being strict in the same way that Snape is one dimensional in being mean. Both have more to their story, but Harry wouldn't need to know about Snape's sensitive side (Cathairetic, stop smiling :D ) because there has been no point in the story for that information to be exposed to him. So no, I don't think there is a lack of female character development, it's just that many characters are not yet completed and it just so happens that the only one we're "sure about" is a boy.

Yes, I agree with Divi. i think there's a multitude of strong female characters in this series. I don't understand how anyone could see Hermione, McGonagall, Mrs. Weasley, or Mrs. Lestrange (nobody's mentioned her yet) as anything but tough, strong women. Harry may not see them this way, but that doesn't mean that these characters are not obviously capable of deep strength and complexity.

Originally posted by Anne
Yes, I agree with Divi. i think there's a multitude of strong female characters in this series. I don't understand how anyone could see Hermione, McGonagall, Mrs. Weasley, or Mrs. Lestrange (nobody's mentioned her yet) as anything but tough, strong women. Harry may not see them this way, but that doesn't mean that these characters are not obviously capable of deep strength and complexity.

Hm. I don't deny that there is the potentiality for greatness in the female characters, but I feel that they have been portrayed 2-dimensionally as yet. True, this could merely be reflective of the fact that the series is slowly coming to its deeper side, but that still doesn't explain away the depth of, say, Ron's character, of Snape's character, and even Neville's character. For me, anyway.

I don't know exactly what you mean by strong, but I would not cross McGonagall or Skeeter. And certainly never Mrs. Weasley. She seems like the person you want perpetually on your side.

Originally posted by pasalita


Hm. I don't deny that there is the potentiality for greatness in the female characters, but I feel that they have been portrayed 2-dimensionally as yet. True, this could merely be reflective of the fact that the series is slowly coming to its deeper side, but that still doesn't explain away the depth of, say, Ron's character, of Snape's character, and even Neville's character. For me, anyway.

First of all, I agree that Ron is more fully developed than any of the female characters. However, Ron is undeniably Harry's best friend. He's the very first friend Harry ever made, and they've been through a lot together. Hermione's great, but she's not capable of being as close to Harry as Ron is. Therefore, Ron needs to be very well developed. And he is. And so is Hermione. I see Hermione as more complex than either Snape or Neville. I also see McGonagall and Molly Weasley as more complex than Neville. Once again, I see these as very strong, well-developed characters. :shrug:

I agree that there isn't that much depth to the female characters in the story, but remember, the female characters, sadly, are not all that central to the story. However, I think Hermione is the exception.

She has depth, is strong, and the guys would be horribly lost without her. She may not have been described as well as Ron, but she has more depth and personality than Ron. And I think she's going to become a lot closer to Harry in the coming books, closer even than Ron, and in the process we're going to see a lot more of her.

Originally posted by Da da da da da86
I don't know exactly what you mean by strong, but I would not cross McGonagall or Skeeter. And certainly never Mrs. Weasley. She seems like the person you want perpetually on your side.

Yeah, I guess I used my word choice poorly. Instead of "strong" think of "multi-dimensional" in terms of the depth of the characters thus far in the series.

I think we do have strong multi-dimensional female characters.

Professors - The 2 most prominent professors are Snape and McGonagall. They were both with Dumbledore when Harry was rescued at the end of GoF. I think McGonagall is as strong magically as Snape, she just isn't as nasty. She is the Deputy Headmistress and I believe she will be Headmistress before the books are finished. She is very capable and professional. Some people say she is hot and cold, I think she is multidimensional. She loves Harry, but is strict with him unlike Snape who always shows favoritism.

Among the other professors who we don't know as well, if you actually list them, you will see that there are as many females as there are males.

Death EatersWe only know of one female Death Eater, but I think that is realistic. There are more men in the military than women.

StudentsHermione is clearly the brightest student in the school. She is loyal and courageous. We hear more about the male students than the females because Harry is naturally going to have more male friends than female friends.

QuiddichWe have 3 girls on the Gryffindor Quiddich team. Cho Chang is Seeker for Ravenclaw. Except for the Slytherin team, the female/male balance is pretty even. We know that the Slytherins are a bunch of bigots, so that's to be expected.

Molly WeasleyIn the South, we have a term called "Steel Magnolia". Molly reminds me of that term. She is a woman who seems soft on the outside, but is very strong on the inside. Don't mess with a Steel Magnolia and don't mess with Molly. She showed alot of strength of character at the end of GoF and I think she will continue to be a strong woman, yet she is able to show Harry the tenderness that he needs.

Founders2 men and 2 women

Rita Skeeter is a very strong and nasty character. We are looking forward to seeing more of Arabella Figg who must be a very strong woman since Dumbledore sent Sirius to talk to her.

JKR is a female, do you think she would make other females not have an important role on the books? Hermonie is important but just like one member said. its about harry (boy). and he has to face Voldermot (another boy)

Personally, I like Molly as a "mother" character, and I don't believe that detracts in any way from her being a strong/well written character. She doesn't need to change herself to conform to a post-modern feminist view of a successful woman.

As for the focus on the male characters, several people have pointed out that we see the books through Harry's eyes. Naturally at this time in his life, he will be more drawn to male role models. Maybe when he matures more, he'll take more notice of the female characters (and not just in a romantic manner).

I would like to see more of McGonnagall though. There are several things about her past that I am curious/suspicous about.

Originally posted by Anne


First of all, I agree that Ron is more fully developed than any of the female characters. However, Ron is undeniably Harry's best friend. He's the very first friend Harry ever made, and they've been through a lot together. Hermione's great, but she's not capable of being as close to Harry as Ron is. Therefore, Ron needs to be very well developed. And he is. And so is Hermione. I see Hermione as more complex than either Snape or Neville. I also see McGonagall and Molly Weasley as more complex than Neville. Once again, I see these as very strong, well-developed characters. :shrug:

I can see where you're coming from. Based on the idea of a heirarchy of pertinence with regards to the main characters, I believe that Hermoine is more pertinent than Neville. Thus, if to follow this logic, Hermoine can be considered to be more developed than Neville, or Snape for that matter.

But, I disagree that she is acknowledged to be as multi-faceted as Neville, as yet. If to look merely at their family history, we see why Neville lives with his grandmother - i.e. the tragedy of his parents. We also have seen his attempts to stand up for himself, how his triumphs in Herbology compensate for his lack of confidence in Potions.... Perhaps this isn't the best explanation, but based on that alone, I feel that Harry has learned more, and has been more empathetic towards Neville than Hermoine, and in effect, the reader would feel for Neville more.

True, Hermoine is strong, outspoken, empathetic, a hard-worker, and what-not. But, in the series thus far, I've found that the descriptions of her are very critical - she's instead viewed as a nag, as someone that doesn't know how to have fun, and, in GoF, ridiculed by Ron for her fierce independence. It's as though her identity is always being scrutinized, whereas Harry and Ron are more empathetic towards someone like Neville (again, based on descriptions within the book.)

But, this is, again, not a finite observation. I have come to realize that this may be the result of the point of view of the narration (since it's based on Harry's ideas and observations, and as a young boy, he's probably more willing to empathize with other boys than with a girl. Of course, this habit may not just by symptomatic of his age;). )

Yes, I agree. :yup: There are more important characters in the male gender to the female.

There needn't be a token female role. That position is never relaxed enough. The personalities just happen to come with their gender rather than dealing the appropriate gender out: boy, girl, boy, girl, boy, girl.

I've heard people refer to Hermione as the token girl that but I don't agree. There is a definate niche for Hermione that wouldn't be fulfilled if she was a boy. This means that she was not just stuck in there to be 'the female character'.

No, I don't think there's a great need for female characters. The ones we have (Hermione, McGonagall, Molly, etc., etc.,) we know their personality and what she'd do in a certain scenario...
But since the books focus mostly on Harry (with the occasional Voldemort), we don't discover the deep layers of them. This is because Harry "hangs around" with boys (excluding Hermione, of course). His best friend is Ron and there are more Gryffindor boys in Harry's year than girls (Parvati, Lavender and Hermione). I think this is why it feels almost empty without girls, but believe me, there will be a LOT more girls in the future ;) , hehehehe!

Don't forget Madam Pomfrey! She may not be a major character, but she appears regularly, is strong, and respected and (usually) obeyed by others.

I agree that the male characters seem more fleshed out at this point, but the point-of-view of the books is usually that of Harry. He's been an adolescent boy, and not given to taking notice of most girls, such as his sudden amazement at Hermione's appearance at the Yule Ball. I think as he gets older, and more interested and involved with the young women, we will hear more and more about the female students. We shall have to see what happens with the staff and adult wizards/witches, but having a female DADA should raise the bar a bit in terms of adding at least one more well-developed female character.

Well, there tends to have been more of a focus on the male characters at this point, but there is no lack of strong female characters in the books.
Look at Hermione. She is always in there with the boys when it comes to dangerous things. She is smarter than the boys, helping them etc, she is shown to be strong and capable...

I think perhaps there is more focus on the males so far because of the fact the the main character is a boy and a younger one at that. A lot of boys at his age dont really interact all that much with the female of the species. As he begins to grow up more, we may see more female interactions, and hence, more of a female presence.

When you were 11, were you still thinking of the opposite sex as 'stinky', or thought you could get girs/boys germs? I wasnt that worried, but i know there are some boys out there that have never gotten over that stage.

It is true that the book is mostly about male characters, but actually Hermione is more necessary than it seems....She always solves the difficult tasks and mysteries; she always has solutions....
I think that the male and female characters are compensated on that point, but I would like to see the point of view of a girl....Like, we never know what Hermione thinks....maybe this will be shown later on.

some Hermione pov would be nice...

I think there's a lack of the female of the species. Hermione is about the only central female figure there is, but it would be good if we get to see some female death eaters in later books...

What an interesting question. I've enjoyed reading the whole thread. I agree that the female characters could be more developed, but not that they are only two-dimensional.I but also agree, that as we see things from Harry's perspective, it will come more slowly. As the books progress more will be revealed about the females as Harry gets to know them better.

I think there is definitley the ground work for a really great cast of strong females. But, as a lot of you said, they just haven't been fleshed out.

I think that girls that haven't previously been as strong, like Ginny, will be forced to become stronger. And then we have characters like Cho, who I think is a strong girl.

McGonagall, Hermione, heck even Sprout. The strong women are there, just haven't been given as much notice.

I think that there are enough female characters, especially since the hero is a boy. I think that the female characters will get more depth in the future, because some, like Ginny, in my opinion need more depth.

The groundwork is in place in GoF for the strongest, nastiest female character imaginable. In the Pensieve chapter, we saw men like Crouch Jr. and Karkaroff whining, begging and pleading. A woman was the only person who stood strong in the courtroom.

the woman with the heavy-lidded eyes looked up at Crouch and called. "The Dark Lord will rise again, Crouch! Throw us into Azkaban, we will wait! He will rise again and will come for us, he will reward us beyond any of his other supporters! We alone were faithful! We alone tried to find him!"

I do see the point of this thread, mainly because I can't help noticing that the male members of the forum have been at rather a loss in the "Do you like a character?" thread. Still, the books are focused on a boy's POV, and he didn't HAVE to make friends with Hermione. I think all the characters will be fleshed out further in the future books, female and male.

Hmm. Good topic, pasalita.

I have to admit, it bugs me that all the adult females seem to be either housewives (Molly, Petunia) or completely devoted to their careers (Professor MacGonagall, Rita Skeeter), with few other facets. I'm hoping we'll find out more about some of them (Professor MacGonagall in particular; I'm convinced there's more to her than just the tough teacher with a heart of gold). We also don't know much about Lily yet; Voldemort might not have thought she was important, but was she simply in danger because of her husband and Harry, or was she an active part of the resistance? I'm inclined to believe the latter.

As for the kids, I agree it's just taking Harry a bit longer to get to know most of his female classmates. Take away the revelation about his parents, and would Neville seem so complex? I don't think so. All we need is some insight into a few of the girls' backgrounds as well. And when it comes to the girls we do know fairly well, I think they're maturing nicely. Ginny's improved from her ridiculously lovestruck state in CoS, and I think Hermione's demonstrated she's learning when to lighten up. In fact, for someone who doesn't have the advantage of a dark past or an interesting family, and could easily have been nothing more than a brainiac, I think she's one of Rowling's more impressive creations (but then, I'm a bit biased :p).

Well. The books are progressing at the normal school rate. And that is how it will develop.
At the start you have Harry, Ron and Hermione, and you never really got much nifo about other girls. But as school has progressed we've been introduced to other female characters.

And especialy in the later books there will be more female characters with love intrests etc. as you would expect for the age of the main characters.

You saw that in GoF, there was more information about female characters, Fleur, Cho etc. with dating.

Although you won't really have an equal share seeing as it is from a blokes PoV.

