Hi, I've made a quick search in the forums and it seems that the topic hasn't been discussed yet.
I have read an article and it really hit me for containing interesting discussion cues. Read please:

"Many critics have alleged that J.K. Rowling has done the female readers of her Harry Potter series of books a serious disservice by portraying a world where women are ostensibly equal (there are no formal rules that prohibit equality) but nevertheless remain in positions of inferiority. Men are in charge everywhere; women hold secondary positions at best. This supposedly sends the message that a social system which lacks forced inequality, but in which inequality is nevertheless pervasive, is normal and acceptable.

Others, though, argue that female characters are very important in the Harry Potter books and, even if they aren’t the primary characters, the books give no indication that women are inferior to men. Women are portrayed positively throughout the books and thereby provide positive role models to both male and female readers. Every fictional story has to have some primary and some secondary characters; the fact that the primary characters happen to be male while the secondary characters happen to be female is not necessarily sexist.
The Harry Potter stories are not so extreme [in building 'templates' of behaviour for young girls] as certain traditional fairy tales, but it is clear that books which depict women in subordinate roles and who are focused on providing emotional support for men in their lives help prepare female readers to adopt such roles themselves later in life."

What do you think about?

Witchmom )O(

This is an interesting topic. Firstly, I think the entire series developed around one person. this being, of course, Harry himself. JK created Harry before anything else, thus, it makes sense to create a world which will help Harry.

Let me elaborate. It was noted that the primary characters in power are male. I assume this means Dumbledore, Voldemort, Fudge, etc. The roles of Dumbledore and Voldemort need to be male, in my opinion. Keeping in mind that Harry was created first, a great mentor needed to be made for him. Could Dumbledore have been female? Yes. But, speaking from experience, young men are more apt to listen to persons who have lived through their experiences. No woman has ever lived through the pains of male adolescence. By Dumbledore being male, it creates a mentor with which Harry may closer identify in himself, thereby creating a closer bond.

Next, Voldemort needed to be male as well. My reasoning in similar. A large portion of Chamber of Secrets was devoted to showing the similarities between Harry and Voldemort. Harry needed to recgnize how he differed from Voldemort. They possessed many of the same characteristics and even looked similar. Thus, JK needed to base Harry's enemy as someone in which Harry could see himself. A detail like gender is too easy to point out. There difference needed to be more deep than gender.

Why is it that other characters were not made female? I can only say that characters were created around previously existing relationships. Snape was created as Harry's fathers nemesis, thereby inheriting his grudge. Fudge could have been made a female, as could many other chracters. In JK's mind (I imagine), many of the character traits/interactions were best suited if they were male.

Personally, I view characters like Hermione, McGonagall, Molly, Ginny and Bellatrix as shining examples of the power of women. Each of them lives the life they choose for themselves. They are not, nor would they allow themselves to be, persons who have their lives dictated to them.

Having women in a secondary role is not 'normal' in the wizarding world. McGonagall is the natural choice for headmistress now that Dumbledore has died. No one questions that she is capable and the best choice for the job. Amelia bones was head of the Magical Law Enforcement Department. This is a very high ranking official. Hogwarts has had celebrated female heads. Two of Hogwarts founders were female. The books are littered with examples of women who made a profound impact upon the world.

After the burial, your analysis is very good, and I agree with the theory that Harry, as a male being, needed male counterparts or male mentors. I agree, too, to , but at the same time I feel that some charges aren't entirely motiveless.

I see a lack of female equally important characters. Speaking numerically, among the main characters in the school we have ONLY Minerva, which for instance is a woman without known family, mate or children, who probably has devoted herself entirely to school. Other important female characters? Umbridge on the evil side, and that's all. Out of the school, the Weasleys are on a quite balanced level. Any other? No.

So, where are the powerful witches? When do they perform their charms? Flitwick itself has got more space than Sinistra, or Vector -who, until the Yule Ball was believed a man!!! -. Hooch has disappeared after the first 3 books. We have Poppy, right, and she's pretty important, the maternal, caring side inside the school.


Well...this may be not entirely true. As a woman myself, I can tell you without any doubt that women are compelled to make choices, while very often men aren't. They have the chance to have a family, and a career, and even hobbies, because there's a woman at home, planning and caring for everything. Even statistics in Europe have showed that girls, although they have better marks at school,and universities, don't reach the highest managing jobs, which are still held by men.

But these were only personal considerations. I find, among the youngest, Hermione's and Ginny's characters really great, although I wonder why they are both so bossy, and why strong women are always seen this way. I think that Narcissa, too, has outlined her character better in the sixth book through the Snape's house scene, although she doesn't appear anymore.

Very intersting topic, Clara.

I once held a presentation about Harry Potter in a German literature course at Uni, the class was called 'Magic and Literature' and of course Harry Potter had to be in. We were supposed to discuss the magical elements in the books but instead we got to the part wether Jo Rowling was an emancipated woman or not. You see, some women in my class that it was very wrong of Jo as a female writer to have a boy as a male character and not a girl. I then pointed out that I think it must be much more interesting for a writer to have a main character of the opposite sex. Also, there are many male writers who have female main characters (e.g. in German literature Fontane's Effi Briest or in Russian literature Tolstoj's Anna Karenina), here no one thinks that it makes them represent their own gender in a bad way. But why does that happen to female writers?

I then said that there is the character of Hermione Granger, and she's very close to being a main character, for me she even is one.The reply was that Hermione was a bossy know-it-all and represented the girls in a very bad way. Now she may appear bossy when you meet her as a reader first, but then you get to know her, her kindness and yes, and of outmost importance, her skills. If Harry didn't have her, how would he have survived in the Chamber or in other situations?
For me Harry and Hermione represent some kind of reality: he's the famous one, the one everyone talks about (in the real world the career man, the successful man) and she's the one who guides him through, who makes it all possible (the strong wife in the back). I don't mean to say here that they're a couple (and from my point of view they never will be) but they represent the typical man-woman team who wants to be successful.

And as we're at Hermione, I would really like to discuss all important female characters. Because I really don't know where to put Ginny.

Does Jo have to represent a world of which we woman dream? Or is she allowed to represent a modern present world, where women are important and get attention, but somehow still have a (natural) role, also like the men?

Now to Voldy being a man. I can see a woman being evil just the same. But she would act differently. Besides, we have one evil female character: Bellatrix. Is she a female Voldemort?

But this post is long, so I'll let you talk and let you know my thoughts later.

Olivia

Great topic Clara!

I never really questioned this before. I have always been quite happy with the roles given to women in the books. I think that they are all strong in their own ways. I am a firm believer that JKR used examples of her own upbringing to the Magical world, and that all the characters are losely based on someone that she knows of, or knew. For example Molly Weasley, could have been based on her Grandmother, totally devoted to her family, homemaker etc, but when it comes to the crunch she wears the trousers and no-one, not even her husband would cross her. She is the ultimate matriarch.

Minerva McGonagall was probably based on the Deputy Head at her school, no nonsense a bit scary, strict, a force to be reckoned with. Every school has the 'know it all', Hogwarts actually has a couple Percy and Hermione. For me Hermione is the lead female in the story. She is bright, attractive, friendly and she is not afraid to stand up for what she believes in. She even has the respect of members of staff.

Ginny on the other hand is there to show that Harry has the ability to love, despite his upbringing. Something that LV can't do. So her role is equally as important as that of her brothers.

Without the female characters, I believe this book would have been nothing more than a boys own manual on how to be macho. The females give it backbone, even the nasty ones like Rita Skeeter and Bellatrix Lestrange. They show that the world, even the magical one, couldn't function without the hand of a good woman!!

Love the topic, Clara! We actually discussed this briefly in the "Racism and Discrimination" thread in the Great Hall a while back, but I think it is worthy enough for its own thread.

Actually, in the Discrimination thread, I thought that sexism was less in the Harry Potter universe than in the real world. Women tend to not take such traditional roles -- we see an equal amount of male and femal teachers in Hogwarts (Jo Rowling has made sure that the numbers are equal at all times), women in the Ministry of Magic, as After the Burial mentioned in his post, and various other examples. The only "traditional" role that I can think of is Molly Weasley, and even she is active in the Order of the Phoenix, so it is not like she is strictly a stay-at-home mom.

I actually took it up to see the proportions of males to females in various aspect of Harry Potter. I was expecting to see somewhere around a one-to-one ratio, but my findings proved to be a bit lopsided:

Famous Wiarding Cards: Males = 67 ; Females = 37
Dumbledore's Army: Males = 17 ; Females = 13
Ministry of Magic Personnel: Males = 28 ; Females = 7
Order of the Phoenix (all members, past and present): Males = 23 ; Females = 10
Order of the Phoenix (currently): Males = 11-13* ; Females = 6
Lord Voldemort's Victims**: Males = 6 ; Females = 9
Death Eaters: Males = 28 ; Females = 2 ; Unknown = 2


*= Some former members, such as Severus Snape and Aberforth Dumbledore, have not been confirmed in the New Order
**= Personally killed by Voldemort, indirectly (by basilisk), or by Wormtail by direct orders. This does not include victims of any Death Eaters (i.e. Bellatrix/Sirius)

These statistics prove that males seem to be more prevalent in various parts of Harry Potter, including the fight against Voldemort. It is interesting, however, to note that, although there are more males against him, Lord Voldemort seems to have personally killed more women than men. Also, Voldemort's second-in-command (although you can easily argue that he has none, they are all simply followers), Bellatrix Lestrange, is female. Is this a patten? Maybe LV views women as superior to men?

Women in wizarding history, judging by the Famous Wizarding Cards, were not hidden, but apparently were not as "famous" as some of the men. I think this probably coincides with the "real world" history, but I am currently studying the Renaissance era in my European History class, and there are seeminly very few women mentioned during that time period. The only one that I can think of at the moment is Queen Isabella from Spain.

Another powerful woman, although I know that she has been briefly mentioned already, was Umbridge. She obviously had a whole lot of faith in her from the Ministry if she was granted permission to overthrow the most powerful wizard of the times from his Head position at Hogwarts. The act that she was given this much trust, without any MoM people trying to stop her, says a lot.




_daviD

Hi all, just a quick note (tomorrow I'll answer properly) so say thank you so much David for providing these precious informations...what can I say? it's like a gift of the fairies....you did all the work...thank you!!!



Clara )O(

This is a very interesting topic. I do agree, that though Hermione and Ginny are key characters (though we're not always sure what Ginny's key to), they aren't always painted in the best light. I think Hermione, though, shows girls that it's okay to be smart. It's okay to still be concerned with learning. Hermione's a constant character. Sure, she's discovering herself as she goes as well as the next character; but she remains inherently the same. She is the sturdy, reasonable, rational, bullwart that Harry needs when his emotions run rampant.

