[HPFGU-OTChatter] Does JKR's portrayal of woment combat sexism?

[Jennifer Boggess Ramon]

At 4:05 PM +0000 7/20/02, judyserenity wrote:
>
>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.

Lovely.  What about those women and girls who are reading the books 
who are infertile, such as myself?  To establish the entire worth of 
a female character in her childbearing and nurturing abilities is 
hardly encouraging to us!  And no woman spends her entire lifetime as 
a childbearer, even if she remains a mother; we all become crones 
sooner or later.  We need our Minerva McGonagalls in there, in 
support of non-maternal roles, as well.  Otherwise, we could end up 
modelling a society that cherishes women as long as they're fertile - 
and discards tehm the moment they're not.

>Thinking of oneself
>as valuable and capable is more important than seeing particular
>careers as appropriate for women.

Except that you are associating Molly with a career, or at least a 
lifeswork - you're positioning her as a career mother and caregiver. 
That simply isn't a lifeswork open to all women.  It is a 
traditionally female role, yes - and when it was pretty much the only 
one open to women, those of us who were not suited to it suffered 
even more than the average woman.  I would not want us to return to 
that.

>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.)

You have very carefully omitted McGonagall, Sprout, Hooch, and the 
other female teachers.  Of those, one (Trelawney) is portrayed as 
unappealing, and the others are - well - there.  In our culture, 
teacher is a traditionally female role, as well - one that happens to 
be open to those of us who cannot or should not bear children.  Is 
there a reason you are choosing to devalue that role?

>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.

Or, equally likely IMHO, give up fatalistically - "oh, how awful, but 
there's nothing I can do about it."  That seems to be the reaction to 
sexism of most non-feminist women I know personally.  We Hermiones 
are fairly rare (and probably way over-represented on a HP fanlist).

>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.

I don't think _any_ person, boy or girl, would take Bertha as an 
example of anything.  Moreover, if it were clear that a good half of 
the MoM was female, no one would have any reason for doing so.  It is 
only if Bertha is a *token*, and clearly hired only because she 
outdid all the other male applicants in her group, that this makes 
any sense at all.  And that's certainly not the impression I get.

>Sure, the
>effect here is likely to be small, because kids are often interested
>in sports anyway.

Really?  Girls being interested in sports is a fairly rare phenomenon 
here - none of the local high schools have girls' football teams 
(meaning US-style football, with the helmets and all).

>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.

Why?  Obviously girls see women's traditional roles as important - 
they benefit from many of them directly (mothers, grandmothers, and 
teachers, especially).  The problem is that adult males, and to a 
lesser degree adult females, don't.  If anyone, it's the boys we 
should be targeting here - which is largely what JKR seems to do with 
Molly.  She makes her important, and more specifically makes her 
maternal an nurturing role important, to Harry, and hopefully through 
him the young male reader who identifies with him.

She also lets us see a mentoring relationship between a young girl, 
Hermione, and an older, successful woman, McGonagall.  I wish we saw 
more of it, but it's Harry's story, and by definition such a 
relationship wouldn't be too freely shared with the male students.


>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.

In fact, Arthur Weasley is depicted as rather hopeless as a 
disciplinarian.  Do you see that as reinforcing Molly's power in the 
household, or as Arthur abdicating his responsibility towards his 
children?  I'll admit, I saw it as the latter.


-- 
  - Boggles, aka J. C. B. Ramon			boggles at earthlink.net
=== Personal Growth Geek Code v0.4 ===
GG++ !T A-- M++s--- g+ B- C- P++++ a- b- h+ her++ E+ N n++ i f+
c++ S%++++&&># D R++ xc++ xm+ xi+ yd++ ys++(-) rt+ ro+ rp++++ rjk<+
ow+++ ofn+ oft++ op++ esk-- ey+ ek+++ pl++ pf++ pe++ U!