But there are profesors etc. But as Harry grows, his intrests will broaden, as will female characters geting more lime light.

You know, I wouldn't feel at all upset or uncomfortable if a book had no female characters at all. They're characters. They're personalities. The physical bodies they're supposed to have doesn't always matter.

I mean, we may see the boy/girl prejudices, romantic relationships, and we may see those certain 'cultures' that have developed around the sexes. But with such a vast array of characters, all 'strong' characters in the literary sense, does it matter what's being kept under the robes? They don't have to be powerful, determined and wealthy to be female. They can be whatever they are capable of being, that's the point of equality. A woman can be a boneheaded twit as much as a man, just look at Mrs Dursley's character. A woman can be a mother and a housewife with all her passion and shouldn't feel guilty about it. JKR should stick characters in only when, for whatever reason, that character should be there.

Re: Telling the story from Hermione's pov for once.

I wonder if that is possible? Maybe if Hermione were involved in an action sequence all by herself. Or, if she had an assignment or a mission to complete on her own?

Otherwise, it would be very strange to start telling the story from her pov all of a sudden, when the focal point has been Harry all along. Rowling would have to ignore Harry pretty much if she were to tell the story from Hermione's pov.

Re: Characterization

It really bugs me everytime that Hermione is reduced to a puffy-eyed cry baby whenever Harry gets hurt and hosptalized. I would have thought that Hermione was more sensible than that, not so sentimental.

I'd have to say that there aren't enough female characters/developed characters in the HP series, though Hermione herself has been developed very well. There is room for more female characters in there, particularly one who's a bit more "kick-arse", if you know what I mean.
For example: Where are the female Aurors? Didn't Sirius/Remus/James make any FEMALE friends when they attended Hogwarts? Save James, there's nothing in the books to suggest that Sirius or Remus had any female companionship in school.

I mean, we may see the boy/girl prejudices, romantic relationships, and we may see those certain 'cultures' that have developed around the sexes. But with such a vast array of characters, all 'strong' characters in the literary sense, does it matter what's being kept under the robes? They don't have to be powerful, determined and wealthy to be female. They can be whatever they are capable of being, that's the point of equality. A woman can be a boneheaded twit as much as a man, just look at Mrs Dursley's character. A woman can be a mother and a housewife with all her passion and shouldn't feel guilty about it. JKR should stick characters in only when, for whatever reason, that character should be there. [/B] The only problem I have with this is, there has been so much division of characterization among the genders in the history of fiction (books, movies, etc.) it would be ridiculous to say now that it doesn't matter. There's definitely been a lack with regards to other (i.e. less well-known) characterizations up until now. Take the recent spate of shows like Xena: Warrior Princess and Witchblade. These shows were popular for a reason: they're the only ones I've seen thus far that can show a 3-dimensional female action hero. Heck, even the male action heroes were becoming stale and flat! I liked Keanu Reeves's portrayal in Speed far more than I enjoyed any Arnold Schwartznegger film.

Remus Lupin has defintely been an improvement in that he's a 'sensitive' male character (without also being seen as a wimp and/or annoying). But like I said before: where, in the books, can you point to a female Mad-Eye Moody?

However, I DO NOT agree that JKR should put a character in her novels for the sole purpose of being politically correct. I say, if it fits naturally into the plot of whatever she's writing, why not? Like I said, it's not like the HP series has exhausted all forms and ranges of female characters.

I'm siding with Divi. Enough said.

ok, i just have a question. who the heck is Mrs. Lestrange? plz help me out here. im completely lost!!! thx all!!

Originally posted by Celestine_Adams
The only problem I have with this is, there has been so much division of characterization among the genders in the history of fiction (books, movies, etc.) it would be ridiculous to say now that it doesn't matter. There's definitely been a lack with regards to other (i.e. less well-known) characterizations up until now. Take the recent spate of shows like Xena: Warrior Princess and Witchblade. These shows were popular for a reason: they're the only ones I've seen thus far that can show a 3-dimensional female action hero. Heck, even the male action heroes were becoming stale and flat! I liked Keanu Reeves's portrayal in Speed far more than I enjoyed any Arnold Schwartznegger film.

Remus Lupin has defintely been an improvement in that he's a 'sensitive' male character (without also being seen as a wimp and/or annoying). But like I said before: where, in the books, can you point to a female Mad-Eye Moody?

However, I DO NOT agree that JKR should put a character in her novels for the sole purpose of being politically correct. I say, if it fits naturally into the plot of whatever she's writing, why not? Like I said, it's not like the HP series has exhausted all forms and ranges of female characters.

But there's the thing. JK Rowling isn't trying to make any point about gender. Why should we notice at all? You may as well look around a room and say 'Hmm, there aren't enough strong female characters in here'. Things don't always turn out as balanced as you might like but sometimes it could be just coincidence.

I hope that Ginnys character will develope more in the future books, I believe there is more to her than first meets the eye. The did start to show some courage in the book shop when she told Draco to leave Harry alone, I guess many other students would have been too scared of Draco to do that. Also, there is a reason why Ginny was chosen to be a Gryffindor, I hope we get to see more of that in the future.

Yes, I think Ginny needs more dimensions.

Sammy, Mrs Lestrange is a Death Eater, now in Azkaban for the torture of Mr and Mrs Longbottom. We saw her trial in the Pensieve.

Celestine, why would we have heard about the Marauders' female companions? We might meet some of them in the future, as well as Lily's friends. Ditto female Aurors (Arabella Figg??). I agree with you about political correctness.

I don't think Molly Weasley is really one dimensional, despite the fact that Harry is a teenage boy who would be completely clueless about the female psyche. Her family is the most important thing to her, obviously, but I think she shows her love in many different ways. She also does talk in a few places about being young and a student at Hogwarts. She fiercely loves her family, but you get the impression that her personality is shown through that rather than that being just her personality. Ya dig? Yes, she is the 'good mom' character. She isn't one dimensional though.

Now, as for Hermione... I'm doing a second read through the books. Personally, I think she is the most complex and most mature of the main three. Keeping in mind she's seen through Harry, and Harry doesn't completely understand her... you still see some different dimensions to her, aside from being smart and bossy. For instance, even though she's not ashamed of her Muggle parentage, I think she is sensitive about it and feels she has something to prove. I think it drives at least part of her overacheiver ways in the world of magic. We have this whole interaction with Krum (an older guy), but she talks about nothing but Harry to him. I think the fact that Krum, this famous older guy all the girls are chasing falls for Hermione really says something. There is more there that meets the eye that the younger boys don't see yet. The fact that on the one hand, she gets angry at Ron for going for 'looks', yet she is at least somewhat sensitive about being plain (fixing her teeth, transforming herself for the ball) shows some internal conflict. She is brave, smart, strong, very powerful in magic, has a 'tough' exterior, yet you get the impression that her inner life is a lot more sensitive. She gets Harry and Ron back together, and runs off crying. I think a lot of people didn't like that or thought it made her look weak. I thought it was great. I think it really showed the depth of feeling she has for her friends. Also, it shows that *she* knows how important Harry and Ron are to each other than Harry and Ron even know themselves.

Now, as much as Harry or Ron might complain about Hermione being a miss know it all or bossy, they respect her a great deal. She saves their *****. She is the brains of the operation. They'd be lost with out her. As pubescent boys, that is hard to see... I think they are seeing it more now.

She also has a life outside of Harry and Ron. She goes to classes they aren't in. The whole of PoA, there was a mystery surrounding her doings. She has her causes (the house elves). She helps Hagrid when the boys have pretty much forgotten about him. She has her relationship with Krum, which she doesn't really let Harry and Ron in on.

Re-reading the books, I have totally gained all new respect for Hermione. If she were just the annoying girl tagging along, she would be weaker and her failings would bring down HArry and Ron. In fact, it is her more annoying characteristics that end up saving them. Harry and Ron underestimate her, especially in the first two books. Even when they complain about her, they still miss her when she isn't there though.

I dunno.... I agree with others that it is difficult to tell a story from the point of view of a young boy and still get deep insight into the female psyche (or even adult psyche). However, I do think that with Hermione, even despite Harry's POV, she comes across as a million times more developed and complex as Neville... or even Ron.

Hell yeah!!! Thats why I need someone to sponser my fanfic, it has a strong female charater!

It bugs me that Fred, George, Ron, Bill, and Charlie are all SO COOL... and Ginny... well... isn't. I agree, right now she's just a damsel in distress (why aren't there ever guys in distress?). The only book she really has a part in is CoS, and during the height of that, she's unconcious!!! Since her brothers (all but Percy) are so awesome, I'd really like to see Ginny developed more so we can see the cool, Weasley side of her.

I don't think Ginny needs to be more developed.....she always appeared to me as sort of a minor character. But did you notice how.....emotional all the female characters are? And crybabyish......Lavenders, Parvati, even Hermione. Hermione seems to be the most developed female character. But she fits into the stereotypical fickel, and emotional female role.

J.K.Rowling hasn't pointed out more than a 1 or 2 Death Eaters that are female, and, if you noticed, they were mentioned as husband and wife....ex,"The Lestranges". I doubt she will put more female death eaters out there. I would like to see her do so.

There was one very minor character we've only met once who I believe might have been a female Auror.
She was in the beginning of GOF arriving with the other ministry wizards
in the forest when the Dark Mark was conjured.
She didn't have a name but as I recall she was the one who told Diggory
that kids couldn't have conjured the mark (or words to that effect)
Maybe she'll show up again.
while I tend to agree - most of the women in the Harry Potter series
are pretty stereotypical and tend to be seen in relation to the men in
their lives isn't that how a pre-teen boy might see the world at that time in his life. (McGonagall is the exception)
this book after all is from Harry POV

I need to post that I agree with most of you. I post somewhere that there were not that many female characters. A good member answered back there were quite a few and she was right. The problem remains, no strong female character. McGonagall is strong but not that exciting, more a stereotype of the old righteous teacher.

I'm sure JKR will do something about that. Maybe Arabella Figg?

First of all I don't think the books lack a strong female character. Hermoine is of course a highly developed character, but women certainly do have their places in the book.
That said, even if the book did lack a strong femal character I wouldn't care. This is J.K Rowlings world and equality absolutely does not matter. There is no reason for J.K to go about trying to even things up, if she did, I thik that would ultimately strip away from the books.

Although there is not much mentioned about them, I was terribly impressed that two of the Hogwarts founders are women... Rowena Ravenclaw, and Helga Hufflepuff. I think JK has many characters representing many femenine qualities.

I agree with everything LizardLaugh said.

I don't see any of the female characters as one-dimensional, and if there are any then there are also male one-dimensional characters too. Mrs. Weasley is shown as a mother because that's how Harry see's her - she's the typical mum that Harry never had. But we've seen more than that - what about the end of the Goblet of Fire?

I disagree that Fleur Delacour is the damsel in distress, waiting for a boy to save her. I don't see where you got that from, unless you mean her failing to save her sister. But otherwise, she's tough, icy, beautiful and seductive, but also can be friendly and charming and we've seen her to care about more than her looks (her sister and her magic - she doesn't rely purely on looks, like a lot of beautiful people do).

Hermione is clever, compassionate, brave, a bit of a revolutionary, what with the attempted house-elf liberating and all, sensible at some times but breaks down completely at others, she doesn't care what other people think of her (the Yule Ball - she could make herself very pretty, but she chooses not to. She's happy with herself).


We do see more males than females in the books, but that's just, as other people have said, because Harry is. Harry is more likely to befriend boys than girls, and also we've met his dad's friends, which were all male for the same reasons.

To some point, I don't think the books lack female characters, it's just that they don't concentrate on the female characters. Since the books are from Harry's perspective, and you can't blame him for not hanging with every girl in the school.
But since it is from Harry's perspective, it does seem that strong female characters exsist at Hogwarts. But I'm sure there's more out there, it's just Harry haven't met them yet.
Hermione is really the strongest one there. Lily- we don't know enough about. McGonagall has been described as more strict than strong...

I hope Rowling introduces more female characters, boys do seem to dominate in the books (because it's in Harry's perspective). Maybe the strong female characters have been there all the time, it's just Harry hasn't seen that side of the girl/woman yet.

Originally posted by LizardLaugh (original post (http://www.cosforums.com/a/showthread.php?postid=90561#post90561))
We have this whole interaction with Krum (an older guy), but she talks about nothing but Harry to him. I think the fact that Krum, this famous older guy all the girls are chasing falls for Hermione really says something. There is more there that meets the eye that the younger boys don't see yet.

That's very compelling, LizardLaugh.

She is brave, smart, strong, very powerful in magic, has a 'tough' exterior, yet you get the impression that her inner life is a lot more sensitive. She gets Harry and Ron back together, and runs off crying. I think a lot of people didn't like that or thought it made her look weak. I thought it was great. I think it really showed the depth of feeling she has for her friends.

You are so right! Thanks for reminding me of that.

