Feminism in Deathly Hallows - or the lack thereof v.3

[RavenStar83]

Originally Posted by OldMotherCrow

No, I can honestly say that I have no interest in shipping wars, or going to the battlefields where they are fought. Just not my thing.

If Birdie's comment was aimed at something specific that was going on with G/H wars elsewhere and elsewhen, I don't think that it was clear to me because I am unfamiliar with the context, so I possibly misconstrued that his or her comment was aimed at the conversation here, now.

I think what Birdi was referring to (and correct me if I'm wrong) was that those in fandom that were labeling Ginny a Mary Sue, bicycal, and many other degatory statements aimed at women did it because they didn't like the H/G ship. Which is why I mentioned the shipping wars.

ETA:

Originally Posted by Lunatic

Agree with the first part, disagree with the second part. I do think JKR dislikes, possibly hates Cho. The minute she "fell from" grace Ginny was shown to be better in every way, even though she was two years younger. This goes even to when Cho speaks up and offers information relavant to what an area she knows, she's essentially told to "shut up" by Ginny.

I never got the impression that JKR herself hated Cho, either in the books or interviews. I don't think saying she married a muggle was meant as anything degrading. It could be the name of said muggle hasn't been decided on yet, like who the next headmaster is going to be. And Cho is Harry's ex. I can't really blame Ginny for nto wanting them alone together, especially when they already have a close friend from Ravenclaw who could do the job. Petty on Ginny's part, maybe. But that could have been a decision made based on how JKR knows what Ginny's reaction is going to be rather than trying to put down Cho's character.

You and I don't hate Cho. However, many fans do hate her. I think the fact that JKR, in the books or in the post-DH interviews, has done nothing to discourage this attitude is telling of her position on Cho.

I have seen bashing of some sort on ALL the female characters in this story. The bigger role they play in the story the worse it's been, which is saying something. (I'd give examples, but that would end up pointing fingers at certain fans.) I don't expect JKR to be aware of everthing every type of fan has said. But if she should say something, there's a lot of defending for all her female characters she's going to have to do.

[Moriath]

Originally Posted by RavenStar83

It's something to wonder, was it the writer's fault that the character turned out to be a [insert sexist label for female here], or is it the reader's own projection based on their own bias and ignorance?

I think you do have a point here. Especially women are extremely critical of female characters in fiction, film and TV. That doesn't mean that all criticism has to be questioned but that women are often the harshest critics of their own gender. Ginny has obvious faults; as a character she lacks depth and she does indeed seem to exist to complement Harry. However, I doubt that a male Ginny would be accused of being a womaniser on account of dating three girls in his school years.

[RavenStar83]

Originally Posted by Moriath

However, I doubt that a male Ginny would be accused of being a womaniser on account of dating three girls in his school years.

Oh, I agree completely. And it's an attitude that's been seen in all kinds of fandoms, unfortunately.

[HedwigOwl]

Originally Posted by Trixa

In a way because being a Death Eater is such an important part of her life but what is most interesting and appealing about her character is the way she deals both with being a Death Eater who always has to worry about her position within the ranks, and her feelings for Voldemort. It is interesting, in my opinion, that she is the subject in that relationship and not the object as it's usually the case for the females in Harry Potter (see Lily and Ginny). The emphasis is put on her feelings towards him not on his feelings towards her (whichever those may be, I'm not in the mood for a shipping discussion now). It is her desire and lust that is important.

Reading the above description of Bella, I don't think there's anything worthy of a positive female role model there. I also disagree that she's a "subject" rather than an "object" in her relationship with Voldemort. He can't love, he thinks it's weak to do so; Bella is obsessively romantically invested (according to JKR, and Bella's behavior toward him), and Voldemort lets that play out, for his own self-serving purpose (because he cannot love her on any level), and in my view that makes her an "object" in the worst way. So it seems to me he's using her and she is allowing it. I don't see that as a good role model for anyone, particularly women.

Originally Posted by Melaszka

(b) women repeatedly being deputies, second in commands, what have you. Ginny, like a lot of the female characters is strong, sassy, capable, far superior to many of the male characters. But just not quite as good as the male hero.

To be fair, though, there are dozens of male characters as well who are "not quite as good as the male hero" as you put it. If the central character is male, why is it unfair that he's portrayed as a bit better in the end? It wouldn't work to have Hermione written to eclipse Harry's eventual sacrifice and defeat of Voldemort. If Harry's written as the hero, he's got to make that final journey alone and be successful at it whether he lives or dies in the end. It's all about Harry, really, and everyone else is second, whether maile or female.

[Nandi]

Because of the profecy that J.K. included in the story, and having part of Voldemort soul inside of him it has to be Harry who kills Voldemort.If it was only a matter of skill Hermione could have done it too.

[Trixa]

Originally Posted by HedwigOwl

Reading the above description of Bella, I don't think there's anything worthy of a positive female role model there. I also disagree that she's a "subject" rather than an "object" in her relationship with Voldemort.

A person who is objectified in a relationship is a person who is made into an object of desire and lust. This isn't my definition of objectifying, but the definition of postmodern gender theorists. Female characters are often objectified both in books and in movies because emphasis is put on the hero's desire for them, not their desire or feelings for him. Which I think we can agree is not the case for Bella and Voldemort. We know how she feels about him and emphasis is put on her crush and desire for him. Usually, in HP, it's always about how the men feel about the women (exceptions being Tonks and Bella). Even in Hermione and Ron's case we know about what he does to "get" her but not what she does to get him. Even when she is jealous of Lavender in HBP, her feelings are never clarified but simply open to interpretation. She never actually gets the chance to express them the way the boys do. When Ron is jealous because he thinks Harry and Hermione are in love, that feeling gets a lot of attention from the author and is clearly expressed both by Ron himself and by the Horcrux incident.
It's the same with Harry and Ginny. Harry lusts for her in HBP and this is all we are shown. What Ginny feels is delivered to the readers through hearsay from Hermione. Ginny spends four years of her life being in love with Harry before he notices her, yet she never makes any attempt to flirt with him or try to attract him in any way. It's like she's passively waiting for him to come to her. This is what I mean by saying that we sort of never hear the girls' "side of the story" when it comes to romances. The only exceptions I can think of now being Bella and Tonks.