I think that Harry's world is still a reflection of our world. Women have statistically weaker roles still than men in today's society. Not that people don't think that women are equal; but women choose to use their gifts differently. I think that perhaps this is also true in HP: It's no secret that men and women are wired differently.

So, I'm looking into what positions of power women used to hold in HP:

Headmistresses:
McGonagall (present)
Umbridge (though she was a tyrant)
Dilys Derwent (1741-1768)

Minister of Magic:
Millicent Bagnold (until 1990)
Artemisia Lufkin (1800)

Chieftess of the Wizarding Council (prior to the Ministry of Magic):
Elfrida Clagg (Who was regarded as more enlightened than her predecessors, she was also key in protecting the Golden Snidget, her dates from her chocolate frog cards are unclear, but it's either the 1500s or the 1600s)


Even just looking at those positions and dates, it's kind of clear that women are respected and capable of holding those positions and they have not really been overlooked. Heck, the first woman minister of magic was in 1800. Even prior to that, Elfrida was highly regarded as the Chieftess.

Nice topic, Clara! I wish I was more awake now to make some sense in my post!!

You know, when I first started to read the books I was so impressed that there are girls in the Quidditch team. But after a while I though that this shouldn't surprise me, because Quidditch is a sport both men and women can play. However, I don't know if there are any female beaters. Maybe someone knows (David?). And in the books itself Jo critizes the habit that women aren't always part of everything by making it clear that Slytherin (the macho - house ) doesn't have any female players. That shows to me that she is a feminist writer.

I really don't know about Ginny though. I admit I have my problems with her. I mean she just swaps/goes from man to man. Maybe with this Jo wants to show that you, as a girl, don't have to wait forever till a boy finally notices you, so take the next one. But ... I just don't know.

I was too, actually. Not because girls play the sport, but because boys and girls play it togther. There are not many team sports that men and women perticipate in together in "real life." Most of them have mens' and womens' divisions, such as basketball. It is nice to see, though, that Quidditch is a sport that can bring men and women together.

To answer your next question, here is the list of Hogwarts' Quidditch-playing girls:

Gryffindor

• Katie Bell (chaser)
• Angelina Johnson (chaser -- Captain '95-'96)
• Demelza Robins (chaser)
• Alicia Spinnet (chaser)
• Ginny Weasley (chaser, seeker)

Hufflepuff
none (that we know of)

Ravanclaw

• Cho Chang (seeker)

Slytherin
none (I believe that it was stated either in a book, or by JK Rowling in an interview that there definitely are none on the team, but I can't remember.)

We don't know much at all about the Ravenclaw and Hufflepuff Quidditch team, but I have a feeling there are more girls on them. Especially Hufflepuff -- you'd expect equality of gender in that House. There are also females on the Professional teams, for example, Gwendolyn Morgan, the captain of the Holyhead Harpies. If you want to check them out, I'm sure they are listed in the HP-Lexicon!




_daviD

Sorry, I'm too tired, I'll answer tomorrow to the other messages!


Yes, this may be a good observation but by my opinion is just a matter of how the character jumped out of JKR's mind. And Olivia, you pointed out it very well that male writers have represented female characters admirably and vice-versa (Madame Bovary, the essence of feminine...by Flaubert, a man).



Maybe because it's more appealing to make a man behave as we women would him to do, creating a character that fulfils our expectations towards men.


Of course, this is the smart girls' curse. It's a story older than the universe. Men doesn't need to growl to be respected; women have to be harder than diamond in order to be considered seriously. Bosses or dolls. Hermione, -and I know I'll hurt someone by saying so- pays for her intelligence falling in love with a boy that can be cute and loving, but not so smart.



But why does she have to stay behind? she's smarter than him!


Women in JKR's books should suggest the unnecessity of splitting a woman's life in halves: worker OR mother, wife OR free spirit....The natural roles can be integrated in being important sometimes...

I feel that Ginny represents this chance to be a whole person. She's in love, but she's stilll able to take care of herself. She's a pretty girl, but she plays rough sports. She's an active snogger, but this has nothing to do with her value as a person. She's humorous and witty, and she's aggressive enough with aggressive people, and sweet with kind people. Ginny is the first, true, complete woman figure in the series, and that's why she's the good one for Harry. JKR says it in the HBP, that she would understand him completely...without losing her personality, going on with her life...
The other women lack of something: Minerva= a family, Molly= a self, etc. So Ginny's much more than Molly, she's a step ahead, like the daughters of the '68 feminists...



No, because she sacrificed everything for him, not the contrary. She's a slave, not a mistress. We have another female evil character, Alecto, but she's a minor one. Narcissa doesn't count as long as we talk about evil.

Goodnight and see you tomorrow!!!

Clara )O(

Clara, I really enjoyed reading your opinions on Ginny. I agree that she has the potential to be 'the complete woman.' I think we have already seen one of these, Lily. Would anyone say that Lily was not a forceful personality? Slughorn tells us that she was a particularly talented witch. Both Lupin and Slughorn remark that she was also kind and loving.

Concerning women in Quidditch, I thought the Irish national team very supportive of women. Both Mullet and Moran are witches. Troy was based on a female friend of JK's. I think it is safe to assume Troy is a woman also. This means that strongest line of chasers anyone had seen in many years was composed entirely of females.

As I noted previously, Bellatrix is a decisive person. Yes, she has chosen to serve Lord Voldemort. The fact that she has chosen to follow a man does not bother me. I think that Bellatrix (and so many Death Eaters) would follow anyone with the talent of Voldemort. He possess incredible magical ability (Dumbledore himself said that Riddle knows more magic than anyone, including himself), great cunning and wit (having never been caught in anything until he revealed himself) and incredible courage (even Harry was impressed). Voldemort exemplifies the characteristics of three of the four houses. Voldemort is a natural leader.

Nice topic, Clara!

Lol, my point of view will most probably surprise a few people I know in real life. I know my Latin teacher at school used to think I'm a boy in drag or something. After five years of very close contact (we were 4 in the class, me being the only girl) she couldn't believe it when I told her I cried in movies.

Anyway, I am very impressed with the way women are handled in the Harry Potter series. All I'll ever stand for is equal rights for both sexes. Never equal roles. Men and women are different. Our bodies work differently, and our brains are tuned in differently. (Join me again next week for Laurette's Biology for Dummies). All I'm saying is, we aren't the same. Simple as that. I don't want to be a man. I don't think like a man, I don't act like a man, and I don't think I ever will. Not that you'd ever hear me say that women are less than men. We're just different, and that's ok. I accept that men are better in some things, and women in others. Women are better mothers, for instance. And men better fathers, I suppose. Sorry, I don't mean to make this ridiculous, but that's just a simple example to show that all roles can't be filled by everybody.

I liked what After the Burial said about Dumbledore and Voldemort being men. It makes much more sense, seeing as Harry is a boy. I've seen it with hockey coaches. The best woman's coach will not be able to get a bunch of teenage boys to do their best, and a very average male coach, no matter how limited his knowledge of the game is, will inspire something in the boys that will make them give everything.

Also, have a look at this:



So Jo did think about making Harry a girl! But she couldn't, because he was already alive, but she feels that Hermione is the girl role model in the story. To be 100% honest, I've learnt a lot from Hermione myself. Hermione is a great character, and definitely up to standing her ground with the boys. I've never had the slightest reason to suspect that they treat her as being less than, well, a boy. She isn't the girl who doesn't understand boy-stuff. She's part of the team.

About Voldemort killing women. My own take on that is that Jo is using his tyrannical character to put sexism in a negative light. If Voldemort thinks women are less, it is obvious that Jo doesn't, and that she is equating sexism to tyranny. It is very much the same, in essence. He scorns his mother, and actually, I think Merope had much more guts than it must have seemed to the people at the orphanage. She had been through a lot.

Like people have said before me, there are a surprising amount of women in positions of power, ranging from the McGonagall/Amelia Bones-type authority, to Hermione's equal footing with the boys, a sport in which the two sexes don't participate seperately (which is rare, I can't think of any muggle sport except ... hmm, bowls?), and then also Rita Skeeter, who is devastating and unquestionably powerful. In short, neither of the sexes are put on a pedestal, and positive and negative traits of both are shown.

I think Jo has done a great job with both sexes.

Capricorn, I also read that interview. I referenced it in one of my previous posts, but I did not remember where I had seen it. Thank you for posting it so that we may all read what JK said concerning our topic.

Although this is not strictly the correct thread, I have a pertinent question for our topic. In your opinion, what do the characters think of women and magic? In Half Blood Prince, we see Hermione is angry with Harry's refusal to think that The Prince could possibly be a woman. Hermione made a comment that "Harry did not think a girl would be clever enough." Harry retaliated by saying, "How could I hang out with you for five years and not think girls are clever?"

This scene should provide insight into our discussion, for the words are those of people living in the books. Why does Hermione use this particular arguement against Harry? Is this a resentment or belief that she carries from the Muggle world or is she being perceptive about the wizarding world?

Laurette, I agree on the fact that some roles can't be exchanged, thanks Goddess, but sometimes it's very hard to accept. I.e., being a mother is not always the most fulfilling task in the world, as the tv commercials and society tend to let us think. I hate the "every great man has got a great woman behind him" thing. I recently read an article about the Third World women that support the Western women in their careers, care for their children and old parents...But it was just a slightly OT opinion.

To go back to the topic, I had said that the character comes to the writer "as is" and sometimes you can't do nothing to change it...and if you do, things don't work... I hadn't read the interview, but I was happy to see that my intuition was right...

About Hermione, I have this strong feeling that she won't be happy with Ron. He's such a good guy, but he's not smart enough for her, and this is really important or she'll get frustrated. There's nothing wrong on a boy who's normally intelligent, but he doesn't even show this great affection towards her...he's definitely clumsy in his relationships with the female gender and I don't think Hermione likes it... She has already experimented a "physical" relationship and it wasn't satisfactory...she wants more than this.

Another thing: it tickles my evil mind the fact that Ginny, the girl with whom Harry falls in love slowly and inevitably, is often compared to Lily; same courage, same hair, same...well, isn't it a very good bait for psychoanalysts?



The older characters seem to treat equally both witches and wizards. As far as the kids are concerned, boys bash girls and vice versa...I think it's a generational problem, that changes when kids grow up to adult age. I don't see signs among the wizarding people that they consider women on a lower level, magically speaking.

Enough for now...Have a nice Saturday night!

)O(

It's really strange that you should say this, I believe that all men look for a bit of their mothers in their life partners. Which is really scary, I don't want to be like my mother-in-law!!

It is very true that all the older witches and wizards pay no attention to their sex when it comes to magical prowess. I'm sure you'd never have heard Dumbledore say that he was better at transfiguration than McGonagall because he was a man.

I love Hermione, she strong and is becoming a smart young woman who knows her own mind. Although I wouldn't mind betting that the attraction to Ron is the fact that he's not as smart as her. Someone with a mind like hers may be frustrated more by a male who will undoubtably end up thinking he is cleverer than her. No, I think Ron is just what the Doctor ordered. A bit slow on the uptake, but in the end totally dependable and faithful. A bit like a dog!!

