Is HP sexist? Or feminist? Or somewhere in between?

[Furienna]

Here in Sweden, which I unfortuneately would call the most feministic country in the world, HP is often considered sexistic, and reviewers has complained about Hermione being described condescendingly in a boy's point of view and the wizard world being "a man's world" as much as the muggle world. I can't agree with that, because as always, the feminists are blinded by their hatred.

Of course, both the headmaster of Hogwarts and the minister of magic are men (for the moment), but there seems to as many women as men teaching at Hogwarts, and the ministry and the wizengamot both seem to have many female employees. And there seems to have been female teachers, headmistresses and healers for centuries in the wizard world, and even a thousand years ago, both boys and girls were accepted to Hogwarts, and neither of that would have happened before the 19th century tops in the muggle world. Of course, we know that Aunt Petunia and Mrs Weasly are housewives, and I wouldn't expect Narcissa Malfoy or many other women married to powerful men to have careers of their own either, but that doesn't mean they are helpless. It seems like Molly controls Arthur and not the other way around in the Weasly household, and Narcissa managed to persuade Lucius into not sending Draco to Durmstrang instead of Hogwarts. And when it comes to Harry's co-students, both girls and boys become prefects, and there is one head boy AND one head girl, and many girls play an important role in the adventures. Well, at first, mostly only Hermione, but now, Ginny and Luna have shown what they can too too. And in quidditch, most teams are mixed.

Or is it just fiction, so that all this doesn't really matter?

[Wild Rose]

The words are "sexist" and "feminist". (sorry, i'm pendantic like that).

I don't really think they are sexist, not much. Girls/women get good roles-this year, a women is the captain of the best quidditch team in the school.
However, as usual, the boys get better roles. I don't think it activly puts women down, but a few stronger actions from the ladies might be nice, rather than motherly types, like Mrs Weasley.

@-'-,------

[sawyer]

I've never thought about that before, but it's true that men take often the best rules also in HP series.
However I would not define it as sexist, perhaps JK would only have showed society as it really is. It's not fair, but also in the reality men are favoured. :huh:

[Dedalus]

I think you've hit the nail on the head, Furienna, with you huge list of powerful women in the books, and the jobs women can have and the fact that women have been equal to men in the books for much longer than they have in reality. All that can't can't be ignored for the sake of the few characters who aren't, or the men who are! There are housewives in the book, but there are in real life so that isn't unjust, it's realistic. And why is being a housewife a sexist thing? Molly Weasley may have wanted to be a housewife, and she certainly dominates the family. So I don't think giving her an office job or something would really do anything to her character, because she definitely isn't a weak one.

I don't think you need to make women the all important, all knowing, all powerful characters, just to please people who can't see that men can be them too. You can't please everybody.

You might want to view this thread, though -Do you believe that there is a lack of strong female characters so far? (http://www.cosforums.com/showthread.php?t=152) :)

[Furienna]

There are housewives in the book, but there are in real life so that isn't unjust, it's realistic. And why is being a housewife a sexist thing? Molly Weasley may have wanted to be a housewife, and she certainly dominates the family. So I don't think giving her an office job or something would really do anything to her character, because she definitely isn't a weak one.

I just said I don't think housewives is a bad thing, if that didn't come out clearly enough. My mother is one. To many feminists however, it is a great sign of oppression of women. They feel women are put down so they can't have careers, and in Sweden, this isn't even realistic anymore. But I don't agree with most things such people say, and not with this either. I feel different people should do different things, and as you said, Molly seems to the head of the family rather than Arthur. Then Petunia is a little weaker, but she is no role model anyway.

[Earendil]

Well, I personally have never seen anything remotely sexist in the HP books. If Rowling was intending to express sexist sentiments, she wouldn't have made McGonagall head of Gryffindor House, all three Gryffindor chasers female, powerful women in the Ministry like Tonks and even Umbridge, or Hermione the smartest student in the year. She even mentioned a female Minister of Magic before Cornelius Fudge.

That's not to say that I think the books are strongly feminist either. I simply don't think that gender roles are particularly emphasized: people are people; men and women are shown to have varying personality traits, as opposed to typecasting their characters based on gender alone. We see giggly girls and we see tomboy-ish girls; we see stereotypical block-headed boys and we see sensitive boys. Rowling effectively diversifies her characters instead of catering to gender stereotypes.

I would be interested to see an argument in favor of HP being sexist.

[Lady deMimsy]

Well, I wouldn't call the books sexist exactly, but there's something a little odd about the way very few female characters seem to have a family and a career. (Or very few witches, anyway -- I guess Hermione's mum the dentist sort of counts.) On the other hand, I wouldn't be at all surprised if this got resolved in later books ... I've always had an odd suspicion that Professor McGonagall is, or has been, married, and I'm pretty sure some of the current crop of Hogwarts students are going to end up with both husbands and careers.

[Alci]

We see giggly girls and we see tomboy-ish girls; we see stereotypical block-headed boys and we see sensitive boys. Rowling effectively diversifies her characters instead of catering to gender stereotypes.
A shrewd reader might argue that the book has been feminised at some level - simply because what you correctly observed above is possible at all. Certainly this would not have been possible in children's books of a generation or more ago. As to wether its a good/bad thing is a tougher question to answer. It might seem self-evidently the former, but encouraging boys to read is one of the biggest challanges and failings in modern education. Recent evidence suggests that the boys who most need to learn to read are those who HP has passsed by, either because the language is too hard or the storyline is not sufficiently 'masculine' for their liking.

As a read, the book manages to be relatively gender neutral, though occasional things jar as feeling forced. Thats probably a function of the age speard of the audience though...

[hermy_weasley2]

Feminists annoy me a lot. I don't see that there's anything sexist about the books. Nor do I see anything feminist about it either. I really don't think Rowling is considering that as she's writing them

Just out of curiosty Dedalus, how long do you think women have been equal to men? I know it varies from culture to culture, but how long would you say it was?

[hesdead-dealwithit]

In the HP culture, it seems that equality between the sexes has gone back at least 1000 years, as two of Hogwarts's founders are female. There has been chauvinism, definitely (remember the invention of the Snitch?) but for the most part, there's been equality. After all, what matters in the magical society is not physical strength, where there is a difference between the sexes, but magical ability.

[Dedalus]

Just out of curiosty Dedalus, how long do you think women have been equal to men? I know it varies from culture to culture, but how long would you say it was?
You mean in real life or the wizarding world? In real life, I'd say we're still not there, because there's still always someone to break the chain. I suppose nothing is ever exactly equal. But in regards to feminism, it seems things started to really rapidly change since the turn of the last century. In the wizarding world, a lot of things happen much faster, and feminism was possibly one of them!

[harp230]

Feminists annoy me a lot.
Couldn't have said it better...
Yes we see more male characters in the books. That is fine with me. I would expect that since the book is written with a male as a main character.

[GryffindorSeeker]

I don't think it's sexist or anything. It's told from a boys point of view, but the women aren't looked down on or anything. I know that there is the point of some of the characters being house-wives, but some women, actually want to do that. They're not over shadowed, or completely helpless.

[Weatherby]

I actually find the books to be a healthy balance between the two. :)
Rowling writes very human characters. Sometimes she'll have strong female or male characters but she also includes the very negative side of humans.
She doesn't paint women the same or men.
Sometimes the entire society can be viewed negatively but never just one group. The Slytherins get more of a one-sided look than a sex.

The Weasleys and The Dursleys are about as different as people can be but both fathers earn the money while the women stay home. But it's actually a partnership in both households. Both of Hermione's parents work.

[Furienna]

I actually find the books to be a healthy balance between the two. :)

That is what I think too. I don't think JKR wanted to put any such values in her readers, neither sexistic nor feministic. She just potraits the brittish society as it was in the 1990s, with the wizard world being a parallell to the muggle world. I just wanted to find out what you COSers thought...

[Furienna]

I would be interested to see an argument in favor of HP being sexist.

Well actually, there aren't any. It's just feminists being on the loose again, who complains about stuff :grumble:, but they see oppression everywhere.

[Cat]

The 'problem' is that J. K. Rowling is a woman and her main character is a male. As with many males, lots of other males are important to his life. Father, godfather, best friend... and then, so it goes, more characters will become involved who are primarily male - friends of dad, enemies of dad, schoolyard enemy of his own... we tend to connect with more people of our own sex than of the other. So Harry's connected to blokes who were connected to other blokes in some way... and so on. It's a boy's story but it's not a story just for boys. I don't think girls need an abundance of women to involve themself in the plot.

There is no sexism in Harry Potter. There are just a lot of boys and men. Some people believe that female writers should write in a feminist way and, if it's not, then it must be sexist.

This is just a load of bollocks.

Sorry, replace that slander with some female body part.

[Alci]

That is what I think too. I don't think JKR wanted to put any such values in her readers, neither sexistic nor feministic.
I don't think its so clear cut. For instance, JKR has clearly made a consious effort over the mudblood/pureblood and giants/warewolf issues to promote racial harmony/acceptance.

We know that she received bile from some feminists over the first 2-3 books. In recent times we have the new 'strong' Ginny and her own interview comments about the school having 50/50 M/F in terms of headmasters. For all we know this has been her position from the start. It is possible though that she felt pressured to strengthen the balance in these later books

This is just a load of bollocks.

Sorry, replace that slander with some female body part.
Surprised that got through the forums word filter :D I was going to put the non-offensive female equiv. - but I fear the mods getting their knickers in a twist :scared:

[Vigilance]

I think most people who complain that the books are sexist see very specific problems. Most of these posts generalize over these main issues.

1. How many women can afford to not work when they are as poor as the Weasleys? Molly's a mother who doesn't even have her children with her for most of the year. How realistic is it to suggest (in a 2-income economy) that families should do without rather than have the mother pull in some extra cash on the side, especially when the kiddies are at boarding school? You might ask what realism has to do with HP, but that's a cop-out. What makes HP so fascinating is its down-playing of the magical element, its focus on the human element.

2. How many beautiful girls demonstrate a large intellect? Though Cho is in Ravenclaw and so obviously intelligent, we see her playing the over-emotional female. Hermione is disfigured by her buck-teeth--so it's OK that she's a brain, Minerva is a very masculine woman--stern, not sexy, sporty--unless she has a rare moment of sentimentality. Why can't she be vivacious and smart? Why does she have to stereotypically look pinched, sharp, unfeminine? Molly plays the jolly mother--salt of the earth, heart of gold, is the only person in the order who can't divorce herself from her emotions long enough to deal with a boggart. I personally found her scurrying to wait on Arthur deplorable; this makes her a servant, ahouse-elf, virtually. I guess, you could argue that this is the only way she can pull her weight in the household when the kids aren't there. Parvati and Lavender are giggly, pretty, boy-minded, flighty and studiously non-intellectual. They are only interested in unicorns and divination; they almost have to work at being shallow and uninformed. Ginny does need to be rescued, and her character was changed after JKR came under fire. How many of us detested Ginny in CoS. I certainly must raise my hand. These are the female characters. You can't say they aren't stereotypes. Hermione does eventually blossom, true. But why? One might cynically point out that Ron needs to find her more attractive before they start up a flirtation. We've seen his attitude. Just because Hermione calls him on it doesn't mean that she doesn't try to meet his expectations in some ways.

3. How many women do have high-ranking jobs in government? They're there, but not developed unless they are gruesome characters like Umbridge. They always seem secondary or answerable to men. They seldom seem to have direct power (unless, like Umbridge, they abuse it).

I am proud to be a feminist, and it bothers me that some posters don't seem to be objective enough to see the concerns of feminists. I love HP, but I can look at it critically, even though I'm a fan.

[hesdead-dealwithit]

1) We have no idea what Molly does during the year; it's entirely possible that she tutors wizard children or something like that. (Someone has to do it, and they don't have schools.) Plus, the Weasley family is not as poor as it seems to be; they can, every year, pay for books for multiple children. They have to be stingy on somethings, of course, and Ron doesn't get the brooms he wants when he wants them. Poor baby. That's really why we think they're so poor - because Ron sees kids around him lavished with presents, and his family doesn't buy him them. How many families do you know that skimp on luxuries to invest in education? My family, personally, for one. What makes everyone think the Weasley's aren't one of them. (Okay, that thing about them not having money in the bank. All that means is that they haven't saved money, not that they don't have any. They live paycheck to paycheck, to an extent. I'm not saying they're rich, or even middle class, but they get along.)

[Vigilance]

It's not just the broom, though. Ron wears secondhand clothes, inherits his first wand, his school robes, and lives in a cramped attic. His pet is hand-me-down, and his books are also previously owned. He has little to no pride of ownership, certainly. I hated/resented having to wear secondhand clothes when I was little too. We were very cost-conscious at that time. My mother still worked a full time job, and I didn't even go away to school.
Likewise, the Weasley parents are always stressed about how they will "manage" school items and floo powder, etc. This doesn't suggest whinging on Ron's part, to me.
However, there's no evidence that Molly does anything through the school year other than watch her clock. Why wouldn't anyone mention another source of income? We see Petunia and we see Molly as very different kinds of mothers. But, both are homemakers. We don't see Hermione's parents. That's part of the point. The working mother is not represented in the books, is invisible. Why?

[Alastor D]

Often enough we find what we want to find in books. Regardless of wether the author put it there or not.
But I'm a bit surprised to see McGonagall described as masculine.
And about always being secondary or answerable to men.
I have been believing that the minister before fudge Millicent Bagnold was a woman. Elfrida Clagg was head of the Wizards Council already in the 14th century, A. S. Bones is head of the Department of Law Enforcement, Griselda Marchbanks is head of the Wizarding Examinations Authority and there were some female headmasters at Hogwarts.
We have no proof whatsoever that JKR decided to put these women there just because she was told off for being sexist. They might have been planned from the very beginning.

[Vigilance]

You miss the point though. We don't see them. It's not represented, shown, illustrated, reinforced. It doesn't matter if they are there if they seem "token," right?

As for seeing what we want to see, I guess if you don't look at a text critically (I'm an academic, sue me!), you might ignore some of the issues at hand. I've been trained not to read a text passively, to always question "why" an author makes certain choices. That's not to say I'm so far removed that I can't enjoy a book, though! Don't mistake me for someone who denounces HP.

[DrummerboyDT]

I don't think the series is "sexist". Hermione is a brilliant character. Harry and Ron need her. She's a good source of information and she keeps things in order. Is it feminist? I don't think so. It seems like J.K. knows exactly what boys and girls go through. I think if the series was written by a guy, the characters wouldn't have as much emotion to them. I think J.K. blends it out perfect. I've felt the same way Harry has felt sometimes in the books. It's wonderful how J.K. can know how we think.

[Alastor D]

I'm sorry I again didn't chose the best words for my thoughts.
Not anyone of us is able to free ourself entirely from our biases. A good academic training helps, but it doesn't rid us from the problem. This is a fact frequently discussed by many prominent sciencists and scholars. Anyone interested in this might for example try any book by the late Harward professor Stephen J. Gould.
Anyway I'm always trying (yes I said trying) to judge people, both real and fictional most and foremost as individuals. Gender, education, age and cultural background comes after that.
But it's true that we live in a sexist world and that these books to some degree mirrors that.

[Loz]

I don't think the Harry Potter series is a platform that exists merely to project Sexist or Feminist messages, but I do think certain things could come across as being one or the other from the perspective of the reader.

I think JKR created her novels in a way that could encompass many different kinds of characters and situations interacting and from this we inferr something more, another box to put the characters and situations into. Oh it's fantasy, oh it's a boy's adventure story, oh it's sexist/racist/anti-religion/feminist/anti-racist/religious. Oh it's just entertainment. In some cases this is the reader's choice, really. In others, I don't think it is true at all. For instance, I hardly think the novels or heroic characters in the novels are racist, but I do see something anti-racist in the "mudblood" issue being given so much gravity.

As for being sexist, I disagree. There are plenty of strong female characters. However, we see the action through a male perspective and naturally our point of view is going to be filtered through Harry's eyes. I think that the Harry Potter novels do have certain themes and messages however, and one of these is the importance of equality or lack thereof. JKR seems to revisit this theme time and time again. I do think she portrays men and women as being equal.

However, despite the fact they seem to tend towards equality, whether her novels project Feminism is a good question. It all comes down to how we define Feminism. Do we see it as being a movement that champions equality for Women, or as one that champions the woman as being so much more capable than men? Is it the realm of the everyday person - male or female or the cynical man-hater? I think that's a biased question and subjective to each individual.

[Vigilance]

I'm not at all trying to indicate JKR's awareness of her own gender-definitions, folks. The problem with living in a sexist world is that certain things are taken for granted, accepted, not questioned. Some of the assumptions JKR seems to make about what kind of female character is an "intelligent" one or a "good" one veer in the direction of sexist stereotypes. Strong female characters are a separate issue. The Bible has strong female characters. It's still a sexist book--because it provides an account of a rigidly patriarchal society where women had few choices. It's this sort of thing that makes me conclude that most posters here

1) don't know what feminism is,

2) don't know what feminists are actually trying to say about these books,

3) can't think of HP as a product of its culture rather than a product of its author.

Forget about JKR. She can't do anything about prejudices / preconceptions of her own that she might not be aware of. An author has ultimate authority of her production, but when you realize that the author herself is a product of culture, that authority is severely diminished.

Edit: how do we define identity? Lots of academics point to the formative value of gender-definition. From the moment a baby is wrapped in a blue blanket and given certain gender-specific toys to play with, the process of socializing gender occurs. How can you divorce this crucial identity formation from an individual self? It's not possible, because we don't live in a vacuum, don't form "who we are" in a vacuum. It's not so simple folks.We must live every day in our bodies, and those bodies carry alot of social baggage around.

As for what feminism is, ask who has a vested interest in defining feminism as "man-hating." This isn't the project of feminists, but it is a certain conception of feminists. Also, don't think women who are not feminists don't contribute to the misinformation about feminism. Many women are so afraid to seem what they think a "feminist" is that they react--denounce its premises in ignorance--rather than educate themselves on the project.

I've been trying to point out that sexism is insidious, not overt and willfully implemented. Hopefully, this post will highlight the complexity of the issue. Saying "I don't think HP is sexist/feminist" is not a sufficient or informed answer. A sexist book is not a book that denounces women or suggests openly and up-front that women are incapable, devoid of intelligence, or what have you. A sexist book represents women in certain gender-specific roles (how Petunia and Molly are judged almost solely on what kind of Mothers they are, for example), or treats women in gender-limited ways (the non-sexy brains: Minerva and Hermione, or the pretty but stupid social butterflies: Parvati and Lavender. Again, Ginny has changed dramatically over the course of the series, and even Hermione has begun to change: think of the first three books).

It doesn't matter how wonderful Molly or Minerva are; they are still stereotypically one-dimensional. Do they experience changes of heart or worldview? Do they want more than what JKR initially gives them? Being a good mother precludes other things like being a successful career woman or motivational/spiritual leader; being an intelligent woman precludes other things, such as being a desirable and flirtatious single mother. Hopefully, you all can see more what I'm talking about. I'm not saying that it isn't OK for women to be housewives and mothers. I'm pointing out the problematic limitations of housewives and mothers in this specific series of books. Again, I love Molly! I love Minerva! I think they're great! It wouldn't be a problem if the career women that are actually dealt with in any real way (Tonks, basically, and the detested Umbridge) in the novel were mothers too!

[PhoenixUK]

To say that Harry Potter is sexist is quite pedantic. In the end, in the book there's strong and weak female and male characters. Okay, the hero of the stories is a boy, but it'd have to be either a boy or a girl, and we already know that there's intelligent female characters (Hermione) with good jobs (Tonks) and weak male characters (Pettigrew).

I think to say it's sexist is to be overtly politically correct.

[Vigilance]

To say that Harry Potter is sexist is quite pedantic. In the end, in the book there's strong and weak female and male characters. Okay, the hero of the stories is a boy, but it'd have to be either a boy or a girl, and we already know that there's intelligent female characters (Hermione) with good jobs (Tonks) and weak male characters (Pettigrew).

I think to say it's sexist is to be overtly politically correct.

Some of us actually care about these issues. Some of us worry that our little girls will think being a mother should be completely fulfilling, that their bodies give people the right to judge what they are and are not capable of. Again, the issue of strong and weak characters is something different altogether. Tonks is a problem too. She's comedic but also comical, laughable in some ways. She's inexperienced, a newbie. She's not strong and competant like Kingsley. The issue isn't that there's a Mundungus, too, but that there's only one Tonks, one positively portrayed career woman dealt with in the books--and she's cool and funny, but also lacks professionalism. Why? It's what's missing that's the problem as much as what's there.

[Dedalus]

J.K. Rowling has said a lot on the subject, herself, and I thought you might be interested to read what she has to say ...

I've thought about why I didn't choose a heroine, but I didn't want to change him. He was too real to me, and it would have felt very contrived to feminize him. . . . There are plenty of strong females in the books. Hermione is a caricature of me when I was younger. Of Harry, Ron and Hermione, she's definitely the brainpower. (Barnes and Noble chat transcript)

and ...

!What irritates me is that I am constantly, increasingly, being asked 'Can we have a strong female character, please?' Like they are ordering a side order of chips. I am thinking 'Isn't Hermione strong enough for you?' She is the most brilliant of the three and they need her. Harry needs her badly.

"But my hero is a boy and at the age he has been girls simply do not figure that much. Increasingly, they do. But, at 11, I think it would be extremely contrived to throw in a couple of feisty, gorgeous, brilliant-at-maths and great-at-fixing-cars girls." (The Times, June 30th 2000)

And this is my favourite of her comments on the subject ...

Do you get grief --- do you get criticism that you don’t have enough females in strong positions in your stories?
Well, in fact, if you run down the staff list at Hogwarts ---. People have said this to me before, I have to say that. There are many things I can say to that. The first thing I should say is that I had been writing this book for 6 months before I myself, it did take me 6 months, stopped and thought ‘Hang on, why is it Harry, why isn’t it Harriet? Why is this a boy?‘ Now, the answer is that Harry came to me so complete, so real that if I had stopped, after 6 months of writing and thought, ‘we’ll change him into a girl, I’m going to be politically correct, I’m going to make a heroine‘, it would have been putting Harry into drag. He was too real to me by then to turn him into a girl. He was a boy in my head and I already had Hermione and I had Ron and I was too fond of them by then to want to tamper with them so that is my answer and I’m sticking by it, I’m unapologetic about it. If you look down the staff list in the school, you will find that it is exactly 50% women and 50% men as teachers. Now, people possibly don’t realize that enough. I see Professor McGonagall, for example, as a very strong female character. I did get an e-mail the other day from someone in America, saying ‘When are we going to see a strong female character?’ and I wrote back and told her I was deeply offended because I think Hermione and Professor McGonagall are very strong characters. But I did say to her ‘but if you mean a nasty female character, wait till Book 4.’ (from The Connection, 12th October 1999)

I think she makes a lot of very good points, and seeing as how she's the one who writes the books, I think she's the one who knows her characters best ;) .

But we've seen heaps of strong female characters, and I completely disagree that Tonks is the only positively portrayed career woman in the books! What about all the other female Ministry workers we've met? She isn't the only one we've seen! What about the members of the Wizengamot who were women? Female Minister of Magics there've been? Strong female teachers? Generally strong brave women are as frequent as the men, and most of them have the same careers as men. Some don't, but neither do some of the men. It's entirely equal!

[Vigilance]

OK, I'm finished. No one is actually reading my posts. Good-bye.

[Dedalus]

Yes they are, they're just disagreeing. There are always going to be people who don't agree in a thread, and if people have misunderstood then just say so.

[Cat]

So, let me get this straight...