He can't love, he thinks it's weak to do so; Bella is obsessively romantically invested (according to JKR, and Bella's behavior toward him), and Voldemort lets that play out, for his own self-serving purpose (because he cannot love her on any level), and in my view that makes her an "object" in the worst way.

I disagree with her being "obsessively" romantically invested and I think people use that term way too lightly. What makes you think she's "obsessively" romantically invested instead of just romantically invested? I don't remember Bella stalking Voldemort or covering her wall with pictures of him. That's a behaviour I describe as obessive. Telling a man you respect that he is welcomed in your family's house doesn't even come close to that, IMO.

We have no idea what Voldemort thinks of Bella's feelings for him or if he even is aware of them. If he didn't know Snape still had feelings for Lily then he might not know Bella has feelings for him. I don't see any indication in canon that he does know and that he uses that to his advantage. He knows she is extremely loyal and uses that to his advantage, though. Saying that he uses her feelings to his advantage is, in my view, merely an opinion and hardly canon.

So it seems to me he's using her and she is allowing it

Well, the choice thing would cause problems here again. If a woman chooses the lifestyle then what's the problem, right? However, I would say that in this context there is another dimension to it. When you say that she allows it what do you mean exactly? Any resistence to his comments and his mockery would cause her to get tortured and possibly even get killed if he is in a bad mood. There is no indication in the text that Bella thinks it's okay for Voldemort to bellitle her but neither she nor the other Death Eaters can really do anything about it because they would risk getting killed. So her standing up for herself is, in this context, unwise.

[JJFinch]

Originally Posted by Melaszka

(b) women repeatedly being deputies, second in commands, what have you. Ginny, like a lot of the female characters is strong, sassy, capable, far superior to many of the male characters. But just not quite as good as the male hero.

Just to throw in my two cents...

Several people seem to be complaining that Ginny is only ever Harry's "second-in-command". Where on Earth did they get this idea from? I mean no offence to anyone whatsoever, but as someone who is not a raging feminist, I do sometimes feel that feminists are trying to find inequality where there is none. No offence.

From where I stand, Ginny is shown to be at least Harry's equal. She's one of only two characters who are completely unpertubed by his mood-swings, for starters (the other being Luna - another female ). Ron and Hermione can't cope with Harry's mood swings, can they, and half of that sample is male . IMO characters like Ginny and, to a lesser extent, Luna, are there very much to emphasise the fact that Harry is not such a great, perfect, wonderful hero (he still has some fantastic qualities, of course, but at the end of the day, he's just a teenage boy, and Ginny, Luna, Cho etc, etc, show him up as such). The only reason Harry seems to be "superior" is because he's the protagonist! He's the subject of the prophecy! JKR, in Dumbledore's words, "thrust the mantle of leadership upon" Harry because he's a flawed, typical, human character. In doing so, it made his triumphs seem greater because he not only had the "dark side" to overcome, but his own massive flaws; his insecurities, and, at times, stupidness. Would the series have been anywhere near as riveting if this role had been given to a character who was, like Ginny, strong-willed, intelligent (something I will address below, because I don't see how people can claim she and Harry are unintelligent, either) and in many ways a stereotypical leader? No, I'm sorry, it wouldn't. Therefore, Harry is the protagonist and as a result of that the "hero," but this does not mean he is portrayed as "superior" to anyone, he just has a greater burden of responsibility.

I had more to say on this subject (such as the "Ginny and Harry's relationship is a mutual thing - we don't just see Ginny as a prop for Harry" stance), but I'm being harangued to get off the computer, so I'll get to my second point: that of Harry and Ginny's intelligence. No, they're not super-human geniuses like Hermione and Dumbledore, but that doesn't mean they're not intelligent. Does Harry not develop a great depth of insight by DH, when he begins to grasp concepts of wandlore that astound Ollivander? Did he not figure out how Hagrid had let slip about getting FLuffy to sleep in PS? Did he not put 2 and 2 together in CoS (admittedly with a little bit of help from Hermione) and work out the whole Moaning Myrtle's bathroom thing? Did he not manage to fathom the unfathomable depths of Time-Travelling, in understanding that he had seen himself saving himself inPoA? The list goes on. And as for Ginny, I've always seen her as being as naturally intelligent as Hermione, just not so obsessively studious: how quickly did she come up with the Garrotting gas plan in OotP? (About a second, if you odn't remember). Whenever she argued any point at all, she was succint and resoned clearly. But she wasn't a Mary-Sue either: she was flawed, too (she had at times a slightly unreasonable red-head temper, and was as susceptible to jealousy, and the unreasonable behaviour which results from it, as any normal teenage girl. Note that oh-so-intelligent Hermione was even more susceptible to this - Ginny definitely, IMO, had more common sense than Hermione), which to me shows that a female character doesn't have to be Mary-Sue-ishly perfect to stand a chance of being superior to a male character - male and female characters can, if you like, be compared on the same scale.

I could go on in this vein forever, because, frankly, I find the "female characters are presented as inferior" argument to be nothing more than a straw man constructed by people who feel the need for their gender to be seen as being hard-done-by. Harry Potter was not written to be a feminist novel; it is a story of good over evil, and both genders are represented as equally as is realistic (meaning that, in real life 99% of military leaders are male, so why shouldn't this be reflected as such in a novel whose sole purpose is not to be a feminist novel - or anti-men, which extremes of feminism all too often become?). I can see many positive "feminist" messages (I personally think "equalist" would be more appropriate, as it indicates that men need fair representation too) in Harry Potter and nothing outrageously sexist.

