Reader sexism

[davewitley]

On the main list, Laura Ingalls Huntley wrote:

>Well, what I really meant to say -- and this may not be much better 
in your eyes -- is that...*tries to think of how to word this 
correctly* That by some of the standards some people have used (and, 
really, I didn't have any specific listies in mind here -- although I 
did have quite a number of specific articles that I've read -- I wish 
I had them so that I could put some references in here) to make 
statements like "JKR is sexist" (paraphrasing here) -- by those same 
standards one could also say that *they* must be sexist.   *pauses* 
I'm not sure exactly how to say it so that it would make sense, 
except to say that my goal wasn't to prove that any listies or the 
writers of these articles *were* sexist. 

I would like to try to express what I believe can happen, and I also 
think may be what Laura was expressing.

I think it is possible as a reader to have an unconscious sexist (or 
racist, or any other -ist) bias in our 'instinctive' reading of the 
text.  When we then draw together our readings (often in a way that 
is also unconscious and leads to that 'big picture' that Amy 
mentioned springing into our minds seemingly out of nowhere) we then 
draw conclusions which reflect those instinctive readings, and 
consciously observe those conclusions to have a tinge of sexism about 
them.  We then may go one step further and decide that we think that 
the books themselves betray sexist assumptions, or convey a sexist 
worldview.

We may then end up criticising the author for something that we 
ourselves have inserted by our interpretive processes into the text.

I will try to give a couple of examples.  First, a bad example:  
suppose we are conditioned to believe that in boarding school stories 
any female teacher is a figure of fun or peripheral in some way.  We 
may then decide, every time we come across a female teacher, that she 
is an unimportant character, or one designed to illustrate the folly 
of a woman trying to do a man's job.

At the end of our reading, we may then say 'How sexist!  All the 
important teachers and all the positive role models are male!'

This is a bad example not only because I doubt any HPFGU member is so 
extreme, but also because a good author has many means at her 
disposal to signal which characters are important, and it is a very 
dull reader who does not absorb these and refine his reading 
accordingly.

The second example - I tread on thinner ice here - is a real one, but 
fortunately I have forgotten who most of the posters were.  It 
concerns the Quidditch world cup, and it was a thread that occurred 
soon after the turn of the year.

It was being suggested, IIRC, that the description of the world cup 
is to a degree sexist because the most prominent person in the action 
is Viktor Krum (and IIRC because he is idolised by the crowd - though 
that speaks potentially to their sexism , not JKR's. But I must try 
to avoid canon points here).  Pippin (I remember that much) pointed 
out that in point of fact the match was won by the female Irish 
chasers, to which the riposte was (again IIRC) that that doesn't 
count because, well, they didn't count because they weren't prominent 
in the narrative!

Against such an argument there is no real recourse.  If crucial 
elements drop out of your gestalt impression when you read, then you 
will never be convinced that the picture is balanced.  (I should 
hasten to add here that I do agree with Amy's main list assessment of 
Hogwarts.)

So, I think that it is possible for criticisms of JKR's works to 
arise from essentially circular arguments.

And, if you were to back me up against a wall and wave Cindy's Big 
Paddle at me, I would say that, yes, it happens on HPFGU too.

Not that that means that HPFGU members are sexist, or racist, or 
whatever.  But it may at times mean that they are, well, just a 
little gullible.

You may of course think that that is a *worse* accusation than sexism 
or racism.

David