Masculinity in Harry Potter

[wickedwickedboy]

JKR highlighted a lot of different type of men in the series. While there are character threads to discuss each of these men specifically (and so that is outside of the scope of this thread), there are some overall ideas about men that can be gleaned from the canon. However, what those ideas are likely differ from reader to reader, so what do you think? Here are some suggested ideas to discuss...

1. Did you feel that overall men got a bad rap in the series? That is, do you feel their lives appeared to be more full of trauma, difficult or unsolvable issues, quandaries and hardships in comparison to men in the Muggle world (meaning our world)?

2. Do you feel that JKR used a lot of sterotyping in the portrayal of the male characters?

3. Did you feel like the men in the series at times took a view that seemed either incongruent with the way men generally speak, act, behave or relate? If so, do you feel that JKR was bounded by some limitations being a female herself?

4. Do you feel that Harry fit the masculine prototype of a hero in every way (assuming you feel there is such a prototype)?

5. In as far as how the men in the series related/interacted with the women, do you feel that their behavior was distinct from what you are accustomed to? If so, do you feel that is because they were wizards?

6. Do you feel that most of the most important roles in the series were doled out to men? If so, do you feel that your opinion is influenced by what was taking place in the canon 'in the present' or did you allow historical accounts in the book to also play into your view?

7. Most of those among the established Death Eaters - those enacting "evil" in the series that we met, were men. I only recall Bella and one of the Carrows being female, but the rest were all male. Why do you feel that we were mainly introduced to male Death Eaters? Did you feel there was an underlying message?

[Pearl_Took]

Great subject for a thread.

1. Did you feel that overall men got a bad rap in the series? That is, do you feel their lives appeared to be more full of trauma, difficult or unsolvable issues, quandaries and hardships in comparison to men in the Muggle world (meaning our world)?

Good heavens, no.

This is a fantasy universe. I don't relate it to anything in real life.

2. Do you feel that JKR used a lot of sterotyping in the portrayal of the male characters?

To some degree, yes. Ron is one of the biggest examples of this. He's a typical English bloke in every respect: rather provincial in his outlook, a bit suspicious of foreign food , and generally a bit emotionally clueless (sorry, guys, but ... it's true). Lovable, though.

3. Did you feel like the men in the series at times took a view that seemed either incongruent with the way men generally speak, act, behave or relate? If so, do you feel that JKR was bounded by some limitations of being a female herself?

Harry and his male contemporaries are portrayed as being more sexually innocent than their contemporaries would be (JKR admitted this in an interview once). But there is a reason for JKR not going for broke here: she was restrained by the limitations of her readership.

4. Do you feel that Harry fit the masculine prototype of a hero in every way(assuming you feel there is such a prototype)?

What, pray, is the 'masculine prototype of a hero'? I'm not interested in boring macho dudes!

I do like the traditional kind of warrior, such as Aragorn in LotR. However, even Aragorn bucks the trend: he's no macho dude but a highly thoughtful man who is humble as well as a keen warrior/knight. But my favourite kind of hero/heroine by far is the more introspective, moody kind, the kind that tends to internalise stuff ... e.g. Hamlet, Frodo ... um, Harry.

Harry fits that paradigm for me. He's an ordinary lad, often very vulnerable. Vulnerability is a big sell for me. He is also very bloke-y.

5. In as far as how the men in the series related/interacted with the women, do you feel that their behavior was distinct from what you are accustomed to? If so, do you feel that is because they were wizards?

Romantic relationships in the Potterverse hardly constitute my ideal of romance. The relationships of the significant men with significant women seem somewhat ... perfunctory. Let's take a look at the principal relationships:


Harry/Ginny
JKR said they were 'soulmates'. The evidence for this in canon escapes me somewhat. What I see is a pretty girl with a feisty personality, and a teenage lad with a 'chest monster'. Heh, I've never heard it called that before.

Ginny is often portrayed as tough, feisty and hot-tempered, like Molly, and also abrasive. JKR seems to feel these are ideal attributes for the future mate of Harry Potter. Harry himself just seems clueless. He seems quite capable of forgetting about Ginny for months on end while he's on the run. Sometimes we see him consulting the Marauders Map, worrying about her, but basically he puts her to one side for the duration of DH and at the end of the story, he shows very little interest in connecting with her emotionally, being content for her to be with her grieving mother in their shared bereavement over Fred. Ginny, therefore, is reduced to being Harry's trophy girlfriend, his prize at the end of the quest. So I'm not seeing the 'soulmates'.

Remus/Tonks seems an utterly passionless marriage.

Arthur/Molly
Hardly my model relationship. She nags way too much.

Ron/Hermione
The warmest and most convincing relationship in canon, but it's not exactly a romantic one. Unless you find constant bickering romantic. I can see how it could work between the two of them, and I find it quite a sweet relationship: they're both so massively insecure. One thing does bug me though, and that is how Hermione's intellectual superiority is constantly being flagged up besides Ron's dim-wittedness. 'Always the tone of surprise', Ron comments wryly in DH when Hermione compliments him on something.

James/Lily
We are constantly told how awesome they both were as a couple. But we see nothing in canon of their adult romantic relationship. The readers pretty much fill in the gaps.

6. Do you feel that most of the most important roles in the series were doled out to men?

Absolutely. Harry is the hero/protagonist. Dumbledore is the father figure/mentor/Gandalf figure. Voldemort is the bad guy: we have a Dark Lord, not a Dark Lady! Snape is one of Rowling's most fascinating literary creations.

None of the female roles get close to this. Except perhaps Hermione (without whose brains in DH Harry would be lost. ) And, perhaps, the sainted Lily, the martyr mother, whose sacrifice for her baby son drives much of the plot!

Minerva, Luna and Ginny are all strong and interesting characters but they are secondary players. The men in this saga have the leading roles.

If so, do you feel that your opinion is influenced by what was taking place in the canon 'in the present' or did you allow historical accounts in the book to also play into your view?

Well, when I am reading a fantasy book, I take into account how consistent and logical the 'rules' of that fantasy universe is. The Potterverse seems a very old-fashioned world to me: its' technology is old-fashioned, despite the amazing magic; Hogwarts is run as a 1950s British boarding school. I have no idea what role feminism is supposed to have played in this world, despite the fact that two of Hogwarts founders were women.

I therefore do not regard the Potterverse as a more advanced or progressive society than the Muggle world. In fact, I would say the opposite. The politics of the Potterverse are corrupt in the extreme: all the way through the series, the Ministry of Magic is shown again and again to be a thoroughly corrupt establishment.

There are strong, interesting women in the Potterverse but, basically, at the end of the day it's still more men running the show ... which to me accords with how things are in real life.

7. Most of those among the established Death Eaters - those enacting "evil" in the series that we met, were men. I only recall Bella and one of the Carrows being female, but the rest were all male. Why do you feel that we were mainly introduced to male Death Eaters? Did you feel there was an underlying message?

I really don't know. I sincerely hope that JKR was not trying to imply that men are more evil than women! I can hardly imagine she would mean such a thing. Maybe she was pointing to some sexism inherent amongst pureblood male wizards.

Although I've said I don't relate anything in the Potterworld to RL, I can only compare this with white supremacist groups -- do they attract more male recruits than female ones??

[Melaszka]

Great topic

1. Did you feel that overall men got a bad rap in the series? That is, do you feel their lives appeared to be more full of trauma, difficult or unsolvable issues, quandaries and hardships in comparison to men in the Muggle world (meaning our world)?

In a way, yes, I do think they got a bad rap. I'm not sure about compared to men in the real world, but compared to the women in the Potterverse. I think it was you who pointed out in the feminism thread that perhaps one of he reason why the main characters are all male is because most of them are presented as being immature and flawed (e.g. Snape's inability to let go of grudges and total inability to understand that joining a violent, hate-based organisation is not the best way to impress Lily!; Dumbledore's initial reluctance to take responsibility for his sister and his at times Machiavellian withholding of information from Harry; Ron's intermittent jealousy of Harry and his very late recognition of, and poor handling of, his atraction to Hermione; Lupin's vacillations about his relationship with Tonks; Sirius's rashness), while the females are often presented as more sorted and mature. As it's problems and conflict that create dramatic narrative, this inevitably places the male characters at the centre of the narrative.

I think this ends up being not particularly fair to either sex (female characters end up being ancillary, male characters end up looking a bit rubbish)

2. Do you feel that JKR used a lot of sterotyping in the portrayal of the male characters?

To an extent.

3. Did you feel like the men in the series at times took a view that seemed either incongruent with the way men generally speak, act, behave or relate? If so, do you feel that JKR was bounded by some limitations of being a female herself?

They mostly seemed fine to me, but as a chick, how would I know?

4. Do you feel that Harry fit the masculine prototype of a hero in every way(assuming you feel there is such a prototype)?