I'm sorry to say but I don't agree on Ginny here. For me she's way too perfect, and I mean here from a man's point of view. I mean she always understands. And let's be honest ladies, would we understand Harry's hero tick? Wouldn't we be annoyed by it? Isn't she some sort of dream girl every man wants? She's smart, skilled (although only that hex ... I'm sorry, but if you compare her to Hermione, that's not much), pretty, looks like his mum, plays sports, is interested in sports. I just don't know, this all seems unnatural to me.

I agree, etphonehome, Ron and Hermione are a good and for me a very realistic couple. I love Hermione, I really do. She's a strong girl, very talented, and will be one day successful, make a career. And what I like a lot about her, and here I have to give Jo credit, is that she never lost her female sides. She's caring and not just determined. And that's what makes her for me a truly unique character.

Oh, Olivia...Believe me, I've seen a Ginny-like girl with my own eyes, grown up after two male brothers. My best friend at high school was a real tomboy, and she had the most beautiful boyfriend of our times...he was totally happy with her because she didn't fuss, she lived her life and was very independent.
Of course, maybe she was the exception which confirms the rule...but it's great for me seeing a girl who doesn't depend emotionally on her boyfriend's decisions or feelings. It tastes very "feminist", also, and I can't help liking it.

The matter is, that when I set a critical approach on a character I always tend to filter it through my personal experiences; and, having been a Ginny-like girl in my past, and being now a woman who is much at ease among men than women, I feel her very real actually.
I agree that Hermione is more smart and skilled, but she's also easy prey for paranoic thoughts, and mental stress, because the pressure that she applies on herself is really very heavy. She definitely wants too much from herself; being a "know-it-all" isn't for free, as many of us may know from their personal experiences. In this sense, a man who's more affectionate than smart could help her relax a bit, and make her feel protected.

Ginny and Hermione are simply...different. Nor worse, nor better, just...different. We can prefer the one or the other because we feel the character closer to us...And we don't really know what Ginny's going to do in the next book, if fighting for Harry's love or not.

Have a nice morning!!

No.

Of course they're not treated equally.
Sure - there are women in postions of authority but how they are portrayed?

McGonagal is powerful, but she is also the stereotypical spinster who doesn't have quite the same weight of authority, knowledge, skill or insight as Dumbledore.Sure she's smart, but she just doesn't have his flair, panache or any surrounding aura of power around her, aside from being a strict teacher. She's "good ol' trusty, reliable schoolmarmish McGonagal.

But beyond a classroom setting, have you ever seen McGonagal really deal to anyone as a powerful witch in her own right, or perform any action that might (heaven forbid) put her on equal footing with Dumbldore? With the possible exception of Bellatrix and Hermione, how many women in HP really do anything in terms of magic - which, after all is supposedly the underlying rataionale behind the series?

Don't mention Ginny. JK may well be waiting to unleash her power upon us all in Book 7, but thus far, we have had very little in the way of genuinely powerful, affective magic from Miss Weasley.) Thus far, Ginny is a psuedo-feminist Bratz doll and the delight she takes in competing with and talking down to other girls is somewhat disturbing. (She hates Fleur, squabbles with her mother, disdains Romilda Vane, eventually clashes with Hermione, and patronises Luna.)

There is Madam Maixime who is a headmistress - but what have you ever seen her actually do?

Angelina Johnson is not only black and female, but gets to be head of the Quidditch team. Wow. Progress, you might think? Forget it. She yells, gets angry and on more than one occasion is almost reduced to the point of tears when her star player isn't around. You never get a sense of her being competent and in control like Woods, who was portrayed as passionate (in a slightly comic way) rather than near-tearful.

Cho Chang seemed like a reasonable portrayal of a girl until she morphed into a giggly, whiny, clinging, impetuous 'human hosepipe' that drew the scorn of both Harry and Ron.

Bellatrix is powerful, but of course she just happens to be imbalanced, vindictive, hyper-emotional and bordering on insane -- and in all probability has a sad crush on Voldy. (Do you think you'd ever see that kind of behaviour from slick Lucius?) Narcissus is completely dull compared to Lucius.

Rita Skeeter is your quintessential vindictive, destructive gossip.
There was nosy, snooping Bertha Jorkins, and the largely marginalised, ineffectual Arabella Figgs.

But don't worry - there's Poppy Pomfrey and Pomona Sprout -- your earth mother types who are comfortingly stuffed in the background. And if that doesn't satisfy there's Molly Weasley to play the shrill domestic goddess.

And if that's not your style, then you have a Lady Hitler in the form of Umbridge. If you dislike ultra control-freaks however, then you need look no further than the pitiful figure of closet-alcoholic Sybil Trelawney.

Tonks character trajectory is depressing that it doesn't even bear analysis.

Fleur was simply the 'pretty' champion who every guy in sight completely whipped in competition without effort, was no serious threat to anyone, then reappeared as Bill's rib in Book 6.

Parvati Patil and Lavender are two girls who are best friends who *gasp* happen to actually hang out together (rather than prioritising men or having primary loyalties to men over women the way that most of the women in the series do. Molly is attached to Arthur, Hermione to Harry and Ron, McGonagal to Dumbledore, Bellatrix to Voldemort, Narcissus to Lucius, Tonks to Lupin, Fleur to Bill, while we only ever learnt about Cho in relation to whatever boy's arm she was hanging off - first Cedric, then Harry, followed by Michael. Pansy Parkinson is Malfoy's cheerleader, and Ginny is Harry's and so forth.)

So how are they portrayed? As shallow, giggling, fashion conscious gal pals with barely a braincell between the two of them - for how else could they be loyal accolytes of an obviously incompetent fraud like Trelawney? After Book 6, who has any respect for lovestruck Lavender crawling around after Ron? Not the reader who was clearly intended to simply laugh and sneer at her sudden, inexplicable fit of desperation. And clearly not Ron, who couldn't even be bothered to go through the motions of actually breaking up with her.

Simply put there are very few women who are not in a supporting 'back up' role to male characters, unless they are the wayward and utterly toxic Rita Skeeter, or the hag-like Millicent Bulstrode. Then again, there is Luna Lovegood. Or should I say there was a female character who was kooky and weird, but an actual individual who wasn't anyone's accolyte and seemed to have a measure of real independence and a backbone to boot. That was until she became a raving Ginny fan in book six, who was all but begging for the D.A. to be reestablished in order to gain some semblance of a social life.

But what about Hermione?

What about Hermione. The author has already admitted that Hermione is a 'caricature of her younger self' - a self that she has presumably cast off and no longer identifies with. I like Hermione - she is my favourite character in the book. However, I'm not in the least bit blind to the serious issues with this character. Hermione is a pencil-sharpening swot - she's the girl who fanatically takes notes, works studiously and doesn't have an ounce of imaginative or intellectual creativity. Like McGonagal, Hermione is deeply practical, sensible and efficient but her efforts are characterised by a distinct lack of natural flair.

I don't think that it is any accident that Hermione almost studies to the point of insanity, whereas Snape's, Dumbledore's, Sirius', James', Voldemort's and even Fred and George's accomplishment's don't seem to require nearly as much exhaustive effort.

And the truth about Hermione is that other than sudden her Book 6 'friendship' with Ginny, that operates more as an anti-Fleur allegiance anyway (how 'feminist'!) she has no female friends. She is made an honorary "boy" in PS by 'not ratting' on Ron and Harry, who up until that point had completely rejected her. Now she is in a position to function as a walking library while proof-reading Harry an dRon's homework. Yay feminism!

Hermione is competent - true. However, even though Hermione may be more magically competent than most of Hogwart's put together, JK didn't put the 'chosen' wand in her hand and send her off to fight Voldemort. After all, she's not male, and she's not Harry. She's Harry's much-needed aide who props him up in the role of hero.

Hermione's current 'romance' with Ron only makes sense if she is a hard-working but deeply insecure overachiever seeking affirmation from whereever she can get it. *Enter Ron, stage-left* In that scenario - sure. Ron and Hermione are 'realistic'. If however, Hermione had any natural academic talent and actual self-esteem to go along with, chances are she wouldn't look at Ron beyond a cursory fling. I work among academic women, and interestingly enough there is not a single one of them paired up with a 'Ron-type'. Not one. Those who want dogs, have dogs - not slow guys who fulfil that function.

Hermione storms and sobs afte, and overr Ron (becuase she's in *lurve*), yet somehow Ron manages to hold on to his senses and his dignity. Yeah - there's no gender stereotypes in that scenario. Yep.

Amelia Bones is about as close as HP has come to having an accomplished, intelligent, independent and possibly brilliant woman. Except that she was a.) anaemically underdeveloped as a character and is b.) currently deceased.

There are no Lyras, Ruta Skadis, Alannas, Trisandas, Dajas, Eveys, Ronica Vestritts, Althea Vestritts, Ettas,or even Maltas in HP.



It could be a little a both. After all it is not as if the wizarding world is all that distinguishable from the wizarding world save for magic, and being oddly limited and antiquated in any number of respects. Or it could have something specifically to do with Harry's general attitude towards girls and women... but that's for some other post.

Oh, oh, oh, Westerly!!
Some of your suggestions are brilliant, and I want to take my time in thinking about them. Surely I see passion in your words about this subject, even bitterness and anger, I daresay. I agree with some of your ideas...
Good!! I love passionate debates.

Another stone to be thrown: Mothers.

Harry's mother: dead.
Luna's mother: dead in charming.
Neville's mother: mad.
Draco's mother: a doll pleading for help.
Hagrid's mother: left him.
Voldemort's mother: let herself die.
Sirius' mother: not classified.
Snape's mother: very sad.

Practically, the only mother who's not insane, nor a killer, not suicidal, not slaughtered, is Ron's mother.
It looks like JKR, when she was writing, was very angry...she deleted the mothers -not the motherly figures like Poppy- from the books... Why has she got this bitterness towards mothers? is it just by chance?

See you later

Clara )O(

Westerly! How absolutely wonderful to see you here again! As usual, you and I are very definitely on the same wavelength and I couldn't agree with you more.

I'm actually really very surprised that so many people here see Ginny as a positive female figure in these books. I couldn't possibly disagree more.

I don't want to Ginny bash again because I could spend a whole post arguing that alone, but the point in relation to this thread is that Ginny is exactly how Westerly described her - a pseudo-feminist Bratz doll. Two dimensional, shallow, and the very worst of female stereotypes I've come across. Contrast her with Hermione who is presented as strong, intelligent, confident, but also with weaknesses in that sometimes she can be a little over-confident, sometimes a little arrogant and too ready to rely on logic and facts instead of occasionally thinking outside the box.