A book is flawed if women aren't portrayed as perfect, ethereal beings. Male teachers are productive in society but the female ones are barely more than home-economics teachers, regardless of what they teach or whether they're, say, Deputy Headmistress. Wizengamot women and former Headmistresses don't count. Women like Mrs Weasley can't do what they want to do and what they enjoy (ie. keeping a home) because they're women. Tonks is a 'lesser' Auror despite the fact that she's treated with equal authority, she isn't petted or called 'Miss' all the time, and her demand to be referred to by her surname alone - a kind of male endearment - is respected.

Oh, and Hermione doesn't exist, apparently, because there aren't six of her

Now... who's sexist again?

And am I imagining things or has the world done a full loop-de-loop on the feminism issue?

[Vigilance]

ooops! Well, here you are then:

I have emphasized about three times that strong female characters aren't the issue. My own mother is a strong woman, but not a liberated one.

What about the other government workers we've glimpsed? Do they figure at all? They are token, also a point I emphasized earlier.

What JKR says about her books doesn't matter; she's not on hand to explain and justify as we read these books. She's not writing in a vacuum, and she has her own motives for explaining the problems away. She hasn't addressed many feminist concerns with the books, only what problems that have officially been reported to her (second-hand). I've pointed out that readers must ignore her. They certainly can't or won't read her interviews before they read her novels. Our opinions will likely be formed by the initial reading. Of course, they can also be revised, if we can trust JKR to be objective about her own work, but likely her justifications won't completely change our minds. Besides this, we must take on faith that JKR is a master of her own psyche, culturally aware of the social narratives that have helped her form her own identity, and a master of her cultural moment as well. No one can do this, not even the almight author. Writers often write in assumptions / preconceptions / biases that they don't intend.

Dedalus--You haven't disagreed with me at all. You haven't addressed any of my points. I thought you were moving on, as so many people do when they hope to shut down a topic, to citing the supposed authority (again, read above for why we cannot allow JKR to control the reception of her novel). Sorry I judged you as trying to shut me up! (*offers hand in gesture of new understanding*)

EDIT: Cat, you misunderstand my points! I'm saying that the women here are determined frequently by their biological functions. It's fine that women want to stay home; I might choose to do so myself--if I can afford it, which the Weasleys seem barely able to do. Where are the women who don't want to stay at home but also want families? Can you honestly say you identify with the Wizengamot women who are briefly mentioned in OotP? I've said nothing about males who are productive in society. I've pointed out professionally competent men in the books as a template for what seems to be lacking where women are concerned. I'm not saying all males in the books are professionally competent, but the able ones (Arthur, for example, seems to have it all) are represented. With the exception of Minerva--who can't seem to be allowed a family as well as a job--there are no career women who seem professional and wise. Think again about my comments on the limitations of the female characters. And nobody's perfect. I'm not saying all the women need to be like Hermione. I'm saying that there needs to be a broader selection of positive women characters, not that we should dissmiss the ones that are already there. Undoubtedly, women do make the choices/have the problems with brains/beauty or career/family that these women do--but, it's not always an either/or proposition, and that should be available somewhere (not just passed over with a cursory remark or two about Hermione's Dentist Mother). Let's meet her! Why can't we know her better/see her? Does JKR assume such a woman would be uninteresting? We don't know; we aren't allowed. That's all I'm pointing out. Your sarcasm and rather dramatic rewrite of my objections only points out how well women can intentionally misunderstand each other. I think you know that's not what I'm saying. I'm not attacking JKR or her books. I honestly don't think she's aware of the way she limits her characters, which I find both real and lovable, BTW.

[Cat]

EDIT: Cat, you misunderstand my points! I'm saying that the women here are determined frequently by their biological functions. It's fine that women want to stay home; I might choose to do so myself--if I can afford it, which the Weasleys seem barely able to do. Where are the women who don't want to stay at home but also want families? Can you honestly say you identify with the Wizengamot women who are briefly mentioned in OotP? I've said nothing about males who are productive in society. I've pointed out professionally competent men in the books as a template for what seems to be lacking where women are concerned. I'm not saying all males in the books are professionally competent, but the able ones (Arthur, for example, seems to have it all) are represented. With the exception of Minerva--who can't seem to be allowed a family as well as a job--there are no career women who seem professional and wise. Think again about my comments on the limitations of the female characters. And nobody's perfect. I'm not saying all the women need to be like Hermione. I'm saying that there needs to be a broader selection of positive women characters, not that we should dissmiss the ones that are already there. Undoubtedly, women do make the choices/have the problems with brains/beauty or career/family that these women do--but, it's not always an either/or proposition, and that should be available somewhere (not just passed over with a cursory remark or two about Hermione's Dentist Mother). Let's meet her! Why can't we know her better/see her? Does JKR assume such a woman would be uninteresting? We don't know; we aren't allowed. That's all I'm pointing out. Your sarcasm and rather dramatic rewrite of my objections only points out how well women can intentionally misunderstand each other. I think you know that's not what I'm saying. I'm not attacking JKR or her books. I honestly don't think she's aware of the way she limits her characters, which I find both real and lovable, BTW.

I wasn't actually referring to your post, I referring to posts on this thread in general, but I'll respond anyway. And I wasn't being sarcastic, I was quoting without quotations, trying to get the gist of it.

Harry is a young male. He knows and indentifies with more males than females. Therefore, certain men are what you refer to as 'represented' in their professional and personal categories. The only reason anybody could claim that the women are limited by anything is because we hardly know any of the women, what they do, or how they live. J. K. Rowling isn't going to give us background history and an account of the lifestyle of, say, Professor Sprout just to give us our side order of chips, as she put it.

Why should we have to meet Hermione's mother, family woman and dentist extraordinaire? She might be a perfectly interesting character, but she might not be relevant to the plot in any way. The books might be written by a woman, but they're not about feminist issues.

I also disagree that there are no career women who seem professional. I disagree that there aren't enough 'positive' female characters (what are 'positive' female characters when they're at home? Do we get positive female people? I take it you don't mean 'upbeat'. Are any of us 'negative females'?)

Why are none of the female teachers other than McGonagall professional or wise? What is holding Professor Sprout back from being this archetypal representative of womanhood you describe? Even Professor Trelawney, barmy as she may be, does her job, as it is, as well as any man could do. I think the job description for Divination requires a certain degree of barminess. She got drunk and went into hysterics once. Well, so have I! And I don't like to think I'm a negative female character. Stern and sporty Madam Hooch - why shouldn't she represent womanhood in the series? Madame Maxime, giant of a woman, literally and metaphorically, who has class, grace and a lot of strength. Clever and fiesty Tonks. Any of them.

How, exactly, are the woman in the series limited or bound by anything? There's a whopping great variety of them, doing what women do, in a broad range of fields.

These ladies aren't stuck in the story because J. K. Rowling felt obliged to have women somewhere. I can't imagine any of them would be the same if they were men. It's like trying to imagine Harry as a girl.

[Mireille]

We see many women in the books in different roles. McGonnagal is one of the most powerful female teachers at Hogwarts and most likely next in line to become Headmistress if Dumbledore is no longer able to do his job.

Bellatrix Lestrange is an evil woman who is a faithfull follower of Voldemort.

Aunt Petunia represents the Muggle world and how the wizarding world views them. Even though she isn't the most wonderful character in the books, IMO, she isn't exactly evil and she also knows enough about the wizarding world to play a part in the way that things are playing out in Harry's life.

Tonks has a personality that makes many people respect her and like her.

Fluer is the woman every man wants but can't have.

Luna adds the element of mystery and loonyness, Hermione is the book-smart one, and there are other female students that play a large role in the female perspective.

Personally, I think there is a large variety of females and their characters are nothing like one another. I can't think that the way that they are represented is sexist or feminist.

[Vigilance]

I wasn't actually referring to your post, I referring to posts on this thread in general, but I'll respond anyway. And I wasn't being sarcastic, I was quoting without quotations, trying to get the gist of it.

Harry is a young male. He knows and indentifies with more males than females. Therefore, certain men are what you refer to as 'represented' in their professional and personal categories. The only reason anybody could claim that the women are limited by anything is because we hardly know any of the women, what they do, or how they live. J. K. Rowling isn't going to give us background history and an account of the lifestyle of, say, Professor Sprout just to give us our side order of chips, as she put it.

Why should we have to meet Hermione's mother, family woman and dentist extraordinaire? She might be a perfectly interesting character, but she might not be relevant to the plot in any way. The books might be written by a woman, but they're not about feminist issues.

I also disagree that there are no career women who seem professional. I disagree that there aren't enough 'positive' female characters (what are 'positive' female characters when they're at home? Do we get positive female people? I take it you don't mean 'upbeat'. Are any of us 'negative females'?)

Why are none of the female teachers other than McGonagall professional or wise? What is holding Professor Sprout back from being this archetypal representative of womanhood you describe? Even Professor Trelawney, barmy as she may be, does her job, as it is, as well as any man could do. I think the job description for Divination requires a certain degree of barminess. She got drunk and went into hysterics once. Well, so have I! And I don't like to think I'm a negative female character. Stern and sporty Madam Hooch - why shouldn't she represent womanhood in the series? Madame Maxime, giant of a woman, literally and metaphorically, who has class, grace and a lot of strength. Clever and fiesty Tonks. Any of them.

How, exactly, are the woman in the series limited or bound by anything? There's a whopping great variety of them, doing what women do, in a broad range of fields.

These ladies aren't stuck in the story because J. K. Rowling felt obliged to have women somewhere. I can't imagine any of them would be the same if they were men. It's like trying to imagine Harry as a girl.

Sprout could be anything we imagine her to be. What limits her is our knowledge of her. Don't you think it's strange that we and Harry don't know anything about her, though she lives and works day-in-and-out beside Harry? The argument that Harry doesn't notice this sort of stuff has merit. But what does he notice? He focuses on the motherly (positive) or unmotherly (negative) characteristics of them. They do what women do, true, but they also break down all over the place, exclaiming "oh, dear!" Few of them actually do things that men typically do in a masculinist society--like come to the rescue and save the school, or work in the public sphere. Those who do work in that sphere are portrayed in a negative light (like Umbridge, whose career aspirations drive her to persecute young students), seem borderline incompetant (Tonks is the only auror who stumbles around uncoordinatedly), or achieve a professionalism so rigid that when they reach out, its always noted with surprise (Minerva). As far as we know, these professional women are limited in their emotional lives by a lack of primary relationships or families. The suggestion is that they can't have a successful career and a family. If that's not a limitation, what is it? You can conjecture all you like about Sprout and Minerva and their personal lives, but the point is that there aren't even hints that they have them at all. As a kid who didn't even go to a boarding school, I still knew which of my teachers were married and had children. That Harry isn't interested might be one argument, but that he doesn't even know that they do have families (if they in fact do) seems self-involved of him at best. The easiest explanation is that these professors don't have strong family lives or children, at the very least.

That these characters are well-liked and respected is not the point. This isn't the reason that feminists analyze HP for sexist attitudes. It seemed to me that you were responding to my post, as you said "let me get this straight" and I am the only adherent of feminism to have come forth in a while. Sorry if I was wrong about that. I'd like to blame it all on Harry's self-involvement, but I can't quite do it. :)

EDIT: Penelope, you make an interesting point. Perhaps the issue I have with what you've brought up has more to do with JKR's lack of complex character development. I tend to notice it more on the women, maybe. That they can be so easily categorized ("Hermione's the brainy one, Cho's the pretty one, Ginny is the cool one, Luna's the mysterious one") rather than complex (like real people who can have all of these characteristics in combination) is part of the reason I was affronted. However, it's true that some of the male characters are equally simple in their development as characters, at least until book five. Neville is becoming useful, Ron has proven his ability to play a sport if not to wear the prefect's badge or court Hermione...I predict that in book 6, he might take hold of her hand even if she has a smudge on her brow! ;)

[Cat]

Sprout could be anything we imagine her to be. What limits her is our knowledge of her. Don't you think it's strange that we and Harry don't know anything about her, though she lives and works day-in-and-out beside Harry? The argument that Harry doesn't notice this sort of stuff has merit. But what does he notice? He focuses on the motherly (positive) or unmotherly (negative) characteristics of them.

I don't think it's unusual that he knows very little about his teachers, actually. I didn't know very much about mine. Seeing them outside of school was a peculiar situation! Maybe it was different for you.

You must understand why Harry sorts everybody he meets into motherly and fatherly characters. He never knew his own mum or dad. Add this to the fact that he associates more with his father (being constantly likened to him) and tht might explain how he sees older women. He has a female friend, but he does what many boys do in this situation - both he and Ron treat Hermione more like another lad.

I disagree with you on your last note. I think the female characters are complex, and I believe that J. K. Rowling as some of the most intriging and multi-dimesional characters that children's literature has seen in a long time. Hermione is not simply 'the brainy one'. She is also sensitive and remarkably strong-willed. She is willing to break rules even when it goes against her nature and she has a very strong political conscience. She has an interesting personal duality, being both self-assured and insecure. Cho turned out to be a lot more than pretty. She is very fragile, like Harry. But she copes in different ways. I don't think Harry was expecting that. He saw her as a Quidditch player before, and must have presumed that she would be just like him. Ginny's the cool one? We've only seen the cool side of her in the latest book, before that she was awkward and nervous. Between you and me, I think Harry's just starting to notice her. I'm not saying where that might go ;)

Maybe I just like to look very deeply into characters. But I base it all on what we read in the books. Neville's actions in OOPT didn't surprise me. I've seen that in him since the first book.

[Vigilance]

I've been thinking primarily of the first three books. Surely even criticism JKR disagreed with would affect her in some small way, and she didn't really know people were having a problem with her female characters until after PoA. I freely admit that Hermione and Ginny aren't the same as they were. Still, I'm never surprised by the choices that the female characters make, unfortunately (unless it's the moment where Minerva offers Potter a cookie in Ootp :D ). We know Hermione will always do what's best, even if that's aiding and abetting Harry when she's 100% sure that he's wrong. It would be interesting to see her change her mind about something important, to be self-serving a couple of times. Likewise with Cho, once we really know her in GoF and OotP, we see her shy around Harry, very sensitive to the potential relationship between them; yes, she's emotionally overwrought by Cedric's death. Still, she doesn't really change from the time Harry talks to her (we know her by sight before then, but we don't really know who she is). As a character with a speaking part, she doesn't really change that much. She dwells on her personal tragedy, rarely moving beyond it all year. As for Neville, he certainly doesn't come out of the blue, but he's still not very successful as a hero--in a lot of ways, he's still the guy who's not really good at magic.

I try not to peg JKR down as a children's author. She claims to have written the books for herself (not a child), and I'm certainly no longer young myself! :D
Perhaps my expectations are a little high, but I'm certainly not expecting James Joyce or William Faulkner. As a children's author, we would need to congratulate her on her one-dimensional characters, a defining chacteristic of most children's lit. Historically, children are told stories with binary themes (good vs. evil, beauty vs. beast, wrong vs. right, black vs. white, male vs. female). It's rarely acceptible to write this way if you are not writing to a child audience, and you will often be criticized as too complex if you don't have the uncomplicated moral center to swallow. Children need to know who the bad guys are, who the good guys are, and that good always wins out in the end. HP definitely has good guys and bad guys, with one or two complex characters in the middle--Snape and Sirius. With the women characters (Minerva, Petunia, Umbridge, Tonks, Molly) whom we get to know, there is a similar flatness. Molly, Minerva, and Tonks are uncomplicated: they have motives that have always been there, and they don't change at all through the series. Petunia and Umbridge similarly lack depth. Potentially, Petunia will change more dramatically than the rest, but so far, they are Harry's antagonists, pure and simple. Neither has a change of heart; in fact, Petunia's yeilding to DD's note is nothing she hasn't done before--we just didn't know about it. Life is not like this at all. Life is more complex. You and I are more complex--few of us know what our real motivations are, and we've probably both had complete turn-arounds a couple of times in our lives. If JKR has changed her characters, it's because she realizes that her audience is or has grown more sophisticated.

But that doesn't detract from the obvious idealization of motherhood. JKR's own history allows us to understand why Molly is such a paragon of virtue in the books. I don't have problems with that--I just wish we'd "discover" her part-time job as a novelist or spell-creator, or something. It bothers me that her importance is contingent upon her status as a mother. If Voldemort destroyed her family, what would she have left? When her children are all grown, who'll think of her? It makes me sad. She doesn't even seem to have other female friends! It's a problem for me :td:

[Cat]

I still entirely disagree with you. I don't think there are any characters that we know well enough that anybody can call 'one-dimensional'. There have also been frequent instances of 'grey' areas with regards to the depth of the plot, not just Sirius and Snape. Wha about the crooked Mundungus?

If you think the women have nothing beyond the surfaces, then what about the contradiction between 'sickly sweet, fweindy-wendy' Umbridge and b*$£h troll from hell Umbridge? Or the depth of Minerva, with her stern veneer and soft centre? What about Bella? Do you think she chose that path for the hell of it? Then there's the wonderfully multi-faceted Hermione. And Petunia. Good old Petunia. Did you have yor eyes closed while reading the beginning of OOPT?

The reason why characters 'change' later on in the books is, quite simply, because no author reveals important information and secret in the first book. J. K. Rowling didn't just decide 'Oh, Petunia's too flat - I'll give her a secret!'. Don't you understand that she had this in mind all along? She knows how her characters develope and what they become.

J. K. Rowling still denies sexism in the books, and most of he fans don't see any such thing. She never stopped denying it after POA. I don't understand what you mean about POA. Did she change all of the female characters suddenly? Was Hermione not Hermione before then, McGonagall not McGonagall?

You really think Molly needs to 'prove' herself? She doesn't. Of course she doesn't. We know she's strong, whether she has a job or not. As it is, she works for the Order. She's a member, just like Arthur. I might be wrong, but the Burrow also seems to hold some kind of farm land. They have chickens, anyway. Who do you think feeds them? Working on land is a job, even though it's not a dynamic office job.

PS: sorry about the typing in this post. Tis keyboard dos't cooperate with me.

[Vigilance]

No, I don't think Molly has anything to prove. :huh: ? I've already pointed out several times that I think she's a strong person, not afraid to say what she's feeling, etc. I probably know more about working on a farm than you do. My grandmother, father, and myself have all lived and worked on our farm. That doesn't mean that my grandmother was liberated from her biological usefulness. She had twelve children! Her husband gave her grocery money once a week and asked for the change back after she finished her shopping! She fed chickens, milked cows, and got breakfast on the table before anyone else in her large family even woke up for the day. What point are you making? Women do 75% of the world's labor. Less than 5% feel like they are on an equal footing with men when it comes to the jobs they do or the money they make.
I didn't say Umbridge didn't try to appear other than she was--though I certainly wasn't convinced by her "sickly sweet" self-presentation...
We've always known about Minerva's sentimentality beneath it all...
I can't tell you anything about Bellatrix. She's got like, what, three scenes in the entire series? How can she have possibly demonstrated her complexity to you? You think she has reasons as good as Severus's for joining Voldemort? Maybe, I couldn't guess...she's not elucidated at all.
I can't talk to you about Hermione or Ginny after PoA. I think JKR has actively been engaged in making them more interesting. I'm waiting to see where that goes.

I didn't say that the women were obvious, just that they weren't terribly complicated as far as characters go.
I guess I don't understand what you're asking me. By depth of character, I mean that the characters have complex motivations for why they do things (they don't act because it's simply the right thing to do), they change throughout the series (they learn from mistakes that they've made, but they still continue to make more complex mistakes), they find themselves in situations where the answers aren't obvious and yet they still must negotiate a path for themselves, the decisions they make have great impact on the rest of their storylines.
As for her fans, most of them couldn't define sexism or feminism, even if they were asked to do so...Of course, she doesn't want to think she expresses the occasional sexist (stereotyping) idea. Why would we believe her just because she denies it. Almost everyone claims not to be racist, but that certainly doesn't mean it's true...JKR didn't address the criticism until after PoA. That's the significance of that particular text. And, yes, Hermione and Ginny certainly seem to change, not beyond all recognition, but change nontheless.
How do the female characters change? What mistakes do they learn from? Convince me--give me the story arcs from book 1 through book 3.

[Loz]

I consider myself a feminist - I want equality, and I don't think it quite exists yet, and male chauvinism irks me, but when I read the Harry Potter books I never thought gee this is a sexist book, why a male lead? why is Molly Weasley a stay-at-home mother?, why are the female characters in many ways stereotyped into set roles? this must be a product of our inherently sexist culture. I think sometimes people can take things a little too far.

There comes a time when a character has to follow set norms. Not all characters can be three dimensional all the time in every single way, they have to fulfill certain roles and objectives in order to allow the other characters to interact with them. Molly is one of these. She's a mother figure for a whole host of kids, most importantly, for Harry. Despite the fact Harry needs a mother figure in his life, WHEN honestly has she had the time to hold down a job or do anything else? She likes being a mother. And how do we know what exactly she does in the meantime when all we see is Harry's perspective? Molly may have a specific role we don't know about yet.

You said you didn't think people were reading your posts, Vigilance - are you reading other peoples? What I was saying was that sexism may be a message people see in the Novels, because reading is a very internal process. People may also be looking for sexism. If you read a novel with a certain mindset, naturally you are going to pick up on things pertaining to this. I don't think children are going to pick up on this, though. I don't remember any child saying "I just want to be a housewife just like Molly Weasley". In fact, most young females associate with and relate to Hermione Granger, a character who is extremely multi-faceted and coincidentally, a female. She is young, has a life full of opportunity, has various different traits. As for Lavender and Parvati being pretty little butterflies - this is just what Harry sees of them. There could be much more to them. There's only so much a writer can infuse in their work though. There's only so much a reader can inferr from a work as well.

And if you're worrying so much about whether a character is male or female, or a positive example of the male or female gender, maybe you're the one being sexist. :huh:

[Cat]

Of course she was actively engaged in making the more interesting. But not out of some overtly sensitive ideas of feminism. People blossom as they get older.

Alternatively, just because some people pipe up that J. K. Rowling is sexist, doesn't mean she is.

I'm not asking you to explain Bella. That's the point. She apparently has no depth as a woman, or as a character I should say, because we don't know the first thing about her. The same goes for the rest of them. We can't say they are deep, but we can't say the are shallow, either. You might as well whinge that the random person walking down the street doesn't have enough layers.

I think the women are complicated. At least as much so as the men. We don't explore their complexities in a psychological reference guide, but they are existent. The books are written in third person but they are essentially written from Harry's point of view. Harry doesn't look into the psyche of every teacher and every fellow student. He's a teenage boy, why should he? But if you care to really think about the characters as more than 'characters in a children's book' or 'goodies and baddies' you can see a lot of detail. There are some women who stay at home, and some women who are less than perfect - but there are women like that in reality, too. How can you say that there's nothing wrong with being a housewife, and then insist that Molly should have a paid job? You have a strange concept of dimensions. Dimensions of character aren't about conflicts between good and evil, they're not about having a big job and a big life. If people like Molly Weasley are one-dimensional, then so are many real women of the real world. I shall have to stand up and call myself one-dimensional, if that's what it takes to make me so. I'm not a house-wife, but I'm not a working girl either. I associate with many of the females in Harry Potter, so does that make me a stereotyped or backwards idea of what is female? Be careful what you say.

Hermione changes subtly from book to book. At first her goal was to be the best student Hogwarts ever had. She was going to study hard, work well and behave herself. When Ron made her realise she was unlikable, she cried. I suppose she discovered that she didn't want to be lke that after all. She responded by surprising the boys with a white lie to the teachers, thus saving their butts. After that, she lightened up. She realised that she can be studious and clever without being so cold and so strict. But her academical prowess and her good behaviour have helped the boys. If it wasn't for Hermione, they might have been in a lot more trouble.

In the second book, we find out what it means to be a Muggleborn. We also find out that she has crushes, like any other girl.