I feel that JKR gave Harry a character arc initially aiming to be a prototypical masculine hero, and idealising characters like Sirius (who in some ways fits the stereotype of the daring but rash male warrior), but gradually "learning" that these ideals are flawed (see his argument with Lupin in DH, where his dismissive comparison of Lupin to Sirius seems to imply that he is now less impressed with Sirius and all he stands for) and aiming more to emulate the self-sacrificial "feminine" heroism of Lily.

I'm not saying I agree with this philosophy, I'm just saying that that's what I think is there. I know this is very much open to debate, though.

5. In as far as how the men in the series related/interacted with the women, do you feel that their behavior was distinct from what you are accustomed to? If so, do you feel that is because they were wizards?

Romantically:

In a sense, Snape's unrequited love for Lily seems like something out of a historical novel - that might be a wizard thing, as the wizard world is portrayed as being ruled by quite archaic customs and values.

Similarly, the way Lupin seemed to go from barely speaking to Tonks to marrying her, without apparently going through dating in between.

I think male/female relationships were also shaped by the fact that this is a children's series, and JKR couldn't be too realistic about sexuality (that's probably why most wizards/witches seem to end up marrying their first boyfriend/girlfriend at the age of about 18)

6. Do you feel that most of the most important roles in the series were doled out to men?

Yes

If so, do you feel that your opinion is influenced by what was taking place in the canon 'in the present' or did you allow historical accounts in the book to also play into your view?

Sorry. Not quite sure what you mean by that. By "historical accounts" do you mean e.g. the Lily/James era or the founders' era or the reference to previous headmasters, ministers etc, or all of these things?

Also, by "important roles" do you mean within the plot or within the social hierarchy of the Potterverse?

I think the most important roles within the plot are almost all dominated by male characters.

While I accept that many women are briefly mentioned as having occupied powerful positions in previous eras, I feel that most of the authority figures in Harry's era (thus the ones with substantial page time and/or plot significance) are male, which seems odd given the apparent "gender neutrality" of the Potterverse.

I do accept, though, that as many on the feminism thread have pointed out, many of the male authority figures are portrayed as being corrupt and/or incompetent and that many of the references to previous female authority figures are more flattering. So I don't feel it does justice to either sex - I'm still left feeling that JKR makes male leadership seem normal and natural, but at the same time she's a bit unfair to you boys by implying they're not very good at it.

7. Most of those among the established Death Eaters - those enacting "evil" in the series that we met, were men. I only recall Bella and one of the Carrows being female, but the rest were all male. Why do you feel that we were mainly introduced to male Death Eaters? Did you feel there was an underlying message?

I don't feel there was a deliberate underlying message, but I think it reflects the general tendency of the books to offer more prominent male characters than female. I don't think JKR was implying that men are more evil than women. I'd feel very uncomfortable if I thought she was, because I think notions that it's more "natural" for men to be violent and sadistic are insulting to both men and women - to men because it implies they're all brutes, and to women because it implies that women criminals are somehow even worse than male ones.

[lilyrose]

Great topic Wick

1. Did you feel that overall men got a bad rap in the series? That is, do you feel their lives appeared to be more full of trauma, difficult or unsolvable issues, quandaries and hardships in comparison to men in the Muggle world (meaning our world)?

No. I don't think that their lives are more traumatic than the lives of men in the Muggle World. They all have their own problems.

2. Do you feel that JKR used a lot of sterotyping in the portrayal of the male characters?

Yes. Though I hate to say it, almost all of the important male characters are stereotypes. Sirius is the 'rebel', James is the 'arrogant yet cool jerk', Ron is 'the loyal sidekick/comic relief', Snape is the 'evil guy who turns out good', Voldemort is of course, the 'evil villain', Dumbledore is the 'philosopher, guide and mentor'. Yep, stereotypes alright.

3. Did you feel like the men in the series at times took a view that seemed either incongruent with the way men generally speak, act, behave or relate? If so, do you feel that JKR was bounded by some limitations of being a female herself?

I agree with Pearl who said that Harry and his male counterparts are sexually more innocent as compared to men of their age, though that is because of HP being considered a 'children's' book. Other than that, I cannot think of any, as of now.

4. Do you feel that Harry fit the masculine prototype of a hero in every way(assuming you feel there is such a prototype)?

Yes, he is. He is very likeable, some times innocent and conveniently has a 'saving people thing'. He's of course, valiant, noble, brave and excellent at DADA. Not that I don't like it, but I guess this would mean that Harry does indeed fit the masculine prototype of a hero.

5. In as far as how the men in the series related/interacted with the women, do you feel that their behavior was distinct from what you are accustomed to? If so, do you feel that is because they were wizards?

Well, the men in the HP Series and their relationships with the women were hardly the focal point of the story, for obvious reasons. But the most important romantic relationships, save Ron/Hermione and Arthur/Molly weren't all that nice.

Snape and Lily was extremely cliched.

Ginny/ Harry was and is still very "out of the blue" to me. I don't think JKR laid the relationship out very well. Suddenly they were together, after the birth of a "monster". Hardly what I'd normally expect.

6. Do you feel that most of the most important roles in the series were doled out to men?

For certain. Excluding Hermione, all the pivotal roles go to men. Snape, Harry, Voldemort, Dumbledore, Ron- the most important characters are all men.

I was especially not too glad that Ginny had such a small role in DH, after showing a lot of promise in HBP. She was pushed to becoming "hero's romantic interest". McGonagall's part again, could have been stronger. Same goes for Tonks.

So yes, all the most important roles in the HP Series, went to men.

If so, do you feel that your opinion is influenced by what was taking place in the canon 'in the present' or did you allow historical accounts in the book to also play into your view?

A bit of both, I'd say. But then, HP hasn't had a history of strong women characters. It has always been Merlin, Grindelwald, Gaunt, Slytherin, Gryffindor; all men. There have been so many male headmasters for Hogwarts too. I'm sure they outnumber women considerably.

But what let me down was that despite building up strong female characters, none of them were used well. All the important parts went to the men, and women just played second fiddle.

7. Most of those among the established Death Eaters - those enacting "evil" in the series that we met, were men. I only recall Bella and one of the Carrows being female, but the rest were all male. Why do you feel that we were mainly introduced to male Death Eaters? Did you feel there was an underlying message?

I dont think so. Almost all the important characters are men, so following that logic, most of the Death Eaters are men too. I dont think JKR was trying to show that women are calm/petite and that men are more evil than women. Bellatrix however, was an extremely evil female character that she more than made up for the lack of more female Death Eaters.

[Schlubalybub]

1. Did you feel that overall men got a bad rap in the series? That is, do you feel their lives appeared to be more full of trauma, difficult or unsolvable issues, quandaries and hardships in comparison to men in the Muggle world (meaning our world)?

Not at all. I think that just because they were different troubles, it doesn't mean that they are any more or less difficult to overcome than the troubles that men have to go through in real life. People still get blamed for things they didn't do, people still have to go through the death or deterioration of family members, people still have relationship issues- the way that these are portrayed in the books is different because of the magic involved, but a lot of the issues are essentially the same.

2. Do you feel that JKR used a lot of sterotyping in the portrayal of the male characters?

Sure, but who doesn't? Everyone stereotypes, whether they mean to or not. Just because stereotypes are used, it doesn't mean that she believes in them. Stereotypes are there for a reason; there would be no stereotypes if there was nobody that the stereotypes were modelled on, if that makes sense.

3. Did you feel like the men in the series at times took a view that seemed either incongruent with the way men generally speak, act, behave or relate? If so, do you feel that JKR was bounded by some limitations of being a female herself?

Not really, but then again I think that she's done brilliantly to write a series of seven books in the eyes of a teenage boy.

4. Do you feel that Harry fit the masculine prototype of a hero in every way(assuming you feel there is such a prototype)?

No. If there was a prototype of a hero, it wouldn't be a scrawny young boy who wore glasses. Saying that though, makes me sound like I believe in said prototype. Heroes come in all shapes and sizes so there wouldn't be much use to make this prototype. Heroes are also heroes for many reasons, and I would say that Harry, although came through as a hero in the end, was not always heroic or did not act in a heroic way.

5. In as far as how the men in the series related/interacted with the women, do you feel that their behavior was distinct from what you are accustomed to? If so, do you feel that is because they were wizards?

I think that the men in the series interacted with women in the same way as they would interact in real life. There will always be men who get scared and desert their wives (not an insult, merely stating the fact) for whatever reason, there will always be the shy teenage boys unable to ask someone to go to a dance or whatever with them. I think that the main point I'm trying to make is that although these people are wizards they are still human, and you can't change human nature no matter what your abilities.

6. Do you feel that most of the most important roles in the series were doled out to men? If so, do you feel that your opinion is influenced by what was taking place in the canon 'in the present' or did you allow historical accounts in the book to also play into your view?

Perhaps, but I think that this was just the way it went. There was obviously the Dark Lord, who in my opinion was a break in tradition- usually when you think of evil magic you think of "wicked witches" and the like.

7. Most of those among the established Death Eaters - those enacting "evil" in the series that we met, were men. I only recall Bella and one of the Carrows being female, but the rest were all male. Why do you feel that we were mainly introduced to male Death Eaters? Did you feel there was an underlying message?