Referring to what I said before, that I thought her emotional drama was somewhat off-putting to me, I see it totally different now. Now, it tells me how much she cares about Harry because her usually logical and sensible mind is brought to such a state of sentimentalism, causing her to let her guard down and display so much emotion.

Terrific post Lizard Laugh.

I think we will get to know Hermione more with the coming books as the Mudblood theme develops.
JKR developed Ron and his family early so that we would find out more about the wizarding world as Harry does.
She has kept quite a bit back about Hermione such as details about her family, what her wand is made of, how she would deal with the imperius curse, for instance.
There are quite a few references in the books linking Hermione to McGonagall. There are also parallels with Lily.
There seems to be a parallel generational link happening here between Dumbledore/James/Harry and McGonagall/Lily/Hermione.
I think Hermione, Molly and McGonagall are all strong chracters but we need more info about them.
Just on a previous post about Harry being closer to Ron than Hermione: JKR has been bringing Harry and Hermione closer together over the past two books including giving each a lot more magical knowledge and training compared with other students.
There are alot of examples in the books of the two becoming more mentally in tune in GOF and of Harry becoming more interested in what she is thinking.
The main female character I have a problem with is Ginny. She seems to be very much identified with a) having a crush on Harry b) being saved by him c) being his best friend's sister d) being part of the family he loves.
We know she's also red haired and small but not a lot else. At the moment she's very much a damsel in distress figure enamoured with her dashing hero.
Sure, we may find out a lot more about her but personally it bothers me that a lot of people like the idea of Harry and Ginny together, based on what we know of Ginny now and how she has been portrayed.
I would find it a bit disturbing if JKR puts Ginny with Harry at the end of the series if Ginny's character hasn't been developed a great deal more and if she hasn't attained her own identity separate from Harry and Ron.
I like the fact that Hermione is presented as having her own ideas, actions, strengths separate from the boys.

Now, now Turambar, this isn't the love thread! ;) But excellent post. I can't wait to find out more about Hermione!

Regarding Hermione, I agree that she has always had strong willpower and a mind of her own, her actions have shown her strengths. Professor McGonaggel is described as having the power to silence a class without even speaking, and being a main character, is not portrayed as weak at all.

There are just more male characters than female ones. And not all female characters are good either (i. e. Rita Skeeter). And look at Fleur, school champion. Sure, a little favor was shown to the male side have 75% of the champions being male, but at least there was some girl power there.

Not only do I agree with those who have said that Ginny's character will strengthen, but I also believe many of the new characters who will play pivotal roles in the books' plots will be female. We already know the next DADA teacher will be female.

Yeah, but the DADA is like "poisoned honey"

Magpie: I thought I was being quite restrained.:D

I think that it seems most of the main characters are guys, I mean you have Professor McGonagall, Hermione, the Gryffindor girls and a bunch of other minor characters but most of the important main strong characters are guys with the exception of Minvera and Hermione.
I think it's better that way, the women in the wizarding world don't seem to be as interesting as the men, maybe just because we haven't met very many cool ones yet.
I think it's just fine how it is though, male heavy if it may be.

I think that the presence of Hermoine contributes greatly to a female presence in the books. She's intelligent and moral. She overcomes obstacles, regards her friendship with Harry and Ron above almost all else, and always tries to do the right thing. There are also other strong female characters like Mrs. Weasley and some of the professors. I think that Ginny will also play a larger role in the future but she shows promise in the first four books.

Not that much because Hermione is really cool so I dont think that their is that big of a lack and their might be some more in the future books too..butt for power I would think that Hermione would be the chocie for that.

Just because a female character is not actively duelling with another wizard or arguing their lungs off, doesn't mean that they are weak minor characters. The women characters in Harry Potter, in my opinion, provide some of the necessary heart and brain the story.

Molly Weasley is not JUST a housewife! It takes tremendous strength of character to take on the lifetime job of being a wife. In the Harry Potter story, she is a necessary character that emphasizes Harry's desire for a family. The presence of her character establishes what Harry does NOT have because of Lord Voldemort.

Ginny isn't exactly as weak as we might have thought in Book 2. She poured her heart out to a diary -- a seemingly innocent object. No one could blame her for that. But if I recall correctly, Ginny CAN assert herself if she wanted to. Remember the confrontation at Flourish and Blots in Book 2 when Malfoy went down on Harry fot the photograph taken with Lockhart? She comes up in Harry's defense, "Leave him alone, Malfoy!" She's no damsel in distress.

Professor Mc Gonagall is a softy at heart but her presence makes her students' knees quiver under their robes. She's not a wishy-washy character.

As for Hermione, her character could not be replaced by a male character. Besides being the intelligent one, she is also the voice of reason and the most moral among the three. She keeps Harry and Ron grounded and keeps them from going in over their heads. This role is more credibly portrayed by a girl.

Just remembered that I read an interview in which JKR said we'd be finding out more about past headmistresses of Hogwarts. They would be pretty strong female characters, even if they are long gone.

Really? Puffskein, if the interview was online, could you post the link?

I don't recall Harry seeing any females snoozing in their frames in Dumbledore's office, but they may have been gallavanting around with Violet. She does seem to have an adverse influence on people.

Edit: Oooh, I think I found the interview you were talking about. Here's a snippet:

That's not entirely true, because if you look at Professor McGonagall, she's a very, very powerful witch, and she's in a position of power. And in fact, if you look at the Hogwarts' staff - I had this discussion with someone the other day - it is exactly 50/50. Although it is true that you do have a headmaster as opposed to a headmistress, but that has not always been the case. As you will find out, there have been equal numbers of headmistresses.

Taken from here (http://radio.cbc.ca/programs/thismorning/sites/books/rowling_001023.html).

I haven't been able to read many of the responses in this thread because my computer occaisionally doesn't let me get into certain pages. It's very annoying.

But my own opinion is that there are a considerable number of strong female characters in the book, although of course most of the characters are male.

We do, however, have Hermione, Professor McGonagall, and Mrs. Weasley. However, I have noticed that there seem to be a lack of women on the evil side. The Death Eaters are all men, I've noticed. I suppose that it's not surprising that Voldemort is a chauvinist. Or perhaps Rowling just can't picture a woman in an evil role. She certainly has unpleasant females like Rita Skeeter and Aunt Petunia. However, they're not really on Voldemort's side.

Originally posted by Snowangel (original post (http://www.cosforums.com/a/showthread.php?postid=351682#post351682))
However, I have noticed that there seem to be a lack of women on the evil side. The Death Eaters are all men, I've noticed.

That's not entirely true, Snowangel. Don't forget Mrs. Lestrange whom we see in the penseive in GOF. She seems to be far more dangerous than any of other Death-Eaters we've met so far. I think she'll prove to be a very strong female character.

Hmm, I forgot about her. I guess I saw her as acting with her husband, not on her own. I can't remember that part very well but she seemed to be mentioned with her husband, most of the time. However, you are correct and I"m sure that there are evil women in there.

Maybe.

The only strong female characters we know of are Hermoine, McGonagall, and maybe Molly. To me Molly is iffy, but strong in her own accord.

Hermione is definitely the strongest of all them.

I do hope that we get to see more prominent females though.

Oh, I love digging out the old threads which haven't been posted for so long time.

Now, we have read book 5 and we've got several more female characters:
- Nymphadora Tonks -the female Neville, if you ask me, but I think Neville is better skilled than he showed.
- Bellatrix Lestrange - Mrs. Lestrange, as someone said, is the most powerful female DE
- Umbridge - however evil she is, she's also a strong character

Right you are, Morgan Le Fay!

I'd like to add Luna Lovegood to that list.

I think her strengths lie in her philosophy on life. She has had her own share of suffering, having lost her mother at a young age. She probably witnessed the accident that killed her mother, since we have been told that only those who have witnessed a death can see Thestrals. At school, other students pick on her and treat her with disrespect, yet, Luna does not seem to let these people's immaturity get to her.

Luna has such a calm and composed manner at all times that it's quite humbling for a reader like me. She takes everything in stride and does what she wants to make herself happy. Who cares if people call her names?

I think Luna is another character who would make a good role model for young readers. She is a bit weird at times, but her indomitable spirit is nothing short of inspiring.

I just recently re-read OotP and was more impressed with Luna on the second read. She is a very strong character because she seems to be
pretty true to herself regardless of what some of the others (mostly the
eye-rolling Hermoine) think.
I wonder if some of the complaint about the female characters isn't that
they aren't strong as much as, until OotP they were very traditional.
Molly and Petunia are both housewives who appear to do nothing but clean things , McGonagall's a teacher, even Hermoine is the brainy girl who's bossy and not to good at sports (has
she ever flown that broom). Even Umbridge who's being touted as a strong character is basically a civil servant, a profession that tends to have a lot of women in it. Madame Pomfey as far as I can tell is a nurse not a doctor. It isn't til we get to the minor characters, the Gryffindor chasers, Tonks, Luna (and we'll have to see about her), Ginny, and Bella Lestrange (and the jury's out on her too, just being evil doesn't make you non-traditional) you start to see slightly less traditional behavior.
Something I would see as slightly non-traditional, move Snape over to the DADA class and hire a female potions (science) teacher.

I'm bound to say I find the notion that the female characters are stereotyped or weak is somewhat ironic. JKR has recieved stick from some sources in the Lit world for her work being too politically correct. Some feel her work is very 'Chick Lit' with 'sensitive male characters' (harry), female characters (hermy) who are allowed to be almost infalible in their decisions. The boys are allways rushing into things without thinking - incapable of relationships...

I'm not saying I buy this argument entirely - but I think it does illustrate that the attitude/status of characters in the book depends very much upon which perspective you view them.

Certainly it seems hard not to argue that Hermy is a v strong F char, as is mGon. That other female chars. are no less developed than most of the other male chars. of similar status in the books.

The whole complaint about there not being enough strong female characters is bogus, as shown explicitly by Ootp, but really shown by the first four books also.

Bellatrix Lestrange
Luna Lovegood
Minerva McGonagall
Dolores Umbrige
Ginny Weasley
Hermione Granger
Nymphadora Tonks
and many more are all strong female characters. That doesn't even include people like the female Healers we saw, etc. So much for JKR being an anti-feminist or whatever some have accused her of being.

So much for JKR being an anti-feminist or whatever some have accused her of being.JKR has been jumped on from some feminist corners for not making H a female char. Frankly its peverse that they seem to presume that she should write books for and starring a female character simply because she is a woman herself.:banghead:

Err botduck?

Which leading female chars are obsessed with their looks?

Hermy? Ginny? McG? Luna? - None of the important people are, indeed its hard to think of 1 female char we have whose mentioned as being especially consious of looks in the cannon.

As to crying..are you suggesting boys cry as much in public/private as girls in the real world? Or that whether they do/don't (in the real world) girls should be protrayed crying as much as the boys in the book for the purpose of equality?

I think that there's a difference we need to establish between strong female characters and female characters that are very independent. Some characters, like Fleur, are strong, but not as strong as many of the male characters (for instance, Fleur got attacked by Grindelows in the second book, burst into tears, and gave up, whereas the other champions didn't give up regardless of what happened. In OoTP, Ginny comes off as being extremely independent: she doensn't care about the opinions of others regarding her decisions (such as her choice of boyfriends). Luna, however, fits into both of these categories. She is extremely emotionally stable, and isn't bothered by other people's opinions. Having a few characters that go against their stereotype is not enough in my opinion: we need more female characters that are out there battling Voldemort. A reply to hesdead-dealwithit's post: Yes, that's true. There are those female characters who are strong/independent, but there are many, many more male characters who are.
Additionally: I am NOT saying that JKR is anti-feminist, just that I think that the series will improve as we see more of the women with "non-traditinoal" roles in the series, such as Tonks.

I guess Hermione hasn't yet had her character fully portrayed because HP hangs out with Ron because Ron is a wizard and there family is open armed when the subject of him having to stay over is discussed. Magic is the norm for them because they live around it but Hermy's parents are Muggles and I think they wouldn't be close examples to HP's parents and how HP's parents lived as Molly and Arthur are. They are normal wizards and know how it is to be a wizard child and know what wizard children like to do as for the Grangers who are Muggles and like to do Muggle things.

There are those female characters who are strong/independent, but there are many, many more male characters who are.
But couldn't that be just because we have Harry's point of view, and therefore we are going to get to know better more males than females, and therefore there are a few more strong males than females?

I don't know about anybody else, but I think OoTP was the definitive book for female empowerment. Here we were introduced (or re-introduced, in Ginny's case) to a handful of females that had significant and influential roles throughout the entire story.

Umbridge- although not exactly a "good" character her prescence was definitely felt. Most of the conflict throughout the book revolved around and was instigated by her.

Bellatrix- well, what else is there to say? She's more loyal and sadistic than all of the MALE deatheaters put together.