Right, I really am going to stop writing now. And once again, no offence intended to anyone if this post seems a little heated in places, but many feminist arguments just get my back up.

[mrfutterman]

Originally Posted by JJFinch

Several people seem to be complaining that Ginny is only ever Harry's "second-in-command". Where on Earth did they get this idea from?

Well, where did you get that idea from? Because I certainly don't get that idea from the text.

Ginny is not ever Harry's 2nd in command: that is not her function at any point in the seven novels.

Harry is the protagonist.
Ron and Hermione are the secondary characters: the protag's comic and serious foils.
Voldemort is the antagonist.
DD is the "wise" mentor.
Hagrid is the "caring/servant" mentor.
Sirius is the (literally) "godfather" mentor.
Draco is the school bully/rival.

And Ginny's role is....?

She is the love interest. That is her function.

[Melaszka]

Originally Posted by mrfutterman

Well, where did you get that idea from? Because I certainly don't get that idea from the text.

In fairness, I think JJFinch may have got that idea from a post where I complained that Ginny being good as a Seeker at Quidditch, but not quite as good as Harry, and good at hexes and defensive magic, but not quite good enough to lead the DA, like Harry, fitted into the series' pattern of women being 2nd-in-command.

In case it wasn't obvious, I didn't mean that Ginny was literally anyone's second-in-command, merely that, while women are portrayed as very impressive and skilled, the main leadership roles seem to go to men.

Posted by JJFinch
The only reason Harry seems to be "superior" is because he's the protagonist! He's the subject of the prophecy! JKR, in Dumbledore's words, "thrust the mantle of leadership upon" Harry because he's a flawed, typical, human character. In doing so, it made his triumphs seem greater because he not only had the "dark side" to overcome, but his own massive flaws; his insecurities, and, at times, stupidness. Would the series have been anywhere near as riveting if this role had been given to a character who was, like Ginny, strong-willed, intelligent (something I will address below, because I don't see how people can claim she and Harry are unintelligent, either) and in many ways a stereotypical leader? No, I'm sorry, it wouldn't. Therefore, Harry is the protagonist and as a result of that the "hero," but this does not mean he is portrayed as "superior" to anyone, he just has a greater burden of responsibility.

I do take your point and I agree that, yes, Harry is portrayed as being weak and flawed in many ways, and that, yes, a lot of the reader's empathy comes from sharing the journey of a scared, ill-prepared hero on a sharp learning curve.I have never argued that Harry is portrayed as perfect or good at everything or a stereotypical leader.

But despite his "flawed" personality, he is still portrayed as being a "natural" teacher and leader - look how he takes to the DA like a duck to water.

And it's not just Harry - as I've outlined below, pretty much all of the "military" leaders of the series are male.

Just to make it clear, I'm not against a book having a male protagonist. Far from it. Some of my favourite books...etc. It's how that male protagonist fits into an overwhelming pattern of male predominance amongst characters who are key to the plot and in leadership roles within the narrative that disturbs me a bit in HP.

Harry Potter was not written to be a feminist novel; it is a story of good over evil, and both genders are represented as equally as is realistic (meaning that, in real life 99% of military leaders are male, so why shouldn't this be reflected as such in a novel whose sole purpose is not to be a feminist novel

Because in real life there are reasons why 99% of military leaders are male (a) because sometimes RL soldiery, unlike the magic-based "soldiery" of the wizard/witch world, demands physical strength - the one area where the average man does have a proven advantage over the average woman (b) more importantly, the RL military is still shaped by centuries of blatant exclusion of women - when it's only recently that women have been allowed to serve on active service, it's been impossible for women to rise up the ranks.

Neither of these reasons pertain in the Potterverse - women have no physical disadvantage in magical "battle" and there does not appear to have been a history of overt discrimination against them. That is why it seems inexplicable to me that almost all of the "military" leaders we see in the text - e.g. Harry, Neville, Dumbledore, Voldemort, Moody, Shacklebolt - are male.

And I just don't get the "but it's not intended to be a feminist novel" argument.

(a) Feminist analysis, like most forms of professional, academic literary criticism, is not concerned with what the author intended (which is often impossible to determine, anyway, given that a lot of authors are dead or at least less loquacious about their work than JKR).

(b) I don't hear anyone defending the racism in GK Chesterton's novels on the grounds that "It's not supposed to be an anti-racist novel!" I don't understand why people seem to think that novels which feature female characters as prominently as male characters and portray them as equally capable leaders as men are a special sub-category of fiction for the minority feminist audience. Shouldn't all novels do this, anyway?

- or anti-men, which extremes of feminism all too often become?)

I think that's a cheap jibe, unless you can provide specific examples where I, or anyone else on this thread, have made "anti-men" comments.

Similarly these comments:

I mean no offence to anyone whatsoever, but as someone who is not a raging feminist, I do sometimes feel that feminists are trying to find inequality where there is none. No offence.

and

I could go on in this vein forever, because, frankly, I find the "female characters are presented as inferior" argument to be nothing more than a straw man constructed by people who feel the need for their gender to be seen as being hard-done-by.

You go out of your way to stress that you do not mean this offensively, and I do appreciate you taking the time to do that, but I still find the "if you don't agree with me, then you are obviously twisting the text and making up things which are not there" argument objectionable. I also object to people claiming to be sitting in my head and to know my thoughts and motivation

I respect your view of the text. I don't think it is "wrong", in any objective, empirical sense, I just don't happen to share it. I'm not trying to persuade you to accept my view, just explaining why I hold it. I don't believe there is one objective truth about a text and I'm not arguing "FACT: HP is an unfeminist text" any more than I would argue with a friend I watched Titanic with that "Titanic is a bad film, that's indisputable, and you are not allowed to like it!"