I think that there actually were very few female Death Eaters, and that is because I think that Voldemort is portrayed as a character who has very little time for women- he seems to look down on women as feebler than men.

[mrfutterman]

1. I note what melaszka says, but would express it slightly differently: without the males, there would be no HP stories, as the female characters are not strong enough to carry a dramatic narrative.

2. In some cases I think she used well established models, e.g. Snape as the Byronic anti-hero; tortured, alone, brooding, hiding a deep desperate secret. DD is the Hero's Elderly Wise Wizard Mentor (cf Gandalf, Obi-wan). There are out-and-out stereotypes too: Draco the school bully (cf Flashman).

3. I agree with Pearl that the limitations come from the author's considerations of her youthful readers. Most (real) male adolescents are far more foul mouthed and sexually interested/advanced than these characters.

4. Harry is the Young Knight of fantasy tales, cf. Luke Skywalker.

5. Well, there are no such things as wizards. Nor, IMO, is Rowling particularly successful in creating a convincing secondary world. Despite the spells and the silly clothes, the characters do not differ from other literary characters, as per the examples I have already given. I think this particularly applies to Snape. I can imagine a teenager carrying a torch for years for a lost love. But never to move on? To deny himself other relationships for some 17 years? This is literary (Byronic) behaviour; not real world behaviour. Still love Snape though.

6. Yes to the first question. I have already answered the second question, in that, IMO, the WW is too thinly imagined for me to be able to put the characters in a historical context.

7. No real message.

[wickedwickedboy]

Originally Posted by Melaszka

I feel that JKR gave Harry a character arc initially aiming to be a prototypical masculine hero, and idealising characters like Sirius (who in some ways fits the stereotype of the daring but rash male warrior), but gradually "learning" that these ideals are flawed (see his argument with Lupin in DH, where his dismissive comparison of Lupin to Sirius seems to imply that he is now less impressed with Sirius and all he stands for) and aiming more to emulate the self-sacrificial "feminine" heroism of Lily.

But in light of copping JKR a break, don't you think she proscribed the formulation of that idea for readers by not mentioning Lily in that context, but instead, having Harry use his father as the counter example? Recall Harry said, "my father died trying to protect my mother and me, and you reckon he'd tell you to abandon your kid to go on an adventure with us?"

JKR did not have Harry bring up Lily as the self-sacrificial feminine hero - but rather had Harry reinforce the idea of a male sacrificing his freedom and later his life to protect his wife and child. Why did you feel that Lily's sacrifice and femininity was being highlighted when Harry spoke only of his father prior to his 'daredevil' comparison of Lupin and Sirius?

Also during Harry's later deliberation he asks himself, "would James have backed Harry in what he had said to Lupin, or would he have been angry at how his son had treated his old friend?" So Harry's thoughts about his own behavior also remained centered on the masculine role model. So I am not certain why you feel Lily was indicated at all - or that emulation of her behavior by Harry was implicated - she was not mentioned. Or do you mean that you felt James was being consigned to a role that is generally associated with feminine heroic behavior?

Originally Posted by mrfutterman

1. I note what melaszka says, but would express it slightly differently: without the males, there would be no HP stories, as the female characters are not strong enough to carry a dramatic narrative.

Do you mean that you felt that the way JKR portrayed the males, they could be the only ones with an ability to carry off a dramatic narrative in the series?

Originally Posted by Pearl_Took

Romantic relationships in the Potterverse hardly constitute my ideal of romance. The relationships of the significant men with significant women seem somewhat ... perfunctory.

I agree, but I felt like the romantic relationships were purposely limited to being conveyed in a surface manner and one was simply to assume a 'happily ever after' ideology about them unless otherwise indicated.

I was not so much refering to romance (although I think that is also a great consideration of this aspect). I was thinking more in terms of everyday interaction. For example, the manner in which Harry related to McGonagall, Rosemerta, Molly or Hermione in comparison to how he related/interacted with the male characters.

[mrfutterman]

Originally Posted by wickedwickedboy

Do you mean that you felt that the way JKR portrayed the males, they could be the only ones with an ability to carry off a dramatic narrative in the series?

I mean that the main male characters created by Rowling are interesting/complex enough to carry a dramatic narrative, while the main female characters are not. IMO.

[Voldemorts8thHorcrux]

1. Did you feel that overall men got a bad rap in the series? That is, do you feel their lives appeared to be more full of trauma, difficult or unsolvable issues, quandaries and hardships in comparison to men in the Muggle world (meaning our world)?
Kind of in a way...All the really traumatized characters, or most of them, happened to be men. Harry, Dumbledore, Tom Riddle, Snape, etc. But they didn't really get that much of a bad rap. She highlighted bothgood and bad in men, but unfortunately, she didn't do as much of the same in women, which disappoints me a bit.

2. Do you feel that JKR used a lot of sterotyping in the portrayal of the male characters?
I'm pretty oblivious to stereotypes but Ron seems pretty stereotypical in his general cluelessness, messing off ness, liking girls, etc.

3. Did you feel like the men in the series at times took a view that seemed either incongruent with the way men generally speak, act, behave or relate? If so, do you feel that JKR was bounded by some limitations being a female herself?
Definitely. Speaking from experience, I have known many 11 year olds Harry's age who have acted extremely inappropriately toward multiple girls. Of course this is a children's book so it makes sense, but pretty unrealistic.

4. Do you feel that Harry fit the masculine prototype of a hero in every way (assuming you feel there is such a prototype)?
Not really. Although yes, he does have some stereotypes about him, like how he does really feel the need to try to help others and tries to protect others by putting himself in danger, but anyways, other than that, not too much. It's not like he's some superpowerful or superscrawny hero.

5. In as far as how the men in the series related/interacted with the women, do you feel that their behavior was distinct from what you are accustomed to? If so, do you feel that is because they were wizards?
Maybe. Wizards do seem a bit more old fashioned than Muggles. But it was definitely different. I like how dating was introduced a bit later and not really all at once, but it really isn't too realistic

6. Do you feel that most of the most important roles in the series were doled out to men? If so, do you feel that your opinion is influenced by what was taking place in the canon 'in the present' or did you allow historical accounts in the book to also play into your view?
Yeah a bit. Harry, male protagonist. Ron, male sidekick. Dumbledore, male mastermind. Voldemort, male antagonist evil overlord. Snape, male sidekick.

7. Most of those among the established Death Eaters - those enacting "evil" in the series that we met, were men. I only recall Bella and one of the Carrows being female, but the rest were all male. Why do you feel that we were mainly introduced to male Death Eaters? Did you feel there was an underlying message?
I hope not...I know from one of JKR's biographies that she made Harry male because she was afraid that young boys wouldn't like reading about a girl. Bella and one of the Carrows and I also remember Umbridge, Narcissa to an extent and that's about it.

[Pearl_Took]

Originally Posted by wickedwickedboy

I agree, but I felt like the romantic relationships were purposely limited to being conveyed in a surface manner and one was simply to assume a 'happily ever after' ideology about them unless otherwise indicated.

Well, the series has attracted large numbers of adult readers as well as children, and I for one would prefer warm and convincing relationships in a young adult novel, which is what the later HP books are, as opposed to perfunctory, stilted relationships. It doesn't take much to paint a good romance, really. And romance had to feature somewhere in the saga, or sexuality at least. Because JKR's young boy hero was growing up.

I was not so much refering to romance (although I think that is also a great consideration of this aspect). I was thinking more in terms of everyday interaction. For example, the manner in which Harry related to McGonagall, Rosemerta, Molly or Hermione in comparison to how he related/interacted with the male characters.

OK. I can't remember offhand any glaring sexism that Harry might be guilty of. He seems to accord his female teachers the same respect he does to male authority figures. (Except, erm, Snape. And Umbridge, obviously. )

I detect a certain amount of masculine impatience to Cho's weepiness (poor Cho is judged as a character solely through the Harry and Ron filter ) and he is insensitive to Hermione's plight in DH. Hermione is a good friend to Harry in that book, and suffers the upset of losing her boyfriend, in difficult and life-threatening circumstances ... but Harry doesn't want to deal with her emotions. I adore the boy, but he's an emotional klutz, really.

[Melaszka]

Originally Posted by wickedwickedboy

But in light of copping JKR a break, don't you think she proscribed the formulation of that idea for readers by not mentioning Lily in that context, but instead, having Harry use his father as the counter example? Recall Harry said, "my father died trying to protect my mother and me, and you reckon he'd tell you to abandon your kid to go on an adventure with us?"

JKR did not have Harry bring up Lily as the self-sacrificial feminine hero - but rather had Harry reinforce the idea of a male sacrificing his freedom and later his life to protect his wife and child. Why did you feel that Lily's sacrifice and femininity was being highlighted when Harry spoke only of his father prior to his 'daredevil' comparison of Lupin and Sirius?

