Hidden Sexism in Harry Potter: Part 2, Are men and women equal in the Potter Books? |
 Jun 21 2009, 08:28 PM
Post
#271
|
|
Knight Bus Driver in Training  Posts: 594 Joined: 10:05pm August 1, 2007 Location: Having a Butterbeer at the Three Broomsticks   |
Are there hidden sexist themes in the story?- I haven't noticed any, it seems like women get a fair shot. Is Jo more old fashioned then she let's on?- I don't really know. Is Ginny nothing more then a baby-making machine? Is Molly? Tonks? - NO! These women all contributed greatly to the Order and helped fight Voldemort. Does Hermione need to be defined by what man she is with, whether it be Ron or Harry or anyone at all?- Hermione is defined by the way she acts and her actions, she was never defined by Ron or Victor. Are Mothers glorified over Career women?- I'd say it's equal. In OOTP Mrs. Weasley and Tonks were both equals... so yeah... -------------------- LUPIN FAN FOR LIFE
Harry- "Death's got an invisibility cloak?" Ron - "So he can sneak up on people. He gets bored of running at them, flapping his arms and shrieking." |
 |
 
 
|
|
Jun 21 2009, 09:19 PM
Post
#272
|
|
Perusing the Magical Menagerie Posts: 79 Joined: 10:51pm February 18, 2009 Location: Ravenclaw Common Room |
I'm jumping into this without reading anyone else's opinions, so i'm just gonna voice mine.
I don't think there was too much sexism. Molly Weasley is simply a traditional mother. there are still non-working mothers out there, and Arthur is a working man. That' s just the way it's made out, and i don't think it was meant to be sexist. As for other female characters, Ginny shows many characteristics of being tough as or tougher than her brothers. She's someone who would wan tot go out and prove she is just as good as the men, which women are. Hermione, well, sh was never really a brave warrior kind of woman, but that's just her personality. However, she always fought bravely, ad without her, Harry would have failed right off the bat, particularily in Deathly Hallows. She pretty much did everything to ensure their survival. So no, i don't think there is sexism in the books. Some women are just stay-at-home moms like Molly, and that's how Jo made her. Plus, she shows tremendous grit in the Battle of Hogwarts. -------------------- _.>I Can't Go To Pigfarts<._ _.>It's ON MARS<._ |
|
|
|
|
Jun 21 2009, 09:45 PM
Post
#273
|
|
|
Knight Bus Driver in Training Posts: 594 Joined: 10:05pm August 1, 2007 Location: Having a Butterbeer at the Three Broomsticks |
QUOTE(Swish_and_Flick @ Jun 21 2009, 10:19 PM)  I'm jumping into this without reading anyone else's opinions, so i'm just gonna voice mine. I don't think there was too much sexism. Molly Weasley is simply a traditional mother. there are still non-working mothers out there, and Arthur is a working man. That' s just the way it's made out, and i don't think it was meant to be sexist. As for other female characters, Ginny shows many characteristics of being tough as or tougher than her brothers. She's someone who would wan tot go out and prove she is just as good as the men, which women are. Hermione, well, sh was never really a brave warrior kind of woman, but that's just her personality. However, she always fought bravely, ad without her, Harry would have failed right off the bat, particularily in Deathly Hallows. She pretty much did everything to ensure their survival. So no, i don't think there is sexism in the books. Some women are just stay-at-home moms like Molly, and that's how Jo made her. Plus, she shows tremendous grit in the Battle of Hogwarts. Every point made in this post is spot on. I agree that there is little to no sexism and that each women is strong and in control. -------------------- LUPIN FAN FOR LIFE
Harry- "Death's got an invisibility cloak?" Ron - "So he can sneak up on people. He gets bored of running at them, flapping his arms and shrieking." |
|
|
|
|
Jun 22 2009, 09:48 PM
Post
#274
|
|
Daily Prophet Photographer Posts: 888 Joined: 1:35am January 6, 2007 |
I would tend to agree that overall, JKR wasn't going for sexism. I think she pointed out stereotypes and ice breakers and such, but not in order to make a point, rather just for reader interest. For the most part, the goodsiders, male and female were able to show aspects of humanity we are familiar with and that made for good storytelling. I also feel that some of the comparisons made in the past pages between good and badsiders the bottom line point gets missed. For example Bella and Ginny - Ginny has a good and kind heart no matter what her acts, and Bella doesn't. That is true for Hermione v. Pansy or any other goodsider/grey-badsider you compare, imo.