I would appreciate the same respect in return.

I can see many positive "feminist" messages

As can I, as it happens, as I have said on numerous occasions. It doesn't mean I have to like everything in the text from a feminist angle, though, just because some bits are positive.

(I personally think "equalist" would be more appropriate, as it indicates that men need fair representation too)

I'm sorry, but I think that's totally unfair. Feminists also think men deserve fair representation. What some of us do object to is the assumption that the status quo, where men tend to get more representation than women, is fair.
Have I said anything which implies men deserve less representation than women?

in Harry Potter and nothing outrageously sexist.

I can't see anything "outrageously" sexist in it, either. I agree that the points I and others have objected to are largely subtleties, highly dependent on interpretation. But I don't think things have to be "outrageously" sexist before I have a right to object to them, any more than I should just shut up and tolerate things which I find "just a bit" racist or "just a bit" homophobic.

But this is besides the point. You don't find HP sexist and that's great. I'm happy for you. I've got a lot of feminist friends who are also quite happy with HP as is.

But please don't expect or imply that I have to agree with you and that, if I don't, I'm just an embittered extremist who 's reading things that aren't there.

[mrfutterman]

Originally Posted by Melaszka

In fairness, I think JJFinch may have got that idea from a post where I complained that Ginny being good as a Seeker at Quidditch, but not quite as good as Harry, and good at hexes and defensive magic, but not quite good enough to lead the DA, like Harry, fitted into the series' pattern of women being 2nd-in-command.

In case it wasn't obvious, I didn't mean that Ginny was literally anyone's second-in-command, merely that, while women are portrayed as very impressive and skilled, the main leadership roles seem to go to men.

My bad! I should have read the whole thread before jumping in.

Yes, the author tells us repeatedly that there is equality in the WW, but her women accept second billing rather too readily.

[HedwigOwl]

Originally Posted by Trixa

I disagree with her being "obsessively" romantically invested and I think people use that term way too lightly. What makes you think she's "obsessively" romantically invested instead of just romantically invested? I don't remember Bella stalking Voldemort or covering her wall with pictures of him. That's a behaviour I describe as obessive. Telling a man you respect that he is welcomed in your family's house doesn't even come close to that, IMO.

Stalking is not the same thing as obsession, however.

Bella was obsessively romantically involved with Voldemort (JKR tells us so).

Pottercast part 2 (JKR): Bella was madly, romantically in love with Voldemort, and obsessed with him.

However, in addition to her specifically saying so, there are indications in the books.

She abandons her husband to be with Voldemort.

She thinks it's more than OK if Draco dies, because it's "for the Dark Lord".

She's jealous of Snape because he has become favored with Voldemort. At one point she tells Snape "He shares everything with me!" And when she finds out Snape knows the plan, she is outraged, "You know about the plan? You know?" She is angry the Dark Lord favors anyone other than her, she wants to be exclusive.

When Voldemort falls unconscious in the forest, Harry hears Bella say "My Lord" in a voice as if to a lover.

Originally Posted by Trixa

However, I would say that in this context there is another dimension to it. When you say that she allows it what do you mean exactly?

When I say that Bella allows it, I mean that she knows full well that he is incapable of loving anyone. He doesn't treat her kindly or well, just the same as any other DE based solely upon whether they do what he tells them and if they succeed. She is a formidably powerful witch, bragging to Harry in OotP that she learned the Dark Arts from Voldy himself, so she is hardly weak or insecure, and certainly capable of protecting herself. She could have remained a DE and discontinued her pursuit of affection from Voldy that she knew was not possible, not only for her but anyone. So, knowing what she does, and being powerful enough to remove herself romantically yet remain a loyal DE, she chooses to pursue him -- that's what I see as allowing it.

Originally Posted by Trixa

Female characters are often objectified both in books and in movies because emphasis is put on the hero's desire for them, not their desire or feelings for him. Which I think we can agree is not the case for Bella and Voldemort.

I believe we have different ideas of what objectification is. In my view, it's when women are not seen as individuals, but interchangeable, merely a goal to achieve or attain, or serve a need. That's what Bella is to Voldemort -- a loyal DE, a last, best lieutenant (actually used in DH), a source of adoration. Just because she has feelings for Voldemort that are expressed in the book, does not mean that she isn't objectified by Voldemort -- she is.

I would also like to say that just because the male characters express feelings or desire toward female characters, it doesn't automatically mean that they're objectifying them. What's important is the dynamic between them, how does the man in question act -- does he respect her, allow her to make her own choices, support her, like her as a person, etc.

[Trixa]

Originally Posted by HedwigOwl

Stalking is not the same thing as obsession, however.

Bella was obsessively romantically involved with Voldemort (JKR tells us so).

JKR's opinions are just opinions. There is no difference between her opinions and yours so they don't prove anything, IMO.

She abandons her husband to be with Voldemort.

Many women leave their husbands for other men.

She thinks it's more than OK if Draco dies, because it's "for the Dark Lord".

I think there was her twisted way of comforting Narcissa. She may also have felt obliged to say that just to prove to Snape that she is extremely loyal to Voldemort. But the fact that Bella made the Unbreakable Vow and allowed Snape, a man she hated, to protect Draco just to respect Narcissa's wishes shows that Voldemort took a back seat in her mind that night.

She's jealous of Snape because he has become favored with Voldemort. At one point she tells Snape "He shares everything with me!" And when she finds out Snape knows the plan, she is outraged, "You know about the plan? You know?" She is angry the Dark Lord favors anyone other than her, she wants to be exclusive.

Right. To have power. All Death Eaters want Voldemort to be happy with them. We saw this in the first chapter of DH. I don't see why Bellatrix is singled out as the only DE who cares about Voldemort's favoritism when this is in fact canonically untrue.