Hermione- again, the prominent voice of reason throughout the book. A lot of the feats wouldn't have been achieved without her quick wit and thinking.

Ginny and Luna- I think they served very important roles in the books. Ginny has obviously evolved into a very independant and feisty young woman and Luna can reach levels of deep understanding more than any other character can (at least with Harry) They also helped out in many of the "climactic actions" in the book and proved to be very capable and smart women.

All in all, I think J.K. is definitely sending out a gender-equality message. I take her view to be that while women can be caring and smart, they can also be just as evil and ruthless as men (i.e. Umbridge and Bellatrix) Not many women in literature have been portrayed in both "lights".

I'm still not buying this. Hermione Granger and Minerva McGonagall are glaring, undeniable examples of strong and independent women who don't need men to take care of them and are viewed as equals by the best and betters by many. Olympe Maxime should make it into this discussion somewhere as well. She's struggled against the same prejudice that Hagrid has and come out as the Headmistress of one of the most prominent wizardry schools in Europe. As for villains, Bella is even more entertaining and compelling as a psychopath than her master and has shown herself to be even more powerful and committed than Lucius Malfoy, the previous DE gold standard. There are plenty of strong women in HP, just like there are plenty of weak men (*cough*Lockhart*cough*, *cough*Fudge*sneeze*). And yes, Tonks is another example of a woman on her own and completely comfortable with that.

[\QUOTE]Olympe Maxime should make it into this discussion somewhere as well. She's struggled against the same prejudice that Hagrid has and come out as the Headmistress of one of the most prominent wizardry schools in Europe.[QUOTE]
That may be true, but she didn't really overcome the prejudice directed towards her: she simply denied it. This is definately not the same thing. Although Hagrid does not want people to know that he is half-giant, he is not willing to deny his heritage, while Mme Maxime is. If she was as strong and independent as one would guess because of her position in the educating world, she would not deny herself and her ancestors the way she does. I think that she should be brought into this discussion due to her role as headmisstress, not because of her ability to overcome prejudice.

First I don't think Rowling is writing a message book. Second I do agree that the book's POV is Harry and girls come into a boy's world slowly at that age.
But Bella, independant? If the centre of her universe LV was undeniably defeated would she step up to the plate and carry his banner or throw herself on the funeral pyre with him. I suspect the latter.
Umbridge -- instigated alot of mayhem but the power and authority to do it came from the ministry, especially from Cornelius Fudge. On her own she had no power.
McGonagall is a fairly independant character but the role is a traditional one for women --- teacher.
It's not a character's strength or weakness or independance really, it's the roles they've been assigned.
All the power roles in the book, so far, are men. Lord Voldemort, Dumbledore, Cornelius Fudge, Harry himself, Draco who is basically Harry's opposite in Slytherin. The one good DADA teacher was Remus Lupin. There are other female teachers mentioned, we see little of them. Olympe Maxime is a good example of a woman with power and authority but we haven't seen that much of her.
Ginny is another female who has real potential to break a few barriers.
Hermoine -- she's smart, she's strong and independant BUT when the
it comes down to the crunch, especially in OotP, Hermoine is not listened to by Harry and Ron. That tells me at this point in the story,
Hermoine still doesn't carry that much weight or power within the threesome. But that might change.
Know I don't think Rowling need write her book to stick to some PC
agenda. I think actually it would hurt the story more than anything.
But I do think there is some validity in the complaints about the woman's roles.
Why not Cornelia Fudge? You think a woman couldn't be the same
spineless moron this guy is? Why is it all the DE men get to come across as sane and ambitious while the one DE woman we've seen just
gets to be nuts.

"Ingoring prejudice" isn't the same as "overcoming it?" WHAT? Simply because she refused to acknowledge the attitude of those who were prejudiced against her does not mean that she did not have to overcome the prejudice. Just because she didn't openly acknowledge it doesn't mean it ceased to exist. Also, I would say that she's no stronger or weaker than Hagrid about this. She combats the attitude but in spite of her airs, no one believes she's simply "big-boned." It's a defense mechanism she learend after years of being ostracized. I really don't blame her for that and that doesn't make her weak.

haha yeah the males r the best and most powerful wizards. anyone notice that the only powerfully magical women in the series in mcgonagal?

And Hermione, and Lily, and Griselda Marchbanks, and--Madam Bones and, oh forget it. It's like talking to a wall. There are at least as many strong women as there are strong men and most of the weakest characters are men (Fudge, Percy, Draco, Pettigrew, Lockhart).

And Ginny, and, Sprout, and . . . Forget it is right. I think the biggest evidence that there is no difference between males and females in HP is that they are equal on the Quidditch field. (Except for beaters.) This proves that there is not, nor probably ever has been, discrimination on the part of JKR or, more importantly, in the HP world.

Well--I wouldn't go that far. Have you read the story of how the Golden Snitch was introduced into the game of Quidditch? There were eras of male chauvinism in the HP world (centureis ago) but it appears that at least that ill has mostly been eradicated. I dunno about Beaters either. I think Millicent Bulstrode could probably swing a mean bat if she put her mind to it.

Many of the Headteacher portraits were female. We know of Wizengamot and Ministry official women. Many of the teachers are female, and it's not home economics we're talking about. Half of the Order were women. I think the former Minister of Magic was mentioned and it was a she.

Tonks is a girl AND she's young but she didn't seem to be given any grief from the older male Aurors.

There's no sexism in the books whatsoever. Anybody who sees sexism needs to stop looking avidly for it. Perhaps coincidence means positions aren't split with total exactitude down the middle between sexes, but the world doesn't work like that. Perhaps Harry knows more boys than girls but the world DOES work like that. Perhaps the Minister is a man when he could have equally been a woman, but sometimes it just so happens that somebody is a man, it can't be helped :D.

It's not about strength and weakness, it's not about good vs bad,
It's about who has the power.
Weak people can have power. Cornelius Fudge may be a weak wizard
internally but externally he's Minister of Magic, he has power.
That's what I'm talking about. Not personality, not perceived independence or strength.
Now one of things I've always liked about the HP series is that it really is a funny reflection of our own world, isn't it. Who hasn't met a Draco type or McGonagall type in school. The Ministry of Magic is a great send up of creaky ways governments can operate and Rowling herself
admits the part of the Umbridge story was her own hit at
govenment interference in school curriculiums. Certainly you can see
the facist vibes and cult of personality stuff in the behaviour of LV and his death eaters.
So that women in HP haven't quite broken through yet could be simply be another reflection that while things are ten times better than they used to be, there is still room for improvement.
And there are certainly the characters to do it.

I really don't blame her for that and that doesn't make her weak.
I never said that it made her weak, simply that it didn't make her as independent as she could be. I think that, generally, people are stronger characters if they arent's "afraid" of their past, and conciously (sp?) conquer obstacles, not deny them.

I think the biggest evidence that there is no difference between males and females in HP is that they are equal on the Quidditch field. (Except for beaters.) This proves that there is not, nor probably ever has been, discrimination on the part of JKR or, more importantly, in the HP world.
That's an interesting thought, hesdead. I know jordmundt6 makes the observation that there was a period of male chauvinism in HP-world history - but actually, where is the need for it? If it's possible to do most things with magic (and we've seen Mrs Weasley prepare food by magic, and Tonks attempt to tidy up with magic - both fairly mundane aspects of the female role) then why should there be any gender bias within the HP world? In the HP world, "woman's work" is not that difficult, or time-consuming, and I doubt that it involves much in the way of kneeling down to scrub the floor (and other such unappetising tasks). Why shouldn't men do that too, in the magical world?

The only reason I can think of for inequality of the sexes to be prevalent in the HP-world is the constant influx of muggles, bringing their own prejudices into it.

If magic is to be the main power at a person's disposal, then all fights become a little bit fairer, don't they? I might not have many muscles, but I could wave a wand alright. :)

So - I also wished there were more fully-developed female characters in the HP series. It's a fairly common thing in children's literature, to have a male central character. Simply because boys are less likely to read stories about girls, and girls are quite happy reading anything. However, JKR has done a good job in OotP - giving us new characters, and bringing old characters out a little bit more. And there are still two books left, remember. Plenty of time for Hermione to show that she's the real boss of the trio.

But Bella, independant? If the centre of her universe LV was undeniably defeated would she step up to the plate and carry his banner or throw herself on the funeral pyre with him. I suspect the latter.
Umbridge -- instigated alot of mayhem but the power and authority to do it came from the ministry, especially from Cornelius Fudge. On her own she had no power.
McGonagall is a fairly independant character but the role is a traditional one for women --- teacher.
It's not a character's strength or weakness or independance really, it's the roles they've been assigned.
All the power roles in the book, so far, are men. Lord Voldemort, Dumbledore, Cornelius Fudge, Harry himself, Draco who is basically Harry's opposite in Slytherin. The one good DADA teacher was Remus Lupin. There are other female teachers mentioned, we see little of them. Olympe Maxime is a good example of a woman with power and authority but we haven't seen that much of her.
Ginny is another female who has real potential to break a few barriers.
Hermoine -- she's smart, she's strong and independant BUT when the
it comes down to the crunch, especially in OotP, Hermoine is not listened to by Harry and Ron. That tells me at this point in the story,
Hermoine still doesn't carry that much weight or power within the threesome. But that might change.
Know I don't think Rowling need write her book to stick to some PC
agenda. I think actually it would hurt the story more than anything.
But I do think there is some validity in the complaints about the woman's roles.
Why not Cornelia Fudge? You think a woman couldn't be the same
spineless moron this guy is? Why is it all the DE men get to come across as sane and ambitious while the one DE woman we've seen just
gets to be nuts.
I disagree with almost all of this!

Bellatrix might act like a dog to her master, but she does that as an equal to all the other male Death Eaters who do exactly the same thing. I don't think you can say that the male Death Eaters don't act like Bellatrix does, when we've seen them throw themselves at his feet, cower before him, chop their hand of for him in one guy's case ...

McGonagall is a teacher, but there are women with other jobs to. McGonagall just happens to be a teacher. So are most of the adult male characters we've been introduced to, since the books revolve around the school.

Hermione is listened to by Ron and Harry, and very much so. She practically dominates them! They often get exasperated with her, but they depend on her and know it, too. I don't think there's anything to suggest otherwise.

And as for why they're are no Cornelia Fudge's ... there have been. Or rather there have been female Ministers for Magic, and reading the Comic Relief books, some of them seem to have been amongst the best Ministers wizarding Britain has known. And there have been Headmistresses at Hogwarts (two of whom were co-founders of the school), Quidditch players, important Ministry officials and all sorts.

I don't think there's any basis at all to say women are treated differently in the wizard world, or by J.K. Rowling to her characters. They certainly don't have lesser jobs, lesser talents anything like lesser characters. Nor are they taken less seriously. If I had to say anything, I'd say she's tipped the scale a little bit the other way making the female character's the sanest and sturdiest ones! All the finest important people, especially reading through the history in the Comic Relief books, were women and a lot of the dopiest ones were men. So even if Dumbledore and a lot of powerful characters now are men, that doesn't mean that she's saying anything negative. They just happen to be men.

This is a great thread Pasalita!

JKR explains the fact that Harry is a boy by saying thta he came to her as a complete idea.. I see no reason not to take her word on this.

dink also makes a great point about the prevelaence of boys in children's literature. You notice that as the series progresses the female characters are getting stronger and stronger. Ginny. Hermione. McGonagall. And Bellatrix has got to be the nastiest female villain to come around in a long time.

Yes, there have been female Ministers of Magic. And they have generally outshone the men, and have been a force since the Middle Ages (Elfrida Clagg--or Cragg depending on your edition--would probably be the British Susan B. Anthony and she served as head of the old Council in what, the 1200s, 1300s maybe). I'm not saying that sexism is necessary for life, I'm saying that there have been instances of it in the HP-verse no matter how totally it has disappeared. And Bella, commit suicide? You're joking right? She was the one who refused to believe he was gone and went on her own rampage of terror after the first confrontation. If she were ever convinced he was gone, she might go kamikaze style, and you can be sure she'd take as many Order members with her as she could.

That's an interesting thought, hesdead. I know jordmundt6 makes the observation that there was a period of male chauvinism in HP-world history - but actually, where is the need for it?
Another thing - two of the Hogwarts founders were female. As you point out, the flow of people with prejudices into wizarding society could create sexism, but there would be little basis for that to start off from. In real life, the men were more of the hunters while the women were often relegated to gathering. That was the basis of sexism, which has been prevalent in nearly every society since as far as we know. But in magical life, women can, and do, do everything that men do. As dink said, the traditional "female" roles might never even develop in the first place, even if there have been some out-of-the-ordinary instances in which chauvinism was present.

Strong character can mean several things. You can have a strong literary creation without them being a strong or independent person. Umbridge may have been Fudge's lapdog but she was still the major antagonist during most of the book and inspires a lot of strong feeling among us fans, so I consider her a strong literary creation if not a strong person.