-------------------- In Every Age, A Hero Rises...  |
|
|
|
|
Jun 22 2009, 09:51 PM
Post
#275
|
|
|
Madam Malkins Model Posts: 2,072 Joined: 4:38pm June 27, 2005 |
I liked lirene's introduction better than Shard's so I am reposting it here. Shard, I hope you don't mind, I think you were trying to come up with a quick intro:
QUOTE Rowling's Potterverse always seems to raise interesting topics for discussion. In her portrayal of men and women in the series, do you think Rowling is very traditional in describing male and female behavior, or is there an underlying, hidden element of sexism? For example, the lovable Molly Weasley; sure she extinguished the life of Bellatrix, but is her character portrayed in an all too traditional manner? How about Hermione; she is the brain of the trio and is certainly intelligent; but why so much focus on her intellectual talents and not her bravery? What about the trio and their interactions with each other. Didn't Hermione call Harry sexist? Was Ron being fair when he complained about Hermione's cooking in DH, and telling her that she did the cooking because she was the best at it? How about the Marauders; Sirius, James and Remus? They can be perceived as a group of swashbuckling, arrogant males, full of machismo. Is this a fair assessment? So, what do you think, are males and females portrayed equally in the series? What I like about Lirene's is that it asks for more subtle distinctions and explorations rather than going for a more thumbs up or thumbs down approach. Lupinwandcaster, you say that there is "little or no" sexism - indicating that there are some things that you haven't made up your mind about whether they should count as sexism or not? You also mention the female characters being "strong" and "in control" - what do the female characters tend to be in control of? Is strength in the female characters portrayed the same way it is in the male characters? Swish and Flick - there seemed to be no house husbands in HP. The closest we came to a house husband was Xenos - who tends to be compared to Lily and Narcissa - due to their beloved only children. More comment on the rest later - Ginny is a bit of a paradox in that, while what you say is true, she seems to be too willing to give it all up for love. Oldbies (ie opposite of Newbies) - plan to respond got side tracked on rabble and in finding Avi Lewis's new show on youtube. Will catch up, but figured that I should say "Hi" to our new friends first. |
|
|
|
|
Jun 23 2009, 01:58 AM
Post
#276
|
|
Kibble Boy/Girl at the Magical Menagerie Posts: 282 Joined: 6:47am April 30, 2009 Location: Gandalf's Chin |
If I have to give a straight yes or no to the Potter books being "sexist", I would have to agree with the newcomers and say No. But it's more complicated than that.