When Voldemort falls unconscious in the forest, Harry hears Bella say "My Lord" in a voice as if to a lover.

Speaking to someone affectionately makes you obsessed with them?
Harry dreams about Ginny in ways that would make Ron squirm, he has a chest monster, he is jealous everytime he sees a guy talking to Ginny, why doesn't anyone accuse him of being obsessed? Snape gave up his whole life for a woman who abandoned him and married his worst enemy. How come the men's feelings are ok no matter who pathetic they are but not the women's?

So, knowing what she does, and being powerful enough to remove herself romantically yet remain a loyal DE, she chooses to pursue him -- that's what I see as allowing it.

Isn't that brave though? I think all women who desire someone should pursue them. In a subtle way maybe but they should. There's nothing wrong with having feelings.

I believe we have different ideas of what objectification is. In my view, it's when women are not seen as individuals, but interchangeable, merely a goal to achieve or attain, or serve a need. That's what Bella is to Voldemort -- a loyal DE, a last, best lieutenant (actually used in DH), a source of adoration.

If she were that interchangeable then Voldemort would ahve had no reason to be so distraught when she died.
Also, isn't Voldemort also interchangeable to Bella? Is there something about Tom Riddle particularly that she likes or would she fall for any powerful wizard who promised them pureblood supremacy?

[Melaszka]

Originally Posted by HedwigOwl

I would also like to say that just because the male characters express feelings or desire toward female characters, it doesn't automatically mean that they're objectifying them. What's important is the dynamic between them, how does the man in question act -- does he respect her, allow her to make her own choices, support her, like her as a person, etc.

That's true (one of the many reasons why I love my favourite band is that their male songwriters took great pride in the fact that they wrote songs about love ans sex, from a male perspective, without objectifying women) and I certainly think that there's a lot of positive things going on in HP in terms of the way that relationships are depicted.

I particularly like the way that Ron's and Hermione's relationship is depicted - it grows out of friendship and on both sides is based on psychological compatibility, not superficial lust. In both cases, they have had earlier, embarrassing, disastrous crushes (Ron on Fleur, Hermione on Lockhart), based purely on physical objectification of the beloved, and relationships which failed, either because their partner was not psychologically compatible with them, or because they were more interested in the STATUS of having a boyfriend/girlfriend, rather than in the person they were going out with.
I think both genders are treated pretty even-handedly in this depiction of relationships and it sends out really positive signals about the inadvisability of viewing the opposite sex as a sex object, whatever sex you are.

However, while I agree that it avoids the worst pitfalls of objectification, I don't think the portrayal of Harry's relationships is as well handled. It may be inevitable, given that the books are almost entirely from his viewpoint, that far more weight is given to Harry's needs and feelings than Cho's or Ginny's and, to give JKR her due, she does go to some lengths to make it clear that Ginny and Cho are lively, intelligent, independent women who share interests with Harry - their attraction to Harry is not just in their lovely looks. I just don't get the sense, though, that either Cho or Ginny is drawn in enough detail to really seem like much more than the object of Harry's affections, though (but that is just a personal impression).

Also, I agree with Trixa that there is very little positive emphasis in the books on female desire. Women lusting after men are often portrayed extremely negatively (e.g. Bellatrix and Merope), the "good" women (e.g. Lily and Ginny) are often portrayed as reining in their affections and playing hard to get.

I know that there is a potential feminist moral in Merope's, Lily's and Ginny's stories - that having a boyfriend isn't the only goal in life, that women shouldn't cheapen themselves by throwing themselves away on men who are not interested or too immature, that if man isn't worthy of you, it's better to stay single, at least until he's grown up a bit. But at times, IMO, the story also strays perilously close to the patriarchal moral of "Nice girls don't show too much interest in IT".

Possibly the only incidence in the novels where positive emphasis is placed on a female sexual subject is Tonks and even there the object of her affection is scruffy, ill, much older than her, not amazingly physically attractive - good women only seem able to lust after men in HP if the attraction is spiritual, based entirely on his personality and moral worthiness, not his looks, while Harry is allowed to be attracted to Ginny on the basis of a combination of personality AND looks.

[Yoana]

Originally Posted by Melaszka

I know that there is a potential feminist moral in Merope's, Lily's and Ginny's stories - that having a boyfriend isn't the only goal in life, that women shouldn't cheapen themselves by throwing themselves away on men who are not interested or too immature, that if man isn't worthy of you, it's better to stay single, at least until he's grown up a bit. But at times, IMO, the story also strays perilously close to the patriarchal moral of "Nice girls don't show too much interest in IT".

I think the feminist moral you refer to would have stood out more if these women were shown to be happier as single women, shown to finally get over their disastrous relationships. This is most conspicuously lacking in Merope's story. To me, it sends a much stronger message of punishment than learning-one's-lesson, because instead of trying to get over Tom and live her life, start over, etc., she chooses to die. To me this says "She did a bad thing and that's what happens to her as a result". Well, maybe Dumbeldore's insistence that she should have lived, and if she had, we may have had a Voldemort-free wizarding world, does add a positive message... I actually got very confused here, sorry.

[Melaszka]

Originally Posted by Yoana

I think the feminist moral you refer to would have stood out more if these women were shown to be happier as single women, shown to finally get over their disastrous relationships.

Me, too, but I'm trying to be even-handed.

This is most conspicuously lacking in Merope's story. To me, it sends a much stronger message of punishment than learning-one's-lesson, because instead of trying to get over Tom and live her life, start over, etc., she chooses to die. To me this says "She did a bad thing and that's what happens to her as a result".

I know what you mean, because I get those vibes, as well. Or the impression that she's being selfish by dying, instead of staying alive for her baby (women, of course, can't possibly stay alive for themselves, it would seem!)