Female characters were more important in this plot than in previous ones, especially Umbridge, Bellatrix and Marietta. We also met some interesting females who may be more important later, such as Tonks and Luna.

Hermione has the strongest role, and I would call her's a leading one. I think she has a bigger role than Ron, which is saying a lot. I think Ginny will develop the most of any of the other female characters, but only because it has taken JKR so long to finally get her character up in the making. I didn't really like Ginny any more after OoTP. Let's hope JKR can perform a miracle in the next couple of books.

Hermione has the strongest role, and I would call her's a leading one. I think she has a bigger role than Ron, which is saying a lot. I think Ginny will develop the most of any of the other female characters, but only because it has taken JKR so long to finally get her character up in the making. I didn't really like Ginny any more after OoTP. Let's hope JKR can perform a miracle in the next couple of books.
Hmm. I found 'new' Ginny the least convincing character in OoTP. One minute she's a retireing flower then, overnight she wakes up and is sassy, treats H as an equal and dates right/left and centre. I can't help but think that the alledged massive rewrite of GOF lost some Ginny development - as things happen too fast in OoTP to be remotely convincing.
I find Hr/Luna as both convincing/strong female characters - Ginny feels fake.

About Ginny, I think I'm going to disagree with you. :)

The explanation given in the book is a reasonable one, that she's finally got over her crush on Harry. Given that we only ever see things from Harry's point of view, and given that Ginny was totally besotted with him (even before she met him), it's understandable that her character would in previous books have been one-dimensional and pathetic. That's how she seemed to Harry, because she was unable to be anything else in his presence. Now that she's over this, and growing up, she is able to reveal more facets of her personality - and Harry is able to see them, and consequently we see them too.

I think she had the potential to be courageous and brave all along, but we just never got the chance to see it. Think of how well she must have handled the diary stuff in CoS, to come back to school the next year. We never saw her coping with the aftermath, because Harry never saw her, but she must have had a lot to deal with.

dink, I agree completely.

When I was 11, talking to a boy I had a crush on was only slightly less intimidating than jumping off a plane without a parachute.

I remeber at the end of sixth grade, I was unspeakably brave and I wrote Jono, Have a great summer. From Jessie in Jono Johnson's yearbook. AND put a heart around it. Of course, I was never going to see him again so I could put it all on the line like that :)

Ginny is dealing with her brother's best friend. She couldn't afford to emberess herself. Now that she's over Harry, she can be herself without the same aching fear.

Another thing - two of the Hogwarts founders were female. As you point out, the flow of people with prejudices into wizarding society could create sexism, but there would be little basis for that to start off from. In real life, the men were more of the hunters while the women were often relegated to gathering. That was the basis of sexism, which has been prevalent in nearly every society since as far as we know. But in magical life, women can, and do, do everything that men do. As dink said, the traditional "female" roles might never even develop in the first place, even if there have been some out-of-the-ordinary instances in which chauvinism was present.

Good points, although I must admit that I thought the medieval balanced-sexes society in the Comic Relief books was just a little bit glib. Thinking about it just now, I reckon it comes from something like the following reasons:

Because wizards are "embedded" into Muggle society, and a lot come from Muggle backgrounds, the normal prejudices would tend to carry over. Also, although the genetic component to gender roles (women carrying/nuturing children, men supporting, yadda yadda yadda) can easily be overstated, and often is, it is a factor you'd expect to be an influence. And once a culture starts going down a particular route, it tends to be self-reinforcing.

(I'm a heretic on this point, as I don't think the underlying differences are so huge - you're human first, gender second - but I have to admit there is some difference, on the average, that isn't purely cultural. The problem with sexism - and similar forms of prejudice - is that they make an invalid extrapolation from that "on the average", and behave as if the average applies universally to all members of the population, ignoring the huge variance.)

As far as HP goes, I'm having difficulty following the reasoning behind "no strong female characters". I'd agree that the male characters were most important in the earlier books, but Hermione has always been a strong character in both senses, McGonagall's got more "airtime" than most of the other teachers, and OotP abounds in good female characters (either new or expanded upon).

It seems like logic-chopping to say (for example) "Umbridge hasn't got any real power, she just gets it from Fudge". Er, no - this reasoning leads the conclusion that no-one in the Ministry has any power other than the Minister. Umbridge has plenty of authority because she's a senior member of the Ministry in her own right - she can order Dementors about on her own recognisance, for example. Fudge has more power, but that's because he has the top job, and most of the other Ministry workers will have less than Umbridge.

I know I might get a slap for this ... As far as the movies goes, there is a lack of good looking women. :grumble: Hermoine however... is looking very nice. :agree:

i never noticed that. I always thought of McGonnagal as having a very strong personality. Hermoine is clever and helps her friends out of many scrapes.. As someone else pointed out, Ravenclow and Hufflepuff Houses were both founded by females. Ms Wessley can be very stern at times, but s very a very strong person. Quidditch is a co-ed sport. Now there's new and interesting female characters like Tonks and Luna. And who can forget Sirius's Mom?

What about andromeda tonks? she must be at least a little strong, since she went against her family's ways.

I think with the arrival of book 5 a lot more female characters got stronger and we were introduced to more

weve had mcgonagall, hermione, mrs weasley, ginny, fluer, cho, aunt petunia

now weve got luna, tonks, umbridge (yes shes evil but shes strong), bellatrix...

so i think its evening out a little bit and the lack of how many there were was evened out with how strong the few were

I've really enjoyed reading this thread!

On a side note, I think that it's interesting that the focus of the text *is* on male characters. To address claims on this thread that discuss children's lit and how YA books frequently concern themselves with male characters.... I think I tend to disagree. Other forms of children's literature (fairy tales for instance) often focus on female protagonists (ex. Snow White, Little Red Riding Hood, Cinderella, Little Mermaid, even Beauty and the Beast). Additionally, the great (IMO) YA fantasy novels of the past 15-20 years have all featured female heroines (see books by Jane Yolen, Mercedes Lackey, Tamora Pierce, Meredith Ann Pierce, Robin McKinley). Of course, these beautifully written books / creative, wonderful authors have never made the money JKR has. Interesting?

Additionally, I think JKR is interested in rethinking/redefining masculinity in the modern world -- in envisioning new types of men (men who are not obsessed with power and control, like Voldemort). Thus, her focus on male characters. Indeed ... to rethink masculinity can be a feminist endeavor.

I thought the medieval balanced-sexes society in the Comic Relief books was just a little bit glib.Glad to see I'm not the only one.

I think that it's interesting that the focus of the text *is* on male characters. Other forms of children's literature (fairy tales for instance) often focus on female protagonists (ex. Snow White, Little Red Riding Hood, Cinderella, Little Mermaid, even Beauty and the Beast). Additionally, the great (IMO) YA fantasy novels of the past 15-20 years have all featured female heroines... Of course, these beautifully written, creative, wonderful authors have never made the money JKR has. Interesting?
The text may focus on male characters but it is written largely in the format of female literature, with its greater emphasis on feelings. I think the problems with some of the Heroines (above) is that the writing and content feels dated and the action quite dull. I've long thought that the continued sales of some of those books owe more to parents (who read them as children) feeling some kinship by having their daughters (mostly) read the same material. JKRs books (while clearly v popular with parents - no doubt as they are not as boring to read as many 'kids' stories) are driven and enjoyed by the children in the first instance not as 'approved' parental literature.



The argument about profits feels very like that some had over Eminem. There was an implication that somehow he was getting the money a black rapper deserved - but couldn't get due to his colour. Similarly I think JKR is reaping the rewards of writing high quality books that appeal to an international audience and not because she writes about a 'male hero'.

As a side note the demographics I've seen suggest that for all the great help the books have been to male literacy they are still predominatly read by girls.

I also agree with this lack of strong female characters, and I believe a good choice for someone strong would be either Hermione, or a new teacher (DADA): Hermione (I believe) is going to play a great part in the Second War against Voldy, but I think new characters will come in, and I hope one of them is a woman (we have too few people representing our gender in the books, don't we?).
I was wondering, what about Tonks?

I don't think there's a lack of female characters. I suppose I didn't really notice anyway. I probably wouldn't like the books as much if it were about a girl and her two best friends that were also girls though even though I'm a girl.

I don't think there's a lack of female characters. I suppose I didn't really notice anyway. I probably wouldn't like the books as much if it were about a girl and her two best friends that were also girls though even though I'm a girl.


Why? Do girls seem boring to you, Moonlight Fairy? I don't mean to criticize you, I'm just curious! :eyebrows:

Why wouldn't you like it?

Why? Do girls seem boring to you, Moonlight Fairy? I don't mean to criticize you, I'm just curious! :eyebrows:

Why wouldn't you like it?
It's not I think they're boring or anything, I just don't really fit in with most girls my age as well as I fit in with boys. :)

I believe that there is a lack of strong female characters at the moment, but tht is going to change in the sixth and seventh books. Some change has already occured in the fifth book with the presence of Luna and Tonks. Ginny has grown as a character and will play a bigger role in the upcoming books.

No way, I think Hermione, Luna, Ginny, Mrs.Weasley, Tonks. etc. are awesome!!!

I think there is already a strong female group.

Mcgonagall - Dumbledore always has here near and she seems to know what he is going to do and fights right along side of him.

Mrs. Weasley - For all her "mom" worrying she is also a OOP member and is right in there ready to fight if necessary.

Madame Pompfrey - Fixes everybody ie the usually male doctor role is female.

Ginny - Seems the most fearless and intelligent Weasley yet.

Hermoine _ Harry's reason and actions are almost always guided by Hermoine's knowledge and guidance.

Lily - although dead she fought Voldemort to protect Harry right to the end and stood up to James when he was a jerk. I cannot picture her having been weak.

No I think there is an good balance to the strengths and weaknesses among the characters

i'm not botherd but I do think that jk has hardly included girls

because girls dont make as much truble so she uses boys (draco) to make truble

The main character is a boy, so it only be natural his best friend and main influences are also male.

Girls don't make as much trouble? Are you INSANE? O_O

I don't think so.

As Stayce said there are quite some strong females. Some more names could easily be added.

But what we really seem to have a lack of is BAD females. Petunia isn't too nice and Marge is certainly mean. Narcissa we know very little about. Perhaps she's only loyal to her family. Leaves us with, as really active baddies, Dolores Umbridge and Bellatrix Lestrange. Or did I forget someone?

Personally, I think there are quite a few 'strong' female characters; I just have an issue with 'amiable' female characters.

OK - after reading this thread, here is my 2 knuts worth. Sorry if I ruffle a few feathers, but I feel really strongly about this, and it is a different response than most. So, that being said, here goes:

I find myself completely irritated by this whole thread. JKR has never indicated in any interview that she was making a statement about feminism, or trying to influence our views on the roles of men and women. IMHO, the thread question is leading us into interpreting the story and the portrayal of characters from a feminist point of view. The story is about a boy and his journey into adulthood. Period. It is not about who is stronger, boys or girls?

If JKR has an obligation to include strong female characters, shouldn't she also have an obligation to include characters from all oppressed groups? Shouldn't there be handicapped wizards? Or openly gay/lesbian wizards? Or overweight wizards? We don't question the non-inclusion of these types of characters, because there isn't an easy bandwagon to jump on. The characters, male or female, strong or weak are written to support the story of Harry, they are not included to make a statement on feminism. So why do we insist on analyzing them as if this was the intent? The feminist in me is irritated because this analysis trivializes both the characters and the issue of feminism.

Whew - that was a lot to get off my chest. I'm going to go curl up with some Gloria Steinam.

Yes! What Glugunkwen said! *jumps up and down* That's exactly what I think too!!!

Yes! What Glugunkwen said! *jumps up and down* That's exactly what I think too!!!

Thank you very much :cool:

I find myself completely irritated by this whole thread. JKR has never indicated in any interview that she was making a statement about feminism, or trying to influence our views on the roles of men and women.

These are just opinions. If you are that irritated by them than just don't read them. I stand by my opinion that at the moment there is a lack of strong female characters.

These are just opinions. If you are that irritated by them than just don't read them. I stand by my opinion that at the moment there is a lack of strong female characters.

I read the thread because I found it intrigued me, but as I processed the messages it bothered me more and more and I felt the need to post. One of the great things about these threads is that they are open to a wide variety of opinions, including yours and mine.

No Mcgongall comes to mind and Umbridge. Hermione herself is outspoken and so is Ginny when she is around Harry. Molly is pretty strong herself and dont forget Granny Longbottom.

One of the great things about these threads is that they are open to a wide variety of opinions, including yours and mine.

I agree. What I'm trying to say is that people infer different things from their observations of the books. Everyone has the right to voice their opinions even if they are not in accord with everyone else.

Any way back to the topic, I believe that Ginny is going to become a stronger character. She will become a strong character in the upcoming war. In OotP, Fred and George comment on Ginny's strength in comparison to her small size.