Also during Harry's later deliberation he asks himself, "would James have backed Harry in what he had said to Lupin, or would he have been angry at how his son had treated his old friend?" So Harry's thoughts about his own behavior also remained centered on the masculine role model. So I am not certain why you feel Lily was indicated at all - or that emulation of her behavior by Harry was implicated - she was not mentioned. Or do you mean that you felt James was being consigned to a role that is generally associated with feminine heroic behavior?

Good point. That will teach me to check the reference in context before trying to construct an argument!

My answer would be that it's not completely an either/or. I don't think that Harry completely rejects masculine role models, but that he gradually learns to see the obvious flaws in male heroism and takes ideas from female heroism, as well.

Yes, you're right that he draws heavily on James as a role model in the incident with Lupin ( I should have spotted that), but IMO he is still implicitly quite critical of Sirius here, when he says "I think you're feeling a bit of a daredevil...You fancy stepping into Sirius's shoes". I do not mean to suggest that he rejects Sirius and everything he stands for, but he is less unquestioningly approving of him and I think he now recognises the limitations and drawbacks of the hypermasculine Boys' Own brand of warrior heroism which Sirius represents, as well as its strengths.

And I think his reference to James here is, in any case, a tacit acknowledgement of the fact that by the end of his life, when he had become a father, James had also recognised the limitations of Boys' Own heroism.

While Harry still admires James, I think there has been a drift since the early books, where he viewed James as perfect (and seemed oddly uninterested in Lily), through PoA (where the super hero James who came to his aid to drive away the Dementors turned out to be an illusion and was in fact Harry himself), through SWM in OotP, where he is confronted with James's flaws, to the end of DH, where, although still admiring of and influenced by his father, he also takes his cue from Lily.

In his final confrontation with Voldemort he doesn't mention James at all, the spotlight's all on Lily. he says, "I've done what my mother did" and then goes on to boast about Dumbledore's self-sacrifice (another "feminine" act of heroism, in the sense of its being passive sacrifice rather than active warriorship), and Snape's role in it, under the feminine influence of Lily.

I also think that JKR's decision to have Harry call Snape (the spy, the behind-the-scenes man whose role in the order was not that of a warrior) "probably the bravest man I ever knew" is another reminder that warriorship - the obvious, stereotypically masculine type of heroism - is not necessarily the bravest.

So, no, I don't think JKR is totally rubbishing "masculine" heroism (as you pointed out on another thread, the fact that James, Sirius and Lupin are all present in the Richard III scene with the resurrection Stone suggests that Harry still admires the and seeks their guidance and approval). And she's certainly not presenting "feminine" heroism as being solely the province of women (I think Snape, Dumbledore and Harry, to a certain extent, are all portrayed as heroic in a "feminine" way). But I do think that she portrays Harry as moving beyond the stereotypical male hero and learning to appreciate "feminine" heroism, as well.

Sorry to be so long-winded about it. I just can't do concise.

[Voldemorts8thHorcrux]

Originally Posted by Pearl_Took

I detect a certain amount of masculine impatience to Cho's weepiness (poor Cho is judged as a character solely through the Harry and Ron filter ) and he is insensitive to Hermione's plight in DH. Hermione is a good friend to Harry in that book, and suffers the upset of losing her boyfriend, in difficult and life-threatening circumstances ... but Harry doesn't want to deal with her emotions. I adore the boy, but he's an emotional klutz, really.

I find that highly realistic unfortunately . I've only really talked to one guy about relationships and girls, and it seems like the main reason why he doens't befriend girls too much is just because they're too "deep" for him .

[wickedwickedboy]

Originally Posted by Melaszka

Good point. That will teach me to check the reference in context before trying to construct an argument!

. No worries, you made your point here and I see what you were getting at even if that particular example was not one you might have used.

My answer would be that it's not completely an either/or. I don't think that Harry completely rejects masculine role models, but that he gradually learns to see the obvious flaws in male heroism and takes ideas from female heroism, as well.

Yes, you're right that he draws heavily on James as a role model in the incident with Lupin ( I should have spotted that), but IMO he is still implicitly quite critical of Sirius here, when he says "I think you're feeling a bit of a daredevil...You fancy stepping into Sirius's shoes". I do not mean to suggest that he rejects Sirius and everything he stands for, but he is less unquestioningly approving of him and I think he now recognises the limitations and drawbacks of the hypermasculine Boys' Own brand of warrior heroism which Sirius represents, as well as its strengths.

And I think his reference to James here is, in any case, a tacit acknowledgement of the fact that by the end of his life, when he had become a father, James had also recognised the limitations of Boys' Own heroism.

I note what you say here, particularly: " by the end of his life, when he had become a father, James had also recognised the limitations of Boys' Own heroism." - in order to make my point below.

While Harry still admires James, I think there has been a drift since the early books, where he viewed James as perfect (and seemed oddly uninterested in Lily), through PoA (where the super hero James who came to his aid to drive away the Dementors turned out to be an illusion and was in fact Harry himself), through SWM in OotP, where he is confronted with James's flaws, to the end of DH, where, although still admiring of and influenced by his father, he also takes his cue from Lily.

In his final confrontation with Voldemort he doesn't mention James at all, the spotlight's all on Lily. he says, "I've done what my mother did" and then goes on to boast about Dumbledore's self-sacrifice (another "feminine" act of heroism, in the sense of its being passive sacrifice rather than active warriorship), and Snape's role in it, under the feminine influence of Lily.

I also think that JKR's decision to have Harry call Snape (the spy, the behind-the-scenes man whose role in the order was not that of a warrior) "probably the bravest man I ever knew" is another reminder that warriorship - the obvious, stereotypically masculine type of heroism - is not necessarily the bravest.

I feel there is a contradiction here in the points you have made - which probably is just my lack of understanding what you mean.

Based on the part I bolded above; if Harry felt his father recognized the limitations of "boys own heroism" - as you indicate Harry did at the end - then why would you conclude that James was at the same time an example of stereotypical masculine heroism - hence the focus turning to Lily? That is, if Harry was making the same realization his father was, would not the realization be something that pertained to both men and women in terms of the canon if his father had recognized it also?

Your interpretation seems to shift James into the role you need him to be in to make your point; one moment recognizing the value of the non-warrior form of heroism (stay home protect the wife and child instead of out waring like a stereotypical man in battles) - to being an example of that very thing (male warrior) and thus, eliminated from all consideration by Harry during the final battle.

Also, in giving JKR a small break, the fact that James used his body as a barrier in sacrifice, rather than ensuring he had the tools of war at the ready when he tried to stall Voldemort in order for Lily to have time, is certainly the more passive decision - even if taken in the heat of the moment. Much like Lily did not run for her wand, but instead barracaded herself in the room without any weapons of war at the ready. Since JKR made it very clear she purposely did this (she had Voldemort remark on the lack of wands of both parents, individually), don't you feel she was taking the passivity aspect into consideration for both parents? In a later explanation, JKR indicated that it is like if a criminal comes to the door and James reacted by instantaneously confronting the villain - but she also had him thinking in terms of telling Lily to take Harry and run. To me, there is no reason why a "warrior" thinking male would not grab a weapon of some sort - even if the wand was left behind. A chair an umbrella, anything would be better than nothing in hand at all. If JKR's purpose was not to make both parents look ignorant - which I assume it wasn't since she made Voldemort do the taunting and his taunts were always invalid - then why would she do that if it were not to stress the passivity of their sacrifices?

Turning back to your point; did James really ever appear the "masculine warrior" type in his sacrifice? Is a willingness for confrontation enough to show that? If so, did Harry not do the very same thing when he march toward Voldemort in the forest instead of making him come to him? It seems to me that because James had no wand and Harry refused to pull his out, both were equally passive in that sense - despite their moving toward the enemy instead of making the enemy come to them. So I don't know that I understand your reasoning for switching James back to the "masculine hero" type at the point of his sacrifice - especially since you indicated he recognized that was not necessarily the bravest or best way earlier on when he made the his decision to remain home rather than play warrior in the field.

So, no, I don't think JKR is totally rubbishing "masculine" heroism (as you pointed out on another thread, the fact that James, Sirius and Lupin are all present in the Richard III scene with the resurrection Stone suggests that Harry still admires the and seeks their guidance and approval). And she's certainly not presenting "feminine" heroism as being solely the province of women (I think Snape, Dumbledore and Harry, to a certain extent, are all portrayed as heroic in a "feminine" way). But I do think that she portrays Harry as moving beyond the stereotypical male hero and learning to appreciate "feminine" heroism, as well.

Do you mean because they didn't go out fighting? Neither did James. James confronted - Snape actually did raise his wand before he was encased by Nagini and bitten. So I am not certain I would call them exactly "passive" - but as I said above, there was definitely a passive element to both. James in the way I stated, and Snape in taking so long to actually raise his wand because he knew long before that, that the death toll was ringing. He wished to get his message to Harry, so he kept trying to convince Voldemort to allow him to do so. But I felt that his action was passive to the point where he raised his wand. Dumbledore and Harry had a more entirely passive death - but granted, they fully intended to die when they went at it.