But, overall, I don't think the text presents it as a good thing that she died. And I do think the text does make clear that Tom Snr really wasn't worth it - snobbish, shallow, he doesn't even come across as overly bright, while I think Merope had it in her to be a fine witch if she'd been able to believe in herself and aspire to a future that didn't revolve around a man. But maybe I'm putting this construction on the text, because I feel such a dreadful and tragic sense of waste when Merope dies, undervaluing herself as much as she undervalues the locket.

I certainly agree, though, that if there was supposed to be a feminist moral here, it could have been made much clearer.

[JJFinch]

Melaska, I was not accusing you or anyone else in this thread of being anti-men - I shouldn't have said "all-too-often," as I was actually talking about a minority (I was basing this on my English teacher who is feminist to the extreme of being prejudiced against men, so I concede that I was perhaps making an unfair generalisation here). I am sorry that I worded this badly.

I also did not intend to come across as someone trying to push my opinion over anyone else's, I just thought that in a thread where the majority of posters are feminist it was only fair for an opposing view to be represented as well. I do concede, however, that my comment about a staw man was unfair, and that you are absolutely right, so I apologise about that. I think I'd worked myself up a bit in the rest of my post, and I was rushing to get off the computer, so didn't think what I was writing. My apologies.

I'm sorry, but I think that's totally unfair. Feminists also think men deserve fair representation. What some of us do object to is the assumption that the status quo, where men tend to get more representation than women, is fair.
Have I said anything which implies men deserve less representation than women?

You misunderstood my meaning here, entirely - I was not saying that feminist view doesn't encompass fair representation for men, I just meant that the word "feminism" emphasises female representation. My comment was just a side-note, a musing about the name "feminism", and whether the term "equalism" might better describe the aims of what is currently called "feminism". So to answer your question, no, you haven't said anything which suggests that men don't need fair representation, nor was I implying that you had. And, for the record, I too am opposed to the "status quo" where men are superior, although I personally (and this is just my opinion, and I appreciate that it will not necessarily be shared ) don't believe that we in the Western world can complain about suffering from this kind of prejudice. I do not feel at all at a disavantage by being a woman, and would even go so far as to say the tables have turned, and that we sometimes have a fairer lot than men (due to quotas, etc). But then, I'm only 18, so I appreciate that I may be too naive to make such a statement...

I take your point that a book doesn't have to fit into a particular genre of "feminism" in order for it to be read from a feminist perspective. But there are books, aren't there, that can be specifically labelled as feminist novels? All I meant was that HP is not one of these. I can very much see your point that the difference in gender roles should not be so pronounced in the WW, and I must admit, this had not occurred to me. I would suggest that JKR made the WW very male-orientated very much on purpose - she wants the WW to be a flawed universe. The WW is often portrayed as being rather backwards, old-fashioned, and in many ways a reflection on the muggle past. By making the WW male-orientated, she was not, IMO, condoning this set-up, but showing us that this world which on the surface seems so wonderful, is actually very flawed and incomplete in many respects. Bear in mind that we are always shown more explicitly how prejudiced the wizarding world is, and these prejudices mirror our own past (and present) prejudices (house-elves = slaves, werewolves = perhaps the disabled, Squibs and Muggleborns = those of "unfavourable" births, etc.). So JKR is using her novel to present female oppression, rather than to show the favourable alternative(not meaning that she doesn't oppose female oppression: any female - which, btw includes me - is of course opposed to female oppression). Like many writers, she is making a point by showing how wrong the world is, rather than by showing the world as the perfect egalitarian society it should be. Does that make sense?

To address your final objections to my post, I was not, as I have said above, trying to rubbish your points, I was just expressing an alternative opinion, as you yourself have asked to be able to do. And I should clarify my standpoint on sexism in HP: I do not think the HP (the series) is in itself sexist, but that does not mean that there is not sexism represented in the story itself. Like I've said in the above paragraph, I acknowledge that the WW is often very sexist, but I think JKR was very aware of this, and that this was not condoning sexism, any more than the inclusion of house-elf slavery in the novels was condoning slavery.

I am sorry that some of my points caused offence, and, reading my post back, I can see that I did make several mistakes that may have lead to points coming across as personal jibes. I assure you this was not my intention, so my apologies.

[Melaszka]

Originally Posted by JJFinch

Melaska, I was not accusing you or anyone else in this thread of being anti-men - I shouldn't have said "all-too-often," as I was actually talking about a minority (I was basing this on my English teacher who is feminist to the extreme of being prejudiced against men, so I concede that I was perhaps making an unfair generalisation here). I am sorry that I worded this badly.

I also did not intend to come across as someone trying to push my opinion over anyone else's, I just thought that in a thread where the majority of posters are feminist it was only fair for an opposing view to be represented as well. I do concede, however, that my comment about a staw man was unfair, and that you are absolutely right, so I apologise about that. I think I'd worked myself up a bit in the rest of my post, and I was rushing to get off the computer, so didn't think what I was writing. My apologies.

Sorry, I went off on one a bit, as well. I apologise.

You are right, that it is important that views are challenged and alternative perspectives presented (although, actually, while the "HP isn't feminist" lobby may have predominated in the last couple of pages, there usually are quite a few people on here arguing, like you, that it is feminist, or that it doesn't need to be)

I also think one of the reasons I got a bit touchy is that there is a grain of truth in what you were saying - while there are many aspects of the way gender is presented in HP that do genuinely annoy and frustrate me, at times I probably am guilty of actively looking for sexist elements to back up my argument, because debating on these threads does become a bit of an academic game, and you have made me think that I should try to be a bit more even-handed.