JK Rowling is clearly an author with liberal to progressive egalitarian tendencies. I think she went out of her way to portray the "Wizarding" Community as an equal opportunity community. And she clearly has intentionally written characters and situations to reflect some of our current cultural flaws as well, i.e. such as Hermione calling Ron out on some of his sexist commentary, Sirius and James being bullies in their youth etc. There is also another level wherein Rowling, like any author, unintentionally reflects the attitudes of the society she lives in and her own place in it, and also her personal experiences as a single mother and teacher. Which is most likely the reason why there are so few adult women (central) characters in the books who are not mothers. And the adult women characters with substantial roles who aren't portrayed as mothers (or in "mothering" roles such as teachers) have a tendency towards vindictiveness (Rita Skeeter, Umbridge, Bellatrix). I think that is completely unintentional on Rowling's part. But it is an instructive indication of where our culture is at, that someone as forward looking as Rowling is still caught up in societal "norms". I should point out though, that not all Feminists are on the same page when it comes to women's roles in society. Some challenge the assumptions that women are "meant to be" mothers and often lean towards becoming more aggressive or, in a sense, "more male". Others suggest that motherhood and "feminine" values such as sharing and cooperating should be embraced by all, men and women alike. Some Feminists rail against all sexual objectivisation; others, more sex positive, suggest that seeing each other as sex objects isn't necessarily bad unless that is the only view one has of the other. Then--when one factors in the political, economic, and religious aspects that push all of us, men and women alike, into certain "traditional" roles--it becomes very unclear as to what might be viewed as "sexist" in a book written by an author who herself favours many "Feminist" ideals. QUOTE Riane Eisler--from The Chalice and the Blade: "For millenia men have fought wars and the Blade has been a male symbol. But this does not mean that men are inevitably violent and warlike. Throughout recorded history there have been peaceful and non-violent men. Moreover, obviously there were both men and women in the prehistoric societies where the power to give and nurture, which the Chalice symbolizes, was supreme. The underlying problem is not men as a sex. The root of the problem lies in a social system in which the power of the Blade is idealized--in which both men and women are taught to equate true masculinity with violence and dominance and to see men who do not conform to this ideal as 'too soft' or 'effeminate'." "All societies are patterned on either a dominator model--in which human heirarchies are ultimately backed up by force or the threat of force--or a partnership model, with variations in between." To the extent that Rowling's Wizards and Witches reflect the dominator model so prevalent in our own society they can be said to be "sexist". Yet Rowling's central characters (including a gay Dumbledore) clearly embrace the partnership model symbolized by the Chalice. Those such as Voldemort, Bellatrix, and Umbridge (on the "Bad side"), Barty Crouch Sr, Fudge, and Scrimgeour (supposedly on the "Good" side) all represent the Blade, while the group we cheer on deplores both. So, the ideal for feminists from the school of thought of Riane Eisler, Elaine Pagels, Susie Bright, and Susan Faludi aren't looking for Women to become Xena the Warrior Princess (before her gradual transformation) or even Xena's "soft effeminate" companion Gabriel, but something in between. And this can only come about if men also "evolve". Part of the central thesis of The Chalice and the Blade is that before the Sky Gods led by a Male Godhead slew the Titans, the Paleolithic and early Neolithic Godhead was Female--who embodied life and rebirth. This ties into my own (and some others) thesis that the advent of Arthurian Romances and the bards and troubadours who brought back the traditions of "courtly love" and Pagan Goddess worship to the West, was the beginning of the return of the Sacred Feminine. I have argued elsewhere that Tolkien and Lewis, both to varying degrees, were shifting cultural consciousness back towards this gradual return of "Feminine" and "Pagan" values, despite their own Christianity. In my view, Rowling is continuing the work of these modern troubadours and still pushing society forward towards a more egalitarian future, even as she struggles with her own identity in a "Dominator" society. Yes, Rowling could have pushed even further (like being more explicit about Dumbledore's gender identity), but she did extemely well none-the-less--reaching probably billions of people worldwide with her ideals. One can continue throwing Potter quotes back and forth to try and "prove" sexism or not in the books. But it seems that way, sometimes the forest gets missed for the trees. I think with a broader perspective we can acknowledge some of the "sexism" inherent in society and hence the books, without missing how far forward Rowling is actually moving the goalpost. -------------------- "It is like a finger pointing at the moon. don't pay attention to the finger or you will miss all that Heavenly Glory" -- Bruce Lee
|
|
|
|
|
Jun 23 2009, 05:45 AM
Post
#277
|
|
Newest Housekeeper at The Leaky Cauldron Posts: 711 Joined: 6:46am January 1, 2008 Location: Wishing she was in the Live Lounge |
I believe on the whole it is not sexist but realist. The ideals of teenage boys is that quite often they can naturally feel superior making the girls who, as JK expresses on many occasions, are equal - if not better - ability wise as their male counterparts. I think that it would be very rare for a book, written largley from the perspective of a teenage boy, not to have a degree of sexism in it, however i feel that this is irrelevant to the larger plot.