I don't really have the time to address everyone's points here, though this debate is one that I've really enjoyed reading and definitely intend to take a more active part in from now on, but Westerly covered my opinions too in the majority of what she said.

In general, I don't feel as though JKR has done women a great service in any of her characters. She's done a wonderful job of her men - Lupin, Sirius and Snape are some of the best and most complex literary creations I've ever encountered - but the same could never be said for the women who come across as stereotypical or subservient in many aspects, always second fiddle to the men.

I don't think Westerly's views are bitter or angry - I think they are simply realistic and unclouded, and represent someone who's read the books and finally seen them for what they are - quinessentially children's stories that do nothing for the world of great literature. Compare her female characters to Austen's, or Bronte's, or even Jules Verne's! They are hardly in the same league.

I'm late for work, but I need to say sorry if I have offended Westerly or anyone else here. I didn't have the chance to explain what I meant with anger and bitterness. They're positive feelings sometimes, because they are able to open our soul completely.
Sometimes anger and bitterness allow us to see what reality we live in. Anger because, as I have written in another message in this topic, still today, on the same education level of men, women get inferior roles. Bitterness, because the majority of girls don't have positive models to refer to.
Passion, anyway, is the key to change things.
But this is only my personal point of view, and again, please accept my most sincere apologies if I've been rude.

Anyway, I see that Ginny's a very discussed character, and for some, not very popular here. It's ok, I can always learn from another opinion. Maybe I didn't read the books carefully, and I'll do it as soon as I can, and I didn't catch some signs... I didn't see Ginny as a Bratz doll, and I think she's still too young to be labeled this hard and merciless. But I could take your opinion for good and start to see her in a different way.



Sorry again, and, of course!! no doubt on the fact that it's not Class A literature, although very interesting. But they're fun to read, or not?
To close this message, and I'll reply to Westerly's one later, I want to say that I didn't intend to bash Hermione in any way. I love her very much and that's why I am concerned and worried about how she really sees herself.

To go back to the topic at last, I would be interested to hear how you all see mothers in HP.

Clara )O(

Westerly it is always a great pleasure to read your posts. And you made me think even more.

No about Ginny, I don't want to say much more about here. I made my point clear. To me she's an unnatural character, designed to the best for Harry's machoistic 'desires' and strong in a most unnatural way. I do not like characters who don't seem to have any fault at all. But that is my point of view.

Now, Westerly's post made me think about one thing I thought about a long time ago and then I put it aside. Fleur Delacour and the Triwizard cup. Now, why does that girl come in last, when the book is supposed to have been written in a feminist's way? And she is always, always the last. Plus out of four there is only one female champion? Then in HBP she is presented as this blonde, stupid beauty who annoys the 'true feminist girls' Ginny (and Ginny behaves here like a true woman who seems to be threatened by a pretty girl. Now how emancipated is that?) and Hermione. In the end, however, it is Fleur who shows true character, who marries a man, because she loves him, not because he's a hero or good-looking, or a Harry Potter kind of guy. Still, this is a very disapointing presentation of a female character. Then in the end, we still just have the annoying Fleur in our mind. The blonde beauty who cannot produce an evil bogey hex (or whatever that Ginny-spell is called).

Now to Luna. I love Luna, I really do. And I think she is being treated in the most unkind way by our four main characters, the girls and the boys. And I'm sad about that.

I honestly don't know why Jo 'killed off' all mothers in the books. Would they be too complicated to write? e.g. why is Hermione's mother never described. Why doesn't she ever make an appearance. It would be interesting to meet her.

Oh no, Clara, please don't apologise!! You certainly didn't offend me, and I'm very sure you didn't offend Westerly either! I'm sure she's very thick skinned about her opinions by now, after the battering she took in the old debate threads!! Seriously though, you haven't done anything wrong, so please don't worry



You're absolutely right, of course. She was barely even considered, all in all, other than being a Veela and thus being portrayed as using her looks and "aura", for want of a better word, to enchant men. Hardly the most flattering of ways to portray the strength of women And then she always comes in last...which I guess could be taken to mean that looks don't always get you very far, which *could* be considered a positive thing, but I have to acknowledge that's probably stretching





Me too. I loved Luna - I found her far more interesting and three dimensional than Ginny. She had a very rare power - to make Harry feel guilty and question himself, which is why I thought she would be a very acceptable alternative to Hermione...seeing as how I got that one wrong I feel she was very underused, which is a great shame. I enjoyed reading about her a lot more than I enjoyed reading about Ginny. I think that the way she is treated, rather than being comic relief, does indeed show a very disagreeable and unattractive side to the four leads. It shows them as a little intolerant and impatient, amongst other things. Interesting dynamic that Luna brings, certainly.

As for the mothers, again, a completely correct observation. I rather think that it might have more to do with JKR's feelings about the loss of her own mother though, perhaps. Maybe she finds it painful to dwell too much on motherly aspects of her characters, or perhaps she finds it comforting to create characters that don't necessarily need their mothers around as a support mechanism, and succeed in their endeavours anyway. JKR loved her mother very much, and so I don't think she has any deep seated issues with mothers or anything like that.

This is my first post in the The Great Hall and I must admit it was great reading all those views on JKR portrayal of women in Harry Potter series. There have been substantial points made in favor of and against the way JKR has portrayed women there. While there are merits and demerits in all of them, I believe that to an large extent it also reflects the differences in the way We the readers would have liked to see specific characters portrayed and the way in which JKR actually chose to portray them. This is apparent from numerous fanfictions out there and one can clearly see the individual touches dominating, based on personal preferences- shipping for instance. However, to get into those details would be digressing from the main topic. In spite of my feeling that several female characters in Harry Potter universe could have been portrayed differently, I believe there are several points that JKR wishes to get across.

It's true that the central characters in the series are male, but the females come across as determined and resourceful people who have fought hard against prejudice, stereotype and skepticism to achieve what they have today and gain respect. Hermione comes from a non-magical background and her heritage made her an automatic target for pureblood supremacists, who believed themselves to be magically superior to her. She's the best student in her year and forced them all to take notice and acknowledge her magical proficiency, albeit grudgingly. Even Snape calls her a know-it-all not a fool or a dunderhead. He admitted that Neville's potion turned out to be perfect because of her assistance. She's unafraid of displaying her knowledge and at times standing for what's right. For this Hermione and by extension JKR earns my respect. Through Hermione, and previously Lily and other muggleborn witches she proved that the will to prove oneself is far superior to heritage. She's not without her faults though. She too suffers from the same phenomenon that seems to plague several who are exceptional in their fields. That is the belief that they are aware of what's best for others in general. This is manifested in several ways, such as her constant nagging of Ron and Harry and her fanatical devotion to S.P.E.W. Her intentions here are noble,but the assumption that she understands others welfare better than they do has sometimes backfired on her. House-elves being one such example and her disbelief and disapproval of Harry when he seemed to be convinced about Malfoy being up to no good, or when he used Potions instructions from the Half-blood Prince's text. But then more often than not she's brought a sense of control and organization in Harry's and Ron's lives that they also appreciate her for.

Lets look at other similar characters. One of my favorite characters in the books is Luna. She's another person who's suffered discrimination, ostracizing and even harassment for her unorthodox views and demeanor. But she's never backed down, never lost hope, never shown a vindictive streak, but calmly and nonchalantly handled the situation with exceptional aplomb, better than Harry in fact. On top of it, she's never given up on her convictions. Her bravery is second to none and her loyalty unquestioned. Even after suffering so much, she's been nothing but honest and forthright, something that's difficult to find in most souls. Luna's strength of character makes many of the so-called macho males look like wimps. She's got one of the biggest hearts of all characters in the series. No wonder Harry and now Ron seem to be quite fond of her.

Another person I seem to admire a lot is Tonks. We are all aware that wizarding world is medieval in it's outlook in several aspects and therefore many consider women to be lesser mortals. Naturally this would extend to institutions like the ministry, which is host to some of the most bigoted souls in existence. In a place like that and that too Auror division, which would be considered an ultimate male bastion, Tonks had the courage and fortitude to pass all the hurdles and become a law enforcement officer. She must have endured enough discrimination due to several reasons ranging from her unique abilities (that would also invite jealousy and envy), to her mixed parentage, not to add the fact that her mother was disowned from a pureblood family of high standing. Now she has come to a stage where her position commands respect and authority. Agreed she was moping for Remus in HBP, but that did not stop her from carrying out her duties to the best of her abilities. She did not give up on Lupin, even after being rebuffed and was rewarded in the end when he seemed to have finally reconciled to the fact that Tonks was hellbent on having a future with him and only him. That's strength of character for me.

The series is littered with such examples; Lily Evans, Minerva McGonagall, Amelia Bones, Bellatrix Lestrange, Augusta Longbottom, Molly Weasley, where women have commanded respect, admiration and authority or even fear. This in my opinion, has been one of the strengths of JKRs writing. She has provided an unambiguous message it's a person's choices rather than their heritage that determine their stature. Many of these women have shown exactly that.

Thanks Louise...I feel better now. Sorry I didn't write before but the thread needs concentration and I had any these days.
Welcome Mayfair!!

About Fleur, nothing truer. She's discriminated because she's pretty, and it's very bad that this equation pretty=dumb has showed across JKR books. She is -in a veiled manner- accused to be there because she "cheats". Her abilities are told to come out from ancient magic, so they aren't real. The stereotypes seeing the beautiful girl too busy to study because her makeup needs fixing, is hard to fight. And there's also another thing: if Fleur is inept, and inadequate to the Triwizard cup's tasks, at the same time she is the champion of her school. So, I feel a judgment towards the whole school (and I was thinking: oh my, that's history...why choose France to represent a school of dumb and dumber-like people?).

OK. enough for tonight...younger daughter with a fever...must go.

Clara )O(

And I never thought about that *slaps herself on the head*. True. But maybe Jo chose France because she studied French and with this she could put in some French phrases, but I don't really think so. The whole 'the girl can be in a tournament, but of course will never win it' really annoys me. I mean it's clear that because of the storyline Cedric had to be good in the tournament but why Viktor as well? Just because he's a famous seeker? Couldn't Fleur at least be good at First Task? No. She's a girl, she's pretty, she's blonde, she's French from a school where they wear silk - of course not. What message does that give? Pretty girls can be smart and talented too, somehow Jo didn't want to show that in that book.

And when you think of Fleur and the way Ginny and Hermione treat her in HBP then you get the impression that it's okay to feel rivalry amongst women, that Ginny and Hermione are completely right in talking so rude about Fleur. And, dear ladies who are reading this post, isn't that what slows us women down in society? The rivalry that we have amongst our own gender?

It's difficult to judge whether Jo Rowling does service or disservice to women in term of significance in the series.
First, as AfterThe Burial has explained early on and based on the interview, Jo is writing about male protagonists. Therefore, male characters occupy more significant roles than the females. Nothing wrong with this.