Then again, I'm an ex-English teacher , too, so perhaps it's generic

I would suggest that JKR made the WW very male-orientated very much on purpose - she wants the WW to be a flawed universe. The WW is often portrayed as being rather backwards, old-fashioned, and in many ways a reflection on the muggle past. By making the WW male-orientated, she was not, IMO, condoning this set-up, but showing us that this world which on the surface seems so wonderful, is actually very flawed and incomplete in many respects. Bear in mind that we are always shown more explicitly how prejudiced the wizarding world is, and these prejudices mirror our own past (and present) prejudices (house-elves = slaves, werewolves = perhaps the disabled, Squibs and Muggleborns = those of "unfavourable" births, etc.). So JKR is using her novel to present female oppression, rather than to oppose (not meaning that she doesn't oppose it - any female - which, btw includes me - is of course opposed to female oppression. But like many writers, she is making a point by showing how wrong the world is, rather than by showing the world as the perfect eligalitarian (I think I got that word wrong ) society it should be. Does that make sense?

No, it does make perfect sense. I do see exactly what you mean and there are (I believe) some clear examples of the text condemning sexism amongst wizards and depicting sexists as getting their rightful comeuppance (regular readers will groan at this point, because I do tend to use the same examples rather a lot , but e.g. the Weasley boys trying to stop their sister playing Quidditch, but she resourcefully breaks into the shed where they locked away the brooms and takes one, anyway; the Slytherins not allowing girls on their team and getting thrashed by a mixed-gender team; Lucius Malfoy getting angry because Draco has let a girl beat him in the exams; the way the Gaunts treat Merope, but she has the last laugh by breaking free from their domination when they are in Azkaban). As you say, this oppression of women seems to be particularly associated with the bad guys, who are also blood purists, class-obsessed snobs, who look down on other species and beat up house elves, too, so there is a pattern established of the old order being oppressive and needing to be shaken up by the good guys.

The problem I have with this, though, is that IMO it's inconsistently portrayed. On the one hand, JKR seems to be portraying the WW, as you say, as being about 50 years behind the Muggle world as far as political correctness is concerned, and yet, on the other hand she seems to be portraying it as light years ahead of the Muggles, in many respects, where gender equality is concerned (Hogwarts had female founders and taught girls the same curriculum as boys as far back as the Middle Ages; mixed-gender sports teams seem to be widespread at amateur, club and international levels; although they're only mentioned in brief asides, it seems clear that the WW has had several female Ministers, long before Muggle Britain had had a female PM).

I try not to speculate as to authorial intentions as a general rule, but if I could break that rule for a minute, I think that JKR's intentions very possibly were to challenge sexism in her novels (she certainly does that very frequently in her blog). If that is her intention, though, for me personally, she doesn't succeed very well, because the goalposts keep changing.

If she'd just worked on challenging sexism by portraying the Pureblood-run WW as sexist (in a boo-hiss sort of way), I'd be perfectly content with a male-dominated plot and a male-dominated OotP, with a few sassy female sidekicks assisting the hero, because the sexism of the WW would explain the lack of females at the centre of the plot.

If she'd just worked on challenging sexism by portraying an ideal Potterverse, less sexist than the real world, with as many central female characters as male, and as many women in positions of power, I also wouldn't have a problem.

But both together is just confusing.

I know it's futile trying to sit in the author's head and guess what was going through her mind when she wrote it, but in some ways it seems to me almost as if she started off with a basic story which, coloured by subconscious patriarchal assumptions, became very male-centric, with a male hero (Harry), male mentor (Dumbledore), male villain (Voldemort), male red herring villain (Snape), then even she realised how sexist this was and tried to redress the balance by slapping two different, conflicting feminist strategies on top, which kind of cancel each other out.

That's probably unfair - she probably didn't do that at all, and I would emphasise that I do love the books - that's why I spend so much time on this site. Just because I'm hyper-picky on this thread doesn't mean that I'm like that generally about HP.

[JJFinch]

(I had just written an enormous reply to this when my computer froze Luckily it froze in such a way that my entire post was visible, so I was able to copy it down. There is justice in the world! )

Phew! I do have a somewhat suicidal habit of wandering into a thread and saying things that are likely to get a lynching party set out after me, so I'm glad we've managed to set the score straight!

Anyway, moving on.

Just to offer a possible explanation or two for JKR's "mixed message" you talked about...

Perhaps the very purpose was to show that there will never be a perfect sociaty, so while the wizarding world is, in many respects, oh-so-much better than the Muggle world, this has to come at a sacrifice. She's basically saying "you can't have it all." Some might say this is a little nihalistic, but I would argue that it is realistic, and that by accepting this fact that the world isn't perfect, one can move on and learn to appreciate its merits, rather than never be happy with less-than-perfection (by this I don't mean that we can't aim higher, and that we should just shrug our shoulder's and accept our lot, but I mean that we can better appreciate what we do have if we accept that we are unlikely to ever reach absolute perfection). OK, that's a rather hurried philosphy, so don't dissect it too much . Back to JKR's purpose: perhaps she made the founders and quidditch teams, etc, mixed sex because, in this way, she did want to show a...feminist ideal, I suppose you could call it? What I mean is that I don't think JKR, who, I'd imagine, is at least as much of a feminist as most women are by default, could stand to have her "world of other possibilities" (which is what she herself has called it) constructed on a male-orientated framework (quidditch arguably being the international glue that we see muggle sports - espescially the Olympics - being). So she allowed her "idealist" self some liberty in these respects, but made sre to emphasise the flaws in society by showing plenty of male-orientatedness.

Something else that has just occurred to me, is that these aspects of the WW which can be classified as "sexist" or "anti-sexist," can, if removed from their chronological framework, be split down the same line on the grounds of being "changing/forward-looking" or "stagnant". For example, the founders of Hogwarts were obviously forward-thinking people, aiming for the betterment of the WW, and they were an example of equal representation for both sexes. Similarly, Quidditch, as a sport, is undoubtedly ever-changing, and is probably more played by younger people with futures ahead of them. On the other side, you have the Ministry of Magic*, one of the institutions which represents a lot of sexism in the WW, which always (to me at least) comes across as somewhat stagnent, blindly following tradition, and never pausing to question its out-dated views. The same goes for the pure-blood-erazi, which I'm sure needs no explanation.

