Does JKR's portrayal of woment combat sexism?

[judyserenity]

I made (at least) two points on JKR's portrayal of women. 

The first point was that if JKR wanted to combat sexism and raise the
status of women, she should have had plenty of sympathetic,
interesting female characters, and devoted lots of pages to them
(regardless of whether they were in traditionally female roles or
traditionally male roles.)   A passing reference to some female
Minister of Magic hundreds of years ago doesn't help girls any.   

You can call this the "One Molly Weasley is worth 100 nameless female
Quidditch players" argument.  (OK, the female chasers in the QWC had
names, at least last names, but they were extremely sketchy
characters.)   I think that characters like Molly Weasley show that
women can be strong, that they make things happen, that they count.  I
think reading about Molly Weasley encourages people to see mothers in
a positive light.  Since many girls identify strongly with the
maternal role, and with their own mothers, I think reading about Molly
Weasley helps girls to see themselves in a positive light.

I don't think an offhand reference to some female MoM (minister of
magic, not mother) does anything like this.  There's nothing to
identify with, no character to capture the imagination.  There's just
not enough in these passing references to alter girls' views of
themselves. If the goal is to have girls grow up thinking they can
change the world, I think the character of Molly Weasley's
accomplishes more than all those contrived references to female
witches who had leadership positions in the past.  Thinking of oneself
as valuable and capable is more important than seeing particular
careers as appropriate for women. 

So, if Molly Weasley is so great, why do I think JKR's portrayal of
women could be better?  Well, because there's only one of her.  Of
course, there's Hermione, who is also a strong female character.  But
that's about it for interesting, substantive female characters, in
1500-plus pages.   Against them, there's a whole bunch of unappealing,
one dimensional female characters (Pansy, Petunia, Rita, Bertha,
Myrtle - one hardly knows where to begin.)   

And, then there's my second point, which was that JKR's brief
references to women in traditionally male roles might actually be
harmful to kids' views of women.  This admittedly is speculative, but
I think kids might have gotten a better impression of women in the
Wizarding World if JKR had left out those token references to
successful women in the past.

Why?  Well, let's start with the Hogwarts founders.  Suppose Slytherin
and Gryffindor were the only founders.   What impression would that
give?  Well, probably that the WW (Wizarding World) was pretty sexist
1000 years ago, just like muggle society was, and wouldn't let women
run schools.  In other words, it wouldn't say much about women; if
noticed at all, it would probably be taken as a comment on the sexism
of the WW in the past.

But, JKR didn't write just two founders; she wrote four, two of whom
were women.  The men did a lot -- Slytherin was building his Chamber
of Secrets and training his basilisk, Gryffindor designed the Sorting
Hat and outmaneuvered Slytherin, and they starting the epic conflict
that forms the background of the series. The two female founders, in
contrast, didn't seem to do much of anything.  If readers even really
notice that two of the founders were female (a big if), then the
impression they may get is that women accomplish much less than men,
even when there is no sexism holding women back.

The same problem occurs with those brief references to female
Ministers of Magic in the past.  Assuming readers notice them, they
will think "OK, there's no sexism preventing women from holding posts
in the Ministry of Magic."  But, if there's nothing preventing women
from holding posts in the ministry, why are there so few women working
there during the time frame of the story? I can only recall JKR
mentioning one current "Ministry witch" by name - nosy, dimwitted
Bertha Jorkins.  Bertha's sole role in the story is to be outwitted
and victimized by one male after another - the boy who hexed her,
Crouch Sr., Wormtail, Voldemort.  If JKR had set up the WW so that
women were forbidden to work in the Ministry of Magic, a lot of girls
would probably bristle (Hermione-like) at the unfairness of it all,
and perhaps be motivated to succeed in government as a way of showing
up sexist men.  But, that's not what JKR did.  Instead, she made it
clear that women can work in the Ministry, but then showed us a
complete failure as the only example of a woman (in the current time
frame of the story) who does so.  The (unconscious) impression girls
may get is that women are allowed to work in government, but it's a
disaster when they do. 

Now, consider the Quidditch World Cup.  Suppose JKR's focus on it
makes some American kids notice world cup soccer for the first time,
and they end up considering it very important.  Will this improve the
kids' view of women?  Probably not.  In the real world, (as far as I
know) there hasn't been any female World Cup players.  Sure, the
effect here is likely to be small, because kids are often interested
in sports anyway.  But, if JKR wants to use her books as a way to
raise girls' self-esteem, or motivate them to go out and make a
difference in the world, throwing in a couple of female Quidditch
players will at best have no effect. 

So, those were the points I was trying to make about the role of women
in the JKR books.  I want to make it clear that I like the books
anyway. I really don't see combating sexism as an important goal for
JKR's books.  But, if someone asked me whether the books do a good job
of combating sexism, I'd have to say "No." 


Ok, let me also try to reply to some particular things people here
said:
                                      

I said I was unhappy when stories focused on women achieving in
traditionally male roles, because it makes female roles seem
unimportant: >> "If there is a parallel emphasis on how great it is
for men to take on traditionally female roles, fine. But, that is
almost never the case."<<

AV responded to my statement:  > That's because it's pretty rare in
real life. <

And Cindy responded to my statement:
> Let's say 100% of women used to be nurses, and this traditional
female role was accorded little respect. Now only 50% of women are
nurses, and 50% have moved on to the traditionally male occupation of
doctor. How is there a net effect of a reduction in the respect women
receive? <

And Naama said: 
> I have a bit of a problem with this attitude (which I've encountered
many times) because I think there is a certain naivetee to it....Women
(in western society, at least) have been traditionally denied access
to those roles that carry with them social power."

I think there was a misunderstanding of what I meant here. I was
talking just about the portrayal of men's and women's roles in
fiction, not about the roles they occupy in real life.

AV, Rowling portrays all sorts of things that don't exist at all in
real life, such as dragons, basilisks, magic potions, etc.  If JKR
wanted to show a stay-at-home wizard dad, she could have. 
Cindy, I don't think women's moving into male-dominated roles in real
life reduces the respect women receive.  I just meant that the way JKR
depicts males and females in fiction could do that, in the ways I
discussed above.
Naama, I said quite a bit about trying to get women more power in my
last post.  However, even if you still think that a general attack on
the division of labor is the best way to get women more power, I'd
still say that offhanded comments about female Quidditch players or
female Ministers of Magic isn't helpful.  I think portraying women's
traditional roles as important will do more to raise girls'
self-esteem and inspire them to "take on the male power structure"
than will an occasional mention of a woman playing in (or winning) the
QWC. 
                                                       


I also said: 
>> when it comes to showing (human) men in traditionally female roles
such as primary caregiver,  secretary, nurse, food preparer, etc.,
[JKR] just doesn't do it <<

AV (A. Vulgarweed) said:
>Well, Hagrid is primary caregiver to an array of creatures <

True, that's why I specified human men.  The male house elves do
traditionally female work, too.  But humans (full humans) aren't
depicted doing it. 

And I said: 
 >> the only professional musicians I can remember being mentioned are
females, Celestina Warbuck and the Weird Sisters. <<

And Rita (Catlady_de_los_Angelos) replied:
>At least the lead guitarist for The Weird Sisters is male (and human,
which I had formerly wondered about) and I wouldn't be surprised if
the whole band was male. It's in Quidditch Through the Ages.....<

I missed that.  Thanks, Rita.  (I don't think it affects the
discussion much, though.)

-- Judy