You're getting confused. Strong and well-developed in a story are two different things. It's about a male figure, and that makes it a bit harder, but there are many female characters that are pretty developed. Hermione, for example. We know a ton about her, she's developed, AND strong. McGonagall's strong, she got stunned four times, and lived. Cho is developed enough, she's a moping figure that just cries about her ex-boyfriend and makes Harry feel really awkward.

Forgive me as a newbie, lol...

I think there are quite a few strong female characters and what's more, I believe they're all different, which shows a range. I would never think JK would be trying to be in any way sexist by portraying certain characters certain ways and I don't even think that's how it comes across. I mean, I've known girls like Hermione (I see myself in her a bit, except I'm really shy, lol) and I've known girls like Lavender and Parvati. I can identify with them. All the characters have their faults... I like the fact the book's about a boy though, but I don't know why I do. I'm a girl so...

I'm not explaining myself very well, lol, but maybe you get my gist. If not, sorry!

im not too sure about this thread...i cant really decide if there is or not...

1. the book is based on a male character and so obviously our attention is focused towards masculinity in the book..

though i do think we have strong female characters...hermione as the main, luna i believe is an other characteristic to be reralted too, tonks, mrs weesley, mcgonagal, etc etc

though i think it looks as though there are less because the older characters mainly seem to be male such as the marauderers etc.

im not sure though i belivev so far its even..

The mothers are all amazingly "good" mothers. Lily dies for her child. Then we have Molly. Even Narcissa Malfoy and Petunia Dursley ... not good at discipline, one might say, but they adore their children.

Some readers might find this devotion to the child (to the almost complete denial of the self) a little exhausting, but I think, in most children's books, children like to read about the ideal mother who will love them no matter what.

I agree that the books more tell more about a lot of the female characters. I believe that we need to understand Lily a lot better. She has a very important role, and yet I feel as if we hardly know anything about her. Same with Mrs. Weasley. She is like Harry's second mother and hardly anyone knows her by Molly, justthe Weasley family's mother, and I think we need to learn more about her.

As for Proffesor McGonagall, I think she is an important character, but we already know everything about her that makes her important to the story so far. As goes for Hermione. She is one of the main characters and we know pretty much everything we need to know about her at the moment.

I believe that we need to understand Lily a lot better. She has a very important role, and yet I feel as if we hardly know anything about her.
This is quite deliberate and essential to the plot as JR has said previously. Having said that, her remaks about the first chapter of bk 6 seem to suggest we will soon know some more details about Lily.

I do think that there has been strong female characters in the stories so far. I would say that the strongest is either Mrs Weasley or Hermoine. I do think though that because Harry is a boy, there will be more male dominated characters there which he can relate to.

I think though that over the next few books, the role of women will increase, because not only is he getting older and ready for mature relationships, we will find out more of Lilys character,

I think though that over the next few books, the role of women will increase, because not only is he getting older and ready for mature relationships, we will find out more of Lilys character,

you have a really good point here..and yeah i got to agree with you...i think there is going to be more stronger female characters, though i also believe that it is quite equal...

you have a really good point here..and yeah i got to agree with you...i think there is going to be more stronger female characters, though i also believe that it is quite equal...

Thank You. Within the next 2 books, there is bound to be a romantic relationship for Harry, whether it be with Cho, Ginny, Luna or a completely new character.

Yes, I agree 100% the're are not enough "Strong" female characters. I would put it more as "Main" female characters.

Not including the teachers, Who have we got that are main female characters. We have Hermione Ginny, Luna and maybe Cho. But with male characters we have Ron, Harry, Nevile, Draco and more.

So yes there is a need for some more main female characters. The female characters we have now, don't have as big a roll in the books as the male characters do besides hermione.

You're getting confused. Strong and well-developed in a story are two different things.

Sorry, I can see where someone can misinterpret my drain of thought (the thread does say strong though). I really did mean that Ginny is becoming a more developed character. We learn more about her in OotP. For example, she has a bit of a Fred and George rebelious streak throwing dungbombs and borrowing her brothers' brooms through the years. She is going to be a strong character in the upcoming war because she is going to have a greater importance as a character.

Hmmm...personally I don't feel there's a lack.

I don't really think so. She keeps putting in more people in the books. For example, in the book Order of the Phoenix. In that book she introduces lots of female characters when they have the meeting at Hogs Head. And she introduced more of cho and ginny to us and put in luna lovegood.

I really find myself agreeing with MoonlightFairy and glugunkwen.

There are lots of books that have been written with a mass of characters being either women or men, on the whole. Judy Bloom was all about girls. LOTR is mostly men. When JKR wrote HP, she probably had NO idea what a cultural icon it was about to become. This being the case, she probably (just speculation... it's not like I was there.) didn't feel the need to make a huge statement on society with the books... she just wanted to get her story out. Her story was about a Harry, not a Harriette, so why wouldn't he have predominately male companions? Seems logical enough to me. If these books weren't so popular, this while feminism issue wouldn't be as big of a deal. A lot of times, things in books and movies aren't a big deal until they're ripped apart by fans, exposing every single tiny thing that was said to support their theory. In any case, I hardly think it matters. She wrote the books, and they ended up like this. Just enjoy them for what they are.

Aww yes Ginny, I think she's really cool and she's a pretty strong female from what we've been told!

You're getting confused. Strong and well-developed in a story are two different things. It's about a male figure, and that makes it a bit harder, but there are many female characters that are pretty developed. Hermione, for example. We know a ton about her, she's developed, AND strong. McGonagall's strong, she got stunned four times, and lived. Cho is developed enough, she's a moping figure that just cries about her ex-boyfriend and makes Harry feel really awkward.

Exactly what I was going to say. There's a difference between a three-dimensional character and a strong one. For example, Hermione is a three-dimensional character in that her character has been fleshed out and she shows a range of emotions that a real person would. She is also a strong character that shows a lot of courage and resolve. Lily Potter, on the other hand, is a strong character, but isn't very 3-dimensional (so far). Then there are characters like Aunt Petunia that are neither strong nor very fleshed out.

So, with that in mind, I think there are a lot of strong female characters in HP, like Hermione, McGonagall, Ginny, Mrs. Weasley (for all her worrying), Tonks, etc. We don't see the human complexity in a lot of them because they're not main characters, but they are strong, nonetheless.

I don't think there's a lack of strong females characters. It'd be good if there were a female DADA teachers though... I mean a proper one, not Umbridge. :rolleyes:

No. Hermione, Ginny, McGonagall, Molly, Lily seems pretty strong, though since she's dead we haven't seen much of her...so no. Not at all.

No way, Hermione,Ginny, and Mrs.Weasley are a few very tough characters.

I think people should stop picking apart the books and read them, like them, or not like them. Just my opinion...

This forum is kind of FOR picking them apart, MoonlightFairy. The analysis is half the fun.

That said, I think a lot of the female characters in the books are VERY strong. They have their faults, but so do the male characters. Each is human to a fault, and that is what makes us emphasize with the characters.

Yes, I agree. :yup: There are more important characters in the male gender to the female.

yes, and i quite frankly don't like it...but who's gonna listen?...no one. :sigh: :sigh: :sigh:

Well ithink that there are many more male characters than females. e.g. Harry, Ron, Neville, Seamus, Dean, Hagrid, Lupin, Dumbledore, Arthur, Charlie, Bill, Fred, George, Mundungus, Moody, Lucius, Draco, Crabbe, Goyle, Peter Pettigrew, Voldemort, there are many more but i just cant say them all!

No. There are more strong male characters than female, but I don't believe there is a lack of strong female characters.

I agree that there is a lack of strong female characters. There's Hermione, Tonks, Umbridge McGonagall, Luna, Cho, Lavendar and Parvati (to a certain extent) but that's pretty much it. I don't count Ginny and Lily as having very strong personalities. Hopefully some of the female characters will develop a stronger personality in HBP.

I think that Ginny is a very strong character.

I'm afraid I disagree, Mad_Druid. She didn't have a strong personality before OotP, and her new personality is not very convincing to me. Her change was too quick for me to think it realistic.

I'm afraid I disagree, Mad_Druid. She didn't have a strong personality before OotP, and her new personality is not very convincing to me. Her change was too quick for me to think it realistic.
Ginny's personality did not change, it simply became apparent to Harry.

Well, we certainly only get to see her strong personality in OotP, but that doesn't mean that she hasn't always had one. Until OotP Ginny is crippled by her crush on Harry, and as the books are primarily told from Harry's POV, we don't see her much until she gets over the crush. Ron tells Harry in CoS that Ginny normally never shuts up, and JK herself has said: 'Well, now that Ginny has stopped being mute in Harry's presence I think you can see that she is a fairly forceful personality (and she always has been, remember Ron saying that she 'never shuts up' in Chamber of Secrets)?'

I have seen that quote many many times, but it still hasn't convinced me. I have also heard the POV argument many times. I just think her change should have been slower, so we have time to accept that she's different, but she changes so fast that it was slightly unrealistic.

I think Ginny is just coming out of her shell. Like that quote from JK Rowling up there. If Ginny normally doesn't shutup, maybe it's safe to assume that there is a slight chance of her being over Harry?

I have seen that quote many many times, but it still hasn't convinced me. I have also heard the POV argument many times. I just think her change should have been slower, so we have time to accept that she's different, but she changes so fast that it was slightly unrealistic.
Really? Even though JK herself says that Ginny is a 'fairly forceful personality' and always has been, it's just that we never saw it. :huh:

Like I said, Ginny did not change, what we, the reader, saw of her did.

I can't see what the big deal is. The books are named Harry Potter, not Harry and the Girls. Hermoine is a very strong character and many times she shows different facets of herself as in her exasperation at Harry and Ron for being lazy about their homework, her vanity is shown severa times as in the time she had her teeth shrunk and kept shrinking them until they were more normal in size. The girls in the book are teens and not to their full potential yet. Besides, this is not a political commentary, it is entertainment. You can't please everyone and one shouldn't try. It's like flowers. I like iris's, but I don't expect every flower to be one. I just don't get where this thread is coming from. Bellatrix is very strong, but like most of the villians, she is one dimensional, but I am fine with it because I don't particularly want to feel any sympathy for a villian. As for Ginny, she had a very traumatic event happen to her in her first year at Hogwarts and has had a hard time coming to grips with it. Besides, I like the unfolding of her personality, like a rare jewel you keep overlooking because it isn't as shiny and then it jumps out at you and you can't understand why you didn't see it before. The story is told from Harry's viewpoint, so it stands to reason that Ginny wasn't noticed too early on as he didn't notice any girls until Cho. Ginny is in the company of Hermoine a lot and she has probably been a strong influence on her as well as the forceful nature of her mother, Molly. Under the influence of these two, she will be fine and continue to be strong. I think she likes to be with Luna, too. Luna makes her laugh, Luna is also strong. Strong enough to withstand the cruel behavior of her classmates and the fact that she knows people laugh at her. It takes a strong personality to be true to yourself and Luna is.
Sorry about the length of this, didn't get enough sleep. With three teens I do a lot of waiting up.

I think that the females in the books are all very strong characters, maybe we are only beginning to see how strong they are.
Hermione is someone you can love and hate. She's a brilliant witch and if she wasn't around, Ron and Harry would be screwed. I see at lot of Professor McGonagall in her. She can come across as nasty but she does it because she cares about people.
Professor McGonagall reminds me of one of my teachers. When she was teaching she was so mean but one on one she was extremely nice and I realized that I learned so much from her because I was afraid of goofing off and getting into trouble. I loved McGonagall in OOTP. You saw how commanding and powerful she is. I think she will play a big part in the upcoming books.
Ginny was someone I was surprised with but I liked the change. I couldn't see the Ginny from COS going after a group of Death Eaters but I like the Ginny we were introduced to in OOTP. She has guts and I think she's going to become a brilliant witch.
Molly is someone who I think it a bit weak but that's because we haven't seen her in any action yet. I think that if anyone went after her family (even Percy) she would fight until the end and I would welcome that change.

Really? Even though JK herself says that Ginny is a 'fairly forceful personality' and always has been, it's just that we never saw it. :huh:

Like I said, Ginny did not change, what we, the reader, saw of her did.

JKR knows this, as they are her characters, but I as a reader am not getting it. I know that we are supposed to like Ginny, but I'm just not getting her. I realise what you are trying to say, but I still think the change was unrealistic.

well I dont think there is a lack of strong female characters. there are many like ginny, hermione, mcgonnagal even

it is lacking strong female characters, but i have to disagree with those who complain. jk hasnt really built on any other characters remember, these books are made about harry, not about anyone else.

erm... lack of strong female characters?

We have sport, firey Ginny
We have smart, brave Hermione
and independent, free spirited Luna....

Problem?