*EDIT: I've just realised that this doesn't explain what you said about there being female ministers...Hmm, I suppose it could be argued (and I might here be being guilty of searching desperately for evidence to support my claim, just as I was accusing people of earlier, so forgive me) that initially, when politicians (why does that word not seem right? ) come to power, they are full of new, forward-thinking, motivating ideas, but all too soon, end up losing the plot and falling in with the rest of Parliament, which is inevitably messed up (for some reason, the phrase "Tony Blair" is flashing through my mind...). So these female ministers represented forward-thinkingness (and, it seems, were in this repect ahead of the muggle world), but the Ministry of Harry's time, with bumbling, predjudiced and, no doubt, sexist Fudge at its head, no longer had that forward drive - it was struggling to come back from the effects of the first war, and, in refusing to udate its methods or learn from its mistakes, was stagnating.

I would say more, but I'm worried the computer might freeze again, so I'll post this now.

[RavenStar83]

Originally Posted by HedwigOwl

She abandons her husband to be with Voldemort.

The books don't really say she left her husband or any specific mention of the state of their marriage. JKR does say she did what was expected of her and married a pureblood, but her heart was always with Voldy. Of course, we can say that JKR's interviews aren't canon. But due to the fact that this is information that isn't mentioned in the books (because it was not necessary for the plot) and that the author is always going to know more than what is put down in the story, I don't see why we can't take her word for it if she's asked. This all came from her head afterall.

And I'm just gonna take a crack at this. If Bellatrix is a good example for a strong and powerful image of women in fiction, then Stephenie Meyer did a pretty decent job with the women in Twilight. Yea, I said it.

[HedwigOwl]

Originally Posted by Yoana

This is most conspicuously lacking in Merope's story. To me, it sends a much stronger message of punishment than learning-one's-lesson, because instead of trying to get over Tom and live her life, start over, etc., she chooses to die. To me this says "She did a bad thing and that's what happens to her as a result".

I have a different view; I don't see it as "punishment", but rather consequences. Merope's behavior is a result, firstly, of her abusive treatment in her home by her family. She had no self-esteem or belief in herself, how could she when told on a daily basis how worthless she was. She escaped her misery by watching Riddle Sr., attracted by his good looks but probably imagining herself in his life, which she may have thought had to be much better than living her own. When she found herself free of her family, suddenly able to choose for herself, she chose poorly by tricking Riddle Sr., and then mistaken in believing he cared about her for herself. When he rejected her, she began to believe that she was worthless as her father had always told her. Merope could not make good choices because of her abusive treatment at home. If there were such a thing as therapy in the wizarding world, she likely would have done well eventually. But with her experiences and no support, she had no resources to make a better decision, she did not believe it possible.

Originally Posted by Trixa

JKR's opinions are just opinions. There is no difference between her opinions and yours so they don't prove anything, IMO.

As JKR is the author, her statements about characters are not opinions, the characters exist by her hand; I take the author at her word, regardless of whether it confirms my opinions or not.

Originally Posted by Trixa

I think there was her twisted way of comforting Narcissa. She may also have felt obliged to say that just to prove to Snape that she is extremely loyal to Voldemort. But the fact that Bella made the Unbreakable Vow and allowed Snape, a man she hated, to protect Draco just to respect Narcissa's wishes shows that Voldemort took a back seat in her mind that night.

The scene doesn't play that way as far as I can tell. Comforting Narcissa? I don't know where you see that. She tried to keep Narcissa from coming to Snape for help instead of supporting her. The entire time Bella kept trying to discredit Snape (of whom she was jealous). Bella was so blinded by her obsession with Voldemort that she couldn't see that Draco was being set up for a task he couldn't accomplish so that Lucius would hear of his son's death from prison. It was Narcissa who understood and made the vow with Snape, spoke the words and suggested that perhaps Snape could finish the task to save Draco in the end (book canon, not movie). It wasn't Bella. She did not care about Narcissa, only about her standing with Voldemort and discrediting Snape. She didn't put Narcissa first, she did not propose the vow or speak the words, she never considered Narcissa at all. She merely held the wand because she had no choice, having mocked that Snape wasn't serious about the vow.

I don't see how Bella is a good role model on any level, let alone a feminist one.

Originally Posted by Trixa

All Death Eaters want Voldemort to be happy with them. We saw this in the first chapter of DH. I don't see why Bellatrix is singled out as the only DE who cares about Voldemort's favoritism when this is in fact canonically untrue.

Bella cares about being favored above all others, her behavior shows it, and the author confirmed it -- Bella was madly, romantically in love with Voldemort and obsessed with him.

Originally Posted by Trixa

Speaking to someone affectionately makes you obsessed with them?

I gave that as an example of how involved Bella was toward Voldemort. For Harry to notice the tone in her voice -- "as to a lover" -- it had to be very evident indeed.

Originally Posted by Trixa

If she were that interchangeable then Voldemort would ahve had no reason to be so distraught when she died.

I have to point out, you're taking my quote out of context -- I was saying what I thought objectifying women meant. I never said Voldemort had that exact thought of Bella. Although I'm guessing that was his opinion because of what he said to Harry about Snape & Lily:

DH, The Flaw in the Plan "He desired her, that was all," sneered Voldemort, "but when she had gone he agreed that there were other women, and of purer blood, worthier of him..."

Canon says many times, and JKR confirmed many times, that Voldemort was incapable of loving anyone. That's not to say killing Bella wouldn't make him angry, but not because he had feelings for her.