In the third book, her sensitive side is explored further. She also develops the beginnings of a political conscience when she helps Hagrid out with Buckbeak's case. We learn that even Hermione can't cope with everything, and she spends much of her third year in a state of great stress. It is also interesting, but subtle yet again, that Hermione's intellegence and magical skill can't protect her against the Dementors. Emotion reigns supreme over magic. We see her productive side again when she helps Harry rescue Sirius Black. This is the first time Hermione broke the law, by aiding the escape of a wanted criminal... in the first book, she barely dared to break school rules. In the Shrieking Shack, it seemed to me that Hermione was the first of the three to start to believe Sirius. A far cry from the snooty swot in the train on her first year, Hermione is becoming very compassionate. Oh, and she kicked Sirius during the struggle between him and Harry. How many thirteen year old girls would kick an adult convict who supposedly murdered thirteen people?

In the fourth book, her political correctness and desire to help people has taken over. But that aspect of her is still green. She wants to change the world in a day. She seemed quite infuriated when the house elves didn't suddenly liberate themselves at her rallying words. Hermione got her first boyfriend in this book and, a surprise to most of us, had an abundance of concealed feminine wiles. She was scornful with Ron, but clearly knew that he was jealous. She seemed to love that. It must have been nice to have a break from being 'one of the lads' at last. Jaws dropped when she turned up to the ball looking like some fairytale princess. But I think a lot of the female fans must have been pleased when she returned to her usual, bushy-haired self. I'm relieved that she doesn't think she has to look like Fleur to get attention.

In the fifth book, she was slightly more angry, but I think they all were. She was much more supportive of Ron than Harry was. Rather than getting upset at Harry's tempers, she spoke rationally to him. She was very grown up indeed. Her compassion apparently turned to psycho-analysis, though. It surprised me how she thought of Sirius. She sees further than some people sometimes, but she was't entirely sensitive about it. Still trying to change the world for elfkind...

Sorry about tha :lol:. Maybe I should have made a thread on Hermione. But this is the story of a girl in Harry Potter. It meanders, develops and thows in a few suprises along the way.

I could give you more examples if you like. What about Madame Maxime, who is ashamed of her origins, but later climbs mountains to meet with the giant race? Is she not a developing character? or Fleur Delacour, at first cold and icy, later shows her human emotion and become more friendly? No developement there?
***

Adding to my post again (like it isn't long enough)- Feminism is the belief in equality between men and women, and the belief that women should be able to achieve their goals without restraint from an male-created ideal of what women should be. The women in Harry Potter are equal to the men. There isn't a shred of evidence to say that they're not. The women can be magically powerful, acedemic achievers, strong-willed in personality and big in their line of work. Just like the men. Nothing makes 'wizard' better than 'witch'. Sexism is about discrimination based on gender, or about assigning a role or personality to one gender. The women in Harry Potter come in a multitude of personalities, each with a different role in the books. If J. K. Rowling was biased with gender, she would have made Harry a girl, just to save face. The characters are sexed according to what the author imagines, not according to what would be politically correct. This makes it equal. You don't need to add up the numbers to make them equal. Sometimes when you go into a room, you'll find more of one sex. But that's not what's important. The important thing is thta she isn't doling out women whenever she feels that the books aren't 'feminist' enough, and that makes the books and the characters much more natural.

Instead of questioning whether other fans know what sexism and feminism is about, why don't you question yourself? I'm not saying that to flame you, I' saying it in a spirit of genuine advice. Other fans don't think there's anything wrong with the female characters, but you do. Does that make everybody else sexist or does it, just perhaps, make you sexist? Think about it. Really.

[Vigilance]

That's interesting...In what way am I saying that male characters shouldn't be three dimensional? How have I stereotyped the male characters in HP? How have I been prejudiced or discriminated against them??

I've discussed postive and negative characters, and I've pointed out that whether they are friends or foes, the female characters are incapable of having family and career a la Arthur Weasley. I think Arthur's great, works at a job he really cares about, comes home and makes an excellent father. This isn't a sexist attitude.

I've also conspicuously never mentioned a problem with a male lead. I write as a hobbie and more than half of my leading characters are male, so I don't know where this point is going either.

I do read other people's posts--but what I've perceived as responses to my posts (I'm told erroneously) don't really address what issues I'm trying to get us to talk about. :(

When I read HP for the first time, two things struck me. 1. Large people are not portrayed as very nice people or very intelligent people unless they happen to be mothers as well--maybe being fat is justified under those circumstances?--and 2., these mothers send their children to boarding school, their men to work in the public sphere, and somehow seem content doing domestic work without being paid for it. Then CoS happened. Molly really has plenty of time for 9 to 10 months out of the year--her children don't even return home for the holidays in most of the books. Undoubtedly, being in the order and relocating to Sirius's dreadful house has kept her busy with domestic work, but before OotP, it wouldn't have been surprising to learn that she had another job, maybe even one she could do from home such as piece-work or writing. We must assume that this hasn't been the case. But why? Is she being a busy mother, looking after her flock from miles and miles away? Do the Hogwarts house-elves send her her children's dirty laundry to do? Presumably, she only has Arthur to take care of most of the year. Wouldn't it be great if she actually worked part time at Witch's Weekly or even the MoM with Arthur? Why does she have to be useful only in the private sphere? Since CoS, she's probably been bored to tears, expelling gnomes from the garden and knitting jumpers.

Hermione solved the puzzle in CoS but got relatively little acclaim--and actually she became a victim like Ginny, who needed to be rescued at the end. I started thinking more about the way women and girls were portrayed. I became slightly dissatisfied with what I saw. I didn't try hard to read sexist "messages" into the books, or anything so extreme. I don't think JKR means to imply what her choices have implied on her behalf.

I'm willing to be convinced that Hermione is multi-faceted, that she changes and learns from mistakes, so long as someone will explain when and where, what she learns and how she applies it. But I've already posed that Hermione and Ginny will be round characters eventually (E.M. Forster described characters as either round or flat--they grew, learned, and changed, or they...didn't, helped out with furthering the plot or provided motivations for other characters).

When Harry perceives something, and its a skewed perception, JKR will often give us hints. I can't think of any hints she might have given that the butterflies, Trelawney, Tonks, and a host of others, are any more than what they seem. Crouch Junior did a number of suspicious things that implied he was more than he seemed, for example. Severus has consistently backed up DD, even when he obviously disagreed with him. Trelawney has never hinted at a practical or sensible streak. Sure, I might be surprised by them in the end. Maybe Harry will suddenly see them "as they truly are," but even when he's deceived, we aren't as easily deceived as he is. Think about his confusion over Cho Chang. Part of what makes those scenes so charming is that we all know what's really going on--much more than Harry does.

Anyway, I'm happy to entertain and discuss the novels in particular--if you folks will notice, I constantly refer to specific issues. When I get reponses like "any one with an agenda would read things (that weren't there) into these books," I get the impression that I might as well not bother posting here. If no one wants to talk about the thread topic, why do they keep posting?

Edit:
Cat--Again, I find nothing wrong with the fact that Molly has no job outside of being a housewife. I object that no woman seems to have both family and career. It would have been easy enough for JKR to have written that in for either Molly or Petunia, Minerva or Trelawney. Or even Tonks. She's ginven us either / or when it doesn't have to be that way. Your caution to be careful is, I assure you, unnecessary. I want to be given more scope and more opportunities to the women we actually meet and care about. It would be nice if Molly was offered a job or directorship, or we heard about her previous job as Minister of Magic or something. As it is, the opportunities for women we actually meet on a book to book basis are fairly limited, It seems they must make the either/ or choice of a career or a family. It's possible for women to have both, to want both, it would be nice to see this reality expressed somewhere; for example, we could meet Hermione's mother in Diagon Alley. More to the point, I would like to understand JKR's choices about her characters, but I don't fully. I get the impression, from her books, that she has concluded that mothers don't want to work. That is my hang-up. Also, working is a necessity for many mothers, and we don't even see that: its like she doesn't even want to deal with it. I'm not saying she must, but it seems like avoidance. As far as identifying with characters, I relate strongly to Minerva as a single woman and a teacher! I like her brusque attitude with her students and that she's usually the person who makes the most sense of things. I'm not suggesting that Minerva, who obviously has already been determined in certain ways, should go off looking for love and whatnot. I'm disappointed that we don't see a woman who must juggle home and family as JKR herself has had to do. What could have been a realistic portion of the book has, instead, become fantasy. Few women can make the choice to stay at home (rather than have that choice made for them) and be as poor as the Weasleys. My own mother would have been floored with guilt if she didn't work and her children had to wear other people's moldy cast-offs. Again, I don't hold this against Molly, but I would like to understand her better.

I suspected you could define feminism and sexism, but most of JKR's fans are children! :elaugh: That's what I meant. I didn't intend to question your own knowledge. Please, don't question mine. I don't understand how you can think my expressions are sexist...maybe you could explain it to me? When I taught HP in my lit class, the class was divided on the issue. I didn't call either side sexist for their concerns. No men saw the Mother as end in itself theme a problem, many women thought it was a nice dream to be a stay at home mom who didn't have stay at home children. Other women thought that was an unrealistic aspect of the books, while still others wished that Hermione wasn't such a priss, got more credit for her help and saved the day like they knew she could if she tried! :D

As I've been adding to this post, you have already jumped the gun, assumed I haven't read your post, etc. I'm sorry, but I'm on a dial-up, and I often get disconnected and must start over. Are you always so hostile to others? I was writing this first portion primarily to Loz, not you. I've said the women are strong, lovable, etc. Never have I said they were weak, purposeless or bland, BTW. That's what you are hearing.

Don't worry, I won't post here again!

[Cat]

I'm willing to be convinced that Hermione is multi-faceted, that she changes and learns from mistakes, so long as someone will explain when and where, what she learns and how she applies it.

I think Loz might have been right. You don't read posts, do you? I just provided a sodding enormous account of the developments of Hermione!

It's not worth debating when your counter-arguments are completely disregarded. In fact, it's bloody irritating. So this will be my last post until the wind changes here - but let me just finish off by reminding you, [b]vigilance/b] that you are the one portraying the women in a terrible light, you are the one suggesting they are bland, weak and purposeless. Not us, not Harry, not J. K. Rowling. You. I didn't say that you were sexist against men. I'm saying you're sexist aainst women. There are many ways to be sexist. You've admitted that it doesn't take a job to make a person. So why is Mrs Weasley unequal to Mr Weasley? Why? Perhaps you really are expecting them to be better. Please try to consider what feminism, sexism and, above all, womanhood actually are. What they really are, I mean, not the idealized versions or the PC versions people think books and television should be wrought with. In reality, there are people like Tonks, people like Bella, people like Mrs Weasley or Petunia Dursley. I think we all knew people like Lavender and Parvati at school. If women are equal to men, why should they be portrayed any better?

[sawyer]

I didn't say that you were sexist against men. I'm saying you're sexist aainst women. There are many ways to be sexist. You've admitted that it doesn't take a job to make a person. So why is Mrs Weasley unequal to Mr Weasley? Why? Perhaps you really are expecting them to be better. Please try to consider what feminism, sexism and, above all, womanhood actually are. What they really are, I mean, not the idealized versions or the PC versions people think books and television should be wrought with. In reality, there are people like Tonks, people like Bella, people like Mrs Weasley or Petunia Dursley. I think we all knew people like Lavender and Parvati at school. If women are equal to men, why should they be portrayed any better?
In another post on this thread I've said that men play the best rules in the books just because also in the real world men are favoured. I still believe it. What I don't like of JK writing style is to describe men characters with a more complex personality than women. For example: Prof. McGonagall (my favourite character) has only a few note about her personality, while Snape characteristics are very well described.

[Dedalus]

In another post on this thread I've said that men play the best rules in the books just because also in the real world men are favoured. I still believe it. What I don't like of JK writing style is to describe men characters with a more complex personality than women. For example: Prof. McGonagall (my favourite character) has only a few note about her personality, while Snape characteristics are very well described.
That's not because he's a man, though, surely that's because he's a more major character than McGonagall ... ? :huh:

I think that what you say would only be the case if every male character cropped up as much as Snape, which they don't, or were as complicated as he is. A lot of the male characters have very few notes about their personalities too, often less than McGonagall does! In fact, I think Snape might be the most mentioned adult in the books, so few characters are going to compare with the descriptions he gets given.

[Furienna]

For example: Prof. McGonagall (my favourite character) has only a few note about her personality, while Snape characteristics are very well described.

Well, Harry doesn't as much trouble with McGonagall as with Snape.

[Furienna]

I can't see that the female characters are less dimesional than the male. I don't see it at all. And I personally would hate to see Molly getting a job, really, since it would only imply how wrong it is to be a housewife. OK, maybe it wouldn't, but it would feel like so. Interesting as it might be to see more of Hermione's mother, as much as it would be to see more of her father and possible siblings, they might not have a part in the plot and therefor, more information of them is irrelevant and unimportant. Why then JKR chose to show more of stay at home mothers Molly and Petunia than of Hermione's career mother (assuming she is still working as a dentist at this point in the books and didn't just do it before she got kids or something), I don't know, but maybe she prefers stay at home mothers to career mothers (and by career, I here mean any job that is outside the home). My mother has been a housewife/stay at home mother since she and my father got married back in 1969, and I would really have hated to have a career mother, especially after I became more and more anti all this women's liberation going around in the world today about three years ago, but I understood that that was how I liked it allready when I was 7-8 years old, and I pitied all these children around me with both parents having careers.

Since I started this thread back in November though, I have understood there are two kinds of feminists.

Similarity feminists, who think all differences between men and women are **** and should be worked against
Difference feminists, who want everybody to have the same respect, but still believe that there are differences between the sexes, who can not and/or should not be resisted or worked against.

I'm definately not a similarity feminist, but I am a difference feminist.

[Vequihellin]

This kind of analysis in general REALLY annoys me. Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not at all anti-feminist, but I feel that people making an issue of things because they see some kind of slight on them for their gender is like racism - Its all in the perception. Yes, there are chauvenists and sexists and feminists and anti-semitists and anti-muslims etc etc etc and everyone is allowed their views, it's what makes us who we are, but what REALLY gets me more than anything else, is that a wonderfully written CHILDRENS book is being analysed to death over whether it portrays bias towards a particular sex? Why not look at the number of Black or African/Caribbean characters? There is one Auror and ?Dean Thomas and Jorden to my knowledge that have been specified as black. The Patil twins and Cho Chang appear to be the only main references to Asian cultures. Europe is represented by the French Beauxbaton Students and the Bulgarian Durmstrang students. Where is the representation of other ethnic minorites? Where are the representitives of the religious diversity in this country - The reason? JKR has COMPLETELY, and I mean not a single reference, ignored religion because many consider witchcraft to be sinful and hence to put religion in the books is inviting crtisism. Even the Dursleys don't go to church/Place of worship. Even the manner of characters' funerals has been avoided because different cultures dispose of their dead in different ways.
Thus, in the same way as religion is underplayed, I think that Sexism, racisim and femisnism are not issues addressed by the books because again, they are written for children, primarily as entertainment. What is so **** entertaining about reading a book that has had to be carefully edited so as not to offend people. No fun at all. I HATE political correctness with a PASSION!

Slavery has been addressed because it is a basic human right, but notice how it has been addressed using creatures that do not really exist - it is to simplify it rather than highlight it.

On the same line, I feel that the representation of social classes is somewhat biased however, in that Middle class Muggles are considered to be snobbish and self-obcessed *cough*Privet Drive*cough*, The Wizarding eqvt. of the Aristocracy is shown to be largely petty, Voldemort supporting and evil whereas the poorer and working classes are shown to be the allround good guys. Yes, true we KNOW that there are some Wizarding Aristocracy that are not bad but where do we actually SEE them?

Anyway, If you look at the books you see a lot of strong female characters, Mrs Potter is probably the most important in that it was HER love for Harry that saved his life, not his Fathers (although the fact that James loved his family was never in doubt). In the pensive in OotP we see Lily as a strong, forthright person that was admired and respected by everyone (except Snape....or maybe not....) Molly Weasley is a capable member of the Order and the fact that she has been shown to have made a choice to have lots of children and stay at home to care for them is far from a negative, sexist view, it is encouraging and fostering a good motherhood and family image. Its hardly like Men can give birth is it really? Petunia Dursley is a stay at home mother too, she is PROUD to have a beautiful home, and host dinner parties. At the same time we have a character like Tonks who shuns everything like that showing us the flip-side of the coin. So where is the sexist issue here? The answer? There isn't one. What is so wrong with promoting a positive image of motherhood? Or are all stay-at-home mothers automatically downtrodden and repressed by chauvenist men because they have made that choice. I'm sorry, but sticking up for feminine rights is one thing but just because a woman chooses a traditional childcare role within the family doesn't automatically make her a fool. I LOATHE female activists that portray that. I grew up with my mother having stayed at home to raise my sister and I and I have to say I had a great childhood, we used to come home from school and there would be a casserole in the oven. Mum used to do the shopping during the week so we used to do family things at the weekend like going to the beach, going for a walk on the common after church on a sunday whilst the sunday roast was slow-cooking in the oven. I never saw my mother as downtrodden and repressed! Ha! What a ridiculous idea! My mother was what made our family work! My dad used to come home from work and have a bath or shower whilst we watched TV, then we had dinner and my sister and I washed up (under supervision obviously). The house was always tidy, there were always things to eat, things to do, we always did something fun at the weekend because Mum and Dad had the TIME to do it with us. Mum always had the time to take us to places in the holidays, she was always there for us when we were ill. Now don't get me wrong, I have nothing against working parents, they can provide well for their families, what I am pointing out is that a housewife is not by any stretch of the imagination a WEAK character.

How is McGonagall a weak character? Sure, she's not the headmistress but she is head of Gryffindor house and a formidable woman. Poppy Pomfrey is a nurse. A tradition, and old school-style school nurse! Medicine is a demanding profession! How is that sexist? Look at Madam Hooch then - Games mistress, robust, fit, healthy - I don't notice any reference to her being the deputy of some 'Strong' male drill sargent type? And to balance this we have the Trelawneys and Umbridges. I don't think the books display any sort of sexism at all. I just think that people somewhere with nothing better to do are looking at a childs book and complaining because it doesn't conform to what THEY consider to be acceptable.

Let me look at Hermione for a moment. At what point has she ever been demonstrated as a sexual bias? Not all women are good at sports, neither are all men. Hermione is, however, very clever. Ron is never portrayed as being particularly clever but he is good at in a strategic role such as chess. This doesn't portray a bias against men, it simply puts a set of important characteristics onto a character model. Harry Potter. The savior of wizard kind. He has two best friends. One is very clever and always in the know, the other is loyal and shrewd but not particularly clever. It just so happens that A boy needs a male best friend as much as he needs a female one and I have a feeling that Ron being male with his particular talents will become more apparent later in the series as opposed to Hermione who generall operates in the background and is a fount of knowledge. Her femininity is merely extraneous. Although I imagine that portrayal of complicated TEENAGE relationship issues might have a lot to do with it.

I can see no evidence of any kind of sexual bias at all in the books. I think, in the end it boils down to perception. How you perceive a character is largely responsible for your perception of themes within the book and if you yourself are possessed of a fervent or impassioned opinion on a particular subject, then it clouds the judgement of what is otherwise a perfectly innocent and entertaining book.

You also have to bear in mind that the books are essentially written from the point of view of a teenage boy - their views of the world in general are somewhat bias and their view of women in particular can be somewhat obscured by hormones! We also have to recall that Harry is an orphan he has never known the love of a mother :upset: I think it would have been AWFUL not to put Molly Weasley in because, as has been shown time and again, she is fast becoming a mother substitute to Harry. :love:
Veq.

p.s. I am not slating anyone for having the opinions they do, because as I said before, Its what makes the world go round. (Well actually Gravity is what makes the world go round but you know what I mean)! :D

[ginnybatbogeysyou]

I had never thought of HP as sexist before I saw this thread. Now I've read all these posts I've come to the conclusion that the HP-books aren't sexist.
To me something is sexist when it clearly puts one gender above the other. I don't see that in HP, so for me, they are not sexist.

[sawyer]

I've read your posts, Dedalus and Furienna, and now my opinion is less firm. But you would agree that too many stereotypes are used in order to describe secondary characters, especially when they are women (for example Parvati and Cho).

[Alastor D]

Once again. Those people are seen through Harry's eyes. I'm afraid most teenagers, perhaps most grown-ups too, see those they don't know well a bit stereotypically. Are Crabbe and Goyle at any rate less stereotypic than Parvati and Cho?
And a good reason for McGonagall not to be elaborated as much as Snape is simply that she is the kind of character who doesn't give away very much of herself. While Snape frequently lets his feelings take over.

[Loz]

I think this thread is getting a little heated considering we're all Harry Potter fans, :lol:, and I know I was one of the main participants.

Vigilance - I think we're at cross purposes with each other so I'm going to have to say we must agree to disagree. I didn't see your post as being directly relating to mine, but then again I don't think you fully understood what I was suggesting.

I do want to say that I never said you were reading something that wasn't there. I was saying that there are many different unconscious and deliberately placed themes and motifs that you might pick up on that other people wouldn't, that our culture could have affected JKRs description of the world and so therefore you are seeing inherent sexism that is borne in our world and emulated in JKR's whilst other people aren't. I don't think JKR is writing sexist texts, but sexism might still exist in the books.

I think there have been some very nice posts in here, and some not so nice ones. I do think we've covered the topic pretty well. One thing we have to keep in mind is that we're all fans of Harry Potter (if you're not, what are you doing here?) and we're all only giving our opinions.

Thanks.

[sawyer]

Once again. Those people are seen through Harry's eyes. I'm afraid most teenagers, perhaps most grown-ups too, see those they don't know well a bit stereotypically. Are Crabbe and Goyle at any rate less stereotypic than Parvati and Cho?
It's a good point, then I agree with you. :agree:
So are you suggesting while Harry grows up the stereotypes are going to disappear?

[Furienna]

Vequihellin: I started this thread not because I had seen some sexism or even too much feminism in the books, but since other people had thought so. Yes, there could be a thread about ethnical groups in HP too, but since the books takes place in UK, most people will be and are suppossed to be brittish. By the way, I believe Angelina Johnsson is black too.

Sawyer: And you don't feel secondary character males are as stereotyped as secondary character females? And anyhow, stereotypes and prejudices etc don't just come out of thin air. Many girls are a certain way and many boys are a certain way.

[sawyer]

Sawyer: And you don't feel secondary character males are as stereotyped as secondary character females? And anyhow, stereotypes and prejudices etc don't just come out of thin air. Many girls are a certain way and many boys are a certain way.
In my opinion stereotypes are not like legends: many legends may have some undercovered truth, I don't think it's the same for stereotypes. Think about many stupid stereotypes about Scottish people to be miser.
So I think often stereotypes come out of thin air.
P.s. why did you repeat it three times? I would have read it also if you wrote it one time. ;) :D

[Furienna]

In my opinion stereotypes are not like legends: many legends may have some undercovered truth, I don't think it's the same for stereotypes. Think about many stupid stereotypes about Scottish people to be miser.
So I think often stereotypes come out of thin air.
P.s. why did you repeat it three times? I would have read it also if you wrote it one time. ;) :D

I believe stereotypes is a little like legends.

And whoooooooooooops, I will delete two of those posts. :blush:

[Vequihellin]

By the way, I believe Angelina Johnsson is black too.
So she is. My oversight. I don't think racism is really an issue, I was just using it to highlight one of the many possible problems that COULD be highlighted.