Now on another front, Lily's was only passive because she had no weapon of war to combat Voldemort with (wand). She did not remain passive verbally; she begged and pleaded and even said she'd do anything he wanted if he spared Harry - and she had attempted to barracade the room. So I am not altogether ready to agree that she went out passively either. She used everything within her power to attempt to save her child rather than give herself in sacrifice as Harry or Dumbledore did (meaning with a firm desire to purposely die.) She was willing, like her husband, to die for her child, but that was not her purpose - her purpose was to try to save the child. Do you see the distinction I am making? Harry and Dumbledore did not have any intent except to "die" - they wished to be killed. Lily didn't take that into consideration at all; her consideration was that her son should live - a concern for another which neither Dumbledore or Harry had in the moment they faced death (a specific person who was being threatened at the very moment they were taken out.) Finally, even when Voldemort told Lily to stand aside (offering her a chance to live), she refused, remaining in an aggressive stance before her child to the point where she had to be "killed" out of the way. So I don't feel that helped make her action more passive either. I admit I may be missing something here. .

So I guess I don't really know what you mean by "feminine sacrifice". I know you don't mean "female" so you don't have to explain that . I believe you are speaking more about passivity - but we had that in James both for nearly 2 years prior to his sacrifice (staying at home) and during it (no weapon of war). And then you use Snape to show it, but he actually did have a wand, and raised it as if to use it against Voldemort (purportedly to be able to stay alive and get his message to Harry.) And you also use Harry and Dumbledore as examples - and they both desired to die, purposely and affirmatively planned to be killed. So I am kind of at a loss to what you mean. A feminine sacrifice is associated with a desire to be killed? That would count Lily out. Or it is passive? That would count James in and rather count Snape out. A willingness to die in sacrifice? That counts all of them in.

As an aside, I think traditionally (and stereotypically because it is not at all true) - people associate men with spying. And spies are not believed to be engaging in a "feminine" like adventure. Think James Bond. . So I am not sure why you call Snape's spying a more feminine like adventure - it is behind the scenes, but so dangerous, it is usually (and wrongfully) considered 'men's work' . We know there were many female spies - although the majority exposed were men - it is just it is hard to gauge because spies generally are not exposed, otherwise they were not very good spies. .

Please don't take any of this to mean that I disagree with you - I sincerely don't understand, so my questions are not doubts, merely attempting to explain why I am not following your point.

Sorry to be so long-winded about it. I just can't do concise.

Have you ever known me to be concise? . I appreciate your detailed explanations.

[Magi]

Originally Posted by wickedwickedboy

1. Did you feel that overall men got a bad rap in the series? That is, do you feel their lives appeared to be more full of trauma, difficult or unsolvable issues, quandaries and hardships in comparison to men in the Muggle world (meaning our world)?

No.

There are plenty of trauma, difficult or unsolvable issues, quandaries and hardships in the Muggle world. The real world is no cosier than fictional worlds.

2. Do you feel that JKR used a lot of sterotyping in the portrayal of the male characters?

No.

3. Did you feel like the men in the series at times took a view that seemed either incongruent with the way men generally speak, act, behave or relate? If so, do you feel that JKR was bounded by some limitations being a female herself?

The only thing I found odd was Hagrid. He seems extraordinarily immature for his age. He's supposedly 60-something years old, and I just can't think of anyone that age in real life doing some of the ridiculous things he did (barring mental retardation).

4. Do you feel that Harry fit the masculine prototype of a hero in every way (assuming you feel there is such a prototype)?

I don't believe there is such a prototype. If you're talking about stereotype, then I suppose Harry isn't exactly a masculine hero figure. But heroes in the real world come in all shapes and sizes.

5. In as far as how the men in the series related/interacted with the women, do you feel that their behavior was distinct from what you are accustomed to? If so, do you feel that is because they were wizards?

I felt that the males in the stories are generally less assertive and decisive than most men I've met in the real world.

Perhaps it is something to do with them being wizards. The wizarding world is seemingly less biased towards males than the real world has been historically.

6. Do you feel that most of the most important roles in the series were doled out to men? If so, do you feel that your opinion is influenced by what was taking place in the canon 'in the present' or did you allow historical accounts in the book to also play into your view?

I believe that important roles are fairly evenly distributed between men and women in the stories. Hermione, McGonagall, Umbridge, Ginny, Molly, Bella, and Narcissa were all very significant characters, even if some of them don't enjoy as much page time as some male characters.

7. Most of those among the established Death Eaters - those enacting "evil" in the series that we met, were men. I only recall Bella and one of the Carrows being female, but the rest were all male. Why do you feel that we were mainly introduced to male Death Eaters? Did you feel there was an underlying message?

I don't think there was an underlying message. Generally, males are more prone to engage in violent acts or crimes than females (around 6 times more likely according to one UK Home Office report).

[Schlubalybub]

Originally Posted by Magi

The only thing I found odd was Hagrid. He seems extraordinarily immature for his age. He's supposedly 60-something years old, and I just can't think of anyone that age in real life doing some of the ridiculous things he did (barring mental retardation).

I think that has a lot to do with him being half giant. I think that he has something of the giant's mentality about him, and I also think that he never had the chance to fully grow up, watching his classmates learn magic around him as he was stuck basically doing chores.

[wickedwickedboy]

Originally Posted by Schlubalybub

I think that has a lot to do with him being half giant. I think that he has something of the giant's mentality about him, and I also think that he never had the chance to fully grow up, watching his classmates learn magic around him as he was stuck basically doing chores.

I agree. He wasn't a 60 year old man anymore than Remus was a 36 year old man, or Firenze a 50 year old man. The magical creatures in Potterverse are not comparable to humans in that way, imo. They should have quirks and distinctions or else there would be nothing unique and 'magical creature' about them. They definitely have similarities (speaking english, etc), but that is just so that they can interact - but they have to retain that other bit to their characters or the whole magical element would be lost. That is one aspect of magical fantasy, really all fantasy, that makes the genre cool. There are usually a ton of different species, all behaving or speaking or thinking differently than the humans. That some were half breeds (part human) would only make their more human like characteristics more understandable, but to me, not really necessary.

[Melaszka]

Originally Posted by wickedwickedboy

I feel there is a contradiction here in the points you have made - which probably is just my lack of understanding what you mean.

No, I probably was contradicting myself - I usually do!

Based on the part I bolded above; if Harry felt his father recognized the limitations of "boys own heroism" - as you indicate Harry did at the end - then why would you conclude that James was at the same time an example of stereotypical masculine heroism - hence the focus turning to Lily?

I'm not sure that I did conclude that James was the example of stereotypical masculine heroism. I think it is more that by the end Harry is no longer relying solely on adult male role models and finally acknowledging his mother as a role model (not before time, IMO) as well as James that seems significant to me, not that James is a flawed masculine ideal which he is totally rejecting.

Your interpretation seems to shift James into the role you need him to be in to make your point; one moment recognizing the value of the non-warrior form of heroism (stay home protect the wife and child instead of out waring like a stereotypical man in battles) - to being an example of that very thing (male warrior) and thus, eliminated from all consideration by Harry during the final battle.

No, I'm just remarking on the fact that Harry doesn't mention James in the fnal battle. That, I think, is canon. As I see it, that's no more than a fair redressing of the balance for the amount he's ignored Lily and focused on the Marauders throughout.

I don't want to get into a dispute about who had the more "feminine" death, James or Lily, (a) because I do see your point about James's death being defensive and not in battle and (b) because I don't think it is entirely relevant to the point I was making.

As I see it, Harry goes from unquestioningly idolising his father (about whom he initially knows virtually nothing) and his hyper-masculine, swashbuckling "daredevil" friend Sirius, and showing virtually no interest in his mother, to seeing the faults in his father and in hypermasculinity, while still admiring the good points about James and Sirius, recognising that bravery takes many forms (some of them psychological and passive) and recognising his mother's input, too. I'm not saying that Lily replaces James as role model.

But, actually, the big difference between James and Lily, for me, is that she actually utters the words "Take me instead" (or something like...quoting off the top of my head is not my strong point). While James undoubtedly would have rather Voldy killed him and the others got away, he does not consciously and explicitly invite his own death in the way in which Lily, Dumbledore and Harry do.

Do you mean because they didn't go out fighting? Neither did James.

Already acknowledged

So I guess I don't really know what you mean by "feminine sacrifice". I know you don't mean "female" so you don't have to explain that . I believe you are speaking more about passivity - but we had that in James both for nearly 2 years prior to his sacrifice (staying at home) and during it (no weapon of war). And then you use Snape to show it, but he actually did have a wand, and raised it as if to use it against Voldemort (purportedly to be able to stay alive and get his message to Harry.) And you also use Harry and Dumbledore as examples - and they both desired to die, purposely and affirmatively planned to be killed. So I am kind of at a loss to what you mean. A feminine sacrifice is associated with a desire to be killed? That would count Lily out. Or it is passive? That would count James in and rather count Snape out. A willingness to die in sacrifice? That counts all of them in.

