sexism and division of labor

[judyserenity]

David said that some readers might see biases on JKR's work even if 
there were none, and gave as an example:

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


I haven't been following the sexism thread on the main list, but I 
remember a past discussion on this topic.  It's quite possible that I 
was the person who made the "female Irish chasers aren't evidence 
against sexism" comment, although I haven't checked to make sure.  In 
case it *was* me, let me say that I think the real disagreement may 
be about the definition of sexism. 

Sometimes, sexism is equated with jobs being assigned on the basis of 
gender, with women excluded from some occupations, and generally, men 
excluded from other occupations.  If that's the definition of sexism, 
then the Wizarding World isn't sexist.  There doesn't seem to be any 
jobs that are forbidden to women (or men.)  And, the fact that some 
of the Quidditch World Cup players are female is evidence against a 
gender-based division of labor in the Wizarding World, whether the 
female players are mentioned prominently or not.  So, if one 
defines "sexism" as "having a gender-based division of labor", then 
the female Irish chasers are evidence that the Wizarding World isn't 
sexist.  

However, I see gender-based divisions of labor as pretty much 
irrelevant to sexism.  To show what I mean, here is an example taken 
from another story marketed to children, Disney's Jungle Book movie.  
Mowgli sees a girl of his own age getting water from a stream.  The 
girl sings, "Father's in the forest hunting, mother's cooking in the 
home, I must go to fetch the water, 'till the day that I am grown.... 
When I'm grown... I will have a handsome husband, and a daughter of 
my own; I'll send her to fetch the water; I'll be cooking in the 
home."  (This is from memory, so it may not be exact.)  My sister 
felt this scene was quite sexist, and worried that it set a bad 
example for her children.  I didn't see this as sexist at all, which 
upset her.  My feeling was "Why is dividing labor on the basis of 
gender sexist *per se*?" 

Maybe at this point I need to explain why I see division of labor as 
irrelevant to sexism.  I'm not convinced that there ever 
were "matriarchal utopias" in the human past, but there is no 
question that women wielded considerable power in, say, some of the 
Native American societies that existed in the past.  The interesting 
thing is that these societies often had a rigid gender-based division 
of labor.  The reason women had power in these societies was that the 
societies were matrilocal  -- that is, a husband would move in with 
his wife's extended family.  So, even if only men could be the 
warriors and hunters, women still had enormous protection against 
spousal abuse, had a major support system in place if their husbands 
abandoned them, etc.  The division of labor had little or no effect 
on how well women were treated.

I feel that "equal opportunity" in the workplace is neither necessary 
nor sufficient for a non-sexist society.  Since I don't feel that the 
division of labor is all that relevant to whether a society is sexist 
or not, I don't see the gender make-up of the Quidditch teams as 
relevant to whether the Wizarding World is sexist.

Anyway, whether the Wizarding World is sexist is a different question 
from whether JKR is sexist.  An author might portray a very sexist 
(or racist) society as a way of drawing attention to the problem of 
sexism (or racism.) Portraying a sexist society doesn't necessary 
mean that the *author* is sexist. 

I don't see JKR as sexist, and I don't really see combating sexism as 
an important goal for JKR's books -- they are primarily intended as 
entertainment.  But, *if* the books had combating sexism as their 
goal, I'd say the most important thing would be to feature female 
characters, especially girls, prominently.  This would send a message 
that females matter as much as males, and would provide characters 
with whom girls reading the books could identify. 

I'd say that the JKR books are something of a disappointment when it 
comes to featuring female characters, particular considering that JKR 
is female and has a daughter.  (This doesn't *obligate* her to write 
about girls, but it gives her a personal stake in literature that 
benefits girls.) I recently read somewhere (I can't remember if it 
was on HPfGU or not) that a lot of girls find JKR's young female 
characters hard to identify with.  Many girls see Hermione as too 
self-righteous and overcontrolled; many of the other young female 
characters (Myrtle, Pansy, Fleur) are unsympathetic. This may be why 
so many readers hope Ginny may be fleshed out more in future books 
(or write stories themselves that flesh out Ginny's character.) 

So, the female chasers may serve as evidence that women can have a 
variety of jobs in the Wizarding World, but I don't see that as 
relevant to sexism.  I'd define a non-sexist society as one where the 
needs and desires of both genders are given equal weight.  If one 
accepts that definition of sexism, and if it's really the case that 
the JKR books meet the needs of boys better than the needs of girls 
(which I can't say for sure), then the JKR books could be called 
sexist.  (I still wouldn't call them that myself, because I think 
that "sexism" is a strong word that should be used sparingly.)

-- Judy