It also has to be remembered that if JKR made EVERY character deep and meaningful and anti-stereotype then the books would go on FOREVER! We read Harry Potter because HP is the Savior of the world andwe wnat to know what is happening next. Crabbe and Goyle ARE stereotypes - the thuggish, cronyish, dim-witted bully types because that is EXACTLY what they are supposed to be. Consider for a moment these books from the point of view of children - Kids have a lot of issues (which, if 'Newsround' is anything to go by are sometimes expressed rather pretentiously) but Bullying is a MAJOR concern to kids. The more I see it the more I am convinced that Bullys fall into Stereotypes too. Malfoy is the 'Big-I-am' all mouth and no trousers. He needs his thugs to do the dirty work but on his own he is weak. This is a typical bully characteristic and I think that JKR uses them to show kids what bullys are really like - this is a GOOD thing.

Going back to the point about weak secondary female characters - we are seeing the books from Harrys point of view and his perception of world is largely affected by Hermione and Ron. Parvati and Lavender are somewhat weak but only because Harry doesn't consider them in his 'close' circle of friends. In every class at school there are the 'Bimbos' the giggly girls who wear make-up before everyone else, who always seem to be the most fashion consious and are often fairly Bi*chy. Kids identify with these stereotypes becuase that is how THEY view their classmates. The fact that the quiet geek in the corner who never says a word to anyone is actually suffering horrific abuse at the hands of a relative is never even CONSIDERED by children, that girl is just stereotyped by them into 'Geek' and automatically austracised. That is way it is. Because learning that everyone is individual and that stereotypes never really fit and that everyone has to be taken on their own merit generally does not occur until college or University age. I know that when I was at Primary and Secondary school (being Bullied mercilessly I might add) people fell into specific groups and hardly ever did the gorups merge or interact. The townies were their own little clique, the Grunge/Goths kept to themselves, there were the Arty lot, the clever lot, the rich lot, and the 'We're to thick to be bothered' group And strangely enough, they hung out in different form rooms and anyone who didn't belong (Like me) wasn't welcome in any of them! Secondary school IS stereotypic and I feel that this warped perception of the world is cleverly recreated by JKR.

By the time you reach college and University 'friendship groups' have begun to break down and everybody is taken on their own merit. On leadership days, people are chosen for their skills not for who they are friends with. Now I'm at University I get chosen for my own merits and abilities, whereas at school, I would be left to be allocated to a group that didn't really want me by the teacher.

Oops, I think I am sliding rapidly off topic here.....

The point is that Stereotyping of the characters in HP is a very realistic representation of how Secondary school age children see and experience the world.

Veq.

[Cat]

Sorry for coming back here, I hadn't intended to.

I just want to say that since so few people believe Harry Potter is sexist/racist/homophobic/prejudiced against fat people/prejudiced against thin people/prejudiced against people with three eyes, then the matter is debatable. And, if the majority insists that the prejudice is non-existent, it can't really be all that prejudiced, can it? Even if the majority of all the people in the world is prejudiced against everything (or at least that's what people keep telling us), most people have political correctness drummed into their heads and I think 8 out of 10 people can observe genuine prejudice from a mile away.

I can't understand what people want. It's a far cry from children's books from the early 1900s. I look at Harry Potter and I see modern equality. You might as well call for a black Hobbit or a tall Oompa Loompa (prejudiced against short people, perhaps?). People seem to have a fervent drive towards anti-prejudice and, instead of using it to try and abolish things that many people will define as prejudice, they look for prejudice everywhere. What else would you expect to find, if you go through something with a fine tooth comb and an idea in mind? I could probably find something prejudiced on my computer desk if I looked hard enough, but does that really mean that whatever I find is really prejudiced, or does it mean that I'm expanding the definition of prejudice in order to find something?

I think the simple fact that many of the people who deny sexism in Harry Potter are girls says a lot.

[Spirit]

Yeah, I think that Harry Potter is as much Sexest as it is encouraging kids to do Wicca. :rolleyes: I hate judgement a lot, and I can always pick up on it and I'll be fuming on it for hours later, and I have never had that happen in the Harry Potter books. The worst thing was that Harry and Ron couldn't go up to the girls' dorm, but that was said to have been based on a decision that was made by 4 people 1,000 years ago.

[Alastor D]

It's a good point, then I agree with you. :agree:
So are you suggesting while Harry grows up the stereotypes are going to disappear?

Not really. I think it would depend on wether developing their characters a bit more is needed for the plot or not.

[VelvetSkies]

Is it sexist? Yes, in ways. Lot's of important people (Harry, Ron/Harry's BEST AND CLOSEST friend, Dumbledore, Fudge, etc) are male. Hermione's great, but she is so smart and rule-following. They need a girl like Harry. Or even better, one who isn't afraid to kick .:expletive:.

[DrummerboyDT]

Is it sexist? Yes, in ways. Lot's of important people (Harry, Ron/Harry's BEST AND CLOSEST friend, Dumbledore, Fudge, etc) are male. Hermione's great, but she is so smart and rule-following. They need a girl like Harry. Or even better, one who isn't afraid to kick .:expletive:.

I think Hermione is one of the strongest characters of the series and she does kick. She seems to have her head on straight, but yet she isn't boring either. It seems like she is most fearless of than the other two. Ron seems the weekest and Harry has now begun to show his confidence. I think it's a great balance. J.K. Rowling is a woman, yet she has more males as the characters. That isn't being sexist. It really does seem like she has lived the life of Harry. It's very hard to tell what the opposite gender is feeling during their teenage years, yet I can relate to Harry. Hermione makes a great friend for Harry. Mrs. Weasley is very caring and concerned, Professor McGonnagal is very geared towards her students and tries to protect them from knowing harm. Nor do I think the book is feminist. Dumbledore, is very wise and is full of trust, Hagrid is very encouraging and humble. Snape is very strict and sarcastic, but he is very interesting of a character. I think there is such a great mix that I don't think about these issues.

[Furienna]

And I don't think you are supossed to either. That's not what the books are about (though people who wants to find things also find them everywhere).

[UselessCharmMaster]

I read all the thread and I must say I agree with Vigilance in many points.

The female characters are less interesting, and it isn't only because the book is written from Harry's point of view. Look at Fleur at the Triwizard - the only girl, and always the worst, at all the tasks. And she's such a stereotyped "pretty French girl"! Could she not be pretty and nice from the beginning, or pretty and able to win or finish as second at least one task? She's supposed to be the best of Beauxbatons students! It is not Harry's point of view, but the author's - OK, maybe JKR doesn't like French girls. :eyebrows: Still, I didn't like the way Fleur was treated. (Well, I didn't like all the book 4, for more reasons :rasp: )

[rotsiepots]

The only way in which I could interpret HP as being sexist is through the application of the term "wizard" to encompass both male and female (eg "wizarding world" etc).

It's only a minor gripe, which I get around by using the term "magical world". I'm not really overly fussed, though.

[Dedalus]

I read all the thread and I must say I agree with Vigilance in many points.

The female characters are less interesting, and it isn't only because the book is written from Harry's point of view. Look at Fleur at the Triwizard - the only girl, and always the worst, at all the tasks. And she's such a stereotyped "pretty French girl"! Could she not be pretty and nice from the beginning, or pretty and able to win or finish as second at least one task? She's supposed to be the best of Beauxbatons students! It is not Harry's point of view, but the author's - OK, maybe JKR doesn't like French girls. :eyebrows: Still, I didn't like the way Fleur was treated. (Well, I didn't like all the book 4, for more reasons :rasp: )
There's four champions and three Tasks. Not everyone can finish first. But Fleur wasn't the worst at all of them! She got the least marks for the second task, but that was a great moment because it showed that, to her, some things are more important than winning and she showed great modesty too - something you didn't expect of the beautiful talented Fleur! But this is a good thing, if she'd won all the time then you'd just get a worse impression of her.

Secondly, she was nice all the way through. She just was cold to Harry to start with. Nice doesn't mean "nice to Harry". The prejudice people had towards her was their own doing, not hers. Readers don't expect her to be quite a nice person once you get to know her, because of her outward coldness.

Thirdly, if she was beautiful, exceedingly talented to the point of winning all the time, and sweetly nice then I'd think less of her as a character. She'd just be the author's version of a fanfiction's "Mary-Sue". I think characters like that are less interesting than realistically flawed ones.

[Furienna]

The female characters are less interesting, and it isn't only because the book is written from Harry's point of view.
What do you mean the female characters are less interesting? They are just as developed as the male ones. Hermione, McGongagall, Mrs Weasley, Ginny and Luna are all examples of interesting female characters. Even evil females, like Petunia, Umbridge and Bellatrix, can be considered interesting in their own rights.

Look at Fleur at the Triwizard - the only girl, and always the worst, at all the tasks. And she's such a stereotyped "pretty French girl"! Could she not be pretty and nice from the beginning, or pretty and able to win or finish as second at least one task? She's supposed to be the best of Beauxbatons students! It is not Harry's point of view, but the author's - OK, maybe JKR doesn't like French girls. :eyebrows: Still, I didn't like the way Fleur was treated. (Well, I didn't like all the book 4, for more reasons :rasp: )
I have never thought that Fleur getting the least points meant that she was bad because she was a girl. It rather meant that Beauxbatons was a "worse" school than Hogwarts and Durmstrang than anything else. And if JKR meant that girls would be worse just because they were girls, she would have chosen a Ravenclaw boy into the tournament instead of Fleur.

[Bouncing_Ferret]

Eugh, lucky my mum isn't on this forum, she goes on hour long feminist rants about Harry Potter. :) I personally don't think it is sexist... True, it would be nice to see some female characters in more powerful roles, but that's not the way it turned out, obviously! :)

It has always seemed to me that witches have just as many opportunities as wizards in the magical world. Certainly, neither the current Hogwarts headmaster nor the MoM is female, but that doesn't mean that it doesn't happen, does it? Obviously there have been Hogwarts headmistresses in the past, as demonstrated by the portraits in Dumbledore's office. Also, witches seem to have had a far larger degree of equality for a far longer time when compared to muggle women - weren't two of the founding 'fathers' of Hogwarts female?

I very much like the fact that Quidditch teams have both boys and girls on them - I can't imagine Chelsea FC signing women players anytime soon! (Though they might get David Beckham, which is quite close... ;) )

[Furienna]

Is David Beckham a woman then?

Oh, I just had to add two things

I don't know if I like girls being on the quidditch teams, but hey, whatever... You don't need as much body strength to play quidditch as you need to play football or so, I guess...
Poor you having a mum like that... :shrug:

[Alci]

Is David Beckham a woman then?
Hehe, I suspect some people would say he dresses like one!

I thought the Quidditch was handled reasonably well in the early books in terms of the female characters just being part of the team and simply not mentioning anything more. It made it seem self-evident rather than foisted on the reader as part of a conscious feminist agenda.

I thought tbh some of this good work was hurt with the super-Ginny of OoTP. Her sudden rise and the Griffindor win felt unrealistic. However one can't have everything in life.

Reading back this thread I'm conscious of thinking that HP is fast approaching the old joke about interpreting the bible, that what you get from and see in the book is a reflection of your own prejudices and beliefs.

The only way in which I could interpret HP as being sexist is through the application of the term "wizard" to encompass both male and female (eg "wizarding world" etc).There is not of course a neutral collective term for magical people so we have to fall back to something.[Wizarding World is akin to Mankind in this sense] Using the masculine term is as much of a problem as one makes of it. The last 3 of my parish 'chairman' have been women, none wished to be addressed as 'chair' or 'chairwoman' or 'chairperson'.

[LilFlirtyBaby08]

I never really thought about it before :huh: ... I don't really think HP is sexist or anything but after thinking about it for a while u never know

[Dedalus]

To be honest, I think people who accuse J.K. Rowling of being sexist are just revealing their or discriminations, because they're seeing what they expect to see.

There's several points that crop up when accusing J.K. Rowling of being sexist - all of which say more negatively about feminism than it does about the supposed sexism!

For instance, there's ...

1) People who believe that every male character should have a female counterpart (ie, people who complain because Dumbledore is a bloke and think there should be a 'female Dumbledore'). But this, I think, is more sexist because you're not allowing female characters to exist. You're just wanting male characters to be token females. And you're also creating characters while constantly thinking about equality, without thinking about it in terms of the story, which isn't really fair to the female characters.

2) People who say all female characters aren't as developed as the male ones. Again, this is just showing that they're wearing a pair of sexism goggles themselves, because they're the only ones seeing these characters that way! Every character is highly developed, and there are no exceptions, it's just that there are a few more men than women, because Harry, as a boy, is more inclined to befriend boys himself.

3) People who want all the female characters to be embodiments of perfection, all portraying the ideals of feminism. Like those who say that Mrs Weasley shouldn't be a housewife (why not? If one of the Weasleys has to stay at homr, it may as well be her as Mr. Weasley), and that if any woman has a flaw then they're not a good character, despite the fact that perfect characters are exceedingly dull (and despite the fact that not of the male characters are like this!). If any woman isn't top of her job, brave, strong, and practically perfect in every way (heh), then, apparently, it's sexism. This is probably the accusation that winds me up the most!

There's probably more, and I don't think I've ever seen eye to eye with any of them. I think people are placing entirely unreasonable demands which, ultimately, ruin the characters rather than better them and would make a joke of the books. If there's no reason why you can't have a male character like that, then you shouldn't avoid it with women just to please the more extreme types of feminists. You shouldn't have to feel like you're treading on eggshells when writing a woman character.

I think some people also forget that J.K. Rowling is woman, and a very strong one, who's made remarkable achievements in herself and in literature and is a very very powerful person. I think she's also shown great skill in writing very aptly about a young boy, something that few people are able to do (I've read lots of books where the author can't write a character of the opposite gender to themselves).

[Furienna]

McCormick: This is a question from Bridget from Toronto, and she's 12. Bridget's wondering, "Why did you create a magical society where men and women play such traditional roles? It seems most of the women Wizards pitter and patter around the house while the men do all the dark work."
Rowling: [laughs] 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. Do Witches patter around the house? No. Mrs. Weasely stays at home, but if you think it's easy raising seven children, including Fred and George Weasely, then I pity… [laughs] Women who've had seven children will not see that as a soft option.

From an interview on October 23rd 2000.

Wasn't this relevant to this thread?

[Cat]

This title makes me laugh. 'Sexist', 'feminist' or 'somewhere in between'? How's about 'neither' :lol:.

It's not setting out with feminist intentions and the people who call it 'sexist' are really straining. It's neither one nor the other.

Yes, there are lots of powerful women in the books. If the 'Harry Potter is sexist' people can't appreciate these female characters then perhaps they're being sexist themselves. Only two women 'pitter and patter around the house' of all the female characters we know of (although Molly probably hasn't had time to pitter or patter in her entire life) and it would be absurd to pretend that there's no such thing as women who stay at home. There are still far more women staying at home than men, I'm sure.

People are asking her to write feminist novels and, if she doesn't, they're calling her sexist. You don't have to be one or the other.

[Mrs Padfoot]

It's not setting out with feminist intentions and the people who call it 'sexist' are really straining. It's neither one nor the other.

I agree. I think people are reading too much into these books. I'm sure that JK Rowling wasn't thinking of either those two words when she wrote the books. None of it is intentional, it's just what some people choose to read into them.

Even if there are more males than females in major roles, that doesn't mean that JKR is being sexist. Those are just the characters she has chosen. I think that the books are more to do with characters than issues.

[Cat]

Even if there are more males than females in major roles, that doesn't mean that JKR is being sexist. Those are just the characters she has chosen. I think that the books are more to do with characters than issues.

I agree with you entirely. I would definitely prefer her to write what occurs in her thought processes and expand on the story and characters naturally. If she imagines somebody to be a man, then a man he should be. If she forced him to be a woman, he would just be a man in drag. You can smell contrivance a mile off.

Take Fudge, for example. A female can make a perfectly efficient political figure. But the problem is that Fudge isn't an efficient political figure. He's bumbling and, though it seems rude to say it, a male character can represent that sort of role more easily. I'm speaking about caricature characters here, so don't be offended, please, fellas. The stereotypical female polititian is quite different. Fudge's character can be narrowed down to his bowler hat and, to put it simply, women don't wear bowler hats.

On the other hand, it would be hard to imagine a man being Umbridge.

Dumbledore is a man because women tend not to grow long and venerable beards. Dumbledore is of the 'wise old sage' stock, and that probably made him male before he was even fully explored.

'Sexism' is a huge buzz word. Yes, some older childen's books tend to be very amusingly sexist (and racist and anything else you can stick a 'ist' on the end of). People want J. K. Rowling to be sexist. It sounds ridiculous but I'm sure that it's true. As part of the evolution process, humanity has been given great fingers to point at people with.

[Drusilla]

I'm not an academic,so maybe I'm not qualified to analyze this,but I don't understand why a woman has got to have a job,husband and baby and be Supermom and top of her field to get any respect in this world.Just because there aren't any working mothers in the story who are integral to its development,just because we don't have a "beautiful,math-geek,great-at-fixing-cars" type of girl in the story,we assume it's sexist.It isn't enough for a woman to be competent at her job,(and motherhood,when voluntary,IS a full-time job),she has to be super-competent at a dozen jobs or she's deficient.If women really were regarded as unequal to men in the HPverse,then why do we have the existence of several women who are top Quidditch players,senior Ministry of Magic employees,successful businesswomen and musicians,Aurors,teachers and,let's not forget,top students?A girl is the captain of the best Quidditch team in Hogwarts and does quite well by all accounts (considering that she lost nearly half of that fabled team to a ban),a girl is the top student in Harry's year, and the last (or one of the last,anyway) person from Hogwarts to qualify as an Auror is-you guessed it-female.Harry is a teenage boy-it would be really strange if the story suddenly started expounding the virtues of each and every female to cross his path in the interests of political correctness.So we don't see Hermione's dentist mother too often.Do we need to?Maybe Harry Potter is the story of a young boy,but women-and girls-are still an important part of his life-a life he wouldn't have if his mother hadn't died to save him-a mother who was,by what we saw of her,no sweet sickly little girl.Who foretold his importance to the wizarding world? Another woman.And of Harry's female contemporaries-the so-called flat characters-I could go into how much Hermione and Ginny have grown over the time,but that's been done already.Even Parvati and Lavender-the airheads of the lot-do seem to stick up for what's right now and then (Parvati did question Umbridge about the no-practice DADA lessons,and even in PS she did get up enough nerve to try to tell Professor McGonagall that the Remembrall episode wasn't Harry's fault).Fleur the Beauxbatons Triwizard champion seems cold,haughty and unpleasant until it's discovered she does have a soft spot-she cares a great deal about her sister.They're no more stereotyped than Crabbe and Goyle,or Ernie.In short,I know this is a bad post but-I've never seen a gender bias in the books.NEVER has it been implied (or even stated by one of the nastier characters) that a member of the wizarding community is less competent or less capable in any way because of the fact of their being female-we don't even see Malfoy taunting a girl for,well,being a girl.
And as for the whole racism angle,I think it's safe to say that racism in the wizarding world is never on the basis of skin colour-it's based on species,and lineage.I guess Cat was right-the magical world practised gender equality a long time before the Muggle world did.

[Frankie Inkblot]

I've never felt as though the Harry Potter series was sexist. I think that enough strong male and female characters are introduced and have high importance to the story. I realize alot of peoples' arguments are based around the fact that there don't seem to be as many females important in the wizarding world (look! Why isn't isn't it the Witching World?), but I see a pretty even smattering of roles.

Important Male Characters:
Remus Lupin
Albus Dumbledore
Cornelius Fudge
Harry Potter
Ron Weasley
Sirius Black
Rubeus Hagrid
Severus Snape
Draco Malfoy
Mr. Weasley
Lucius Malfoy
Neville Longbottom
Voldemort (I can't call him 'Voldie' anymore, JKR doesn't like it)

Female Important Characters:
Hermione Granger
Ginny Weasley
Minerva McGonagall
Rita Skeeter
Bellatrix Lestrange
Pansy Parkinson
Sybill Trelawney
Mrs. Weasley
Cho Chang
Fleur Delacour
Dolores Umbridge
Luna Lovegood

I can keep going.

The only really sexist thing I can really come up with is the golden statues of the wizard and witch. The description does sort of highlight the wizard in the statue, with shorter, admiring people/goblins/elves gazing up at him. Apart from that, get over it! Maybe Minerva will take over as Headmistress, Hermione saves the day all by herself, and Ginny will become the greatest Death Eater there ever was. Would that satisfy the sexist debate?

[Cat]

The only really sexist thing I can really come up with is the golden statues of the wizard and witch. The description does sort of highlight the wizard in the statue, with shorter, admiring people/goblins/elves gazing up at him.

I thought they were gazing up at both of them... either way, the statue was meant to be abhorrent and certainly wouldn't express the views of JKR.

You could make a list of all the female characters named in the series and their roles or jobs, but that would take up more than a screen's worth of space.

As far as I'm concerned, the idea that Harry Potter is sexist comes from nowhere except the necessity some people have for saying this kind of thing. Like I said just before, people want it to be sexist. It makes such a good story - Admired Female Author Tarnishes The Minds of Youngster With Hypocritically Sexist Books.

The truth is, you can find sexism or any other such flaw anywhere if you actually set out to find it. Stop looking for it and you won't see it.

[Grapez]

I don't think it's any of those 2, actually. Would not have espected it from a woman, too...

[Furienna]

This title makes me laugh. 'Sexist', 'feminist' or 'somewhere in between'? How's about 'neither' :lol:.
I'm happy I can amuse you :D. You know, I'm not a native speaker, so sometimes, my English can be a little... weird.

[Mrs Padfoot]

I'm happy I can amuse you :D. You know, I'm not a native speaker, so sometimes, my English can be a little... weird.

I don't think she was laughing at your english, just at the thought of HP being sexist or feminist

[Furienna]

Well, I thought she was laughing at me because of the "somewhere in between" part.

[Mrs Padfoot]

Maybe. You'll have to ask her if she comes back to this thread.

[Furienna]

Yeah let's do that.

[fawkes5]

The biggest mistake of so-called "feminists" is thinking that a strong female character should act like a man and do things a man does. A true feminist accepts her strengths as a woman and celebrates them.

Reasoning such as "it is traditional for a man to work and a woman to stay at home therefore a feminist woman must work" is wrong.

Feminism is not about standing up in the bus or not having the door opened for you. If men want to do that for a woman, then thank you very much. If they don't, that's all right too. These are petty things that have no bearing on feminism.

True feminism is to acknowledge and accept that you are a woman and as such you can succeed at anything you want in this society, be it as a mother, as a career woman, or as both.

Given the number of powerful women figures in HP, I highly doubt that it is anti-feminist.

[Amina]

in a way, it is interesting that this comment has fallen on rowling, given that her favourite author is Jane Austen. Austen has been held up as both a feminist before her time and as a bad portrayer of female values by her critics.

Her heroines are invariably female, and often 'strong', but one can argue this is simply because, as a woman in the time she lived, she had no way of knowing how men acted away from women and thus felt she could not portray them correctly. if you look at her books, scenes with men alone are very rare...one of the few i can think of is in Emma with Elton and Knightley.

The reason I bring this up (there was a reason!) is that I often wonder whether rowling was influenced by these books in any way. In some ways, Hermione is very much the Austen character: she is independant, clever and 'strong', but then again there are ways in which she falls to men for protection - or at least one can contrive it as such.

I don't think that Rowling meant to make ANY statement with the Harry Potter books. As she is a woman, for her to write a 'sexist' novel would be very odd indeed. I can't imagine a woman deliberately degrading her own sex. I think she just liked the idea of harry being a boy. now, if one were to dig hard enough to find a 'point', you could say that Harry Potter is simply a subconcious reflection of the world in which we live. In not setting out to deliberately make Harry a pro-women book, she simply did not think about how women were viewed and instead just wrote the story, amking the character the sex she felt they should be. In this, as in modern day society, many of the heros are male, but there are strong female characters, as have been mentioned on this thread already, as well. The mix is quite representative of real life male-female power relations.