I have to actually state that - as fandoms go - this is one of the most gender balanced one I partake in, therefore I don't think the sexism could be that clear otherwise it would have put off a lot of the female audience. --------------------  <- - you'd only be able to do that at all girls schools!"Harry Potter isn't everything ... but it's right up there with Oxygen! |
|
|
|
|
Jun 24 2009, 04:02 AM
Post
#278
|
|
|
Just Through the Brick Wall Posts: 2 Joined: 4:28am June 23, 2009 |
sexist come on! unbelievable what some people would do to discredit the series
i mean from the beginning of the book hermione is always smarter and wiser than harry and ron ginny after the 2nd book was seen as a cool fun person (a cross between ron and the twins) luna was described as wierd yes but not in a sexist way at all and we find out later that she is very wise and open minded i mean i cant say where jo might have been sexist at all ( even in with the DE for instance bellatrix was always the most feared and hated DE not her brother in-law or husband) this is a wonderful series one of the best and in my opinion #1 --------------------  well if you havent then what are you doing here? " i solemnly swear that i am up to no good " |
|
|
|
|
Jun 24 2009, 11:16 PM
Post
#279
|
|
|
Getting Fitted for New Dress Robes Posts: 49 Joined: 1:58pm December 4, 2008 |
I heard a rumor that in addition to the fact that there were more men than women in the Order of the Phoenix, more male ministers of magic than females and more male headmasters/mistresses of Hogwarts than females, that witches get paid on average 13.33% less for the same/similar work as wizards and that sometimes job titles for the same job are different so this inequality can continue...
OK, I probably shouldn't joke about something like this as this is a serious problem in "first world countries" in the Muggle world (not to mention non "first world countries"), but I am amazed at how long this thread has kept on going with something I feel that the author handled very well based on her perception of how people are in the real world. If she appeared to be advocating sexism then that would be a different story... This post has been edited by Seidenschnabel: Jun 24 2009, 11:28 PM |
|
|
|
|
Jun 25 2009, 12:26 AM
Post
#280
|
|
|
Madam Malkins Model Posts: 2,072 Joined: 4:38pm June 27, 2005 |
QUOTE(Min @ Jun 20 2009, 12:07 PM) I also wouldnt mind adopting, because it would make me feel good that I was giving them a better life. It would be the child who was giving you a better life and you who should be grateful, not the other way around. Vernon not only resented Harry being under his roof, he resented Harry’s lack of gratitude – gratitude was the very least he figured Harry owed him for inconveniencing him with his presence. Instead of acting a bit more like a house elf, Harry argued and talked back. Vernon hated anything unruly - Harry’s hair included. QUOTE(Min @ Jun 20 2009, 12:07 PM) although I was alittle dissapointed that at the end all we got was Ginny and Hermione having a load of blasted kids. Hermione at least should have gone on to a marvelous career, definately not having children so YOUNG! … But I guess having them all settle down, get married and start families is the traditional happy ending - and the series needed a happy ending Ginny had her first child at least a year or so before Hermione did and Ginny had the sort of career which she had to give up (playing rather than reporting on Quidditch) to have a family. Hermione did have a marvellous career – one she could do pregnant – and being an only child, she also had parents with no other grandchildren to spoil. QUOTE(Shard @ Jun 19 2009, 01:13 PM) Thinks the Dark Arts is cool That is one thing that I am sort of disappointed in is that we don’t really get much of a definition of what constitutes the Dark Arts versus just really nasty magic. Other than the three forbidden spells – Crucio, Imperio and Avada – and the map – Snape points out that the map was a product of Dark Magic – we don’t really learn what is Dark and what isn’t. There is a certain macho element involved in the desire to do nasty magic – it is thought to make one “impressive” – which is why there are so many bullies in the books. There are so many nasty flawed person – some whose flaws are rendered invisible and some whose flaws are