Second, the series is written with a background of 18-19th century European lifestyles, where men were regarded higher than women. Jo chose to follow the style in some way, not to turn the world upside down drastically, but she dares to place some women on high positions, a deviation to the original model. In my opinion, Jo does a service to women in doing so.

Third, as far as her writing style, Jo Rowling seems to follow the most common unwritten rule of stereotyping male and female characters. There are things that boys do differently than girls. Not so extreme as Enyd Blyton, whose girls are usually serving meals. We still read that the boys in HP series helping with cooking, like cutting vegetables etc. In this case, Jo Rowling cannot be faulted, because any deviation from the stereotype may distract the readers from the main storyline.

Fourth, to her credits, Jo Rowling does show "strong women". It's clearly a deliberate act. On Voldemort's side, there's Bellatrix Lestrange. On Dumbledore's side, there's Minerva McGonagall. It could be all men's club, but Jo Rowling developed strong female characters here. As for Harry vs. Draco, Draco's sidekicks are all males, but Harry's are one male and one female, with the female (Hermione) possesses higher academic skills. Draco's Pansy is to be contrasted to Harry's Ginny. Pansy is a stereotype of a doormat, Ginny is already transformed into a modern girlfriend, more independent and forceful. Unfortunately we don't see much of others. It's too bad that HBP portrayed a love-sick Tonks, an otherwise great female warrior. Fleur and Cho are not exactly good examples of great female characters. Lily didn't produce as much as the Marauders. Luna could be a boy and it may not change the story too much. etc..etc..
At the end, Jo can only be credited for the female characters we respect, but not for each and every females in the series. So is her contribution to the role of the women in Harry Potter universe limited to the changes she made.

Hello,
I've been away from this topic for a while...too involved in other threads (*shame*)...
I had some new points to debate with you all.
I saw that you contributed ina very passionate, intelligent way, and more or less we all agree on the fact that JKR didn't give so much space to women, stereotyping them - but actually, the point is not that, since the key characters in novels and tales always obey to a sort of archetypes that helps people recognizing the characters- The Hero, The Mother, The Fool, the Warrior etc.
I'm thinking that these women could be very different in their private lives from how JKR describes them.

What if Narcissa has set a trap to Snape with Voldemort? her porcelain doll appearance could hide her real feelings and loyalties. No more the perfect mommy, just a Death Eater in disguise.

What if Molly had the chance to confront the people who hurted her sons, husband and friends? would she turn into an assassin?

What if Minerva has left her family, -children, husband..- to follow her job in Hogwarts?

What is Madam Hooch's past? has she been a Quidditch champion? why the small book about Quidditch, written by JKR, doesn't have any reference about her?

I think that some of these questions will be answered in the seventh book.

Clara )O(

Nice thoughts, Clara! I often wonder about the personal lives of many of the characters -- a part of many of them that we, the readers, never get to see. I once read a theory, that was put together quite well, claiming proof that Professor McGonnagal is Albus Dumbledore's wife. It was so long ago when I read it that I do not even remember many of the points, but it certainly got me thinking.



Interesting. What if she was actually a spy for the Order? I definitely get a feeling that she is more than first appears. Since Lucius is such a prominent Death Eater, she probably had access to a ton of information concerning Lord Voldemort and his happenings that the Order could have found very useful. I mean, when you are such a small group (the Order) fighting against such a large group (Voldemort, the Death Eaters, and, in effect, people who do not take a side because they are doing nothing to help the cause), it is necessary to have a few spies. Assuming Severus, and possibly Aberforth Dumbledore, are spies, that is only two. I think that somebody like Narcissa would be great for the spot...and it would make sense.



I could totally see this happening. Molly is extremely protective of her family and would go to any extent to see them safe -- we know this from her bogart: her biggest fear is her loved ones dying. I see her as a very vengeful person. If somebody harmed her children (oh, look, you left out poor Ginny from your little list ), all I can tell them is to "watch out!"



Hmm...I don't know about Madam Hooch. I was a bit annoyed when she was completely dropped from the story after the first book. I guess because Harry already learned to fly, there was no use for her anymore. I still think that she was a great character, and I would like to know more about her past and personal life. I can't think of how that could really help out the story, though, unless she/a family member of hers is a Death Eater or something. *shrugs* I guess it gives us something to think about....




_daviD

I've hesitated posting in here, because I don't want to reiterate anything anyone else has already said. And there are a lot of things that I would say that have already been said both ways as to whether Jo makes women a force to be reckoned with or not.

That being said I will add this one point that I don't think has been touched on:

The four founders of Hogwarts 1000 years ago were two men and two women.

Wow! A thousand years ago two women were just as important to the wizarding community as two men. Imagine that happening in our society? I think a thousand years ago we were still persecuting women who were midwives as witches, and making them stay shut up in houses unless they were too poor to afford their own help in which case they had to be seen in public doing menial tasks. So in my mind the wizarding community has already dealt with equality for women, and the women we see in the books are choosing their roles in society more than that society is dictating their roles.

Another interesting thing to note is that when a society goes through a period of upheaval (war, economic downturns) women often take on roles they might not otherwise have taken. During WWII women in the US took jobs their husbands, sons, fathers and brothers would have normally taken just because if they hadn't the men wouldn't have been able to go to war, and the jobs they left behind wouldn't have been filled. I'm not entirely clear with myself how this might apply to this situation, but it is something to chew on.

Let's take some time in answering to the last questions. SpinJam, I found very interesting that you pointed out the anthropological origins of gender social differences...

What if Narcissa has set a trap to Snape with Voldemort? her porcelain doll appearance could hide her real feelings and loyalties. No more the perfect mommy, just a Death Eater in disguise.

The role of Narcissa could reserve some surprises. Now that her husband is in jail and her son has disappeared, she could really show her true personality. I must confess I'd like her as a Death Eater, since she isn't in my opinion that weak poshy woman that the books show us.

What if Molly had the chance to confront the people who hurted her sons, husband and friends? would she turn into an assassin?

Molly's Gryffindor character is easily found in her impulsive temper. She is a tornado, she is strong but not controlled in her reactions. I really think she could hurt someone if one member of her family was injured or killed. Maybe not properly an assassin, but for sure, she would not be able to think for a while if putting her hands on the guilty people.

What if Minerva has left her family, -children, husband..- to follow her job in Hogwarts?

Another mystery. Minerva is ...like the Goddess Minerva, the virgin, the wise, the warrior. It's a bit of a stereotyped character. Perfect, but with a big problem with emotions. She seems more a Ravenclaw here than a Gryffindor...she is quite controlled, but emotions are her weakness in the sense that she seems unable to manage them...I see a Gryffindor woman more impulsive and violent, unable to restraint her feelings and eager to let them go, than scared of her own emotions...
It could be, she could have left a family, but most probably not...she's the typical woman devoted to school like it was her family.

Enough for now, see you later

Hi folks, this is my first Great Hall post, it's nice to be here!

I've expounded my "feminist" reading of Ginny in one of the general forum threads, and don't want to rehearse that here. But I would like to raise the question, What would it mean to say that these books are or should be written with a "feminist" perspective?

Several possibilities exist, many of which have been dealt with in various posts above: we could look at the portrayal of female characters and ask to what extent their roles in the narrative and their characterization provides counterbalance or even equality with the male roles. In this vein, "feminism" is posed as concerned with some kind of "equality" of men and women in terms of the portrayal of importance, standing, and narrative significance.

We could try to find ways to read the characters as evidence of JKR advancing/privileging the female perspective as an antidote to the male dominance in culture at large and even in the wizarding world she portrays. On this model, feminism is tantamount to an ideology of societal transfiguration.

Without belaboring these general strategies any further, I wanted to ask if these kinds of strategies are what would be meant by asking if these books are properly "feminist". There are all kinds of feminism (officially in gender theory they talk about various "waves" of feminism characterized by dominant motifs in various multi-year periods). But as much as I would call myself feminist, and maintain some of what I call "feminist" readings of certain characters, my take on the HP books is that if they are 'feminist' per se, it has little to do with ideology or general normative messages about what should be the role of women in society or literature.

My impression, shared by a number of folks in the thread thus far, is that Rowling is representing a very familiar world in the books, despite their being filled with unfamiliar things. She has presented a world in which men happen to predominate, which is the case in our real world. She has presented a world in which certain female figures rise to prominence and represent slightly different models than the males, which also reflects our world. She has given us romantic involvements that pretty much do reflect the kinds of things that teenagers experience, including some trashy and immature forms of behavior that are nothing short of gender stereotypical.

So how is the book feminist? it is feminist perhaps in our perceptions and choices as readers. Rowling strikes me not so much as an ideological thinker/writer. Her characters reflect her readers back to themselves and pose the question, "And so, what do you think? Still want to be this way?" It's almost existential. I look at this world and say, Yeah, the world does work this way--mostly men are and have been in charge, especially in the bureaucracy/ministry, and look where we are. Women have been playing whatever roles they've been playing, and again, look where we are. The texts seem to present us with choices, not guidelines. At least that's how I would take the messages we DO get in the text and apply them to gender issues ABOUT the text.

I look at JKR's comments about her astonishment at people's infatuation with characters like Snape and Draco, and see in those an indication of the feminist line of the books--'here is what some women do, astonishingly, and here is what some men do, astonishingly, so--now what? Look what it looks like--do we like what we see?'

As I mentioned in another thread, my vision is a little influenced by Ursula LeGuin, who wrote the sequel to the Earthsea Trilogy and stood the male magical world on its head in favor of a weak, disfigured girl, Tehanu. I keep wanting JKR to do the same, and seeing possibilities for that in the way the power-structure in the wizarding world she writes is depicted. But then I think that LeGuin is more ideological and fantastical than JKR, who is unlikely to stand her magical world on its head since our regular world is unlikely to have itself turned upside down too quickly.

For interest, here's a link to an interesting talk by LeGuin on power:
http://gos.sbc.edu/l/leguin.html

Deep breath--one last point I might make: Today JKR was reported to be the second richest woman in entertainment, now behind only Oprah. Worth 1 billion dollars. That raises the interesting question of the interface between gender issues and capitalism, as are raised with people like Oprah, Martha Stewart (#3), etc. Need to think about that....

Wow pumpkinjuice, what a post...You raised some interesting questions.

First, a feminist reading of HP is not possible. The HP series is totally antifeminist. You're right, the setting, the relationships, the social structure and even the single characters are totally recognizable in everyday's world.
But, I have been deluded by the characters' characterization. I got really caught only by Snape, since I find him to be almost the only character with depth and complexity. I would have liked him to be a her, honestly. Much more interesting, much truer. I remember by my granny's tales that during WWII, in Italy a lot of women (including my grandmother) were spies for the partisans while living a very respectable, unsuspectable life as housewives. I guess the same happened in other countries. Women were the only ones to go around quietly, smiling, carrying messages in the food bags.
So, a she-Snape could have been memorable, a woman who doesn't care about compliments, who's smooth but sharp...extremely intelligent....maybe attractive in her own way...and blah blah blah.