Let's leave adult James out of this, because it's more Sirius/teenage James that I was thinking of as exampls of "masculine" figures. You're right that my definitions have been kind of fuzzy, but I suppose I do mean a willingness to die in sacrifice, but actually it's more a fuzzy amorphous cluster of ideas I have in my mind when I talk of "feminine heroism", encompassing self-sacrifice (in the explicit, conscious, not incidental way I described above), a disinclination to fight unless one has to or to seek adventure for its own sake, doing what is necessary, not what is glorious.

I think both James and Snape fall short of the "feminine" ideal because they feel frustrated about the passivity of their allotted roles (staying at home/spying, instead of being active, glorious, glamorous warriors), although they do do them.

As an aside, I think traditionally (and stereotypically because it is not at all true) - people associate men with spying. And spies are not believed to be engaging in a "feminine" like adventure. Think James Bond. . So I am not sure why you call Snape's spying a more feminine like adventure - it is behind the scenes, but so dangerous, it is usually (and wrongfully) considered 'men's work' . We know there were many female spies - although the majority exposed were men - it is just it is hard to gauge because spies generally are not exposed, otherwise they were not very good spies. .

I think James Bond owes more to the hypermasculine warrior culture than he does to real spying. From the little I know of real-life spies it's a lot more about boring paperwork and a lot less about gun battles and car chases

I'm not saying that spying (in the sense that Snape does it) is a female job, but that it is in many ways the reverse of the hypermasculine warrior's role. Whether he hoped to be immortalised after his death or not (and I know we disagree on this, but I don't think it's necessarily relevant here, anyway), Snape's role as double agent took him down a path where he would, during his own lifetime, be hated by his own side and where he would not be doing the obviously brave (and at times glamorous, glorious) job of fighting as a warrior.

It is in that way that I think that JKR questions "masculine" notions of heroism through Snape, by showing that bravery isn't necessarily about a man with a sword or a wand in his hand fighting. Snape was "brave" not because he got his wand out to try to fight off Voldemort at the end - he's brave despite that.

Of course I'm not trying to posit that he's a morally good person - JKR clearly expects us to like the "warrior" Sirius more than Snape.

Please don't take any of this to mean that I disagree with you - I sincerely don't understand, so my questions are not doubts, merely attempting to explain why I am not following your point.

I'm probably making even less sense now than I was before. Much of what I post is me thinking aloud and gradually marshalling an argument by trial and error. I'm grateful to you for pointing out inconsistencies.

For me, regardless of details, the main point is that Harry starts off looking up to men in general and stereotypical warrior types in particular, and by the end is recognising women and types of bravery which do not involve fighting. Does that seem like a clear and consistent point to you, or am I just burbling again?

[wickedwickedboy]

Originally Posted by Melaszka

No, I probably was contradicting myself - I usually do!

, no worries we all do. And you are right, it often helps get to a clearer point in the end because we can look at the inconsistencies and make sense of them.

I'm not sure that I did conclude that James was the example of stereotypical masculine heroism. I think it is more that by the end Harry is no longer relying solely on adult male role models and finally acknowledging his mother as a role model (not before time, IMO) as well as James that seems significant to me, not that James is a flawed masculine ideal which he is totally rejecting.

Ah I see what you are saying. But now I am really confused. .

I felt like in POA, Lily's sacrifice was stressed to the exclusion of James - recall all of the patronus lessons? Harry would hear his mum screaming and that is what pierced his heart and what he remarked on aloud. Remus recalled James' sacrifice in asking Harry: "you heard James?" but Harry after acknowledging that, continued to replay his mother's screams for us. In OOTP it was the screaming again in the Occlucmency lessons and we also found out about what Lily's sacrifice had rendered (the protective magic.) To be completely honest with you, I was rather shocked that in DH Harry said to himself that his own sacrifice would be harder than either his mother's or father's - because up to that point, I felt he had compeltely ignored his father's sacrifice in light of his mother's (and the protection it garnered.) That pleased me actually because I felt that Harry was finally recognizing the sacrifice of both (the actual death - not just the fact that they stayed home with him) despite the fact that James' sacrifice had not given him actual protection.

In sum, Harry's POV, his dreams and visions had all made me super focused on Lily's sacrifice, so I am a little curious now as to what made you focus on James' sacrifice and feel Harry had done that? I think that is why I was confused about the point you were making - I never considered Harry having acknowledged his dad's sacrifice in the way he had Lily's. And this is funny: I took the completely opposite viewpoint. I thought Harry had finally recognized that being willing to die meant a willingness to confront his fears (Voldemort) without hesitation. His recognition that his own sacrifice would be harder than either of his parents encompassed not only deliberate sacrifice (like his mothers) - but actually physically going to where Voldemort was in the forest and facing him of his own accord (confrontation - deliberately placing himself in a position to be sacrificed like his dad) - and preplanned (like Dumbledore's).

I do understand the Sirius angle and Harry's focus on him as a mentor and role model. But here again, I never did feel at any point that Harry considered his recklessness as something that he should copy. Harry was always ready and willing to fight (warrior like), but I never really thought that was influenced by Sirius, Lupin, James or Dumbledore, for instance, but rather because Harry was a male himself. But Harry was always hesitant; he did not take confrontation full on by the reins until DH, imo. He did confront, but only after a lot of inner turmoil and/or other events or people pushing him to his limits (i.e., Ginny held hostage - CoS; Voldemort taunting him that his parents would consider him cowardly basically if he did not fight and there being no escape - GoF; Sirius' death- OOTP, etc).

No, I'm just remarking on the fact that Harry doesn't mention James in the fnal battle. That, I think, is canon. As I see it, that's no more than a fair redressing of the balance for the amount he's ignored Lily and focused on the Marauders throughout.

But that focus was not on the sacrifices made by the men, imo. I agree with you that his focus had been very Marauder centric, but more to do with his maturing into a young man, rather than the value of sacrifice (he was not maturing into a young woman afterall ). When it came to the value of sacrifice, his thoughts were completely and totally Lily-centric. Lily's screams, Lily's cries to Voldemort, Lily's protection, Lily's sister's family and the secrets surrounding Petunia's knowledge related to her sister being a witch, etc. So in essence, there was no redressing because we learned next to nothing about Lily herself in terms of who she was except the very little revealed in the memories. On the other hand, the first time we learn what actually happened to James the night of the sacrifices (Potter's deaths) was in DH. I didn't even think about Harry mentioning James in the final battle scene because there would not be any relevance for his doing so. Voldemort for some reason, never put James down (blood traitor though he was) - instead, he had always from GoF forward, belittled Lily (Mudblood Mother, stamped her out like a cockroach, etc.) Redressing that wrong in terms of Voldemort was to enlighten him that for all the little he'd thought of Lily, his own supposed Minion, Snape had turned on him because of his emotions for Lily. This was similar to redressing Snape's wrong of belittling James in that in his final moment of life, in order to see Lily's eyes, he had to acknowledge them in the face of James and the representation of Lily's love for James.

As I saw it, in the final battle, Harry himself served as the representation of his father and himself - rederessing the wrongs to his mother (which both would fiercely do - and James had done in dying for her as well as Harry, and which Harry did in that moment.) Voldemort had no problem understanding that aspect. His problem was understanding the love they would feel that would make them do such a thing. This was also evident when Harry confronted Voldemort in the forest - recall Voldemort's scoffing remarks about how Harry had not come afterall - and later when he thought he killed him, he lied to the crowd and said that Harry had run off rather than face him. Voldemort was completely baffled at the fact that anyone would actually move toward him knowing they would be killed because everyone generally ran away from him. His image as a formidable dark lord was in the balance if it become known that he was not quite as feared as his reputation had accounted for.

As I see it, Harry goes from unquestioningly idolising his father (about whom he initially knows virtually nothing) and his hyper-masculine, swashbuckling "daredevil" friend Sirius, and showing virtually no interest in his mother, to seeing the faults in his father and in hypermasculinity, while still admiring the good points about James and Sirius, recognising that bravery takes many forms (some of them psychological and passive) and recognising his mother's input, too. I'm not saying that Lily replaces James as role model.

I totally relate to your point. I simply didn't get that Harry was focusing on the men for reasons outside of maturing into a young man himself. As I pointed out, when it came to the wonders of sacrifice, he'd actually only focused on Lily. And JKR redressed that privately by mentioning only James alone in the forest scene as being in the same clothes he'd been in the night he died. Harry's recognition of that fact was admission that he'd indeed considered his father's sacrifice previously - which was something I was not sure about at all. Understand that I don't recall Harry harping on about the bravery of Sirius - so I am kind of at a loss as to what you are referring to with respect to his admiring a swashbuckling fellow. Prior to OOTP, I felt Harry had a similar admiration for his mum and dad, and the only one who fell from the pedastal was James - not Lily. And no one in canon ever said a negative thing about Lily except Snape and Voldemort (Mudblood comments), who Harry disliked, so he didn't take it seriously at all. I am thus, unsure why you feel Harry didn't idolise his mother clear throughout the series.