highlighted. QUOTE(Shard @ Jun 19 2009, 01:13 PM) 3) Is Nevilles worst fear (Worse then Voldemort, worse then his Grandma, worse then Bella who drove his parents insane) Does Neville cry very often when he gets hurt? He is a tough little boy. Neville does not fear getting hurt or even death – what he fears is messing up – and the two people which seem to illicit that fear in him the most are his grandma and Snape. If Snape had not used Trevor to try to motivate Neville into doing the spell properly so soon before Boggart the lesson, it may have been Augusta who won out. Does Neville care what Bellatrix thinks? Would Neville be trying to impress Bellatrix? Neville’s grandmother has put a lot of pressure on him to excel – which means that all his lessons come with built in pressure. Eventually McG, who hasn’t been very nice to Neville either up until that point, tells Neville that it is about time his grandmother be proud of the grandchild she got rather than keep being disappointed that Neville doesn’t measure up to some standard of masculinity that she has set for him. Gran’s standards are based on the expectation that Neville be like his father – who, if we are to believe Gran, was a much better son that Neville was grandson. QUOTE(Shard @ Jun 19 2009, 01:13 PM) The fact that Snape is nasty to so many students that even the Twins avoid him and say he's always like that. Actually it is Hagrid who says that. The twins just say that Snape favours Slytherin – which he does. Even McG gives Gryffindor less homework just before the big game. If you notice Snape’s style of teaching, he is not one to give compliments – it seems to be assume that if he cannot find fault then you have done well. Earlier on, Harry just noticed Snape treating Draco better, but eventually blanketly applies that to all Slytherins. We learn later that Snape is under orders to endear himself to Draco and is introduced in (HBP 2) as Lucius’s old friend. Snape is teaching a class made up of the sons of DE - he is supposed to not let on with word or action that he has switched sides. Snape seems to go out of his way to not punish Draco. QUOTE(Shard @ Jun 19 2009, 01:13 PM) "I see no difference" to Hermione after she got jinxed Wasn’t it Draco whose jinx hit Hermione? If one acknowledges the crime, then one has to acknowledge the criminal. Hermione was not in pain, but she was humiliated by the jinx because a part of her appearance she disliked had become even more pronounced. Ron was being mean too because, instead of considering Hermione’s feelings, he was bent on revealing Draco’s crime so that Draco would get punished. Snape’s comments could be interpreted two ways – one that Hermione should not be so concerned with appearances – because they do not matter. The other is that since Hermione’s teeth were already long, they didn’t seem any longer. It is hard to discern between the two since, except for Lily’s eyes, Snape doesn’t seem too concern with appearances. I think that JKR got “I see no difference” from Salmon Rushdie’s SV the part where the guy who condemned Baal said that he saw no difference between poets and prostitutes. It is just the same tone and flow of words in both and JKR was in awe of Rushdie during the interview they did together. Why is it that women are so hung up with our appearances any way. Aren’t we more than just the way we look? The teeth did not enhance Hermione’s appearance, but they also did not prevent her from learning or performing magic. Mudblood – are you saying that couples in mixed marriages do not bring out the racial slurs when they have arguments? People say the most hurtful things they can think of when they feel slighted or hurt by those they care about. Not addressing that one again – said it too many times. QUOTE(wickedboy @ Jun 19 2009, 01:12 PM) QUOTE If he hadn't told Dumbledore about the plot to kill Harry and asked Voldemort to spare Lily then Harry would probably be dead as well. You seriously count this? First it is before Snape's promise, so it wouldn't count anyway. But more importantly, he was ready and willing to exchange Harry's life for Lily's - that hardly counts as saving Harry's life. I think that what Roonwit is trying to say is that it was only because Lily had a choice, that Voldemort had not already decided to kill her, that Harry was spared. We learn in DH about the