No, HP's world is a men's world. No equality is provided, and when it happens, it's only apparent. I can't really understand why JKR wrote the books this way. Because she's a strong , independent woman...she might know how it is out there.

As a feminist perspective, which I always defend so much because my mom was one in the Sixties and thanks to her and her friends we women can travel, study, work, be stressed and leave our kids in the kindergartens. .... No, really, as a feminist perspective I'd see simply more importance to some key figures...the "important" teachers are mostly males; the prestige roles are occupied by males. Males, the hero and 3/4 of his best friends between adults and kids. Females, we have already examined all the characters one by one, and found a basic poorness in positive characterization, strength, passion.
I mean, at least in books, wouldn't us women be happier, smarter, mroe satified about our work, our position, etc.?

P.S.
Le Guin speech is great. I'm going to save it for future reference.

That is true, Clara. And yes, Jo Rowling tries to 'equalize' the women in the book, she had two female founders, like spinjam said, but they're the founders of the 'unimportant' houses Ravenclaw and Gryffindor. Then there's Minerva McGonagall, the head of Gryffindor but not headmistress and never as powerful as male Albus Dumbledore.

I, too, would have wished for Snape to have been a woman. I would have been a very interesting combination between him and Harry. On the other hand, would the story have worked then? Those two have a lot of hate between them, all caused because of their 'macho-attitude', something a female Snape wouldn't have had. A female Snape wouldn't have had a problem with James Potter. On the other hand, Rowling could have made the plot different and there would have been a problem with Lilly Potter ... and wouldn't have that been interesting. Ladies, we all know how women's fights can be.

Narcissa Malfoy: I so wish for her to step forward in book 7 and show herself with some strenght, a counter part to Bellatrix, the truly female evil, devoted to a man, Voldemort, a Magda Goebbels, I can't help it, she reminds me of her. Narcissa would be great as a counterpart, saving in battle her son from evil. But I doubt Rowling would do that.

Yah, I finally have permission to join in the dicussion. I hope you don't mind that I want to get my feet wet in the topic by commenting on a bit of back post.


~This statement intrigued me because it brings up an interesting issue of environment. Let us consider Hermione first. She is an only child of dentist parents. As doctors, her parents would have understood and facilitated her desire for learning. She most likely didn't have anyone close to growing up to share this passion. Other kids her age would most likely have teased her, from her intelligence, to her abnormally long front teeth and her bushy hair. Bossyness may be a survival trait. It gives the illusion of strength at a time when she was most likely insecure. It was not until later when she had gotten some friends and some confidence in her abilities at magic and learning that her bossyness comes through as confidence. Hermiones bossy nature could have been nurtured by the fact that she has grown up faster and more of an adult then most children her age. Silly giggles and doll playing and such seems unnecessary to her. It comes out as bossy in the way she speaks.
Consider Ginny. Ginny has grown up surrounded by men. She has one woman available to her as a role model and that is her mother. She sees her mothers' life and it does not appeal to her. She idolizes her eldest brother Bill. He is successful, trendy, popular and intelligent. She chooses this path to follow. Now, with brothers like Percy, who is intelligent as well but somewhat pompus and Fred and George, the pranksters and always making fun of Percy and Ron, Ginny would need to be witty wouldn't she? She would need to be able to stand on her own two feet and hold her ground. This could be seen in her bossy nature, but then again circumstances around her may have forced her to be this way. What if she had sisters? What if she had other role models besides her mom? Would she be the way she is? I don't know. These are just some thoughts...


~I want to address this in two parts. First, it is very difficult to imagine the way women in realistic society have been portrayed a thousand years ago for reasons well put by SpinJam. And while it is wonderful that JKR has decidedly put Helga Huffelpuff and Rowena Ravenclaw in positions of power all those years ago, I find it disturbing that since then there has been no real woman with the kind of power that was equal to theirs. It really wouldn't be fair to compare Minerva or Poppy or even Mrs. Weasley to the two Hogwart female founders would it? This kind of leads me into my next comment.
I hope that the war will allow a woman to step up and contribute significantly to the downfall of the Dark Lord. I would love to have a woman have her name in history such as Huffelpuff and Ravenclaw has. And judging by history, I do hope that what ever role women take in the war effort, that they do not relinquish it once the war is over. If they are good enough to be relied upon during the war, they will be good enough when the war is over...don't send them back to the kitchens

Believe me, Le Guin could never have conceived of, let alone have written a character like Ginny Weasley. Ever. She doesn't deal in 'mysterious scents' and dancing red hair, snappy one-liners or love being represented by scaly monsters. (Love in her universe is usually predicated on two people getting to know each other in plain view with a minimum of fanfare.) Her physical description of characters are curtailed and sparse because she is far more interested in exploring their interiority, motivation and psychology (as most good writers are.)

With all that said, I think that a paragon of perfectly realised feminist virtue would be boring to read about. I honestly do. Hermione's flaws in HP often endear her to many readers and make her psychologically plausible. However, the issue that many readers have with the way girls and women are portrayed in the HP universe is that there isn't a single counterexample of a girl or woman who is intelligent and strong-willed without being bossy/borderline domineering, or in the case of Ginny not so much intelligent as 'cunning' and unpleasant to boot. The idea that a woman could be intelligent and authoritative without being bossy, unpleasant or inadvertently comic isn't that much of a stretch really...

Whenever Rowling writes about women in positions of authority, places them under pressure or difficulty, or puts them a position where they have to argue their case she resorts to the most awful stereoptypes and makes them decidedly unsympathetic. Women snap, snarl, hiss 'like a goose', stare beadily at someone, shriek, shrill, or cry to get their point across. (Amelia Bones' brief stint in the courtroom may be one of the few instances of a women not only being in authority but acting authoritatively.) This is hardly a reflection of any existing 'reality' but a reification of an ongoing representation of women.

It would be one thing if she was writing these stereotypes to provoke discussion or instigate deeper reflection. But then she reconfigures and demeans a minor, and fairly insignificant character like Lavender Brown, turning her into the series doormat for no other reason than comedic intent, making it perfectly clear that there is no deeper thinking going on on her part. She takes a throwaway character like Romilda Vane, and channels all her spirit and (pushy) energy into chasing after Harry. She takes Luna's independence and her resistance to peer pressure and turns her into a follower, making the defiant loner into 'the lonely loser'. ('I *love* Ginny Weasley.Ginny is sooo nice.' ' I miss the DA. I wish I had friends.' 'Should I dye my eyebrow like yours Harry?' Seriously, when I read HBP I was wondering 'who is this and where is Luna?')

And it is this type of inconsistency that makes me roll my eyes. After all, why should I, as a reader, deduce that Cho Chang and Lavender are somehow inferior and 'unworthy' of their men because they cry, sulk and flounce, and aren't the fastest brooms in the shed? (Cho is a 6th year student when she tells Harry that she'd never been able to stun anything properly - until *he* showed her how, while Lavender is totally taken in by Trelawney's often bogus mysticism.) Yet at the same time I am supposed to complacently accept Molly Weasley's crying shrieking, panic attacks and inability to handle a simple boggart that a third year student can handle and I'm supposed to be charmed and amused by Hermione's bratty, sulk-attacks, violence and mindless crying fits over Ron? Funny how, their crying isn't an obstacle to them being fit for romance, eh?



They are? So the likes of Umbridge and Molly Weasley are 'realistic' but Harriet Tubman, Sojourner Truth, Rosa Parks, Kate Miller, Mary Wollstonecraft, Vigdis Finnbogadottir, Marie Curie, Mary Robinson, Aung San Suu Kyi, not to mention the millions of 'average' women who raise children, hold families together, earn a living, have a backbone and are rounded human beings are what then? Mythical creatures or figments of somebody's imagination?

The issue is not one of 'reality' (and whether or not she is accurate) but one of representation. And even though she is a woman, Rowlings portrayals of girls and woman fall completely in line with the way men have chosen to represent women throughout the ages and across a variety of media, while ignoring the women in front of them. This is why HP has the blonde-but-useless girl who all the boys salivate over, the plain-Jane-brain who is highly-strung and riddled with personal insecurity, the spinster schoolmarm with zero sexuality or life outside her profession, the earth-mother types, the bureaucratic (and unattractive) tyrant, the pretty, popular, sexy, sporty and totally unrealistic dreamgirl, the doting domestic goddess, the grovelling do-anything-for my man airhead, the unhinged villainess, and her sister the bland trophy wife and so forth.

The reason why so many of us are able to recognise these 'types' in an instant is because we have seen them so many times in film, literature, television, comics and so forth. Over and over again. And JK as a female writer does little to go against type.

The argument that Rowling is 'reflecting' reality is a poor defense because a.) she isn't representing 'reality', but reaffirming a masculine representation of how the world 'is' and b.) she is supposed to be writing among other things, a fantasy series. Fantasy articulates reality, but it is also supposed to speak to the world of imaginative possbility. If Rowling can't even imagine a world or even a situation where female characters can be authoritative in an unproblematic way and may actually have personal dignity (something that is actually able to occur in this word)? Oh well...

I've already said all that I have to say about Fleur's dismal 'performance' in the Triwizard tournament. Some readers insist Ginny is a 'powerful witch', which has been inferred by JK in interviews , but has yet to be supported by anything that occurs in the text. She's gone from breaking her ankle to nimbly dancing around and dodging curses (until Harry steps in, aims his wand and deals to her opponent for her). It's an upgrade I suppose, but it doesn't exactly scream 'powerful witch to be feared!' at me.

Hermione by contrast can teach practical and powerful spells to other people, and can actually use them as well. We've even seen her battle but with the repeated proviso that she tends to 'freeze.' (I suppose if Hermione didn't have that shortcoming, readers would really be scratching their heads and wondering why she didn't she just go ahead and battle Voldemort...) We're told that Tonks is an auror, and that she enters the DoM with her wand outstretched. But of course, we never actually see any demonstrations of her abilities as an auror. The only woman who really seems to be able to fight with any fluidity and talent and does so before the readers eyes is Bellatrix... who just so happens to be a madwoman. Great.

As always, Westerly, a very good post. And you name exactly the points that I have failed to name. Rowling works with stereotypes, the usual ones, the ones representation of female characters can't be without.

I'm currently studying the represenation of two famous, strong-willed, intelligent queens and they too get represented through these stereotypes by both writers of historical novels (fiction) and biographies (science). There is always the appearance (figure and of outmost importance:hair --> makes me think of Ginny) and the figure (no wonder they lost the love of the king, they got fat ) and of course the flaws.

With the HP female characters they always lack of something, which is good in a way because I don't like perfect characters. Hermione was always so sympathetic because she was smart and was allowed to be smart until HBP in which she fell in love, acted like some idiot and had to chase Ron, not the other way round.