I don't think the books are particularly sexist, but i don't think they set out to prove otherwise. she simply wrote a story influenced by modern day views which, still no matter what a lot of people say, maintains a large about of male dominance. I would still be curious on teh austen thing though....

hope at least some of that made sense!

[HarryPotter]

I don't think HP is any of those...

[Furienna]

Nope it isn't. I'll re-post this and let's see if you react more this time:

McCormick: This is a question from Bridget from Toronto, and she's 12. Bridget's wondering, "Why did you create a magical society where men and women play such traditional roles? It seems most of the women Wizards pitter and patter around the house while the men do all the dark work."
Rowling: [laughs] 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. Do Witches patter around the house? No. Mrs. Weasely stays at home, but if you think it's easy raising seven children, including Fred and George Weasely, then I pity… [laughs] Women who've had seven children will not see that as a soft option.

From an interview on October 23rd 2000.

[Dru Malfoy]

The HP books reflect our society. And I like it.

I don't see that it is wrong to show women who are in a position of power (McGonagal), cleverer than the men around them (Hermione) or rather care for their family (Molly). It's their choice. And I do get the impression that in the wizarding world no one is forced into "traditional" roles.

I'm sure however, if someone was conviced that HP is sexist, you can find a number of examples (e.g. the Malfoys seem to be quite traditional and Lucius seems to be in control... on the other hand we don't know much about Narcissa yet) and if you think it is modern and gives woman strong roles you can find points for that as well (for instance, with the Lestranges or the Blacks (Sirius' parents) it seems to be just the oposite: the women are much stronger than their men.)

So, wheather HP is sexist or not (or feminist or not) is entirely in the eyes of the beholder.

[fawkes5]

I don't think the books are particularly sexist, but i don't think they set out to prove otherwise. she simply wrote a story influenced by modern day views which, still no matter what a lot of people say, maintains a large about of male dominance.

Yup! Except the part about male dominance. The book does have a lot of strong male characters but I don't see them as particularly trying to show that the wizarding world is a man's world.

[springthing4]

i don't think the books are sexist, they're written by a woman! it's true that there are strong male characters, but there are also strong female characters. I guess when i'm reading the books, i don't think about who is male and female, i think of their characters. and as harry is a boy i guess it is more common to have more males around than females.

[ElindorUndertow]

I also think Harry Potter is a fair and balanced blend of strong masucline and feminine characters. If at some times they seem to play slightly more traditional roles I believe it only reflects that many men and women in our own world also still play more traditional gender roles. Also, if we think about it more closely the age at which the adult characters and even the younger characters (remember, HP was born in 1980), though it may not seem long ago, is still long ago enough that more rigidly held gender standards would have probably had an impact on their upbringing.

That is if you want to view the subject logically, of course!

[UselessCharmMaster]

There's four champions and three Tasks. Not everyone can finish first. But Fleur wasn't the worst at all of them! She got the least marks for the second task, but that was a great moment because it showed that, to her, some things are more important than winning and she showed great modesty too - something you didn't expect of the beautiful talented Fleur! But this is a good thing, if she'd won all the time then you'd just get a worse impression of her.

I don't want her "winning all the time". I'd like to see her winning once. Just for a change.
And why can't I expect modesty of a beautiful and talented person????

[Grapez]

Nope it isn't. I'll re-post this and let's see if you react more this time:

McCormick: This is a question from Bridget from Toronto, and she's 12. Bridget's wondering, "Why did you create a magical society where men and women play such traditional roles? It seems most of the women Wizards pitter and patter around the house while the men do all the dark work."
Rowling: [laughs] 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. Do Witches patter around the house? No. Mrs. Weasely stays at home, but if you think it's easy raising seven children, including Fred and George Weasely, then I pity… [laughs] Women who've had seven children will not see that as a soft option.

From an interview on October 23rd 2000.
Well, the deatheaters aren't exactly 50/50. AFAIK the only female deatheater is Bellatrix. but on the other hand, she is one of the most important, loyal and powerful deatheaters.

[Chrysalis]

There were probably more female deatheaters, Bella is the only one we know of.:)

HP isn't sexist. It's just a story. It isn't sexist to represent Molly as a caring housewife. Emancipation is not about all women having to work, but rather about women having the choice to work or not.:)

[Bjornar]

I think that regardless of the opinions some people have on the origins of character genders, results of tri-wizard(tri-magical people?!) competitions, gender specific terminology, and the character development or lack thereof, overall the books great as they have been written. Unless the goal of this work of fiction Jo has created was to address the gender issues, which continually change, it would be a mistake for her to have attempted to make the book directly appeasing to all parties involved. As it has already been discussed at great lengths on this thread I would agree that there are strong female and male characters in the series. It almost seems the magical world enjoys more gender equality than our curent reality. I suppose there are those that mourn the fact Harry's character couldn't have been a female, but it was Jo's choice and she made it. The worst reaction to this series would have been a non-reaction.

Personally I think a totally equal world in all aspects would be pretty read. Without conflict, without some form of tension or imbalance--be it good vs. evil, boy,girl,house elf,goblin, werewolf or Dursley--there would be no movement in the narrative. Cheers to those who have posted saying female counterparts to male characters and women whom are strong merely in the sense of male characteristics are the wrong way to go.

I apologise for rambling, but am glad we have these sort of discussions!

[Manwë]

I don't think HP books are sexist, but I think that, as JK is a women, she has tryed to make the magic world more fair about that. But the thing is that, if our society is sexist, is because we don't think it is sexist: when JK wrote the books I don't think she was thinking "now, equally boys and girls", when she thought about prefects, she thought there would be a boy and a girl for each house because that's the logic thing to do, you are supposed to give the students the chance of telling their problems to the prefects, if the prefects were boys, girls wouldn't get near, and so it would happpen in the other way. Our society too is supposed to give the same opportunities to boys and girls, but somehow it is not like that... but that's another thing to discuss about.
The thing is that HP is not sexist, however you look at it. (for those ones who think that "feminist" means that men and women shoul be equal, yes, HP is feminist)

[mevam]

The strongest characters in the book are certainly male. Voldemort, Dumbledore, Godric Gryffindor, Salazar Slytherin and Harry are all male. The Minister for Magic is male, the Prime Minister is mentioned as being a "he" in one of the books, most of the Death Eaters are male. The great majority of female characters are portrayed as being weak, like Narcissa who is described as being frail, Umbridge who is insulted on her appearance and her "girlyness", and McGonagall who breaks down and cries to Dumbledore when she is not keeping up her strict facade. The female characters are weak, that is for sure, with perhaps the exception of Hermione and Mrs. Weasley.

Have you noticed how the witches who discovered Ravenclaw and Hufflepuff houses are never mentioned? The great battle is between Slytherin and Gryffindor, and they get all the glory, and their houses are mentioned the most often. I hate to say it, but yes, Harry Potter is most definitely sexist.

[Azimuth]

...the Prime Minister is mentioned as being a "he" in one of the books...

Might it have something to do with the fact that the Prime Minister of England is a man? :)

[mevam]

Might it have something to do with the fact that the Prime Minister of England is a man?

JK Rowling could easily have changed it around, its not as though there's a law preventing her from doing so. We only have an approximation of when the books take place, but its not all carved in marble, so it would have been easy to adjust.

[Dedalus]

The strongest characters in the book are certainly male. Voldemort, Dumbledore, Godric Gryffindor, Salazar Slytherin and Harry are all male. The Minister for Magic is male, the Prime Minister is mentioned as being a "he" in one of the books, most of the Death Eaters are male. The great majority of female characters are portrayed as being weak, like Narcissa who is described as being frail, Umbridge who is insulted on her appearance and her "girlyness", and McGonagall who breaks down and cries to Dumbledore when she is not keeping up her strict facade. The female characters are weak, that is for sure, with perhaps the exception of Hermione and Mrs. Weasley.

Have you noticed how the witches who discovered Ravenclaw and Hufflepuff houses are never mentioned? The great battle is between Slytherin and Gryffindor, and they get all the glory, and their houses are mentioned the most often. I hate to say it, but yes, Harry Potter is most definitely sexist.
Narcissa isn't described as being frail, Umbridge is more hated that Voldemort as far as sheer evilness comes into it, McGonagall has never broken down and cried to Dumbledore (though she often shows a more welcoming sensitive side ... why's that a bad thing?). Hufflepuff and Ravenclaw didn't get into the fight with Gryffindor so much because they, unlike he, were probably more sensible, but they did kick Slytherin out of the school as well.

I think you're just wanting to see sexism, here. There are loads of strong female characters, and loads of weaker men. Gilderoy Lockhart was a coward, and he's a bloke. Peter Pettigrew, too. Rita Skeeter, Umbridge and Aunt Marge are all women and all very powerful and threatening and vile, as any man can be or moreso. A lot of people who supported Dumbledore were women, and there are strong fighters on the side of Voldemort who are, too.

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but it seems like you're ignoring all the weaker men and the strong females when they don't support your argument! Because I think there are far more foolish and weak male characters than female ones!

JK Rowling could easily have changed it around, its not as though there's a law preventing her from doing so. We only have an approximation of when the books take place, but its not all carved in marble, so it would have been easy to adjust.
Why should she have to? Does it matter whether someone is a man or a woman? Isn't that what equality really means?

[Cat]

The strongest characters in the book are certainly male. Voldemort, Dumbledore, Godric Gryffindor, Salazar Slytherin and Harry are all male. The Minister for Magic is male, the Prime Minister is mentioned as being a "he" in one of the books, most of the Death Eaters are male. The great majority of female characters are portrayed as being weak, like Narcissa who is described as being frail, Umbridge who is insulted on her appearance and her "girlyness", and McGonagall who breaks down and cries to Dumbledore when she is not keeping up her strict facade. The female characters are weak, that is for sure, with perhaps the exception of Hermione and Mrs. Weasley.

Have you noticed how the witches who discovered Ravenclaw and Hufflepuff houses are never mentioned? The great battle is between Slytherin and Gryffindor, and they get all the glory, and their houses are mentioned the most often. I hate to say it, but yes, Harry Potter is most definitely sexist.

Narcissa Malfoy is never described as being frail. You're reading things that aren't there.

McGonagall doesn't go running and crying to Dumbledore. Not that there's anything wrong with crying if she did - Dumbledore's cried, Harry's cried, Hagrid the big tough giant cries more than anybody else. I think we see more men crying in this series than women.

You're also conventiently forgetting Tonks the Auror who, despite her gawkiness, is forthright and tough. Bellatrix Lestrange? Why do we hear far more about her than he husband and husband's brother is the series has a gender bias? Gryffindor and Slytherin may be more prominent (Harry being a Gryffindor and his schoolyard enemy being a Slytherin... well, duh) but Hufflepuff and Ravenclaw most certainly do exist and both were women. Co-founders of Hogwarts. Equals to Gryffindor and Slytherin.

You're conveniently forgetting about the female Headmistress portraits, the female Ministry members (including Umbridge - that was one tough lady. Her mocked 'girliness' was fake), the other female students, the female Quidditch players, the female Order members and many, many more.

You can't use the fact that more of the main characters are male as back-up for your claim - Harry is a boy. He's bound to have more male friends than female. That's the way of life.

There are female characters and they give the male characters a run for their money. That's all that matters.

I hate to break it to you, but Harry Potter is most definitely not sexist.

[Alci]

JK Rowling could easily have changed it around, its not as though there's a law preventing her from doing so. We only have an approximation of when the books take place, but its not all carved in marble, so it would have been easy to adjust.
It's perfectly reasonable for JKR to shape her magical world as she wishes, however it makes that aspect more plausible and distinctly separate to make those references to the real world match our reality.

Since the Act of Union (1707) which created modern Britain we have managed exactly one female PM. It is, I think, somewhat essential that the muggle world seems reassuringly 'normal' to allow us to appreciate the differences we see. Indeed subtler minds might recognise that the gender normality of the real world only emphasises the gender equality of the wizarding world.


There are female characters and they give the male characters a run for their money.

Actually I've noticed the real life that my girlfriends seem good at getting hold of my mon....oh never mind :p

[Cat]

:p

About the Prime Minister: Many would say the Harry Potter series has an established date anyway. There are mentions of things like playstations and there's a date on Nearly-Headless Nick's Deathday cake. The books aren't meant to be set in magical La La Land (how many times have I used that phrase now, I wonder?), they're meant to be set in reality. A few town names and a whole community of magical people has been added, but saying that the Prime Minister's a woman would be setting it either during the time of Margaret Thatcher or in a Britain we wouldn't recognise, and it's not supposed to be in either.

She shouldn't just force herself to add 'she' instead of 'he' to pacify people who like to see sexism all over the place. That would be contrived. Just because they aren't feminist books - that is that they're not setting out to make everybody think about gender equality - doesn't mean that they're sexist.

[Bjornar]

Here here Cat. If Jo tried to appease every overly sensitive subgroup the books would be mush. On her official webpage whenever there are comments as to adding or changing things Jo has been quite clear in stating that if you have concerns or criticisms you are more than welcome to write your own series...of course beware copyright infringement!!

[mevam]

Narcissa Malfoy is never described as being frail. You're reading things that aren't there.

She is described as being "tall and slim", which in itself does not suggest frailty, but combined with the fact that she never spoke a word at all, and just let her husband do her talking more than suggests she is frail and incapable of acting for herself. You seem to be ignoring things that are there.


I hate to break it to you, but Harry Potter is most definitely not sexist.

I hate to break it to you, but Harry Potter IS sexist

All the female characters seem to be judged far too extensively on their looks. Umbridge is described as a toad, with a swelled up face and enormous eyes, and she is NOT a strong character because she is constantly being directed as to what she should do by none other than FUDGE. HE is the one who has placed her strategically into Hogwarts to act as a spy for the Ministry, so is strength really defined as simply following orders?

Rita Skeeter, Umbridge and Aunt Marge are all women and all very powerful
Aunt Marge? You must be kidding. How does owning vicious dogs make a character strong? She was in the beginning of POA and that was the extent of her role, far too limiting to be considered a powerful influence in the book.

The men all rule the Wizarding World, which is a convienent fact that you seem to be missing. Fudge, Dumbledore, Voldemort... They are the ones in charge. The female characters seem to be just thrown in to act as support for the male characters. Even Hermione is not that strong, because what is her role in the books besides acting as a support for Harry, and she is never portrayed as being valient.

Where are the brave and valient women? I don't see many of them. So we've got mothers like Mrs. Weasley acting in a tradition housewife role. You may argue that is strong, but fitting a character into a stereotype is nothing short of sexist. Look at Petunia, and what about Narcissa, none of them are described as having careers of any sort, they are either described as being housewives who constantly look after everyone but themselves, or they are simply ignored in the book in favour of the male characters.

[Chrysalis]

Hey, what's wrong with being a housewife? As I said before, emancipation is about the freedom to choose what you want to be, and if someone wants to become a housewife, that's fine, that doesn't mean that they are weak. My mum's a housewife and chose to become one, that doesn't mean that she's ignoring her own needs in order to appease ours, so watch what you're saying.:)

It's not as though only the female characters' looks are described extensively. How many references are there to Gilderoy Lockhart's good looks? And I can't count the amount of times Snape's greasy hair has been mentioned.

Just because Narcissa is tall and slim and quiet doesn't mean she's 'frail'. She just seems to be more reserved, I got the impression that she was a dignified woman. You're reading far too much into the books.

[Mrs Padfoot]

She is described as being "tall and slim", which in itself does not suggest frailty, but combined with the fact that she never spoke a word at all, and just let her husband do her talking more than suggests she is frail and incapable of acting for herself. You seem to be ignoring things that are there.

First of all, there are only a few occasions where she doesn't talk. Okay, so these are the occasions when we see her, but she might talk when she's out of the main storyline. Also, why are quiet people weak? She might not have much to say to some people, that doesn't mean that she is a weak character.


All the female characters seem to be judged far too extensively on their looks. Umbridge is described as a toad, with a swelled up face and enormous eyes, and she is NOT a strong character because she is constantly being directed as to what she should do by none other than FUDGE. HE is the one who has placed her strategically into Hogwarts to act as a spy for the Ministry, so is strength really defined as simply following orders?

Generally, an author describes the charcters looks so that the reader can gain an impression of what they look like. Umbridge looks like that, so that is how she is described, it doesn't mean that the books are sexist! And she isn't doing exactly what Fudge wants - she is certainly more horrible than he is.

Aunt Marge? You must be kidding. How does owning vicious dogs make a character strong? She was in the beginning of POA and that was the extent of her role, far too limiting to be considered a powerful influence in the book..

Just because she doesn't visit the Dursleys much doesn't mean that she isn't strong. In fact, seeing as she doesn't means she has a comepletely different life and that makes her a strong woman. She also have strong opinions (esspecially about Harry's parents) which she is not afraid to voice aloud. She's certainly a character.

The men all rule the Wizarding World, which is a convienent fact that you seem to be missing. Fudge, Dumbledore, Voldemort... They are the ones in charge. The female characters seem to be just thrown in to act as support for the male characters. Even Hermione is not that strong, because what is her role in the books besides acting as a support for Harry, and she is never portrayed as being valient..

Hermione is certainly brave and valient. Think of all the things she has done. Helping to retrieve the Philosophers stone, helping to save Sirius, following her best friend into the department of mysteries... to name but a few.

[Dedalus]

She is described as being "tall and slim", which in itself does not suggest frailty, but combined with the fact that she never spoke a word at all, and just let her husband do her talking more than suggests she is frail and incapable of acting for herself. You seem to be ignoring things that are there.
We've seen her once ... watching a match. You're basing these opinions on that?


I hate to break it to you, but Harry Potter IS sexist
Only in your eyes, mate.

All the female characters seem to be judged far too extensively on their looks. Umbridge is described as a toad, with a swelled up face and enormous eyes, and she is NOT a strong character because she is constantly being directed as to what she should do by none other than FUDGE. HE is the one who has placed her strategically into Hogwarts to act as a spy for the Ministry, so is strength really defined as simply following orders?
Men are described by their looks too. Vividly.

And she wasn't told what to do by Fudge in many instances, but acted because she herself wanted power, but if she was that was because he is her boss, and that's what bosses do. It has nothing to do with him being a man!

Aunt Marge? You must be kidding. How does owning vicious dogs make a character strong? She was in the beginning of POA and that was the extent of her role, far too limiting to be considered a powerful influence in the book.
How is she a weak one, then? She's big, booming and intimidating. Hardly a delicate flower.

The men all rule the Wizarding World, which is a convienent fact that you seem to be missing. Fudge, Dumbledore, Voldemort... They are the ones in charge.
When I was at school I had a male headmaster, a male Prime Minister and there were male tyrants in the world. Why's it so unrealistic that (good heavens!) it's just one of them coincidences? There HAVE been female Ministers, and female Headmasters, it just so happens that these ones are men.

Their personalities are also ones more associated with men. The long flowing beard, being a compulsory sagelike image, isn't one usually associated with women, for instance, for many reasons. Fudge is a leader - but he isn't exactly a good or particularly powerful one, is he?

The female characters seem to be just thrown in to act as support for the male characters. Even Hermione is not that strong, because what is her role in the books besides acting as a support for Harry, and she is never portrayed as being valient.
The women aren't just thrown in to support the men. Sometimes people just have friends. Hermione is a friend, not a sidekick! And ... she's never been portrayed as being valliant? Since when?

Where are the brave and valient women? I don't see many of them. So we've got mothers like Mrs. Weasley acting in a tradition housewife role. You may argue that is strong, but fitting a character into a stereotype is nothing short of sexist. Look at Petunia, and what about Narcissa, none of them are described as having careers of any sort, they are either described as being housewives who constantly look after everyone but themselves, or they are simply ignored in the book in favour of the male characters.
I said it before, and I'll say it again ... you're just listing all the "weaker women" (though I disagree with you on all accounts, there) and the stronger men here, so of course it looks one sided! You haven't listed the weak men (Lockhart, Pettigrew ... ) or the strong women (Tonks, who while only a young starter Auror talks to Moody casually, who was considered a great Auror and who is generally intimidating!, McGonagall, Hermione, Bellatrix Lestrange, Rita Skeeter, who is bold and feared by many, Mrs Weasley, all those great and brave women mentioned in FBAWTFT and QTTA etc ...).

We just don't know of as many women. Who's to say Sprout isn't exceedingly great? Or Doris Crockford? We don't know many women because Harry himself is a boy, so his friends are more likely to be boys too. It's you who's being quite prejudiced here, because you're wanting to see these woman as delicate, when they're usually not, and when there are men who are too!

[Alci]

She is described as being "tall and slim", which in itself does not suggest frailty, but combined with the fact that she never spoke a word at all, and just let her husband do her talking more than suggests she is frail and incapable of acting for herself. You seem to be ignoring things that are there.
I suggest you make an urgent visit to the library to find the object they call a dictionary. Its definition of frail and yours have nothing in common.

All the female characters seem to be judged far too extensively on their looks.Hmm Voldy has his looks described in most scenes. That's the style of the book.


she is NOT a strong character because she is constantly being directed as to what she should do by none other than FUDGE.We have no cannon whatsoever to tell us who 'really' made the decision to put her in Hogwarts. For all we know she decided on that plan and forced/bribed/browbeat Fudge into it. More crucially, we have no direct cannon but much circumstantial cannon to suggest that she called the dementor attack on Harry without consulting anyone and for her own ends.


So we've got mothers like ...no careers of any sort, they are either described as being housewives who constantly look after everyone but themselves, or they are simply ignored in the book in favour of the male characters.Hmm I'm starting to appreciate how Darwin felt in 1859.

[Mrs Padfoot]

Hmm I'm starting to appreciate how Darwin felt in 1859.

:rotfl:

[mevam]

I've proven my side, Harry Potter is indeed sexist, and if some of you choose to ignore the fact that the strongest characters are male, then that is your lack of judgement that is shown and not mine. Don't tell me that perhaps the other female characters are possibly strong if JK introduced them more, because the fact that she doesn't introduce them and involve them in the plot further says a lot about the accomplishment's of the women. Why do we hear about Malfoy's father and not his mother? Why do we constantly hear about the rift between Gryffindor and Slytherin, when clearly Ravenclaw and Hufflepuff were against Salazar as well, yet they seem to be treated as the silent bystanders. Don't ignore these facts and assume I'll believe the ridiculous notion that Harry Potter promotes equality.

[Chrysalis]

Remember that HP is also supposed to show reality to some extent. The sad truth is, unfortunately, that we still live in a male-dominated world. I'm not talking about lack of strong female characters(there are plenty) but just addressing what you said about the Prime Minister and the MoM being male and all that. It is still more common for a politician to be male. It's not like JKR would think 'you know what, I'm going to make everything exactly 50/50'.

[Dedalus]

I've proven my side, Harry Potter is indeed sexist, and if some of you choose to ignore the fact that the strongest characters are male, then that is your lack of judgement that is shown and not mine. Don't tell me that perhaps the other female characters are possibly strong if JK introduced them more, because the fact that she doesn't introduce them and involve them in the plot further says a lot about the accomplishment's of the women. Why do we hear about Malfoy's father and not his mother? Why do we constantly hear about the rift between Gryffindor and Slytherin, when clearly Ravenclaw and Hufflepuff were against Salazar as well, yet they seem to be treated as the silent bystanders. Don't ignore these facts and assume I'll believe the ridiculous notion that Harry Potter promotes equality.
And since you've chosen not to comment on a single point mentioned against your argument by myself and several others, I'll take this comment to mean "I'm blown but I don't want to admit it". I may be wrong - but you are deliberately ignoring people's very valid arguments here ;) .