Harry was not very vocal in his POV about his thoughts on his parents. But he did show his regard for his dad was back in place (wondering if his own actions would stand up to his father's and redressing Voldemort's comments about her as Snape's were negated by the memory.) I suppose because I always felt that Harry idolised Lily throughout, it was only necessary for JKR to show me that he'd regain his respect and regard for his dad, which she did.

Harry ceased defending both of his parents as of HBP - his own security in their love for him and his for them no longer required it, imo. Snape's comparatively calling him and his father filthy got only a response: 'kill me like you killed him' - which could have referred to Dumbledore - or perhaps both Dumbeldore and his father, but was not a direct rebuttal in any case. Voldemort's telling Harry that he'd stamp him out as he did his cockroach of a mother got no rebuttal at all regarding that - Harry went on to discuss what he felt was the more important issue. To me that spoke volumes about Harry's growth in terms of his security in himself and his growth into manhood. For recall that the first time Snape started in with his comparative belittling of Harry's dad, he went ballistic "Shut up! Shut up about my dad"! And Voldemort calling his mother a Mudblood caused him to attempt a spell at the man. But there was no more of that and instead Harry acted secure in his knowledge, belief and love about them.

So all of that is to say that I feel Harry hadn't ignored his mum at all; but his focus on the men was due to his own need to grow into a mature man himself. In otherwords, it would have been entirely weird for everyone to remark: "you have acted just like your mum would" - because he was a little boy. If he had been a little girl, that would be more of a proper sentiment, imo. So we got more of the 'you behaved as your father would'. Now that doesn't mean Lily would not behave that way also, it simply is a comparative statement in terms of masculinity. But in his private POV, Harry's Lily-centric focus on her when it came to the deaths of his parents, to me, showed he well and above understood the admirable and wondrous qualities of his mother.

But, actually, the big difference between James and Lily, for me, is that she actually utters the words "Take me instead" (or something like...quoting off the top of my head is not my strong point). While James undoubtedly would have rather Voldy killed him and the others got away, he does not consciously and explicitly invite his own death in the way in which Lily, Dumbledore and Harry do.

Well Harry never said a single word - so if you are referring to the vocalization, then I am not sure why you are including him. He confronted Voldemort and stood in absolute silence after saying that he'd arrived. He did not tell Voldemort to kill him - he didn't have to . Dumbledore and Lily did vocalize - but I am kind of failing to see the difference between Harry and James silence on that particular issue when they were both standing before their killers who they knew would attempt to kill them. Simply confronting they were inviting death, no?

But Harry before confronting chose to die (like Dumbledore) and could have attempted escape (like his mum) but confronted instead (like his dad) and so Harry's rather encompassed all of those factors which is why I believe he said it was more difficult than either of his parents (and certainly more difficult than Dumbledore's - but at that time he was angry with Dumbledore, so he didn't mention him)

Let's leave adult James out of this, because it's more Sirius/teenage James that I was thinking of as exampls of "masculine" figures.

You know - that is how I saw it too, which is why I put it down to Harry's maturing into a young man rather than having anything to do with ignoring Lily. His masculine traits were highlighted because that is what he would grow up to be - not a woman. I agree with you that he saw some of his male heroes faults negatively - but understand, I think he looked at those very immaturely at first. Recall that after doing so, he had to face those very same flaws in his own character.

"Harry realized that he was going to be just as reckless a godfather to Teddy as Sirius had been to him" This was based on the circumstances he found himself in, and so to some degree it both acknowledges that Sirius was over reckless at times - but also acknowledges the fact that sometimes that is necessary.

In light of SWM, Harry arrogantly uses a spell against Draco having no idea what it does and later he is reading about his father and Sirius' Petty misdeeds. In light of those, his own misdeed is not petty at all - and yet, he'd found himself in that situation which is: doing something purposely, but rashly not accounting for the possible consequences.

Those are just two examples, but in the process of maturing into a young man, noting flaws in his mentors helped him not only recognize them in them, but also in himself. But it wasn't just his mentors. Draco attempted a crucio curse on him during the Sectumsempra adventure. Harry could mitigate his own use of an unknown spell marked for enemies to some degree in that Draco had attempted dark magic against him - despicable. Until he found himself doing the very same to Carrow. It isn't so much what the motivation of the boys had been, but rather finding ones self in a situation where you are emulating the behavior of others. One's perspective can change on the mentality of others when that happens. In other words, Draco was later worth saving in the ROR becuase even having attempted the crucio, he also "couldn't kill Dumbledore", "acted to some degree on the trios behalf in Malfoy Manor" and thus the conclusion is, there quite possibly more to this person than meets the eye. Because note, Harry and the trio feeling that Snape was evil incarnate, did not attempt to intercede, but rather bit their knuckles and watched Voldemort kill him.

But the point of that is, Harry's own growth entailed him finding these flaws in his mentors, like his dad and Sirius, and then seeing them in himself. Not only did that help foster his own growth, but it allowed him to look upon them with a greater overall perspective. Granted, in some cases, like with Dumbledore, Harry didn't share his flaws of manipulation and using others, so he simply acknowledged those things were wrongful. But JKR used the Marauders in a more Harry-growth-centric way, imo. The flaws he found were generally those he shared, so it helped his maturing. Again, if he'd been female, I think Lily would have been predominant in this way for him.

You're right that my definitions have been kind of fuzzy, but I suppose I do mean a willingness to die in sacrifice, but actually it's more a fuzzy amorphous cluster of ideas I have in my mind when I talk of "feminine heroism", encompassing self-sacrifice (in the explicit, conscious, not incidental way I described above), a disinclination to fight unless one has to or to seek adventure for its own sake, doing what is necessary, not what is glorious.

Right. I think I see what you are saying, it is just fuzzy because the lines cross so much with the characters. Lily's sacrifice was not entirely a disinclination to fight. She had no wand, but she baracaded herself in the room and refused to move from before her son. James was not entirely an inclination to fight as he had no wand and moved forward knowing the reasonable outcome of making himself a baracade. Dumbledore's was pre-planned, and so his disinclination to fight had a great and specific motivation behind it - thus it was planned not to be glorious.

Harry's on the other hand was two-fold. His initial sacrifice was a disinclination to fight and to do what was necessary. Like Dumbledore, he had a motive, so again, it wasn't a totally submissive decision based on no other reason that 'not to fight'. In the final battle however, he took the warrior view and purposely did act to best Voldemort in battle by electing what he felt was the best spell to use against Voldemort's charge (per the canon).

I am not discounting your notion, but merely explaining why I feel that the idea of feminine v. masculine sacrifice is horribly blurred to the extent where I am inclined to say there is really no difference at all. Tonks and Lupin both went down fighting as warriors - but I don't find them any more glorious than Lily's stated plea to take her life and leave her son alive. I don't find Harry's sacrifice any more glorious than James using himself as a baracade or Moody giving his life trying to get Harry to safety. I think all of these sacrifices can be shown to have characteristics of offense and defense (even Harry's as him confronting offensively instead of waiting passively for Voldemort to approach him.) So I guess I just see all sacrifice in a more gender neutral way.

I think both James and Snape fall short of the "feminine" ideal because they feel frustrated about the passivity of their allotted roles (staying at home/spying, instead of being active, glorious, glamorous warriors), although they do do them.

But does that mean Lily never once became frustrated that she could not leave the house to buy milk? I don't think so. I think she was selflessly commenting on a feeling that they both had of being landlocked (which is human nature and gender neutral) - and attempting to relieve James' sense of claustrophobia a little. It is possible Lily had natural interests that relieved her tedium to some degree that could be done at home, we don't know. Or she simply thought of James over herself. But I think it highly far-fetched to imagine that Lily never felt a moment's frustration in two years - she too had been a warrior for the Order. Do you think she suddenly had no desire to fight Voldemort at all? I don't. I think that like James she understood it was something that had to be done and she was simply placing her love for her husband above herself.

I think James Bond owes more to the hypermasculine warrior culture than he does to real spying. From the little I know of real-life spies it's a lot more about boring paperwork and a lot less about gun battles and car chases

I'm not saying that spying (in the sense that Snape does it) is a female job, but that it is in many ways the reverse of the hypermasculine warrior's role. Whether he hoped to be immortalised after his death or not (and I know we disagree on this, but I don't think it's necessarily relevant here, anyway), Snape's role as double agent took him down a path where he would, during his own lifetime, be hated by his own side and where he would not be doing the obviously brave (and at times glamorous, glorious) job of fighting as a warrior.

I guess I just disagree with this - although I totally see the point you are trying to make. While I agree most spying does not reach the level of James Bond, one cannot negate the thrill of the risk involved no matter how mundane the tasks undertaken. One's life is in the balance and the factors you named are also true. Warriors fight supported by spies and the important and relevant information they obtain. I also don't feel that in the HP universe "warriors" were reduced to men so as to be thought a hypermasculine role. There were too many female warriors for me to accept that belief. In HP, I felt the magical element (use of wands in battle) undid the common belief that strength was a part of battle. There is no heavy machinery to move around or operate. The "real" differences between men and women (in general) seemed to fall by the wayside because those attributes were no longer relevant to power over one's enemy. Now the skill relied on was purely one's ability with a wand. Sirius was presumably stronger (muscle wise) than Bella, but it mattered not at all; she took him out. So I fell I would have to understand how battles - warriors - in HP were characterized as "masculine" before I could agree.