Some might say now Ginny doesn't have any flaws, she's perfect. I think she's perfect from the view of a teenage boy, not from a strong female's point of view. She's a 'man-chaser', drops them if she doesn't want them anymore (Dean) and talks bad of people she's supposed to be friends with (Luna). That's not perfect, that's the kind of behaviour we women detest because she only focuses on men and nothing else.

Like you, Westerly, I am very disapointed by the represenation of Luna in HBP. Where did that charming, weird girl go? Was she sucked up by Ginny's boy-madness? Somehow they all make me think of a high-school movie.

Rowling started off well but then missed the turn somehow, she fell into all those stereotypes. And the saddest thing is that, I think, she didn't even realize it. She must think she's portraying all these strong women, she's not.

JK's use of stereotypes in creating her female characters is clearly a source of contention. I would simply like to point out that stereotypes in the Harry Potter series are not limited to females. Almost every male character also fits into one sterotype or another.

The most obvious is Harry. Even the character's know that Harry "acts like a hero" and has a "saving-people thing." Our action hero is strong, but not silent (more on that later). He is aggressive and confrontational. He does not think about the consequences of his actions, but merely acts. The results do not matter because our hero will always make things nice and lovely in the end. Oh, and Harry doesn't like going to the hospital. What a surprise! A guy who doesn't like doctors? I would have never thought it possible.

The ever-popular Krum is the perfect example of the strong, silent type. He focuses his energy on containing his emotion. He spent his life with a perpetual scowl. It reinforces the assumption that men are always in complete control of themselves and that showing emotion is a sign of weakness. Krum also serves as the Jock. He is an internationally known athlete, who is beloved by all, especially his female cult following. Whether a result of his fame or his stong, silent personality, no woman is capable of resisting his natural charm, not even Hermione.

Of course, we see another Jock in Wood. His life revolves aroung Quidditch. As we all know, there is nothing more important in life than sports. That whole Voldemort in the castle and Chamber of Secrets stuff was just an inconvenience which kept his Seeker off the field. It wouldn't matter if Harry fell off his broom and died, as long he he caught the Snitch while he was falling. Clearly, he has his priorities straight.

As we all know, many guys are jokers. And don't we have two excellent examples in Fred and George. While we are at it, let's throw in young James and Sirius. Being a clown is the key to being popular. Not taking your studies seriously leads to dropping out of school and starting an immensely successful business. When you are the clown, even authority figures look the other way, as long as you are friends.

Our jokers' father, Arthur, serves as the Buffoon. He is the bungling father figure who is light-hearted and well-intentioned. His skills range from slightly inept at work (breaking all his own rules) to a complete joke in parenting his children.

The books are riddled with examples of Mr. Big Shot. You have Percy, Fudge, Scrimegour, Ernie, Zacharias, Draco and Lucius. To some degree, each of them displays or thinks that he is the epitome of success. Others should want to be like them because they are rich, influential or powerful. This implies that a real man must be economically successful as well and socially powerful.

Both Voldemort and Dumbledore serve multiple roles. They are stong men who do not recognize or admit uncertainty. Of course, uncertainty is a sign of weakness. It is not acceptable for the general populous to think you are weak. What kind of chaos would ensue if people thought you were human?

Dumbledore does not allow others to dictate anything. His decisions are always final. When Harry wants to discuss a topic and Dumbledore does not, we all know whose desires will be acted out. His reasons do not need to be explained, his decision is enough. Dumbledore is a "real man." He has lots of resources at his disposal, to use whenever he chooses.

Voldemort is similar. He has stores of resources to command in his war. The wants and needs of others are never considered. After all, a man must know better than anyone who follows him. Voldemort, like Harry, is a man of action. He does not wait for others to act. He must be the instigator.

Neville and Ron are both followers. They identify a leader and allow themselves to be lead. Ron is a dog on a leash. At times he pulls on the leash, but one strong pull and he falls in line. If you'd like, you can also apply the insane, jealous boyfriend stereotype to Ron.

Even Snape, the most complex character in the series, still falls into stereotypes. He must guard his feelings and never allow anyone to get close. He cannot show weakness because that would lessen others' impression of him. Moreover, he is a stereotypical jerk. He cannot let go of a petty, childhood grudge because he is too immature to look past bloodlines.

Throughout the series, men are frequently portayed to embrace power and superiority. Even Harry thinks he is superior to other characters. The game of life is one long game of one-up-manship. The men in the series are reluctant or unwilling to open themselves up to rejection or ridicule.

So why would JK use sterotypes? Because stereotypes are often correct. Stereotypes have become so because there are a lot of people who fit into them. This allows people to identify and understand characters without needing to develop the life story of every single person. At some point, assumptions must be made. Using stereotypes is but one way of achieving that aim.

After the Burial -- kudos! I was going to point out myself that the men are just as easily picked apart as the women. Quite frankly if these characters weren't somewhat stereotyped, we'd have books full of totally unrealistic and off-putting characters we can't relate to in the slightest. As I read, I can see real people in my life in the place of these characters -- ex-boyfriends like Viktor, Fred, George or Cedric, girlfriends like Ginny or Lavender or even Fleur, parent figures that try so hard to do right by their children but mess up from time to time. Teenagers who think the whole world revolves around them or is out to get them or nobody else understands them (angst!!!) Real people, male and female.

I've always wondered what the perfectly feminist female would be like. I agree and quite frankly, I don't think one exists now or ever could. Why? Because females are human and humans have emotions and from what I understand reading here, a truly feminist female wouldn't let something like emotion or feelings get in her way to being equal to men.... (Though why be equal when you can be superior? )

A lot of the arguments here against the ladies in HP are largely based on emotional responses by those characters. So, what, JK is supposed to write about robot women who never get angry, jealous or emotional? Example: it's been pointed out that Ginny and Hermione display contempt for Fleur because she's beautiful and they are jealous. SO? Let me ask you this, if the object of your affection looked at another every time she/he entered the room, wouldn't YOU be a little jealous? It's human nature -- male and female -- it's the way we are. We fall in love, do stupid things because of it, grow jealous, are heartbroken, cry about ridiculous things, put on an act to convince the world we're okay when we are screaming on the inside.... this is truth, this is reality, it's the way our minds and hormones work! And aside from the crying thing, men tend to act pretty much the same way -- doesn't that put us on "equal" footing?



Perfect? No. Are there young women out there like this? Most definitely (my sister for one...)! She goes for what she thinks she wants and when it proves not quite right, she lets it go and moves on. It takes a lot of self-confidence to be this way. Hermione on the other hand doesn't go after what she really wants (Ron) because she fears rejection. Also a true picture of a young woman. I find them an interesting juxtaposition as far as romance is concerned. At the funereal Ginny agrees to let Harry go, while Hermione clings to Ron. But which is stronger for it? Ginny gives Harry up without a fight because he asks her to. Hermione finally lets go of her self-doubt and puts herself in Ron's embrace.



I think one character has these traits -- Olympe Maxime, Headmistress of Beauxbatons and according to Hagrid "magnificent" when her blood is up. Don't forget, she saved them both from a very large and dangerous group of giants pretty much single handedly as Hagrid wasn't doing any magic. She shows intelligence, skill, strong-will, and the ability to lead but is not bossy or domineering. I certainly hope she makes another appearance in Book 7.



I'm not quite sure what you're saying here. Are you saying the "average" woman raising her children, holding her family together, with a backbone as well as being a well-rounded person couldn't possibly reflect Molly Weasley? Come over to my neighbor's house some time -- she is all of those things and so much like Mrs. Weasley the neighborhood kids call her "Mollywobbles". As for an Umbridge -- look no further than the female Democrat running for President..... My own personal opinion of course. And in all honesty, the women you listed by name are more of the exception than the rule, aren't they. The "average" women tends to fit more into the traditional role rather than the feminist ideal -- and many truly are content to be that way. I know I'd rather be home raising my children, cooking meals and cleaning house than be out in the workforce challenging the stereotypes and the "glass ceiling" while I pay someone else to raise my babies. It's in my nature to nurture.

I think the original concepts of feminism are correct and modern feminists can get downright crazy. To totally abandon the traditional roles of motherhood and nurturing homemaker is to invite disaster. We need our mothers and we need them to BE mothers. The women in these books are not subservient, they are strong and equal in strength and character to their male counterparts. Do they hold the same jobs? Not always. Do they have to be the same to be equal? No.

Final point -- these female characters are written as seen through the eyes of a young man. Ginny's hair, prancing and other such physical details are noted because HARRY notices them. We see and connect with the people Harry sees and connects with the WAY he sees and connects with them. Harry notices how beautiful Fleur is and so we are told how beautiful Fleur is, Harry is treated as a son by Molly and so sees her as a motherly figure, so we see her as motherly etc... Harry is not going to see or feel or think of these people and events in a feminist mindset and to expect JK to write it that way would have been ridiculous and unrealistic.

wow my first post in the great hall and it's on one of the topics i love to discuss the most.

first off Westerly *hi5* you have a way of expressing yourself that made me get all worked up.



i don't think anybody is saying that these women have to be robots, but if you realize, the majority of the these womens lives revolve around what the males in their life want or need. i agree that many of jk's characters are very stereotypical but i think it's most notorious in the women. i haven't read of one character that doesn't swoon over a guy. even bellatrix is in love with the dark lord. i think the only one who is relatively close was luna. i think she redeemed herself in DH. she's the closest thing we have to a strong female character. think of every single female character's world revolves around men. i think that's awfully sad because as important as men are, it's vital that women have their own goals and ambitions.


.
i agree darron, stereotypes are used for both the men and the women but they are more notorious for women. example, tonks is an auror right? well remus turned her into the practical stay at home mommy. he didn't let her come and fight (even though she's the trained auror not him). she had to ask her husband to let her come fight. she of course disobeyed the order but the fact is that many of the women in hp always have to ask for permission from the males to do something. it's absurd to say the least.



being a mother is a great thing! i'm sure anyone who is a mother can't think of anything more rewarding. but i think that just because you're a mother doesn't mean that you can't have dreams and have goals other than motherhood. just count how many aurors are women in the books or how many female death eaters there are.

I believe that this discussion is one of the hardest, not only because it is a controversial topic, but also because the female members of the Duelling Club (I'm not excluding myself) want to protest against masculine dominance.

As it is pointed out from the very first moment, the world of magicians is a man's world. The two or three main characters are men, and the real fight is between men. Our character is "the boy who lived". Women seem more like a support to men's work than being truly independent themselves.

Let's examine the first woman in the series. It is Harry's aunt, Petunia. Petunia is the total stereotype of a woman of the middle upper class. She stays at home to raise her son and she has no interests but to gossip her neighbours. She doesn't seem to have her own opinion and very little are the cases where she disobeyed her husband.