[Azimuth]

I've proven my side, Harry Potter is indeed sexist, and if some of you choose to ignore the fact that the strongest characters are male, then that is your lack of judgement that is shown and not mine. Don't tell me that perhaps the other female characters are possibly strong if JK introduced them more, because the fact that she doesn't introduce them and involve them in the plot further says a lot about the accomplishment's of the women. Why do we hear about Malfoy's father and not his mother? Why do we constantly hear about the rift between Gryffindor and Slytherin, when clearly Ravenclaw and Hufflepuff were against Salazar as well, yet they seem to be treated as the silent bystanders. Don't ignore these facts and assume I'll believe the ridiculous notion that Harry Potter promotes equality.

To be perfectly honest, I can't actually see why you even care. It's a book. Why does it matter that the strongest characters are male? What difference does it make to anything? You still like the books, as is evident by the fact that you're posting on this forum. Jo is a woman; it's not as if she set out to deliberately write a sexist book just to annoy the female population. The gender, race, age, religion or anything else relating to the characters is completely and utterly irrelevant. It's a book. It's there for you to enjoy it. Are you really going to let something as - quite frankly - silly as this get in the way of your enjoyment?

:welcome: to the forums, by the way! :)

[Cat]

Again, I think this a case of a problem that some people have of thinking that, if something isn't specifically feminist, then it must be sexist.

Things don't have to be either one or the other. There's nothing wrong with a character being a man. Fudge and Dumbledore - and whoever else - just happened to be written as men. It was how Jo imagined it. Expecting her to write them differently to how she imagined, to force them to be female characters instead of the male ones she imagined, would be expecting her novels to be feminist. The Harry Potter books aren't there to preach to us about a certain ideal, except possibly the basics about doing the right thing.

[heliopath]

Well to tell you the truth, I think the Harry Potter series is Speciest. The injustes done to house elves and centaurs is totaly outrageous.

[hermy_weasley2]

Can you imagine if J.K. Rowling tried to appease everyone who objected to Harry Potter? It would be a very different series.

Harry Potter is sexist, so that means Harry and every other major male character would need be made into females. Yes, that's it. Everyone happy now? Oh wait, the legal system in Harry Potter isn't politically correct. Let's change that so now the criminals' rights to privacy are protected and female- Harry has no way of finding out the past. Dementors are abusive to prisoners, so let's just take them out all together. Oh wait, the series makes witchcraft look normal and sometimes good even, now they're all Muggles, except that Muggles are all just really people in general, because the magical world doesn't exist for comparison to the normal world. Hold on, death isn't appropriate for a children's book. I guess females-Harry's parents aren't dead after all! And she certainly doesn't live with her mean aunt and uncle. That bullying cousin has to go too, because that's not good for kids to see either.
See what I mean? Not good...:no:

[rotsiepots]

I've proven my side, Harry Potter is indeed sexist, and if some of you choose to ignore the fact that the strongest characters are male, then that is your lack of judgement that is shown and not mine. Don't tell me that perhaps the other female characters are possibly strong if JK introduced them more, because the fact that she doesn't introduce them and involve them in the plot further says a lot about the accomplishment's of the women. Why do we hear about Malfoy's father and not his mother? Why do we constantly hear about the rift between Gryffindor and Slytherin, when clearly Ravenclaw and Hufflepuff were against Salazar as well, yet they seem to be treated as the silent bystanders. Don't ignore these facts and assume I'll believe the ridiculous notion that Harry Potter promotes equality.

Out of morbid curiosity, how do you define sexist? Just because Hermione and McGonagall aren't burning their bras, doesn't mean the books are sexist.

[hermy_weasley2]

I've proven my side, Harry Potter is indeed sexist, and if some of you choose to ignore the fact that the strongest characters are male, then that is your lack of judgement that is shown and not mine. Don't tell me that perhaps the other female characters are possibly strong if JK introduced them more, because the fact that she doesn't introduce them and involve them in the plot further says a lot about the accomplishment's of the women. Why do we hear about Malfoy's father and not his mother? Why do we constantly hear about the rift between Gryffindor and Slytherin, when clearly Ravenclaw and Hufflepuff were against Salazar as well, yet they seem to be treated as the silent bystanders. Don't ignore these facts and assume I'll believe the ridiculous notion that Harry Potter promotes equality.

It's a story about a young, extraordinary, wizard. I don't think J.K. R. set out to promote equality when she started writing the series. And do you think the sexism in Harry Potter is minor enough to still read the books?

[fawkes5]

She is described as being "tall and slim", which in itself does not suggest frailty, but combined with the fact that she never spoke a word at all, and just let her husband do her talking more than suggests she is frail and incapable of acting for herself. You seem to be ignoring things that are there.

Hahaha! I know people who are tall, slim and taciturn and who are most definitely not frail! This statement reveals exactly the kind of deductive reasoning you employ to "prove your side" of the argument. Need I say more?

[Mrs Padfoot]

I've proven my side, Harry Potter is indeed sexist, and if some of you choose to ignore the fact that the strongest characters are male, then that is your lack of judgement that is shown and not mine. Don't tell me that perhaps the other female characters are possibly strong if JK introduced them more, because the fact that she doesn't introduce them and involve them in the plot further says a lot about the accomplishment's of the women. Why do we hear about Malfoy's father and not his mother? Why do we constantly hear about the rift between Gryffindor and Slytherin, when clearly Ravenclaw and Hufflepuff were against Salazar as well, yet they seem to be treated as the silent bystanders. Don't ignore these facts and assume I'll believe the ridiculous notion that Harry Potter promotes equality.

Harry Potter (oddly enough) is a story about Harry Potter. We hear more about Malfoy's father than his mother because Luciuous comes into Harry's story, wheras Malfoy's mother doesn't have anything to do with Harry. We hear about the rift between Gryffindor and Slytherin because it is important to the plot of Harry's story. Just because these characters that Harry comes into contact with are male, doesn't mean that the whole story is sexist. Personally, I think you are reading far too much into it.

[Puffskein]

Actually, Narcissa was quite important in OOTP - she gave that information to Kreacher. Just because characters don't physically appear doesn't mean they don't drive the plot.

[Cat]

Actually, Narcissa was quite important in OOTP - she gave that information to Kreacher. Just because characters don't physically appear doesn't mean they don't drive the plot.

Precisely - them Harry Potter women are so strong and influential they can have an effect without ever being in the story! :lol:

Bertha Jorkins affected the outcome of GOF and she wasn't even in it!

Lily Potter has never made a proper appearance, having died before the series started, but I think she's probably the biggest influence over Harry's life still. Yes, he always felt very proud when he was compared to his dad, but I think he's mostly in it for mum.

mevam: saying "I'm right, you're wrong, the fact that you disagree just means you're all ignorant" is possibly the worst argument for a case since arguments were created at the dawn of man(and, of course, woman)kind.

[tonkscrazy]

Of course women havea important role in the estory , the same way men have .
Personally i dont the idea of deferences between them ,they have the same importance in the books and out of them
Well its just my point of view....
Cheers tonkscrazy

[mevam]

mevam: saying "I'm right, you're wrong, the fact that you disagree just means you're all ignorant" is possibly the worst argument for a case since arguments were created at the dawn of man(and, of course, woman)kind.

Your arguments certainly don't validate your opinions. How does having a female character who is mentioned only a couple times in the novel make her a strong character? Bertha Jorkins a strong female character? Narcissa Malfoy a strong female character? You MUST be kidding me. It's simply ridiculous to say that so-and-so plays a significant role in the book because they're not mentioned. The fact that the female leads are largely ignored says lots about who is controlling the wizarding world: the male characters.

I understand that Harry is a boy, and thus he will have male role models, but since when do boys only pay attention to men in their lives? Let me go over one argument then we can discuss it before moving on:

The Gryffindor/Slytherin Battle: We hear about how Gryffindor drove Slytherin out of Hogwarts, and we can presume that Ravenclaw and Hufflepuff were against Slytherin as well. But we never hear about them acting bravely and forcing Salazar out, there is mostly mention of the rift between Godric and Salazar and talk of how it was GODRIC who sent Salazar out of Hogwarts. The female House creators have been ignored, and rather portrayed as bystanders in this battle, as though they needed Godric to protect them and do the fighting for them.

[Furienna]

Mevam, you are sure reading too much into this. It's like you want to find sexism and just take anything you can possibly use and make it fit into your arguements. Maybe Rowena Rawenclaw and Helga Hufflepuff aren't mentioned as much in the books as Godric Gryffindor and Salazar Slytherin, but maybe the worst arguements happened between Godric and Salazar. It doesn't mean that Rowena and Helga were weak. Just the fact that they were co-founders of a school, or anything, a thousand of years ago shows that they were strong or at least not weak and and that is just one of the points that shów that witches for long were more equal to wizards in the magic world than what women were to men in the muggle world. Other things that shows this is the female head-mistresses and healers centuries back.

[fawkes5]

I understand that Harry is a boy, and thus he will have male role models, but since when do boys only pay attention to men in their lives? Let me go over one argument then we can discuss it before moving on:

No, no, no. You make too many generalizations, mevam. Being a boy doesn't automatically mean Harry has male role models only.

[T_Z]

I don't think it is sexist or anything. The fact that Dumbledore is headmaster and Fudge minister doesn't mean a thing. Most of theachers at Hogwarts are women, and Mc Gonnagall is dunmbledore's right hand, as Umbridge is Fudge's (or almost, since he believes anything she says). There's no problem with that.

[Alastor D]

It seems to me that those who are arguing that there are too few powerful ladies are conveniently forgetting quite many of them. Elfrida Clagg, chief of the wizards' council, Millicent Bagnold, minister before Fudge, Professor Marchbanks, Amelia Bones to name a few.
To blame JKR for not referring to the Prime Minister as she is very odd indeed. In the real world UK there was a female Prime Minister only once, as far as I know. The story isn't set in Margaret Tatcher's time, is it?

Edited after reading post below.

[rotsiepots]

It seems to me that those who are arguing that there are too few powerful ladies are conveniently forgetting quite many of them. Elfrida Clagg, chief of the wizards' council, Millicent Bulstrode, minister before Fudge, Professor Marchbanks, Amelia Bones to name a few.
To blame JKR for not referring to the Prime Minister as she is very odd indeed. In the real world UK there was a female Prime Minister only once, as far as I know. The story isn't set in Margaret Tatcher's time, is it?

Psst, Alastor, Millicent Bagnold was the Minister (Mistress?) of Magic before Fudge, not Millicent Bulstrode. Bulstrode was the girl who had Hermione in a headlock during the duelling club in CoS. :)

Don't forget Artemisia Lufkin who was the first witch to become Minister of Magic. This was about 200 years before Maggie Thatcher too. ;)

[Alastor D]

Psst, Alastor, Millicent Bagnold was the Minister (Mistress?) of Magic before Fudge, not Millicent Bulstrode. Bulstrode was the girl who had Hermione in a headlock during the duelling club in CoS. :)

Don't forget Artemisia Lufkin who was the first witch to become Minister of Magic. This was about 200 years before Maggie Thatcher too. ;)

Thanks rotsiepots!
It's funny to see how the ol' sloppy brains play tricks. I did check it and even wrote down on a scrap of paper that it should be Bagnold before writing that post. And then I wrote Bulstrode :upset: I may go back and edit it.

And, yes, also Artemisia Lufkin. But she's as far as I know mentioned only in the Chocolate Frog Cards. There are more prominent ladies mentioned in those cards.

[Puffskein]

Just because Narcissa doesn't say anything in front of Harry doesn't mean she's frail. She could be the power behind the throne, and that would be very strong of her to do that while seeming to hide in the background.

On the founders - Helga, at least, had a much better view of sorting than Salazar.

[Alci]

My three weapons are shipping neutrality, avoidance of over-analysis, and a sense of humour...and an almost fanatical devotion to Remus Lupin.
Well this settles the argument once and for all, anyone who quotes Monty Python must be in the right :D

[miss_hyde]

I would just like to say that I do not think that HP is sexist at all. Also that I think that feminists should be thinking about women's rights in 3rd world countries where the majority of women have no rights and are bound to demeaning traditions. Stop wasting your time looking into children's books for something to complain about. Look at the big picture and stop making stupid arguments about the little things.

[Elocin4684]

Well, I think it matters a lot rather HP is sexist or not. A lot of children read these books and are influenced by them, ie how some young readers have started talking w/ British slang terms (I do that too, though, after I've just reread a HP book).

Now, are the books sexist? Well, I think only a female writer that hates herself and being a woman and thinks a woman's place is in the kitchen would write a sexist book. Of course, if a woman thinks she should be in the kitchen, she probably wouldn't be writing, but I do know of women writers that make women a lesser creature in their books.

I don't think Jo is one of these women. I think Harry Potter is a better influence when it comes to the way women she be treated and she stand up on their own than compared to the church my sister's father drags her to every Sunday that teaches women should put their husbands' careers first and, if they're lucky, have their own career (that church will remain nameless as to not insult anybody). So I do thank Harry Potter for showing my sister strong female role models. I wouldn't be where I am today with out strong female role models as a young girl (I would like to thank Shera for this) and as a mid-teen (I'm not quite sure who these were during these times, but I'm pretty sure most of my images came from the books I read like the Elvenblood chronicles or Katherine Kerr books, but only specific women characters, and especially The Awakening, which is not a feminist book at all like most people believe it to be but a woman just realizing who she is and waking up out of her daze, and especially my English teacher who has lived 50 odd years with out a permanent man and has done more than all the men I know).

A woman might not be the minister, but there's a 50/50 chance of that happening. I've always believed that women stay out of the highest political positions because they are safer behind the scenese influencing the small-minded men that hold those positions (political figures that I think this of shall remain nameless and hid behind the BUSH). There are plenty of women profs at Hogwarts that stand on their own and are successful. There are also women high up in Voldie's gang showing women can be just as evil, if not more evil (think Bell) than men. I don't know if this is a good think, but it's true.

I would say that Harry Potter has plenty of female role models of the right kind (not sitting at home darning socks). I wouldn't say HP is sexist at all, especially since it's written by a woman. I'm not saying all books that are written by women aren't sexist, just that there are way fewer books that are when compared to books written by men.

[Elocin4684]

I would just like to say that I do not think that HP is sexist at all. Also that I think that feminists should be thinking about women's rights in 3rd world countries where the majority of women have no rights and are bound to demeaning traditions. Stop wasting your time looking into children's books for something to complain about. Look at the big picture and stop making stupid arguments about the little things.


Hyde, I have to disagree with you on looking into children's books for sexist motifs. Yes, I do think that 3rd world countries are a big battle ground for women's rights, but people also have to look at what's going on at home. If the children of your country are reading a popular book series that is in every other home and this series portrays women in a demeaning role with male domination as a big part of the book, then the little boys will grow up to be men that expect women to act like the women in their favorite series and the little girls will grow up to be women that think they are supposed to be dominated by the men. Mass media does affect how people think about the gender roles. There is a good example of how elementary books have come under fire in the last couple of years for showing far more pictures of males than females and how school text books for many grades show women in the lesser of the roles, such as a woman is the patient to a male psycholigist.

So, I do think it is very important to make sure that popular books kids are electing to read on their own portray an equal world for both men and women.

Now, I do agree that some feminist groups pick at stuff that doesn't need to be picked at, but, a lot of the times, they are just doing this for attention and they do get bigger issues out there while this is going on. You never know if this might be a publicity stunt.

Just remember, how children see gender roles now is going to be reflected in how your country sees gender roles in the near future, so I hope that if you have children, or when you do, you make sure they read good books like HP with both good male and female role models sharing equal ground instead of turning an eye to what they're reading and dismiss it as not important.

[Furienna]

OK, now I'm throwing myself into a women's lib fire, but I sure approve of gender roles. Well, I don't approve of one gender being considered inferior to the other (which goes for women being superior to men views as much as for men being superior to women views, though the latter is more common), but God has created two sexes and the sexes have different tasks in this world. For example, as for the church Elocin4684's sister was "dragged" to by her father, I could very well second the mentioned preaching. Nuff said for now...

[Elocin4684]

Well, I think if HP was like the preaching my sister is forced to endure, then I could see where the women of Sweden (correct country, right?) were coming from. I don't want my kids to think that just because they are a certain sex they should act a certain way, ie my daughters thinking they need to take care of the household and my sons thinking they need to make as much money as they can because they're going to have a wife to take care of that doesn't work. I just want them to be happy.

I think that there are 2 sexes beacause humans have evolved, on their own, past the asexual reproduction proccess, not because "god" made us this way. Could you imagine one sex? How boring!

Now, I'm gald that HP doesn't reflect traditional gender roles throughout the books. Yes, Molly does stay home w/ the kids, but that was her choice, I'm sure. HP shows both of Harry's parents being a very important part of the Order, it shows women and men profs (I think there might be more women when I think about it), and it shows women being high up in the MoM as well.

Props to Jo for giving both little boys and girls excellent, equally-footed role models.

[Furienna]

You got the right country all right. People over here in Sweden are totally bananas about not seeing that there are different people in this world, that not everybody should or even can do the same things. OK, so you don't believe in God, fine, though it's hard for me thinking the whole universe just came about through a coincidence, though I also don't belong to any traditional religion, but god-fearing, but please, take just one look in the nature, and you will see that the gender roles are holy among mamals. While both parents take care about the youngs among birds and none does among spineless animals (sorry, I can't remember a better term in English, though I know there is one) and reptiles, among mamals, it's the job of females to take care of the youngs, since they give birth and breast-feed and while the males either aren't around if it's a non-herd spieces or rather defend the herd if it's a herd spieces. From these basic gender roles, which in general make females more nurturing and males more aggressive, comes every gender role in the human world, and they are best off being kept the way they are. OK, this was a little bit off topic, but it had to be said.

Back on topic, I don't think that we through five pages of this thread have covered the people who have seen HP as too liberated. These people are of course the opposite of the people who think HP is sexist. While the people who think HP is too sexist are preferably left-wingers or at least "liberals", the people who think HP is too feminist are preferably right-wingers and often religious fundamentalists. We all know of the christians who hate HP, though this hatred Dursleyishly enough is mostly about the mere word "magic", but there are also muslims who feel strong girls like Hermione are a danger. I'm not an icky liberal, but not a religious fundamentalist either, so as expected, you will find me in the middle, and I as usual don't feel that HP promotes either sexist or feminist values, but rather a realistic image of 1990's Brittain.

[sawyer]

I read many Mevam posts and I found that he is not totally wrong: real society is sexist, HP books in some way "photograph" reality so they are a little sexist just because society is sexist. :huh:

[Cat]

I read many Mevam posts and I found that he is not totally wrong: real society is sexist, HP books in some way "photograph" reality so they are a little sexist just because society is sexist. :huh:

You could say there's also feminism as well then. In Quidditch Through the Ages there is a description of an all-woman Quidditch team.

***
I don't understand why people attack individual female characters to defend their argument that the series is sexist. If the women in general seemed to be portrayed in a questionable way, then fine. If the men in general were given superiority over the women, then that would be an understandable complaint too. But the women in the series have very varied roles and different personalities. Saying that Lavender and Parvati are nitwits, which I suppose is true in many ways, doesn't aid the argument. Lavender and Parvati are not meant to be portrayals of women in general. You can't deny that people like Lavender and Parvati exist in reality (there were about twenty seven of them in my school, I swear!) and you can't deny that there are women who stay at home rather than work, like Petunia Dursley. They're individual characters in individual roles, not a battle of men against women. You can't put your hand on your heart and say that Mrs Weasley and Bellatrix Lestrange are on the same side and have the same message. You might as way say that the character Mundungus Fletcher suggests that all men are petty criminals.

Anyway, since there are an abundance of female characters and many of them have prestigious roles, whether in job description or in terms of the story, I think the argument that Harry Potter is sexist is entirely unfounded. Two housewives don't make a book sexist.

[sawyer]

I don't understand why people attack individual female characters to defend their argument that the series is sexist. If the women in general seemed to be portrayed in a questionable way, then fine. If the men in general were given superiority over the women, then that would be an understandable complaint too. But the women in the series have very varied roles and different personalities.

I almost agree with you and I have just tried to salvage whatever possible of Mevam's theory. :)
JK can always describe her characters whithout thinking about sociology and feminist battles. :eyebrows:

[Puffskein]

Well this settles the argument once and for all, anyone who quotes Monty Python must be in the right :D

Thanks, but I don't make those claims to superiority!

Just one random thought: if a woman can be as good as a man, then it follows that a woman can be as bad (evil/incompetent) as a man.

[Cat]

Just one random thought: if a woman can be as good as a man, then it follows that a woman can be as bad (evil/incompetent) as a man.

:agree:

I've have a random thought too: if Lockhart was a woman (all looks, no brains, ineffectual, wimp) some people here would use the character to aid their argument that the series is indeed sexist. But J. K. Rowling didn't make him a woman, she made him a man. Somehow the fact that a male character is portrayed in such a way doesn't make a difference, yet the fact that Mrs Weasley (Order member, brave, kind, hardy, occasionally formidable) doesn't have a paid job is, apparently, an attrocity.

A phrase pops into mind - 'double standards'.

[UselessCharmMaster]

I've have a random thought too: if Lockhart was a woman (all looks, no brains, ineffectual, wimp) some people here would use the character to aid their argument that the series is indeed sexist. But J. K. Rowling didn't make him a woman, she made him a man. Somehow the fact that a male character is portrayed in such a way doesn't make a difference, yet the fact that Mrs Weasley (Order member, brave, kind, hardy, occasionally formidable) doesn't have a paid job is, apparently, an attrocity.

Well, anyway Lockhart GOT the job, and we can't be sure a woman with his characterictics would. :p

And, I'm sorry, if one female character doesn't make a difference, one all-female Quidditch team doesn't, either.

[Cat]

Well, anyway Lockhart GOT the job, and we can't be sure a woman with his characterictics would. :p

What the hell are you on about? Half the staff are female! Am I misunderstanding you here...?

[UselessCharmMaster]

Yes, but they are mostly competent. With the exception of Umbridge, but this is another point.

[Cat]

Yes, but they are mostly competent. With the exception of Umbridge, but this is another point.

Trelawney is no Professor McGonagall. What are you getting at, anyway?

[UselessCharmMaster]

I want to make feminist revolution, of course. As for Trelawney, she is very good at Divination, she teaches it just as it should be taught.

[Bjornar]

I guess technically that would be almost correct as it seems true visions aren't something that can be taught or even anticipated! Trelawney is a true seer, they're just few and far between, though I would agree with Cat instating that Prof. McGonagall does seem to have more applicable talent in her trade.

[misaki]

I really did think that Professor Trelawney was a crackpot who had breathed in too much of the smoke thats in that tower of hers until the end of book 5 when Dumbledore told Harry about her predicting the future years before. No I don't think the books are sexist in the least. JK has written very strong female characters that add to the plots of the books nicely and of course the two airheads (Pro. Lockhartt and Pro. Trelawney).

[Cat]

I want to make feminist revolution, of course. As for Trelawney, she is very good at Divination, she teaches it just as it should be taught.

By saying that all the female teachers are ace?

Well, I guess that's a feminist revolution...
:huh:

You've got a point about her teaching Divination as it should be taught. She's an expert in her field, it's not her fault that her field is boggy.

I've decided to count the number of named teachers at Hogwarts.

Female:
McGonagall
Sprout
Trelawney
Sinistra
Vector
Hooch
Grubbly-Plank (well, she keeps appearing)
[Umbridge]

Male:
Snape
Flitwick
Binns
Hagrid
[Quirrel]
[Lockhart]
[Lupin]
[Moody]
Firenze

Oh, there's one more male teacher than there are female! There's Pomfrey and Pince, as well though. If I include them I can't forget our beloved caretaker, Filch!

I think J. K. Rowling probably made a point of having two male Heads of House and two female ones, even though I said earlier that I don't think the books are specifically feminist (and definitely not sexist). McGonagall may 'only' be the deputy but, hey, Snape isn't! Nor Flitwick!

It amazes me that certain people seem to think all the aforementioned ladies somehow don't count.