Amysnape, I agree; the books are about Harry. He is central and the main character. He does have a good friend in Hermione, who is developing to be an interesting character; she is no longer worried about breaking school rules; she catches Rita in the jar and has no qualms about keeping her in the jar. Then she blackmails Rita into writing a good story about Harry. That shows a strong character. Plus, we can surmise that we will see more of her; she has been called the "brightest witch of her age" so that seems to foretell her becoming more important.
Ginny also has changed in the books; she now talks to Harry, defends Neville and goes to the MoM with the trio. Again, a strong, but young, female character.
McGonnegal is also strong, we just don't see much of her, again, because the story is about Harry, so his interaction with her is limited. But I would hardly call her weak.
Molly is, well, Molly. Fairly one-demensional so far, but also, the only mother figure Harry has. She actually gets on my nerves, but, oh well, I guess you can't love everyone.

I think there are plenty of srong, and well developed female characters. Maybe not as well developed as alot of the male characters, especially before OotP, but there are very good reasons for that, as have been pointed out. Harry is an adolecent/teenage boy, it makes sense that he would have more male friends and that we would get to know them better. Same with the adult males, Dumbledore has always been the most well developed adult male character, he's the father/grandfatherly figure that Harry has been lacking all of his life, and he's the headmater so Harry has the opportunity to spend alot of time with him. Molly has most certainly taken over the role of mother, but as Harry does't get to see her as often there hasn't been as mutch opportunity to develop her as well.

Just because I'm a geek, and my husband stole my internet connection for a moment, lets break them down shall we.

Aunt Petunia: Probably the weakest of the main females as far as personality and development goes, but Harry strongly dislikes Aunt Petunia. He's not going to chat her up just to find out why she's such a butt, he's just going to avoid her as much as he can. We do get the impression that she is rather walked all over by her husband and son, but as we saw in OotP, she is definatly capable of putting her foot down if she needs to. Besides I think we are going to find out alot more about Aunt Petuntia and why she is the way she is in future books.

Molly: Ok, first of all I'm tired of the assumtion that a woman who chooses to stay home and take care of her family is weak or uncapable or dependant. It's been my experience that you have to be very emotionally strong and a capable person to take on that responsibility day in and day out. Nothing can try a persons patience like children, and Molly has seven of them, and they were homeschooled. :rotfl: We've seen Molly cry over the children on more than one occasion (after the quidditch tournament, and during the Bogart scene for exaple), but in my opinion that does not make her a weak shrinking violet. She is in fact a pillar of suport for for Aurthur, the Weasley children, and Harry. I think the fact that she took Harry under her wing when he's got such a huge burden on his shoulders speaks volumes about her, a weaker person would not have wanted to become emotionally attached to someone who has the most powerful dark wizzard as and enemy. She also stepped up as caretaker at Grimuld place with out any complaint. Her contribution to the order may not seem like much, but it is. Honestly, Molly is my hero, I aspire to be just like her (but not with as many children :p ).

McGonagall- Is there really any doubt that Minerva is a strong and independant female? I've no doubt that she takes care of her self completely. She's a strong disipliarian, she's also fair, she took four stunners trying to defend Hagrid. I also think that we saw much character development during OotP, we got to see sides to her that we previously had not, but even then I think that she was more than just a one dimensional character before. She still had layers, we just didn't know quite as much about her. And I think it would have been lame if Harry had been staying after class to talk just for the purpose of character development.

Tonks- as of now we don't know a whole lot about Tonks, but Harry really hasn't spent much time around her. We were able to find out quite a bit about her in the short amount of time we've known her though. The fact that she's an auror shows that she is brave (I'd guess she was probably a Gryffindor in her Hogwarts days), we know that she's not the gracefull sort, shes not very domesticly inclined, when not out performing her auror or order duties she chooses to have pink hair and wear weird sister t-shirts which shows shes not a traditional type of person and has a rebelious streak. As a morphmagus she has the ability to make her self look like a dropdead beauty, but with the exception of her hair color she chooses to look like her self, which shows that she has good self esteem and is not hung up on looks. She also uses her ability to do good instead of evil, which she very well could have. She has a good sense of humor and likes to amuse people. She is a very well developed character.

Ginny- True, there wasn't much to Ginny's character before OotP. We didn't know a whole lot about her and most of what we did know was defined by her relationships with others. She was Ron's younger sister, the girl with the fangirl crush on Harry, the youngest Weaslely child, the only girl child in the family. Now, however, we know her to be a strong a capable young lady. She's brave, kind, loyal, rebelious, a good athlete, a risk taker, a prankster, a good friend. We found out so much about Ginny that it's almost like we got to meet her for the first time. I'd really like to get more in depth on Ginny, but I'm running out of time.

I'd like to get into Luna and Cho as well. Maybe later. I'll have to think about any one else I may have missed while I'm out as well.

REally thoughtful post Angiepangie. I like the breakdown of the ladies you brought up.
About Molly; I agree: It takes a strong woman to be a full-time mom. (I know!) And to do it with 7 kids shows a remarkable strength of character. The fact that she took in Harry without much more than a blink, shows her capacity to love is huge. I do find her somewhat annoying though. Mostly because of her picking on Sirius. (even though he deserved some of it) Also, her acting as if she is the only one who truly cares about Harry (though she was put in her place by Remus) shows an ability to coddle. But, I don't hate her, just find her a bit annoying. Maybe she will develop more in the last two books; we know she is working for the Order, side by side with Arthur and the rest and I don't see her staying the caretaker of the Order residence. She will have opportunity to do more and "spread her wings" so to speak.
I also do see her as trying to keep some semblense of normalcy during the coming war. Which is important.

Not really. I could name quite a few women who take charge in the wizarding world.

1.Professor McGonagal
2. Rita Skeeter (even if she is unpleasant, she made a strong impression on all of us from the beginning)
3. Hermione Granger (she's smart, she's put her foot down when it needs to be, and she's helped Harry and Ron loads of times for a whole bunch of things).
4. Umbridge (unpleasant to the very end and evil, but she was a strong character)
5. Mrs. Weasley (She's a very strong character and no doubt about it, especially in the case of the Weaslley Twins and her husband)
6. Nymphradora Tonks (She left a good impression on me as a strong character)
7. Ginny Weasley (in OotP, she really picked up her courage and her character became very strong)
8. Luna Lovegood (because of her ability to have comforted Harry when no one else could, and she made a strong impression on her own, to say the least, even if she is pointed out as strange)
9. Petunia Dursley (She isn't what I'd call a weak character, especially since she was able to override Vernon's want to throw Harry out in OotP.)

I'd say that in comparison to the men, there are more male characters who have put a strong emphasis on the storyline, but there are enough women who are standing on their own two feet that I feel are doing a good job in portraying strong characters on the feminine side. There are more male characters, though, that's true. I understand how that could be misleading.

We do always seem to find more out about male characters...out of the four founders, we know so much more about the two males...fair enough, they are nore important in terms of the plot, but they would be wouldn't they? ;)

And as far as the members of the Order of the Phoenix goes, the male characters are always concentrated on over the female, with the major exception of Tonks. We have Mad-Eye, Lupin, Dedalus, Sirius, Sturgis and Kingsley, whereas the other two female members are seldom mentioned (Emmeline Vance and Hestia Jones).

Also, Harry always seems more interested in his father rather than his mother. We knoe next to nothing about Lily, but just look at how much we know about James!

There are good female characters in this series, but they are grossly outnumbered by males. JKR definately seems to feel more comfortabel writing the men. I suspect that might be because she grew up reading books mostly about men and boys, and, like a lot of girls her age, she coped with that by identifying with the male characters.

I have to admit, 11 of my top 15 favorite Harry Potter characters are males. Not because I'm male and I identify with many of the male characters, but because after Hermione (and maybe Ginny and Luna), most of the other females seem very one dimensional. I don't think we can forget that these story center around a male teenager who's in desparate need of role models. It's not really surprising that JK has chosen to add lot of men to provide that function in Harry's life, but I would like to see someone other than Hermione, McGonagal, and Molly, influencing Harry's decision making. All three of those characters seem to nag too much.

I wish she would have a power female character(maybe Tonks is powerful), but she does show men in a good light.

I can see the point that there aren't many strong female characters but I disagree. Hermione is a very strong character, as is McGonnagol, Tonks and even Mrs Weasely. Umbridge is strong in an evil way and Bellatrix is evil yet strong.

I would like to see Hermione develop more as a character and learn more about her feelings. I think she will prove to be a very important character and there is a lot more to her than just another muggleborn, intelligent witch. (I know we have seen a lot of her character but I feel there is more to come.)

I don't really see any of the women as weak. Having this story authored by a woman, I think influences a stronger imagine for the female roles. They are not as complex as harry, Sirius, etc but they are solid characters.

With the exception of Hermione, yes there probably is, there isnt any complex main female charaters like the males: Remus, Sirius, Dumbeldore etc.
All the other main females tend to be unintelligent or Unlikable and something of a joke:

Unintellegent, Clumsly etc : Luna Lovegood, bertha Jorkins, Tonks,etc.

Unlikable : Umbridge, Pansy Parkison, Rita Skeeta, Bellatrix etc.

and i also found it unsuprising that Fleur Declour the only female in the Tri-wizrd tournament came last :rolleyes:

I think it depends how you define strong characters. I know a lot of people probably wouldn't count Mrs Weasley, but she's the one who runs the household, not Mr Weasley. Besides which, I think anyone who can raise seven children has got to be strong.

Then there's McGonagall, Hermione, Ginny, Tonks.

And what about Umbridge and Bellatrix? You could hardly call them weak.

Let me compare:

Strong male characters (not in any order): Harry, Dumbledore, Voldemort, Sirius, Lupin, (James), Snape. I don't really count Wormtail because he's a coward. I suppose there are a few others who could debatably be included, but I'm focussing on main characters because eg Bill we don't know enough about.

Strong female characters: Hermione, Ginny, Bellatrix, McGonagall, (Lily), Mrs Weasley, Petunia.

So I'd say about the same for men and women, but I think it's highly subjective. Some people might not view Petunia as a "strong female character" because she's a housewife whose husband bosses her around. However, I would say that he only gets away with bossing her because she lets him. When there's something she feels strongly about (such as when he tried to kick Harry out in OotP), she puts her foot down and gets her own way with barely token resistance. And who do we think made him take Harry in the first place?

Anyway, I would say no, I think it's fairly balanced, but it just depends on how you view the characters and how you define strong.

I've only a read bits of this thread, but I did notice that the first page (about three years ago!) states that Hermione is not as well-developed as Ron. Also, that there is concern regarding the number of female characters and either their respective "strength" or their postive portrayal.

There are a number of published criticisms of the HP series stating that they portray women in a sterotypical manner. I am a dedicated feminist, card-carrying NOW member, but I don't think the HP books depict weak women. It seems to me that they depict real women! One of the criticisms I have read is that Hermione is "too bookish" and doesn't like sports, so they are critical of the fact that her aid is in the form of book-knowledge. As a person with a similiar bent, so what?! There are strong sporty women in HP too! Ginny and Cho and various other Quidditch players. (Although I personally cannot stand Cho - she is just too darn whiney!) Herminoe is on the the major characters in this series and she is not a weak woman! I would contend that Ron is weaker than she in many ways. The main character is male, but even that doesn't seem a problem to me. I read somewhere that boys identified with Harry, but girls wanted to be his girlfriend or mother. Really, my kids play Harry Potter all the time and "Hermione" never takes a backseat to "Harry" at home. In fact, since "Hermione" is older she winds up doing far more work than "Harry."

I don't believe the books are particularly sexist; the magical community seems only to reflect our actual communities. Women are accepted as professors or headmasters or the Minister of Magic, but are somehow still seen through the lenses of beauty....Ron's reaction to Fleur,etc. I think this is only a reflection of how we really are. Why do people not like Luna? Not because she is ugly, but because she is weird. Conformity is the issue in HP, not sex. But sometimes, conformity in terms of gender is a part of the books. A typical woman should be pretty, and Hermione isn't considered pretty until she changes her appearance in GOF. Luckily she decides not to continue to conform to the society's vision of beauty, and goes back to being her real self.

I think it depends how you define strong characters. I know a lot of people probably wouldn't count Mrs Weasley, but she's the one who runs the household, not Mr Weasley. Besides which, I think anyone who can raise seven children has got to be strong.

Then there's McGonagall, Hermione, Ginny, Tonks.

And what about Umbridge and Bellatrix? You could hardly call them weak.

Let me compare:

Strong male characters (not in any order): Harry, Dumbledore, Voldemort, Sirius, Lupin, (James), Snape. I don't really count Wormtail because he's a coward. I suppose there are a few others who could debatably be included, but I'm focussing on main characters because eg Bill we don't know enough about.

Strong female characters: Hermione, Ginny, Bellatrix, McGonagall, (Lily), Mrs Weasley, Petunia.