spoils of war – about people being spared from death only so that they can be used by DE or Fenrir. Fenrir wanted to destroy Hermione – though this destruction would likely result in her death and seemed to get his jollies even watching Bellatrix abuse Hermione. Voldemort thought that Snape “desired” Lily like Fenrir “desired” Hermione – as one of the spoils of war – like the wedding rings off the fingers of dead muggles and muggle borns etc. All that matters is that the spoils of war were rewards for good service that had more value to the DE and none to Voldemort. When Lily said “take me instead” and Voldemort killed Lily, it was like he agreed to a deal he did not know he was making (magic law goes by the letter rather than the intent). If Snape had not expressed an interest in Lily, then Voldemort killing Lily would not have spared Harry. Agree with you that if it was a choice between Lily dying and any other person in the universe dying, Snape would, of course, have picked Lily over that other person. Lily would have picked Harry over any other person in the world and Xenos would have picked Luna over any other person in the world – though there was one other thing that both Xenos and Lily had in common. At the point when they acted to spare their only children, their spouses were already dead. If Voldemort had already agreed to spare Lily, then why did Snape come to see DD? Was it because Voldemort sometimes went back on these deals? Was it because Voldemort’s saving of Lily (so as to present her as a gift to Snape) carried certain expectations on Snape’s part that Snape did not want to act upon? The difference between DD saving Lily and Voldemort saving Lily is that there would be no expectation on Snape’s part to use Lily as a spoil of war if DD saved her – and hid her. Snape was suicidal after Lily’s death so why didn’t he just end it all – why the need to see DD? Because he figured that DD went back on their deal – though DD was able to convince Snape that he hadn’t. Spoils of war has been traditionally a masculine concept. QUOTE(wickedboy @ Jun 19 2009, 01:12 PM) In neither case were the DEs allowed to kill Harry. Snape in fact got them to stop torturing him by reminding them of this in HBP. Voldy wanted the prophecy and told his DEs at the MOM not to kill Harry. That was always his MO, he knew he had to kill Harry himself. Why did Voldemort feel the need to kill Harry himself? Was it because he did not want a servant to out perform the master? Was it because his position as head of the DE was contingent on him being more powerful magically than the lot of them? Even Bellatrix, who is right up there in skill, never once thought of being greater or more powerful than her idol – her pillar of strength – which made her valuable – she wanted Voldemort (his love, his approval) but did not want to be Voldemort (replace him). Not being able to kill Harry wounded Voldemort’s male pride – it humiliated him – it was nolonger just stopping the wizard who was most likely to end up defeating him, but undoing the stain on his masculine honour of being defeated by a mere toddler. That said, Voldemort placed no official prohibition on Harry being tortured – and some DE argued that Voldemort could still finish Harry after Harry had gotten the Dementor’s kiss. Snape did save Harry from both torture and accidental murder in HBP. Snape did get angry at Harry for taking risks – because he felt that by doing so Harry was thwarting his (and others) efforts to keep Harry safe. There was one example where Snape saved Harry from himself - in OOTP. Snape was so angry at Harry for looking into his memories that he could barely control his anger. Telling Harry to get out and throwing the jar at the top of the door to make his point was Snape’s way of making sure Harry left before he lost control completely. Think of it, Snape could have hit Harry with the jar so throwing it was to scare Harry out of there before he lost it completely. Snape was angry, but he was also a little afraid of what might happen if Harry stayed put. Snape wanted Harry out of there before he lost it completely. QUOTE(wickedboy @ Jun 19 2009, 01:12 PM) And Snape did way more damage to Harry than protecting him overall, so the point is rather moot. What kind of damage are you referring to? You could mean almost anything by that statement. |
|
|
|