[hermy_weasley2]

Let's think about this:

Professor McGonagall: Order member, fair, stern, Transfiguration teacher, Head of Gryffindor House, Deputy Headmistress of Hogwarts, presumably very powerful as we see throughout OoTP

Madam Hooch: Quidditch instructor at Hogwarts

Professor Sprout: Herbology teacher, Head of Hufflepuff House

Madam Pince: strict, vul;ture-like librarian at Hogwarts

Molly Weasley: kind, opinionated(OoTP and PoA when she didn't want Harry to know the truth), Order member who was apperently "on duty" in OoTP

Ginny Weasley: great Quidditch player, can put Harry in place, surrived encounters with the most powerful dark wizard of all time and his henchmen at the ages of 11 and 14, insisted while putting up a good fight that she, Luna and Neville accompany the others to the MoM, can lie through her teeth

Angelina Johnson, Katie Bell, Alicia Spinnet: the only all-female chaser group at Hogwarts who also helped a lot in winning the Quidditch Cup for Gryffindor twice

Angleina Johnson: captain of the the Gryffindor Quidditch team in her seventh year

Madame Maxime: Headmistress of Beauxbatons academy, joined Hagrid on his quests dealing with the giants

Fleur Delacour: participated for her school in the Triwizard Tournament after being chosen over at least a few of her male classmates (as we saw at the Yule Ball with Parvati and Padma) and probably would have done better if someone wasn't intentionally trying to stop her

Hermione Granger: I'm not going to waste time explaining this again

Amelia Bones: High-ranking official as part of Magical Law Enforcement wasn't it?

Lily Potter: "thrice defied Voldemort". Order member while also being a mother albeit for a short time

Alice Longbottom: " " " " "

Bellatrix Lestrange: high-ranking Death Eater (if there is such a thing---not exactly good, but not weak anyway), broke out of Azkaban with as much sanity as she had when she went in, responsible for the deats of many people (Again, not good, but strong)

Rowena Raveclaw and Helga Hufflepuff: two of the greatest wizards.witches of their time and maybe of all time, while overshadowed by the feud between Gryffindor and Slytherin they were still two of the founders of Hogwarts

Madam Rosmerta: runs the Three Broomsticks

Madam Pomfrey: runs the Hospital wing at Hogwarts

Nymphadora Tonks: Auror, metamorphmagus, Order member




Also, we know there have been Headmistresses at Hogwarts as well as female Healers at St. Mungo's. The portraits in Dumbledore's offfice and the one that's in both Dumbledore's office and St. Mungo's tell us this.






If I missed anyone, let me know.

[Ginevra Weasley]

Nope.I think you got it pretty much all covered.But what about Katie Bell,who's probably going to be captain of the Gryffindor Quidditch team next year?I think she could be put in the list,and so should Troy,Mullet and Moran,who ensured that Ireland won the Quidditch World Cup despite their Seeker's failure to catch the Snitch?

[hermy_weasley2]

Nope.I think you got it pretty much all covered.But what about Katie Bell,who's probably going to be captain of the Gryffindor Quidditch team next year?I think she could be put in the list,and so should Troy,Mullet and Moran,who ensured that Ireland won the Quidditch World Cup despite their Seeker's failure to catch the Snitch?


Katie Bell's listed with Angelina and Alicia, and I think she's leaving Hogwarts with them isn't she? I thought she was in the same year with Fred and George. Hmm..:shrug:. And I was going to add Tryo, Mullet and Moran, but I couldn't remember if they were women or not.

[Elocin4684]

Thanks, but I don't make those claims to superiority!

Just one random thought: if a woman can be as good as a man, then it follows that a woman can be as bad (evil/incompetent) as a man.


Yes, I totally agree with the exil thing. And I think because Jo describes Bellatrix as one of Voldie's most evil lackeys, then that shows that women and men have equal footing in the HP universe.

I understand that this book is trying to capture real circumstances in the world around this time, but it also shows a lot more women in higher places than mostly in the real world. I don't think Jo worried about carrying over sexist work values that the real world holds into her own creation.

I don't think anybody used the fact that Molly stays home as an argument towards sexist values. I know I mentioned it, but I also said that it was her choice and you could tell she wanted to be there and she was happy there. Also, it's almost a role reversal because Molly seems like the one to protect the home, not Arthur. It's kind of like the split the stereotypical male role into 2 parts; Molly protects the home and Arthur supports it financialy.

I think Lockhart's characterstics were a breakthrough because not a lot of male characters through out popular literature have ever been portrayed like that; mainly that spot was held for women. But, also, I have to disagree with you on Lockhart having no brains; he obviously was smart enough to twist all these stories into his own, find people out in the middle of nowhere that hardly anybody would recognize their stories in England, and also to get in and out of the people's places without being noticed so nobody could trace their true stories to his false stories. Also, he has to be really good with charms to do his memory charm. Now, I know a lot of people are going to think that he wasn't that smart because, if he was, he would have gone out and done all these things on his own and not stole these stories and that would be the smart thing to do. This is the school-aged mentality. In the real world, smart is doing what you have to do to succeed and accomplishing it in a great way. This is what Lockhart did, if not in an immoral way. Wow, that's kind of off subject, SORRY ;) So, the point is, Lockhart isn't stupid, he just doesn't have a lot of common sense. If all the male characters were portrayed like that, then you could say that it was a sexist book, but, because you have great male characters like Dumbledore, Fudge (who captures the true essence of a high-up politician), Hagrid (who is as kind-hearted as you can get), and Snape (who is very smart and turned his back on the most evil wizard in ages to be a double-agent for the good side), one character like Lockhart really doesn't effect the male outlook in the book. That would be like a book full of successful female executives and there's one little female sitting there at home baking cookies all day.

Also, one book, or series, portraying men in a bad light is nothing compared to the years of books portraying women as the ones who have to give up all hopes of a career and sit at home and take care of kids. I think the big thing is for these women in Sweeden is that they can't change past literature, but they can change the literature that is being written now, so they must seize the oppurtunity.

Hmm... I think the reason why Trelawny is looked down upon is that she's only had 2 true visions in her entire seering career (that makes it sound like she cooks). From this, we can deduce that past famous seers had more than 2 visions in a life time. Also, remember that Dumbledore was contemplating not even having that class. I think the whole "devinations is worthless" attitude stems from the fact that it seems the skill can't be taught. You either have it or you don't. I think the best way to do it is if someone shows a potential for it, apprentice them to a real seer. It doesn't matter if Trelawney is male or female; seers seem to be only held as high as the amount of visions they've had.

I think McGonagall is by far the strongest adult female in the books. She took over running Hogwarts while Dumbledore was expelled; although she seemed to get a bit ruffled, I don't think anybody would have done a better job. And, Dumbledore trusts her for to do that. That means a lot, also. She also let Harry's gang torment Umbridge without putting a stop to it.

Now, about Umbridge and her being a female, I think that shows that women can be more evil in a more subtle way than men. Just had to add my opinion about that one.

All in all, I think there are great female role models in this series. They all show independence, which I think is important, and the ability to contribute to a greater cause at the same level, and sometimes a higher level, as their male counterparts. The books show us that the fight against Voldie wouldn't be a success if there wern't witches like these.

Just one quick thing off subject: Humans have evolved beyond the gender roles that lower mammals take out of instinct. Humans no longer rely on instinct and can step out and change.

[Achilles]

Harry Potter is a liberal book. It appeals to everyone, there not a hint of communism, imperialism, capitalism, or any other political ideal in these books. Jo writes them the way she wants, for all of us to enjoy. These books are based on children growing up remember. :cool:

[Elocin4684]

Hmm... liberal is right. There are so many conservative, bible thumpers where I live that I'm surprised there hasn't been a HP buring party yet. Maybe they're waiting for all the books to come out and they'll get them in one fell fire! ;)

[Achilles]

I dont see the problem with books about a teenage wizard. magic does not even exist anyway, so I dont understand what conservative religious types have against the books. grrr. :evil:

[Katarzyna]

Sexist? Not. At. All.

First of all, a big fat Word! to everyone's who's mentioned Hermione, Ginny, McGonagall, the girls who play Quiddich, Tonks, Mrs W, Lily, the former head-mistresses, the other Hogwarts teachers, and so on.

What I like about the HP series is that the women are portrayed as real human beings, having strengths and weaknesses on par with the men's strength's and weaknesses. I have yet to come across any female mary-sue characters, the too-perfect, too-tragic girls who garner sympathy from everyone in the story, and are hated by most self-respecting females reading the story.

For example: Hermione is on her way to becomming an excellent witch, and she's a great friend to Harry, but is also a pain in the you-know-what when it comes to Spew and HouseElves, andl, sometimes, rules. Her flaws are opposite, but quite similar to Ron's flaws; he's usually a great friend to Harry, but has a jealous streak, and can sometimes lead Harry to do the wrong thing.

I think most characters, male and female, are set up this way--with interesting and "realistic" strengths and weaknesses. (Realistic for the Wizarding world, that is!) These strengths and weaknesses are recognized not only by the readers, but also by the other characters in the story. They're deliberate, and natural. And, not sexist. In my very humble opinion, of course!

[Dedalus]

Sexist? Not. At. All.

First of all, a big fat Word! to everyone's who's mentioned Hermione, Ginny, McGonagall, the girls who play Quiddich, Tonks, Mrs W, Lily, the former head-mistresses, the other Hogwarts teachers, and so on.

What I like about the HP series is that the women are portrayed as real human beings, having strengths and weaknesses on par with the men's strength's and weaknesses. I have yet to come across any female mary-sue characters, the too-perfect, too-tragic girls who garner sympathy from everyone in the story, and are hated by most self-respecting females reading the story.

For example: Hermione is on her way to becomming an excellent witch, and she's a great friend to Harry, but is also a pain in the you-know-what when it comes to Spew and HouseElves, andl, sometimes, rules. Her flaws are opposite, but quite similar to Ron's flaws; he's usually a great friend to Harry, but has a jealous streak, and can sometimes lead Harry to do the wrong thing.

I think most characters, male and female, are set up this way--with interesting and "realistic" strengths and weaknesses. (Realistic for the Wizarding world, that is!) These strengths and weaknesses are recognized not only by the readers, but also by the other characters in the story. They're deliberate, and natural. And, not sexist. In my very humble opinion, of course!
Humble though it may be, it really is an excellent opinion ;)

I agree with everything you've just said. I don't like the idea of a superwoman gliding through the pages, a tragic, brave, beautiful and brilliant (git) of a character, and I don't see why women characters shouldn't have flaws, when all the men characters do too, when none of the men are like what some people are requesting of the women.

I really don't like the idea that if one woman character shows fear, or needs company, or isn't the top of her job, then she's "letting the side down". Look at some of the men! Most of the men characters have turned to their friends for help too, and they're not helpless, there have been male characters who have been fearful (or downright cowards), or haven't be strong in certain situations, and male characters who don't work or have poor jobs, or at least not all top jobs ... why are the women characters suddenly worth less than the men that have equal fears and equal positions, in the minds of those wanting Harry Potter to be sexist? Isn't that itself exceedingly sexist?

[Furienna]

Also, one book, or series, portraying men in a bad light is nothing compared to the years of books portraying women as the ones who have to give up all hopes of a career and sit at home and take care of kids.
And this would be a bad thing, why?
I think the big thing is for these women in Sweeden is that they can't change past literature, but they can change the literature that is being written now, so they must seize the oppurtunity.
Why change litterature at all? Why don't they let people write what they want?
Just one quick thing off subject: Humans have evolved beyond the gender roles that lower mammals take out of instinct. Humans no longer rely on instinct and can step out and change.
So humans don't have instincts anymore? Yeah right. :rolleyes:.
Hmm... liberal is right. There are so many conservative, bible thumpers where I live that I'm surprised there hasn't been a HP buring party yet. Maybe they're waiting for all the books to come out and they'll get them in one fell fire! ;)
How about this idea? We switch places. You go here to icky liberal Sweden and I can go to the sound conservative Texas! There is just one problem... I'm a god-fearer, not a christian, and I believe in evolution... :shrug:

[Pilum]

Elocin, I'm going to go with Furienna here on instincts. I held my first child in my arms on the 15th. Believe me, there was nothing 'evolved' or 'rational' about my feelings then...

I still don't get the idea that we make up for past injustices by active discrimination in the present. To its logical extent, it means that the Indians on the reservations are about to come in for some serious windfalls. :)

[Miss Weasley]

Ooh,congratulations,Pilum!But what are the instincts of a female?I think they're more conditioned to caregiving not just because of the soft fluffy bit.I've always thought of women's traditional roles as being that of protectors-not passive like most women are portrayed.Try taking a newborn pup away from its mother and you'll see what I mean.And I don't see any of the Potterverse women as passive.
The books aren't sexist.I think that's because of the very nature of magic-it places more emphasis on what's in the brain and the heart,what kinfd of person you are, than (as was in the prehistoric Muggle world) on physical force.So in that sense,wizards are quite a lot more evolved than we are.In the magical world,an intelligent witch who's only five feet tall could kick a six-foot idiot's you-know-what several times over without turning a hair.Where would you find that in the Muggle world-our world?And given that,how can you call the books sexist?

[fawkes5]

I searched around for definitions of the word 'sexism' and this is what I found...

1. Discrimination on the basis of sex.
2. The belief that one sex is superior to the other.
3. The belief that men and women are very different and this should be
strongly reflected in society, language, and the law.

Not being sexist means that a person can achieve anything or be anything he/she wants regardless of his/her sex and regardless of traditional gender roles.

If you are female and you want to be a doctor or a soldier, go right ahead. If you are male and you want to be a house-husband or a nurse, go right ahead, too!

The books aren't sexist because there was never a character that was limited or defined by his/her sex. It was always the character's choices and abilities that defined who it was not its sex.

Furriena, it is true there is nothing wrong with sitting at home and taking of the kids. But when a woman wants to do more than sitting at home and taking care of kids and people say to her 'don't!' just because she was a woman then that would be wrong. I think that is what Elocin has been trying to say.

It is true that most women have "maternal" instincts and are usually better equipped to take care of the kids. But you must remember that because of evolution and sexual reproduction which produce variations in human genes people are very different from each other. This is very necessary for survival of the species. Thus, there may very well be women who do not have maternal instincts while there may be men who do. And there is nothing wrong with that.

[Furienna]

I searched around for definitions of the word 'sexism' and this is what I found...
1. Discrimination on the basis of sex.
2. The belief that one sex is superior to the other.
3. The belief that men and women are very different and this should be
strongly reflected in society, language, and the law.
So I believe in point 3 there. Does that make me a sexist? Oh well, I know what I believe and won't stop believing it no matter what people call me.

The books aren't sexist because there was never a character that was limited or defined by his/her sex. It was always the character's choices and abilities that defined who it was not its sex.
And that's what most of us have been trying to say for six pages now.

Furriena, it is true there is nothing wrong with sitting at home and taking of the kids. But when a woman wants to do more than sitting at home and taking care of kids and people say to her 'don't!' just because she was a woman then that would be wrong. I think that is what Elocin has been trying to say. It is true that most women have "maternal" instincts and are usually better equipped to take care of the kids. But you must remember that because of evolution and sexual reproduction which produce variations in human genes people are very different from each other. This is very necessary for survival of the species. Thus, there may very well be women who do not have maternal instincts while there may be men who do. And there is nothing wrong with that.
OK, this was for me personally (though my nick name has only one r, not two, and two n:s, not just one). Yep, there are women who won't make good mothers and don't want children and want to do something else. Actually, we have three cats at home, who are all brothers, and their mother was a bad mother, and she was a cat! It's my opinion that these women who prefer a career to children and don't want children shouldn't get children. If a woman has children, she should never let anything be more important than them.

[UselessCharmMaster]

Yep, there are women who won't make good mothers and don't want children and want to do something else. It's my opinion that these women who prefer a career to children and don't want children shouldn't get children. If a woman has children, she should never let anything be more important than them.

1) In a sexist society a woman can't freely prefer a carreer to children, and these who prefer "something else" are considered as bad women and bad persons.
2) If a woman with children has a job, it doesn't mean their children aren't the most important thing to her. (And even a woman with children has right to her own ambitions and desires).

Is the book sexist? And is our reading of it sexist? Well this is a boy's story. A boy's story is for everyone, a girl's story would probably be only for girls. Women are a special case, men are the model of humans.

About the count of Hogwarts teachers - maybe the number is equal, but what do we know about Professors Vectra or Sinistra?
Bertha Jorkins a strong woman? Sirius describes her as "very nosy with no brains"! Ans she appears once (and already dead).

[fawkes5]

So I believe in point 3 there. Does that make me a sexist? Oh well, I know what I believe and won't stop believing it no matter what people call me.

No. I think it would depend how you apply your beliefs.

I mean if I tried to tell you you were wrong to believe that then I'd be practicing some kind of discrimination too. You are entirely entitled to your own thoughts and opinions. You have the right to live your life the way you want to and raise your children the way you want to.

It becomes wrong when you judge others or try to prevent others from doing something they truly want to do solely on the reason of gender and traditional gender roles.

I'm sorry I spelled your name wrong.:)

A boy's story is for everyone, a girl's story would probably be only for girls. Women are a special case, men are the model of humans.

I prefer to think of it as a person's story, Harry's story. There are a lot of stories about women that men would do well to read. If they do, maybe they'd (the men) stop saying "I don't understand women at all."

[Furienna]

1) In a sexist society a woman can't freely prefer a carreer to children, and these who prefer "something else" are considered as bad women and bad persons.
2) If a woman with children has a job, it doesn't mean their children aren't the most important thing to her. (And even a woman with children has right to her own ambitions and desires).
Still, if you have a job, you have a harder time taking care of your children than if you don''t have a job, so...
Is the book sexist? And is our reading of it sexist? Well this is a boy's story. A boy's story is for everyone, a girl's story would probably be only for girls. Women are a special case, men are the model of humans.
Oh, you're getting dark here. As much as some boys wouldn't want to read a "girl's story", some boys would, and I don't think girls generally read all "boy's stories" either. And anyhow, HP is not a story just for boys... I can agree that men are somewhat the model of a human. Even feminists who work against "gender roles" tend to prefer traditionally male roles. I sure believe that traditionally female roles are to be appreciated too, but also that men should do man things and women should do women things.
About the count of Hogwarts teachers - maybe the number is equal, but what do we know about Professors Vectra or Sinistra? Bertha Jorkins a strong woman? Sirius describes her as "very nosy with no brains"! Ans she appears once (and already dead).
True, we don't know much about professors Sinistra or Vector, but we don't know too much about a lot of male teachers. Don't come and tell me that we know as much about professors Flitwick or Binns as we know about Dumbledore, Snape, Hagrid or, ta da, McGonagall. And what about the teachers in Ancient Runes and Muggle Studies? They might sure be men. Bertha Jorkins might be not be a strong character really, but she stll has a rather important role in GOF.

No. I think it would depend how you apply your beliefs.
I mean if I tried to tell you you were wrong to believe that then I'd be practicing some kind of discrimination too. You are entirely entitled to your own thoughts and opinions. You have the right to live your life the way you want to and raise your children the way you want to. It becomes wrong when you judge others or try to prevent others from doing something they truly want to do solely on the reason of gender and traditional gender roles.
I'm sorry I spelled your name wrong.:)

[Furienna]

1) In a sexist society a woman can't freely prefer a carreer to children, and these who prefer "something else" are considered as bad women and bad persons.
2) If a woman with children has a job, it doesn't mean their children aren't the most important thing to her. (And even a woman with children has right to her own ambitions and desires).
Still, if you have a job, you have a harder time taking care of your children than if you don''t have a job, so...
Is the book sexist? And is our reading of it sexist? Well this is a boy's story. A boy's story is for everyone, a girl's story would probably be only for girls. Women are a special case, men are the model of humans.
Oh, you're getting dark here. As much as some boys wouldn't want to read a "girl's story", some boys would, and I don't think girls generally read all "boy's stories" either. And anyhow, HP is not a story just for boys... I can agree that men are somewhat the model of a human. Even feminists who work against "gender roles" tend to prefer traditionally male roles. I sure believe that traditionally female roles are to be appreciated too, but also that men should do man things and women should do women things.
About the count of Hogwarts teachers - maybe the number is equal, but what do we know about Professors Vectra or Sinistra? Bertha Jorkins a strong woman? Sirius describes her as "very nosy with no brains"! Ans she appears once (and already dead).
True, we don't know much about professors Sinistra or Vector, but we don't know too much about a lot of male teachers. Don't come and tell me that we know as much about professors Flitwick or Binns as we know about Dumbledore, Snape, Hagrid or, ta da, McGonagall. And what about the teachers in Ancient Runes and Muggle Studies? They might sure be men. Bertha Jorkins might be not be a strong character really, but she stll has a rather important role in GOF.
No. I think it would depend how you apply your beliefs.
I mean if I tried to tell you you were wrong to believe that then I'd be practicing some kind of discrimination too. You are entirely entitled to your own thoughts and opinions. You have the right to live your life the way you want to and raise your children the way you want to. It becomes wrong when you judge others or try to prevent others from doing something they truly want to do solely on the reason of gender and traditional gender roles.

OK... Interesting...

[Katarzyna]

Still, if you have a job, you have a harder time taking care of your children than if you don''t have a job, so...
What about fathers who have jobs outside the house? Are you saying their children are less important to them because their jobs take them away from their children?

Also, you need income to support your family--if you don't have money, then you'll have an exceptionally hard time taking care of your children. So some (most?) women who work outside the house are doing so to make their children's lives better.

[Elocin4684]

It's my opinion that these women who prefer a career to children and don't want children shouldn't get children. If a woman has children, she should never let anything be more important than them.


I hope you don't mean that a woman that has a career shouldn't be allowed to have children, yet a man that has a career can have children because he has a wife at home taking care of them. Also, please don't say that the career woman can have children if they quit their careers. I don't think this is very healthy; my mom's boyfriend's ex-wife (many words, short connection) quit working when they had their kid, and now she is a little psycho in the fact that the kid (which is 8) is not allowed to do anything without her supervision (this includes sleep overs in very wealthy homes). She even plans her days around what he needs and refuses to work so she can take her son to all these practices that he does not like to go to. It's just not healthy. Also, I plan to have a very lucrative career, but I also want to have a child (hopefully left handed, hee hee). If I quit my job, I would not have as much money as if I staid at my job. Here, in America, society is now built on 2 income households. It no longer is economically sound to have only 1 spouse working. My child will recieve all the oppurtunities they want, and I will provide them will all these through the money I earn.


When I was talking about the Swedish women trying to change literature today, I meant they are trying to make literature that children are likely to read more along the lines of what they want them to reflect. I didn't mean more adult literature, such as the Da Vinci Code, and so forth.

And, yes, I would love to switch places with somebody that lives in a more liberal place than the bible belt (which is most of the wetern world).

[Drusilla]

Not just in America,Elocin,it doesn't make sound economic sense anywhere in the world to have a single-income family.I know,because my mum worked for a long while before quitting her job,and she keeps saying how much easier it was when she and dad were both working.She used to get loads of flak over my so-called upbringing when she had a job,but we all knew it was necessary-she did it so I could have a whole lot of opportunities that she didn't,growing up.And,as you said,a whole lot of women work precisely for that purpose.Though I can't picture myself with a kid right now,I can definitely see myself working,whether or not I have a kid.
As far as the books go,the lack of detailed portrayals of career women with children doesn't make it sexist.And it isn't feminist,either.The stories would be totally ruined if witches ran around demanding equal rights (which they already have,anyway).Or maybe Hermione could take up that cause:-) .Kidding.A while back,there was a thread that said that women with children were always portrayed as "good" in the Potterverse-until someone pointed out the fine examples of Petunia Dursley,old Mrs Black,and Narcissa Malfoy.I think people should just enjoy the books and stop trying to pick them apart as they read.