Granted in our world it is very male-centric. But can we ignore that JKR used magic to even out that imbalance in the wizard world?

It is in that way that I think that JKR questions "masculine" notions of heroism through Snape, by showing that bravery isn't necessarily about a man with a sword or a wand in his hand fighting. Snape was "brave" not because he got his wand out to try to fight off Voldemort at the end - he's brave despite that.

I thought she did that by having a lot of female warriors. Bravery was not limited to men at all. Now in as far as "types" of bravery, I think that is completely reader perception. Anyone who thinks spying is not brave is not going to be convinced that it is merely because Harry thinks so. I think it is brave - but Harry didn't make the distinguishment you did. How do you know that Harry didn't say that precisely because Snape DID pull his wand out at the last moment and attempt to play warrior? You don't - neither do I - because Harry didn't say. So I don't see JKR's purpose in that light at all. I think most people feel spying is brave. I think the point was to show that Harry had forgiven Snape because he would not say that about him if he hadn't - and also to show that he had let go of his grudge and acknowledged Snape had tried to honor his mum's sacrifice (and unacknolwedged by Snape, his father's too). But because Snape had raised his wand against Voldemort and also defended himself against the professors just before that, I don't think he was used to show that bravery took on different forms - especially since I feel a majority of people already consider spying brave.

Of course I'm not trying to posit that he's a morally good person - JKR clearly expects us to like the "warrior" Sirius more than Snape.

I think this presupposes that most would leave the series thinking Snape had been a 10 pound weakling. I simply don't think that is true. From a little kid he showed he was not willing to take things lying down, but would definitely throw out a retalitory curse. He went on to fight as a Death Eater and as I mentioned, his wand was out at the ready against Voldemort and the professors. So I don't think people would come away thinking Snape weak or not a "warrior" when he had to be. So I would have to disagree that Snape was shown to have stood for a non-warrior. There are no non-warrior Death Eaters. And there are no good sider spies who are non-warriors either - it is impossible because one must stand ready to defend themselves in situations like Snape found himself in with the professors - or if exposed - against the DEs.

I'm probably making even less sense now than I was before. Much of what I post is me thinking aloud and gradually marshalling an argument by trial and error. I'm grateful to you for pointing out inconsistencies.

No, you are making sense. I kind of think though that a lot of this was shown in a very gender neutral way. I think much of the stereotyping associated with men and war was eliminated early on when we found out in PS/SS that women were formidable warriors too. And that was increasingly stressed as other female warriors were spoken about or highlighted. For example, Hermione, Ginny and Luna did as much spell casting as Ron, Neville and Harry at the MOM. Lupin and Kingsley came, but so did Tonks - Rockwell was there trying to kill and capture, but so was Bella. There were fewer Death Eater women highlighted, a point I raised earlier - but not Order members - only those we met. We were definitely told about a good number of others from Lily, Alice, Hestia, Ameilia, Molly, Tonks, and more (seriously more, I simply can't recall their names - like the one who died overseas and the one who Lily was crying about).

I do enjoy discussing it though, and I do take your contentions seriously. I only point out inconsistencies I feel were in the canon in relation to what you are saying - not to discount your point. I am still of a mind that there is validity to what you are saying, but perhaps the distinction is more subtle and/or outside of the examples we have focused on. That is the beauty of the market place of ideas...continued discussion may bring to light exactly what made you fell that way. I have an idea it might have something to do with the fact that the women in general were shown to be less flawed, thus their sacrifices would also be tossed into that category - but I am not sure I can go for that idea either. .

For me, regardless of details, the main point is that Harry starts off looking up to men in general and stereotypical warrior types in particular, and by the end is recognising women and types of bravery which do not involve fighting. Does that seem like a clear and consistent point to you, or am I just burbling again?

In a way, as I indicated, I agree with you completely. He was looking up to men, but I truly believe that is because he was male. I just don't feel his looking up was associated with 'warrior types' - I think it was more associated with finding himself. That is because his focus did not seem to be on 'waring and bravery'. He never asked what Sirius, Lupin or his father did while in the Order. His concentration was on the more 'everyday life' aspect of their existence. Harry's dad would spare Peter as he had - not kill him - not take the warrior's view - but rather a more thinking person's view. Harry found his dad in himself to save him and Sirius from the dementors - not by killing the dementors, but through channeling his power of "love" and sending them scurrying away. Again, not war-mentality. "Your father and I would create the DADA too" - not for offensive reasons, but DEFENSE of the dark arts - defending onesself and others against charges of dark magic - hence Harry got "books" for christmas, instead of a weapon of defense. Harry's grandest worry was whether his father grew out of his childish behavior, not whether he grew to be a great warrior. Harry chastised Sirius for his recklessness early on - he didn't find it admirable - even if it would be brave. He did not tell Cedric to fight Peter and Voldemort - he told him to RUN! . So I just don't see the war-centric focus in the canon that you are talking about. But perhaps I am not thinking up the examples you would use in such a case.

Anyway, the main point is not whether we can conclude the war-masculine mentality was actually in the canon or not, but rather that I love our discussions as we try to discover how and if it actually did play into it - and I have not disgarded the fact that it just might.

[ignisia]

1. Did you feel that overall men got a bad rap in the series? That is, do you feel their lives appeared to be more full of trauma, difficult or unsolvable issues, quandaries and hardships in comparison to men in the Muggle world (meaning our world)?

I don't think the amount of trauma the characters experience is as relevant as, say, how they reacted to that trauma. And it seems to me that boxes sexes are even there. We have a couple scenes where Hermione panics (such as the Devil's Snare) and we can't forget Merope, who completely lost her will to live and raise her child after being rejected by Tom Riddle Sr.
But the men have their moments too. Severus and Sirius, for instance, while still contributing to the community, are still emotional and psychologically damaged in some ways. And Voldemort himself completely turns his back on his own humanity, choosing instead to dominate others. Bad choices are made by all.

2. Do you feel that JKR used a lot of stereotyping in the portrayal of the male characters?

Judging by an interview comment post-DH, I think she does adhere to some of the old stereotypes, and it does show sometimes. During the whole Cho fiasco especially. I know several guys who would be much more sensitive about the sort of issues that Cho faced than Harry and Ron were.

3. Did you feel like the men in the series at times took a view that seemed either incongruent with the way men generally speak, act, behave or relate? If so, do you feel that JKR was bounded by some limitations being a female herself?

If she was limited by being female, I don't think I can answer that question myself.

4. Do you feel that Harry fit the masculine prototype of a hero in every way (assuming you feel there is such a prototype)?

Prototpye? You mean like Harry Potter: Beta Version?

I'm not sure what truly qualifies as a masculine hero as opposed to a feminine hero. In realistic terms, both sexes do try to think before they act, and it would be unfair to men to say a masculine hero doesn't.

6. Do you feel that most of the most important roles in the series were doled out to men? If so, do you feel that your opinion is influenced by what was taking place in the canon 'in the present' or did you allow historical accounts in the book to also play into your view?

If by "historical", you mean Marauder-Era characters, then yes, they are very important. Without Lily, Harry would have died at age one...or never have been born at all.
I would say that with the notable exceptions of Dumbledore and the Abandoned Boys (nice name for a band), women actually have some big roles. When we compare Ron and Hermione, for instance, it tends to be Hermione who provides clarification and complex spellwork, whereas Ron is usually there as simply Harry's friend and ally (although Ron has his moments )

7. Most of those among the established Death Eaters - those enacting "evil" in the series that we met, were men. I only recall Bella and one of the Carrows being female, but the rest were all male. Why do you feel that we were mainly introduced to male Death Eaters? Did you feel there was an underlying message?

I think the only underlying message was a physiological one. If you put a puppy in a room, most of the girls present will coo over it and pet it because chemically, they're built to have that reaction. Death Eaters are required to do things like killing the puppy. I think only those women who lack that nurturing instinct are likely to succeed and survive as Death Eaters.

[mrfutterman]

Originally Posted by ignisia

4. Do you feel that Harry fit the masculine prototype of a hero in every way (assuming you feel there is such a prototype)?

Prototpye? You mean like Harry Potter: Beta Version?

I'm not sure what truly qualifies as a masculine hero as opposed to a feminine hero. In realistic terms, both sexes do try to think before they act, and it would be unfair to men to say a masculine hero doesn't.

At the risk of second guessing wwb, I don't think the question refers to real life male heroes, but to male heroes in stories. It is from films and TV, and to a lesser extent from books, that we get our ideas of heroes, heroines, villains..... Example: some of the old male actors in Hollywood (the ones who are still left!) like to boast of their friendships with John Wayne. The Wayne-type is an American model of hero. Another, as I already mentioned, is Luke Skywalker; a model for a later generation. Although it was Han who really caught the public imagination.