So I'd say about the same for men and women, but I think it's highly subjective. Some people might not view Petunia as a "strong female character" because she's a housewife whose husband bosses her around. However, I would say that he only gets away with bossing her because she lets him. When there's something she feels strongly about (such as when he tried to kick Harry out in OotP), she puts her foot down and gets her own way with barely token resistance. And who do we think made him take Harry in the first place?

Anyway, I would say no, I think it's fairly balanced, but it just depends on how you view the characters and how you define strong.

All the woman you listed play a much less signifigant part than the males you listed. We do not have Female charaters that have the same depth and large roles than that of sirius, dumbeldore, lupin, snape etc.

think it depends how you define strong characters.

I agree. I've always though that JKR should earn extra points for creating such an amazing character as Hermione Granger- she is no beauty, that girl with bag full of books but she is 2 times more intelligent, clever and understanding than Harry and Ron together. She isnt exactly Xena the Warrior Princess who kicks bad guys around, she may be afraid of Graup or even sobs when he tried to catch her but boy...seriously what Harry and Ron would have done without her, without her intelligence, calmness and advices?
Nothing.
And there is McGonagall who happens to be a class old lady during that whole Umbridge' havoc in OOTP. And Luna? Yes she may be considered to be a geek but talk about ability of keeping it cool in critical situation. And above it all she is fascinating character.
Sisters Black, especially Bellatrix. Sorry but all her scenes in "OOTP" and one in "GOF" seemed more powerfull to me than all Lucius' Malfoy during the five books. And don't forget Lily...well...her love was a power which destroy the most powerfull wizard of that time.
On the other hand when she decided to turn Ginny into Super Ginny out of the blue I found that annoying, forced and the character as fascinating as watching concrete' setting :rolleyes:

Disagree totally. Length of speeches don't decide how "strong" a character is. I think Trelawnwy's prediction (POA) when Harry returns the crystal ball far outweighs Lepin's teaching of the Riddikulus charm, for instance--- it just wasn't as entertaining,filmwise.Also, Rita Skeeter, the Fat Lady, Professor Sprout, Hooch and of course, Mcgonagall. Tonks and Mrs Figg are important. Umbridge is the biggest female role yet! even Aunt Petunia has a connection to the wizarding world as we are reminded time and again. It was Ginny who was 'chosen' by Tom Riddle. And let's not forget that foul Sirius' Mom has "set the scene" for nearly all the issues for OOTP. If anything, I think we need some strong male characters who don't outshine harry of course.

I disagree too, especially after OOTP. Mcgonagall was amazingly strong and most obviously Hermione. These are two of the strongest characters I've read about male or female. Don't forget Umbridge either. Even though her character was strong in an undesirable way...it was still strong

I think it depends how you define strong characters. I know a lot of people probably wouldn't count Mrs Weasley, but she's the one who runs the household, not Mr Weasley. Besides which, I think anyone who can raise seven children has got to be strong.

Then there's McGonagall, Hermione, Ginny, Tonks.

And what about Umbridge and Bellatrix? You could hardly call them weak.

Let me compare:

Strong male characters (not in any order): Harry, Dumbledore, Voldemort, Sirius, Lupin, (James), Snape. I don't really count Wormtail because he's a coward. I suppose there are a few others who could debatably be included, but I'm focussing on main characters because eg Bill we don't know enough about.

Strong female characters: Hermione, Ginny, Bellatrix, McGonagall, (Lily), Mrs Weasley, Petunia.

So I'd say about the same for men and women, but I think it's highly subjective. Some people might not view Petunia as a "strong female character" because she's a housewife whose husband bosses her around. However, I would say that he only gets away with bossing her because she lets him. When there's something she feels strongly about (such as when he tried to kick Harry out in OotP), she puts her foot down and gets her own way with barely token resistance. And who do we think made him take Harry in the first place?

Anyway, I would say no, I think it's fairly balanced, but it just depends on how you view the characters and how you define strong.

I think the thread starter was referring to characters with strong (or very easily defined) personalities, not physical strength. I also think it's about depth, and a lot of the male characters have more depth than the female characters. If this is the case, then I would definitely consider Molly Weasley to be a strong character (she's bossy, nagging, mothering etc, her personality can be defined).

I wouldn't count Lily as a strong female character, though. She is not yet developed enough to be classified as strong. We know that she was loving, self-sacrificing and compassionate, but that is the limit of our knowledge. While she is important, she is not completely developed.

I think that there are quite a few strong female characters, but there are more males.

On the other hand when she decided to turn Ginny into Super Ginny out of the blue I found that annoying, forced and the character as fascinating as watching concrete setting

Exactly what I thought when I read all the scenes with Ginny in them.

there is definitely plenty of well defined female characters with important roles to play that satisfies a lot of readers and i like the way angelina was made quidditch captain and her very strong characteristics in the book.

there is definitely plenty of well defined female characters with important roles to play that satisfies a lot of readers and i like the way angelina was made quidditch captain and her very strong characteristics in the book.

I agree. What about Hermione? and Ginny? and Tonks?

As a woman raised in a house of strong independent women, i fully support strong female characters. But to be realistic, it's still basically a man's world. It sucks, but it is true, and most ppl would rather see male heros then female. I also believe that the great storys just come to the writer, and the form how they form, so if for some reason J.K. doesn't see fit to give us a stronger female character, then i guess it's her book lol. I really think there is more to hermione then most ppl give her credit for or realize yet. But i would love to see more of ginny, she's my fav. character! i do think Molly is strong in her own right. It takes alot to raise that many kids, more over on a fixed budget, and watching so many ppl you love get involved in such dangerouse activities ( dragons, treasure hunting , the Order....) is very taxing on a mother. She obviously has something because all the men seem to cowar at her rage lol.

Quote:
Originally Posted by synyan
there is definitely plenty of well defined female characters with important roles to play that satisfies a lot of readers and i like the way angelina was made quidditch captain and her very strong characteristics in the book.



I agree. What about Hermione? and Ginny? and Tonks?





I agree, the main character may not be a girl but there are many strong women/girls in the book.........besides just think what the books would be like if the main character was a girl...............that just wouldn't work(and this is coming from a girl here)................I LOVE HARRY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Do you really think Ron is more developed than Hermione? I think they're equal, actually - we've seen more of Ron's family, but thats because they're wizarding and they're sort of odd-ball... but seriously... whats a strong female character if Hermione isn't one?

I really don't think so. I would like to see more Hermione but that is just because she, along with Dumbledore, is my favorite. But it looks like to me that a lot of Hermione's secret thoughts are going to come to the surface soon because of the thing between her and Ron. Consider, that it also looks like Luna is going to ascend to prominance in the last two books in some way or another.

I really don't think so. I would like to see more Hermione but that is just because she, along with Dumbledore, is my favorite. But it looks like to me that a lot of Hermione's secret thoughts are going to come to the surface soon because of the thing between her and Ron. Consider, that it also looks like Luna is going to ascend to prominance in the last two books in some way or another.

i completely agree with you. HArry Potter is a boy and if he started hagning around with a bunch of girls, just because there arent enough strong girl characters, then the books would become too feminine. I think the amount of strong women in the series is just how it should be. you have McGonagall, hermione,Tonks, Luna,Ginny;what more do you need.

No, I think Hermione is very strong so are McGonagall and Tonks. I think that especially in book five the female's strook back and really made a come back showing that not only men have a lot of power. Maybe one of JKR's morals is that females are as good as men. I think one of the female's will strike a bad male person back hard. Looking at the other side you see a rather strong Bellatrix, female character so there are definitely quite a few.

No Hermoine is a strong young woman and Prof.McGonnagle is a strong woman. I can only assume what Malfoy's mom will be like. I think she comes in these last two books right?

I don't think so. Hermione is the "cleverest witch of her age", and she is one of the main characters. Also consider the evil side. It takes alot more determination and endurance to be an enemy in a story. Umbridge is one of the biggest threats to Harry in OotP. Also there is Bellatrix, who killed Sirius and tortured the Longbottoms into insanity.
Aside from that, most of the powerful, great people in history have been men. There have been a good deal of women (ie. Joan of Arc, Eleanor Roosevelt, etc.) but they still have been vastly outnumbered by men. Too many strong female characters in the book would make the story unrealistic, and would come across as having a political purpose.

I don't think Harry would be the same person without the influence of the strong women in his life. There are many strong female characters in the books; Hermione, Ginny, Mrs. Weasley, Professor McGonagall, etc. Even Luna and Cho have an impact. Heck, half his quidditch team is female, and one of them becomes captain of the team. Umbridge and even his Aunt Petunia are strong though evil characters.

But lets not forget that the strongest female character of all is\was his mother Lily, and her "ancient magic" that saved his life and continues to protect him.

Maybe its not so much the LACK of strong female characters but the fact that they seem "forced" or not fun to be around. They just aren't as cool, likable or interesting as the male ones...

OK - Hermione is the obvious exception. Everyone loves Hermione.

Mrs. Weasley - her heart's in the right place, but she's pretty shrill, while Mr. W is extremely likable.

Professor McGonagall - a great lady, but even J.K. has said she's too harsh to be her favorite...compared to other "good" Professors like Lupin and Hagrid

Lily - yeah, she gave her life for Harry, but which parent has the most interesting story?

Ginny - IMHO, she's the most forced character in the series. JK tries to make her likable by telling us she's good with hexes, she's a good flyer, she's stubborn and strong, etc...but her charcter still isn't very interesting...she doesn't leap off the page at you like Ron or even Percy. Same with Tonks.

The other Hogwarts students - as far as characters who get some dialogue go, the BOYS have Dean, Seamus, Neville, Ernie, Lee Jordan, Oliver Wood...all funny, likable and interesting. And the GIRLS have Angelina (who's fine), but also Parvati and Lavander, who are shallow and silly. No wonder Hermione has two male best friends. For me, the verdict is still out on Cho.

Yes, I left Luna off the list, because she is one of my favorite characters. But overall, IT JUST DOESN'T STACK UP. COOL FEMALE CHARACTERS ARE IN THE MINORITY IN JK'S UNIVERSE.

I would not say that there is a lack of strong female characters. I just think that sometimes their strength gets overshadowed by Harry (because he is the main character) or because JKR doesn't bring their strong points into the plot as much. I think that a lot of the females are strong and they add some of the depth to the story.

No, I don't believe there is;
Hermione - proud founder of SPEW, bossy, intellegent etc.
Mrs. Weasley - Can reduce any member of the Weasley family to a cowering mess, fights against LV
Professor McGonagall - Doesn't take it from anyone, fights against LV, intellegent
Lily - Casted the curse that screwed up LV in the first place, fought against him, seemed to hold her own against James in Snapes Worst Memory.
Tonks - Is an auror, fights against LV
Bellatrix - Killed Sirius, shows ultimate loyalty, very determined - as are all of the characters that I've mentioned so far.

I dont believe there is because Hermoine is always there helping Harry out with everything, and since they made her the smart one than I'm cool with that.

Hermione is intelligent, brave and strong. And no one can beat Ginny's Bat-Bogey Hexes. Madam Maxime could crush anyone with her half-giant strength. Fleur could seduce any man into doing whatever she wanted. And NO ONE argues with McGonagall

Hermione is intelligent, brave and strong. And no one can beat Ginny's Bat-Bogey Hexes. Madam Maxime could crush anyone with her half-giant strength. Fleur could seduce any man into doing whatever she wanted. And NO ONE argues with McGonagall
No. Sure there are more guys but alot of them play tiny roles. Look at Hermione, Ginny, Luna, Mcgonagal (sp?) Lavender, Mrs. Dursly, ect...

No, I don't believe there is;
Hermione - proud founder of SPEW, bossy, intellegent etc.
Mrs. Weasley - Can reduce any member of the Weasley family to a cowering mess, fights against LV
Professor McGonagall - Doesn't take it from anyone, fights against LV, intellegent
Lily - Casted the curse that screwed up LV in the first place, fought against him, seemed to hold her own against James in Snapes Worst Memory.
Tonks - Is an auror, fights against LV
Bellatrix - Killed Sirius, shows ultimate loyalty, very determined - as are all of the characters that I've mentioned so far.

Exactly and not to mention that many members of Harry's Quidditch team are female, Luna who is definitely not afraid of being different and speaking her mind about things she knows other people will think is ridicoulus (sp?), Narcissa and her actions in HBP and Fleur who I think really shows her quality in HBP....

I definitely don't think there is lack of strong female character in the books, although I wouldn't mind seeing more of some of them, like Bellatrix...

No, there are plenty of strong, female characters. You got Umbridge, McGonagall, Tonks, Molly (gotta be strong to have so many kids), Hermione, and Luna (in a weird way, yes).

No, there is Bellatrix, Hermione, Ginny, Luna, Molly, Tonks, Umbridge, McGonagall, Madame Maxime, Narcissa....