The other Muggle woman we meet, is Marge, Vernon's sister. Marge is another stereotype of the non-married woman, who is crazy about her pets, who drinks and acts almost like a man, trying to show the world that she doesn't need a man, when her most beloved dog is male.

These stereotypes can also be applied to the magical world as well.

Professor McGonagall for example: she is inferior to Dumbledore and no matter how wise she is, she always plays a secondary role. The only time I recall her standing up against someone is when she attacks verbally against Umbridge who is a woman as well.

Umbridge is a very high member of the Ministry of Magic, who however, is attached to a man, to Fudge.

This can go on endlessly. Most of the women seem to be inferior to men, and the only two women I can think of being independent from guys, are Luna and Trelloni.

Both of them live in their own world where nothing matters. I think that they are the only females not attached to a man or to the power exerted by a man, and they are the ones who are thought to be crazy.

I don't want to support that JKR is a non-feminist or believes that women can not be as good as men, but I strongly believe that in her books, women play a secondary role compared to men. They might be stronger, more clever, patient but men are the ones who rule in the end.

Women are mothers, wives, friends,lovers but they are never better than men. Even Bellatrix, who could be the best example of a woman fighting against every stereotype, proved to be in love with Voldemort. In love with his power and glory. Doesn't this take away some or most of the power she had before we found that out?

However, I think I should end this by adding this: Women may seem inferior to men, but they exert undeniable charm and force to them. Let's not forget about Lily who stayed in Snape's heart and mind till the moment he died, or about Ginny who caused so stress to Harry, or Hermione who had always been stronger than Ron and made him fall for her.

This topic has so many aspects to cover. I hope that my little post managed to demonstrate one of them.

I can't say that I entirely agree with this. Yes, men do seem to be in the forefront in the series, but that's to be expected since it was created with Harry being the main character (and LV being the main villan). Everything is seen through his eyes and experiences.

But I don't think "love" makes the women less strong or secondary. One of JKR's central themes is love so it's going to crop up a lot. I mean Harry, Ron, Lupin, etc all fell in love, but that didn't make them secondary in the series. Love is just part of the story.

A good example of a strong woman in the series, even though she does succumb to love, is Hermione. Look how many times she saved Harry and Ron's life. I can't see her as being secondary, unless you considered everyone secondary except Harry (because the story is about him). She saves them in SS with Devil's Snare; she saves Harry in DH at Godric's Hollow with Nagini. Those are just two examples off the top of my head. I know she's done loads more.

Yes, the majority of the main women seem to have a man at some point or another, but it doesn't make them any less powerful or less important.


Yes, she was attached to Fudge in HBP, but she wasn't attached to anyone in DH. She's just plain evil, though.

EDIT:
Another thought occurred to me during my reread of DH. Now, this is strictly my personal opinion, but in DH, Narcissa appears to be the dominating person of the two Malfoy's-Narcissa and Lucius. In this situation, I see Narcissa as "above" Lucius in the dominating field. He seems to be the one "attached" to her.

At the beginning in Malfoy manner, LV asks Lucius for his wand. It wasn't until Narcissa laid her hand on him and squeezed that he relinquished it to him. This just seems like an act of a person who is in control.

Also, in the "Death Scene", after Harry has come back, Narcissa is the one that approaches Harry. She takes control by lieing to LV about Harry's situation. Had Lucius been the one to check, I doubt that things would have turned out the same. It took more strength and courage to do what she did than telling LV the truth. This one act alone tells me she is a very strong character for women. Granted, she was looking out for her son, but that doesn't lessen things in my eyes.

This makes me think of something else. Why should the main character be a guy? Or, why should the most terrifying wizards be men? (Both Voldemort and Grinenwald) Or, why should Harry's mentor be a man?
I wonder if the story would have had a different impact on people if it revolved around female main characters. Would that take something away from the magic of the books?



Yes, but why should women be the ones to look weak because of love?



You have a point there about Narcissa, but I can't help but think that everything she did was led by her motherly instincts, her love for her son, a feeling that no man could ever have. It is the same feeling that led Lilly to sacrifise herself to save Harry and create this shield around him that Voldemort could not break until he had a part of his blood. Sure, these women stood up against someone who was superior to them, but still, it was their feminine side that made them do so. I'm not saying that JKR should ignore all the basic elements that make a woman what she is, but I feel that she made them look weak or at least, more weak than men.

Well, I guess that's where we differ. It seems that you view this love, whatever it stems from, as a weakness where I see the women drawing strength from it. For example, in DH, when Bellatrix shot the Killing Curse at Ginny, look what Molly Weasley did. She got out there and defeated Bellatrix which was something that not even a man could do (look at Sirius ). Had her daughter not been attacked, it's hard to say whether or not that duel would have turned out the same.

And if the HP series had revolved around more main female characters, I'm sure it would have been a completely different story. But I don't think it would have lost its magic because of it. That's my opinion, though.

I believe that Sirius could have done it as well, but his arrogance was the fatal mistake that led to his death. But this is a whole other topic.

The reason why I think JKR had this fight between Molly and Bellatrix was the need to have something, a fight, very emotional, very strong, close to the end of the book. It was the difference between a woman who loves and a woman who is selfish.

And yes, maybe this is our difference. Though I don't consider love as a weakness in general. This would be depreciative of women, of myself and of everything nice in this world. I simply believe that in HP series, love is both strong and weak. On one hand, we have Dumbledore who considered love the greatest weapon a man owns, and on the other hand, we have Voldemort who was alienated from emotions.

However, I don't want to generalise. There were a few women who were good examples of feminine power, like Hermione you mentioned before.

I've read through this thread and I fail to see why if a woman shows any emotion (love, compassion, mother-instincts, jealousy, etc) that she is weak? Isn't this a natural part of our being? Men and Women, males and females are DIFFERENT... emotionally, physically, mentally. Our brains and our bodies work differently and we need to embrace that. I tend to think that men and women complement each other, that we each fill different roles.

When I say that we fill different roles and complement each other, I mean it. I'm sure most of you have heard of "men are from mars, women are from venus" ? Well, in my marriage I think my husband and I take on the opposite roles! I am more of a "martian" and my husband is more "venusian"! I will retreat into my "cave", i don't like to discuss my feelings, I tend to want to solve all the problems rather than just need to vent, I am less patient with our kids than he is. My husband is more nurturing, he is the one that says "we need to talk", he's a great cook... and I prefer him to do so. However, I am a stay-at-home mom because I prefer that role. I'd rather raise my kids and be here for them than pay someone to do that. I'd love to get back into the work force, but I'll wait until they are all in school before I do that. My husband has the stereotypical role of breadwinner, but he will be the first to tell you that I am the CEO of this family and he is merely middle management From the outside looking in, we look like a "leave it to beaver" or "father knows best" family, but if you look at us for what we are, we have a very equal relationship. I don't ask his permission to do anything, but I will ask if it's ok to do something because I think it's important for us to decide things together. How inconsiderate would it be for me to say "I'm going out with friends on friday, so make sure you're here to watch our kids" ? Of course I'm going to make sure it's ok with him. What if he is also making plans for Friday? Shouldn't we see what kind of compromise can be made? He asks me if it's ok to play golf during the week. He's normally at work then, so how or why would this matter to me? It's just common decency. He looks at it from my point... I'm at home taking care of the house and kids and he's going out to play! I'll admit sometimes I get jealous of that, but if I ever need time to myself he steps in and it's all good! But I digress (quite a bit)...

I think the majority of women in the HP series are very strong. I wouldn't mess with McGonnagall if you paid me. I hear in these posts that McGonnagall is too strong, that she gave up the possibility of a family for a life as teaching at Hogwarts; then I hear she's too weak since she is second to Dumbledore. Same with Umbridge and Hermione and Ginny and Molly and Tonks. All strong women in their own rights, but so many of you seem to think they are weak for the one reason that they support or seem subservant to a man?! What's wrong with supporting a man? All the men in HP that these women support turn around and support these women just the same.

Notice i did not include Bellatrix here. She is strong, but blinded. On the surface she appears to be an ideal feminist. However, once you look at her relationship with LV it screams "abuse", and not just from the Crutiatus Curse . The way she blindly supports LV, will do anything for him, craves his approval... she changes her life for him. This is like abused women in our world! So many of them appear strong, independent, self-assured, but if you read between the lines, or just step back and watch, you will see that they live their lives solely for their abuser. I was in an emotionally abusive relationship once and I did change everything about myself to please this guy. I am NOT like that, and luckily I had family and friends to get me to see what was going on. I am VERY independent (a Leo!) and am surprised that could have happened to me.

But it was a good thing in the long run because I learned to rely on myself and to trust myself, which brings me to my final point (aren't you happy). I think true feminists are women who DO like themselves, who can trust themselves, who don't lose themselves when they get into a relationship, who can "stand on their own 2 feet". All these attributes apply to the majority of the women in the HP series. Even though these women may be involved with and love the men in their lives, they are still their own person!

OK, I'll stop for now.
Kathleen

While browsing through the topics, I had this idea stuck in my head. It's been a while since I last read Harry Potter, but I think I'm right at this. It seems to me that every woman who has a successful career doesn't have a family, and the ones who do have a family don't work.

Molly has big family but she doesn't work. McGonagall is a teacher, but she was never married. The same goes for Trelawney (though I doubt it she could ever get married), Umbridge, Sprout etc. This doesn't apply to most men. Malfoy is both a successful businessman (well...you know) and he has a family. Arthur manages to get a very good post and he has seven kids. And yes, there are some who never got married, like Severus or Sirius. But I still think that a woman in HP series can not be both a successful career woman and a mother and wife.

What do you think about that? Could this be pre-designed? Wouldn't this be a modern stereotype people (men) have for women?

Very interesting observation, alkisti. I guess if you don't want to be psychoanalyzed, then you shouldn't write a book!

I don't think this is a male stereotype for women, that women are just "relegated" to housework and child-rearing. In other words it may be a stereotype, but I don't think it's just men that hold it, which is strongly supported by JK Rowling's non-maleness.

I don't think she purposefully made it so that no "successful" (success is in the eye of the beholder, right? I think Molly is the most successful woman in series--there's no woman I like better than Molly, anyways.)...anyways as I was saying, I don't think she purposefully made it so that no "successful" women in the series had children, but rather that's just how things worked out.

I think if she had thought about the fact that there were no working mothers in the series that she would have inserted one. She might be able to do just that if she would just answer one of my nagging questions for the past several books, which is what was Harry's parents occupation?

Define "successful". Would raising seven children while actively fighting evil in an anti-Voldemort society be considered successful? I'd say so.

Besides, there have been 'successful' women in the series who have had families as well. Lily had a husband, baby, and defied the Dark Lord three times while fighting his movement. Amelia Bones was a successful witch in the Ministry, mother to Susan Bones, but was later killed.



See there are successful women in the series who had families-- they just died.