[Elocin4684]

I do think that a number of witches are portrayed w/ careers. I was thinking that Harry didn't have any contact with them on a consistent basis (besides profs which can be argued that that's a stereotypical role for women and doesn't count) and that's why we don't remember them, but then we have Madame Rosmerta, which runs a very successful tavern.

[Elocin4684]

Alright, I've started a new thread for the whole gender role argument:
Gender Roles (http://www.cosforums.com/showthread.php?p=954509#post954509)

It can be found in the age-rated section. I can't remember what they renamed it; I'm pretty sure it was International something...

Please feel free to add to the thread with your opinion.

[UselessCharmMaster]

I can agree that men are somewhat the model of a human. Even feminists who work against "gender roles" tend to prefer traditionally male roles. I sure believe that traditionally female roles are to be appreciated too, but also that men should do man things and women should do women things.

If some feminists really prefer male roles, it's because in our society these roles give power and money, girl, not because they're "the model".

What are "men things" and "women things"?

[Furienna]

If some feminists really prefer male roles, it's because in our society these roles give power and money, girl, not because they're "the model".
True, but why want power and money anyway? And do you mean just some feminists want to be men? Yeah right... :P
What are "men things" and "women things"?
Look around in nature. Think of which roles the genders have in other mamal spieces. Think of what's traditionally male and what's traditionally female. Then reply with an answer and I'll tell you if you're right or wrong.

[DsX Phoenix]

I think most people who complain that the books are sexist see very specific problems. Most of these posts generalize over these main issues.

1. How many women can afford to not work when they are as poor as the Weasleys? Molly's a mother who doesn't even have her children with her for most of the year. How realistic is it to suggest (in a 2-income economy) that families should do without rather than have the mother pull in some extra cash on the side, especially when the kiddies are at boarding school? You might ask what realism has to do with HP, but that's a cop-out. What makes HP so fascinating is its down-playing of the magical element, its focus on the human element.

The Weasely's had 8 children, I believe (if I counted them correctly). Ginny, the youngest, just began Hogwarts, 4 years ago? We have no idea how old Molly is, or what she did before she had all of those children, but it can be assumed she is too old (or feels she is too old) to start a career now, and, based on her personality in the series, it would be absurd to think she could manage working a full-time job and leaving her children at home alone, or at a day care of some kind.


2. How many beautiful girls demonstrate a large intellect? Though Cho is in Ravenclaw and so obviously intelligent, we see her playing the over-emotional female. Hermione is disfigured by her buck-teeth--so it's OK that she's a brain, Minerva is a very masculine woman--stern, not sexy, sporty--unless she has a rare moment of sentimentality. Why can't she be vivacious and smart? Why does she have to stereotypically look pinched, sharp, unfeminine? Molly plays the jolly mother--salt of the earth, heart of gold, is the only person in the order who can't divorce herself from her emotions long enough to deal with a boggart. I personally found her scurrying to wait on Arthur deplorable; this makes her a servant, ahouse-elf, virtually. I guess, you could argue that this is the only way she can pull her weight in the household when the kids aren't there. Parvati and Lavender are giggly, pretty, boy-minded, flighty and studiously non-intellectual. They are only interested in unicorns and divination; they almost have to work at being shallow and uninformed. Ginny does need to be rescued, and her character was changed after JKR came under fire. How many of us detested Ginny in CoS. I certainly must raise my hand. These are the female characters. You can't say they aren't stereotypes. Hermione does eventually blossom, true. But why? One might cynically point out that Ron needs to find her more attractive before they start up a flirtation. We've seen his attitude. Just because Hermione calls him on it doesn't mean that she doesn't try to meet his expectations in some ways.

What about Tonks? She comes off as an attractive woman to me, and while she is a clutz (as are several of the male characters), she is also a very good auror, and at a very young age. I believe the books said she finished top of her class, didn't it?

Molly's character is a woman who is consumed by devotion to her family. This is the only reason she couldn't overcome the boggart. This is why she scurries to "serve" Arthur. Some may feel this is a character flaw, but to me, this shows more strength and power than if JKR made Molly some big corporate CEO.

Ginny was 11 when she needed to be rescued. And if you remember, the only reason she needed rescueing was because she was conned by Tom Riddle, something Riddle was able to do to Harry, even. Also, how many times has Hermione saved Harry and Ron?

As far as the other school girls' characters, yes, they are stereotypes, but they are stereotypes of school children, not girls. You said you detested Ginny in CoS, well, how did you feel about Harry towards Cho in GoF and OotP? How studious do the guys in the series come across? In fact, who is studious at all, other than Hermione?

Also, what about Harry's mother? She is described as very intelligent, attractive, and she was also a major player (apparently) in the fight against Voldemorte. And you cannot say this was put in after JKR took heat from feminists, because she has been described like this since the first book.

3. How many women do have high-ranking jobs in government? They're there, but not developed unless they are gruesome characters like Umbridge. They always seem secondary or answerable to men. They seldom seem to have direct power (unless, like Umbridge, they abuse it).

How many men have high ranking jobs in government? They're there, but not developed unless they are completely incompetent like Fudge. To be blunt, name one government employee in the books who is a strong character? Arthur is the only one, and again, he is not the strongest character in the series.

[Elocin4684]

If some feminists really prefer male roles, it's because in our society these roles give power and money, girl, not because they're "the model".

What are "men things" and "women things"?


I agree. Typically, men have held jobs with greater salary and greater power. There is nothing masculine in the career fields of doctor and lawyer, but, because for the longest time only men were allowed to go to school, they have become stereotyped as male occupations. This is being broken, though, by women not wanting to take male roles but wanting nice checks or to make a difference, sometimes both of these things.



True, but why want power and money anyway? And do you mean just some feminists want to be men? Yeah right... :P


Are you saying that feminists want to be men? I've been called a feminist several times over the years, and I have no want or need to be a man. I think they're moody and very stubborn and I couldn't get to wear the cute clothes I wear. Anyway, I get away with a lot of stuff men don't get away with, such as showing emotions. Feminists don't want to be men. Women that get sex change operations want to be men, but not feminists. Unless a feminist gets a sex change operation, but that wouldn't make sense because feminists are all into empowering women and to be turned into a man would be saying that the female gender is not suited for them.




I agree that Molly never had a career because she was raising children. Now, normally, if you had 1 or 2 children, this would not be a good exscuse, but to have 8 children is. I'm sure witches and wizards can't leave their children at home alone, just like muggles, under a certain age, so I'm sure they have some form of day care. All of Molly's wages would have gone into daycare because of the amount of children. It's not financially sound in this case for Molly to work and put children and in daycare. Now, I would assume Molly is up in age (around 50 atleast) and is too old to start a career. She would be stuck in some fast-food equivalent job. Since almost all their children are finished with school, the Weasleys' cost of living is fixing to go way down, therefore, she doesn't need a job if she doesn't want one.


Also, I do hold firm to what I have said before; unless a current female author hates her gender (usually provoked by the way she was raised to think men are superior), if she is writing a modern book and not a time-set book where she is capturing the mood toward women of that time, she will write a book that has very few sexist qualities in it, if any. I believe HP falls into the if any.

[DsX Phoenix]

Also, I do hold firm to what I have said before; unless a current female author hates her gender (usually provoked by the way she was raised to think men are superior), if she is writing a modern book and not a time-set book where she is capturing the mood toward women of that time, she will write a book that has very few sexist qualities in it, if any. I believe HP falls into the if any.

I understand what you meant, but I do feel like I need to point this out: it is quite possible (and in fact happens regular) for women to be sexist towards men.

[fawkes5]

I'm female. I certainly don't want to be a man. But I want all the opportunities afforded to a man. In other words, I want to make my own decisions regarding career and family regardless of what other people think I "should" do because I'm a woman.

[Furienna]

OK. :rolleyes:

[rhtruluv]

I think its neither

[Da_Chinkster]

I think it is neither too.

[rhtruluv]

I mean hows it sexist

[UselessCharmMaster]

Look around in nature. Think of which roles the genders have in other mamal spieces. Think of what's traditionally male and what's traditionally female. Then reply with an answer and I'll tell you if you're right or wrong.

Mammals? Then the only "women thing" different from men would be having children - with the strongest and most handsome man - and protecting them. No cleaning, no cooking, no caring for males. Perfect.

[Furienna]

Sure, only humans cook and clean, but if that has been traditional woman jobs, it's because among mammals, care and nurture is a female trait and cleaning and cooking can be viewed as caring for things. And don't come and tell me that only human females care for the males. That works only for cats and other spieces, where they don't live in herds, and within many such spieces, like deers, gorillas and lions, one male can have a harem of females. As much as that's not to be encouraged among humans, I think it might show how flawed your view of nature is.

[Runa]

OK, I'm sure that this has been replied to already, but after going back to the first page of hte post and seeing it, and really had to reply...

I think you're overreacting, Vigilance. ^^

I think most people who complain that the books are sexist see very specific problems. Most of these posts generalize over these main issues.

1. How many women can afford to not work when they are as poor as the Weasleys? Molly's a mother who doesn't even have her children with her for most of the year. How realistic is it to suggest (in a 2-income economy) that families should do without rather than have the mother pull in some extra cash on the side, especially when the kiddies are at boarding school? You might ask what realism has to do with HP, but that's a cop-out. What makes HP so fascinating is its down-playing of the magical element, its focus on the human element.

You know, the reason we don't know much about Molly's potential careers - past OR present, since for all we know, she's retired from one - is that Harry doesn't, and the books are from his perspective, in what's called "intimate thrid-person". He may not be telling it, but really, we don't know anything he doesn't. He doesn't usually see Molly during the school year, so there really isn't anything to say she doesn't do a little something during the year when the kids are off. Clearly, she is a full-time housewife when they're at school - but have YOU ever taken care of kids? If you have, you probably know how much work it is - poor Molly's probably a bit tired by the beginning of term. And who's to say she doesn't write cookbooks or have some other little hobby? And don't forget: it's the younger women in the story that have the grand adventures, but that's no different from reality... Molly probably grew up in a generation that leaned more on women to become housewives, so she did. BUt as has been pointed out, she seems to wear the real "pants" in the family. Also, she and Arthur clearly love each other, right? So what the heck's wrong with spending nine months out of the year with your spouse whom you love very much? Now, don't get me wrong; I'm all for equality between the sexes. But I think Molly's being a housewife has more to do with her being a member of the older generation and JK's wanting to reflect reality in some ways. Also, she's clearly (as one Mugglenet caption contest person put it) Harry's "ideal mother figure". Maybe he doesn't care whether or not she has another job; maybe subconciously, all he wants is to think of her a maternal entity that he can wish was his own. Again... it's all from HIS perspective!




2. How many beautiful girls demonstrate a large intellect? Though Cho is in Ravenclaw and so obviously intelligent, we see her playing the over-emotional female. Hermione is disfigured by her buck-teeth--so it's OK that she's a brain, Minerva is a very masculine woman--stern, not sexy, sporty--unless she has a rare moment of sentimentality. Why can't she be vivacious and smart? Why does she have to stereotypically look pinched, sharp, unfeminine? Molly plays the jolly mother--salt of the earth, heart of gold, is the only person in the order who can't divorce herself from her emotions long enough to deal with a boggart. I personally found her scurrying to wait on Arthur deplorable; this makes her a servant, ahouse-elf, virtually. I guess, you could argue that this is the only way she can pull her weight in the household when the kids aren't there. Parvati and Lavender are giggly, pretty, boy-minded, flighty and studiously non-intellectual. They are only interested in unicorns and divination; they almost have to work at being shallow and uninformed. Ginny does need to be rescued, and her character was changed after JKR came under fire. How many of us detested Ginny in CoS. I certainly must raise my hand. These are the female characters. You can't say they aren't stereotypes. Hermione does eventually blossom, true. But why? One might cynically point out that Ron needs to find her more attractive before they start up a flirtation. We've seen his attitude. Just because Hermione calls him on it doesn't mean that she doesn't try to meet his expectations in some ways.

Actually, I think we all spiffy ourselves for the opposite sex; heck, it's even in the books... look at the ever-preening Gilderoy Lockhart!

Parvati and Lavender are background characters; and personally, I've noticed a heckuva lotta girls JUST LIKE THEM in real life at my high school... Hermione, etc., like myself, obviously find their relentless ridiculousness to be looked upon with disdain; they are caricatures of a kind of person who really does exist in sometimes sickeningly large quantities in real life. Also, there are plenty of matronly, stern teachers like McGonagal in real life, too. And heck, look at what Cho has been through - death of her boyfriend but feelings for another guy in the year following. Yes, she's emotionally flighty, but many people are. She's still smart and pretty at the same time, even if, like many mena nd women alike, she's pretty irrational when it comes to her emotions. Does that mean that JK Rowling is not allowed to show people with flaws - the aging, overtly stern Minerva, the intelligent but emotional Cho, the pretty but fickle background characters of Parvati and Lavender? Of course not. People are not perfect. Just because it's a modern book and the author is female not mean that there has to be some goddess-like character who's beautiful, intelligent, vivacious, good-humored, is rarely overemotional, is strong, brave, completely independent and doesn't care about getting the guy in any way. I mean, come on! ^^ Exactly how many "goddesses" do you personally know in real life? Probably very few. That's because such a person would essentially be all but absolutely perfect - and few people come that close to perfection, male OR female. ANd let's not forget the almighty rule of Try Not To Create A Mary Sue; nobody likes the truly perfect character. They're boring, and they don't really make too much happen. It's the emotional women that cause storms of angst and frustration amongst the guys (just like in real life), and seemingly "uncommunicative" guys or guys with "the emotional range of a teaspoon" that drive girls nuts (just like in real life). Hermione is maybe not a "hot chick" when she starts out in the books, and maybe she only starts caring about her looks after she goes to school with all the guys... but that's only realistic. An 11 year old devoted to her studies will not nessacarily care about her looks - but then puberty hits. Harry tries to look good for Cho, Hermione tries to look good for Viktor (and possibly wrong). Human nature. Pursuit of a mate, social status based partly on appearance. It may not be right, but that doesn't make it a lie; that's the way the world is.

There are plenty of guys who make fools of themselves in the books, too: the ever-clutzy Neville, Ron (we love him, but still... the barfing slugs incident alone...), not to mention Harry himself (look at what he goes through for Cho), James Potter acting like a jerk when he was fifteen and Sirius going along with it; and you wanna talk about wimps? How about Lockhart or Peter Pettigrew?


3. How many women do have high-ranking jobs in government? They're there, but not developed unless they are gruesome characters like Umbridge. They always seem secondary or answerable to men. They seldom seem to have direct power (unless, like Umbridge, they abuse it).

That may just be a refelection of reality... and actually, the men abuse power too! Remember, Umbridge was going along with FUDGE. ^_^ also, ther seemed to be at least one witch on the Wizengamot that had some pull - one of the ones who knew Dumbledore, though i can't recall her name, being that I've been up all night and my brain's fried ^^;;

In fact... the female Minister of Magic obviously was a lot better at it than the male Fudge!

And even a woman abusing her power still has it; Umbridge, Bellatrix Lestrange, too when you think about it. Just because she's eveil doesn't mean JK's villifying women in power; quite the opposite, I'd say. The female Minister clearly was better than Fudge ever was, or Crouch. In fact, having female villains is just as important to having "equality" between the sexes in a story as having female good guys: it would be sexist to assume that only men can be bad, no? As if women are supposed to be pristine crusaders, angels almost. Naahhh... ^^ I'll stick with having female villains, thanks. And when you're talking villains, you're talking reeeeeeally evil, nasty people; UMbridge and Bellatrix Lestrange both fit that bill exceedingly well - they very... SUCCESSUL villains ;)



I am proud to be a feminist, and it bothers me that some posters don't seem to be objective enough to see the concerns of feminists. I love HP, but I can look at it critically, even though I'm a fan.
Oh I see them (especially being a feminist myself); but I think that we're stretching it a bit to say that JK Rowling, clearly a very strong, independent woman, could or would ever write a sexist story. Keep in mind, if there are a few "female stereotypes" in the books, so too are there a few "male stereotypes" - Malfoy with his two brutes, anyone? Or Dudley? Or Oliver Wood (guys and their sports, right ;) )? Just because a character fits a stereotype doesn't make them sexist and a bad character and by extention, the writer both sexist and a bad creator of characters. In fact, when i write, some of the most fun I have with characters is trying to create a beleivable, likeable, well-developed and interesting character based on a cliche or stereotype... like In my Fang Shui story, I have the good old fashioned Abandoned Kid With A Tragic Past, the Perky Character Who's Always Screwing Things Up And Acing As A Catalyst For Plot, and The At First Glance Irritating Love Interest. Yet I'm having great fun developing them into likeable, developed characters - you know Runa and Nekone will end up together, but developing their exact personalities and watching the emotional and psychological ride it takes them to get to the heart of their feelings is where the fun's really at; like Shakespeare's Kate and Petruccio, they drive each other up the wall, yet it's obviously meant to be. You don't think that's a cliche? I know it is, but making it work's half the fun. And so is parodying it - which I definatly think characters such Oliver Wood, Parvati Patil, Lavender, Malfoy, Crabbe and Goyle, and yes, perhaps even McGonagal all are. Parody is fun, subtle paordy is even more fun. Especially when it's still paired with a good plot which stays in the foreground with jokes and whatnot in the background.

I may or may not be making any sense any longer; if so, my apologies. I started writing this at about 4:30 AM and now it's 7 AM o.O...


-Andromeda

--@~>

[UselessCharmMaster]

And don't come and tell me that only human females care for the males. That works only for cats and other spieces, where they don't live in herds, and within many such spieces, like deers, gorillas and lions, one male can have a harem of females. As much as that's not to be encouraged among humans, I think it might show how flawed your view of nature is.

No deer female, no lion female cares for the male as humans do. Sorry, Furienna, but all this "natural reasons" are completely worthless. We are no more lions than gorillas.

And, as Runa says, the books are first of all very stereotyped.

*Disapparates*

[loony4moony]

To an extent, all fiction has to be stereotyped.

For goodness' sake, we've seen the length of OOTP...how long would it have been if JK Rowling had taken pains to fully round every single character, to tell us everything about their deepest feelings, their strengths and weaknesses? There simply isn't room. The reason we (possibly- I haven't actually counted) have more male charaters who are fully developed than female ones is that Harry is a boy, he comes into contact with boys more than with girls. If the story was told from Hermione's point of view, maybe Lavender and Parvati wouldn't be so much 'background characters'.

Think about it. Put yourself in the writer's place, think about the thought processes anf exclusion processes that have to go into writing any novel. It isn't sexism- it's fiction.

[Sio]

I find it interesting that in the books the only women who work don't have families (or they are not mentioned), where women, both muggle and magical, seem to stay in the home. are the books stuck in the 1950's were the ideal woman is said to be in the home?
isthere a law that says only single women can be tewchers at hogwarts? no wonder the Ron's family is poor (not to be mean but...) a total of NINE people realy on one salery..I mean it's not like she's needed at home, all her childeren are in school or out of the house, true she could have stayed home while the younger childern were not old enough for Hogwarts..BUT COME ON!!!!

[RubberSoul]

To be a strong woman, you don't necessarily have to have a high-ranking government job, be serious, mature, or feminine. Mrs Weasley holds the family together. Ok, she doesn't have another job, but what she does, she does well. She's raised seven kids (arguably) successfully, and she's always there for her kids. She's a bit tempermental and emotional, but at core, she is a woman many rely on, considering her a second mother.

Parvati and Lavender are simpering, giggly, everything a girl doesn't want to be, but in OOTP, Parvati (I think it was her anyway) had such a good reductor spell that she blew apart a table. She's obviously not as weak a character as some think.

McGonagall is witty, sharp, and on the ball. She has many tasks at Hogwarts, and I wouldn't call Dumbledore her superior. I think she'd be able to manage Hogwarts just as well as anyone.

And we see in OOTP a few women who obvouisly contributed a lot. There was a female headmistress who was also a Healer. There was a female Minister for Magic before Fudge. Amelia Bones has a very high-ranking job. Not yet in our society have we had a female president. In Canada, we had Kim Campbell for a few months, and Britain had Margaret Thatcher. But in the wizarding world there has been at least one female Minister for Magic.

[eowiodith]

there are also many female death eaters and voldemort trusts them, its not a well respected thing but they have a lot of power. There are also lots of women in the order, and lots of women have given thier lives for the cause of good.So I think women are powerful in the books. I dont think JKR is putting any of her political beliefs in these books, it would be indoctrination.

[Yugi]

Raise your hand if you remembered a women wrote the book!!!!

Now someone point this out to them.

I am amazed some of you say we arn't equal in America. Men have become the new women and black people.

Now who's heard of Affirmative Action, Also known as the anti-white male act
.
Martin Luthar King Jr. WOuldn't have wanted it, because its one of the things that makes un-equal.

The only thing worse than being a terrorist in America is being a smart white male.

Harry is a boy, I am amazed she even has a main girl. Most boys have all boy best-friends, so it doesn't focus on the girls as much.

Housewives are still very common. She shouldn't from her books around being pollitcally correct.


A good read is the book, "The war against Boys"

[tonks26]

I don't think it's either...it's actually a good balance...Harry being the hero of the books, and Hermione being the strong female lead character...it's not just them, there a lot of equal roles for both male and female...

[Elocin4684]

I find it interesting that in the books the only women who work don't have families (or they are not mentioned), where women, both muggle and magical, seem to stay in the home. are the books stuck in the 1950's were the ideal woman is said to be in the home?
isthere a law that says only single women can be tewchers at hogwarts? no wonder the Ron's family is poor (not to be mean but...) a total of NINE people realy on one salery..I mean it's not like she's needed at home, all her childeren are in school or out of the house, true she could have stayed home while the younger childern were not old enough for Hogwarts..BUT COME ON!!!!

OK, I think it has been mentioned several times that both Hermione's parents are dentists. Is her mom not a woman? Also, it has been said by Jo that the teachers do have spouses (and I would assume most have children), but we will find out later in the series why no one talks or knows really much about their spouses or families. Also, in Molly's case, it would have been senseless for her to work while her children were young because, with the number of children there are, the child care bill would probably most, if not all or more, of her wages from what ever job she had. We don't know much about the Weasley's before they met Harry. Also, I know you'll probably try to come back with something along the lines of the oldest kids could have watched the younger ones, but there were no older kids during the school year to watch the younger kids that didn't go off to Hogwarts. Plus, the younger kids needed to be educated since there are no magical schools for younger children, and I think it's safe to say that the Weasley children didn't attend muggle schools when you lookat how Ron reacted to the West Ham football poster and how the players didn't move in the picture. Also, once Ginny finally went away to Hogwarts, I think it's safe to say that Molly was already in her late 40s or probably more likely in her early 50s. This age is too late to start a career. She would have been stuck at some mediocre job. Plus, the Weasleys only have 2 more years for Ron's tuition and 3 more years for Ginny's (god, I can't believe she's that old! Our little girl is growing up!). After that, they will be fine on Arthur's salary. So I think your whole remark is off based and you didn't really think hard enough about the examples we are given in the book.



there are also many female death eaters and voldemort trusts them, its not a well respected thing but they have a lot of power. There are also lots of women in the order, and lots of women have given thier lives for the cause of good.So I think women are powerful in the books. I dont think JKR is putting any of her political beliefs in these books, it would be indoctrination.

Yes, it's always good to know that, if you're female, and you want to go evil, you can hold the highest ranks among Voldie's lackies as good as any man! ;)



I also agree that, since the lead character is a boy, there's not many female characters he comes in contact with. But I do think we will be seeing a lot more female characters because Jo has said that her characters will discover the art of romance, or something along those lines, later in the books. This means girls for both Ron and Harry and guys for Hermione. And please don't say this is a sexist way of bringing in more female characters. Guys usually don't have a lot of contact with girls until around this age.