Does JKR's portrayal of woment combat sexism?

[judyserenity]

Cindy, Amy, Naama, and Jennifer made lots of interesting points,
including many about women's issues in the real world.  I'm going to
start with the points about the JKR books, though, because I think I'm
given some misimpressions of what I believe in regards to the books. 


I said, "One Molly Weasley is worth 100 nameless female Quidditch
players"

Jennifer Boggess Ramon replied:
> 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.<

I think that childless women are going to have to look elsewhere for
positive childless female characters to identify with, because JKR
didn't do a good job of providing any in her books.  I agree that
McGonagall comes closest, but as you say later in your post, she's
still a bit skimpy. 

And Cindy asked:
> Are you saying you want to see more Molly Weasley homemaker
characters, or are you saying that there ought to be women in
non-traditional roles who *are* better developed? I'd much prefer the
latter, myself.<

I'd prefer the latter, too, Cindy. We already have Molly Weasley, but
the books completely lack well-developed female characters in
non-traditional roles and could really use one or more. 

I seem to have given the perception that I'm opposed to portrayals of
women in non-maternal roles.  I'm not, in fact, I wish JKR had
included more of them.  My complaint is that most of her female
characters are way less interesting and substantial than her male
characters.  Molly Weasley is the only adult women that I see as a
truly three-dimensional character.  Even McGonagall, the next-best
developed adult female character, really has a limited range of
behaviors and emotions.  (McGonagall is portrayed as ranging from
angry to stern-but-helpful, whereas Molly is sometimes sad, sometimes
joking, sometimes angry, sometimes worried, sometimes affectionate,
etc.) 

It's true that I welcome positive portrayals of mothers.  This is
because 1) I think there are not enough positive portrayals of mothers
in our society and 2) I think most girls tend to identify with their
own mothers, and hence, with the maternal role. (I suspect that very
few young girls think of themselves as infertile, regardless of their
actual biological state.) Therefore, I think positive portrayals of
mothers are good for girls' self-esteem, even for the self-esteem of
girls who eventually grow up to be childless.  But, I'd also love some
meaty, in-depth female characters in non-maternal roles.  It's the
token "Helga Hufflepuff" types who tick me off. 

Cindy said:
> I also sense that you're setting up a comparison between Molly on
the one hand and contrived and token mentions of women on the other
hand, and then going on to say that the portrayal of Molly is better.
I don't think anyone is arguing, however, that token mentions of women
are what the books need. That's why I don't find the argument
especially compelling.<

I don't think *I'm* setting up this comparison; I think that is how
JKR wrote the female characters. Given that those are the only choices
in the books, I'll go for the well-developed female character, whether
she's in a traditional role or not.  And, perhaps no one on this list
was saying that JKR's token references were what girls needed, but
that is definitely how I interpreted some of the comments on the main
list. So, I was saying why I don't agree with the view that token
characters help. 

Jennifer Boggess Ramon didn't think girls need characters like Molly
Weasley, saying:
>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.<

And Cindy seems to agree, saying:
> Many girls and boys already have role models in their lives
fulfilling the maternal role. And the teacher role. And the nurse
role. Children already know that women can be strong and fulfill those
roles.<

Hmm, I'm not convinced that girls necessarily view the maternal role
positively.  I certainly didn't while I was growing up. My father was
extremely hostile and derogatory towards my grandmothers and my
mother. I picked up a very low opinion of mothers from him, which I
think strongly hurt my view of myself.  I think there's a lot of
devaluing of the maternal role in our society, and that this can
affect kids' views of their mothers, and can also affect some girls'
views of themselves.  I agree with the point that it's also important
for boys and men to view mothers positively, and that characters like
Molly Weasley help them do that. 

Cindy said:
> I can't see how depicting an especially competent black basketball
player is likely to help black children envision themselves as
chemists.<

I'm saying it would only help if the Black child had a parent (of the
same gender) who was a basketball player. The idea here is that kids
identify with their parents (particularly the parent of the same
gender, and particularly for girls.) My claim is that whether society
views the same sex parent's occupation in a positive or a negative
light will affect how the child sees herself. The claim you seem to be
making, Cindy, is that kids identify with all characters that have the
same gender or race as themselves. I think that may be true to some
extent, but I think they identify more with a character that is
similar to their same-sex parent. 

Sure, not all mothers are stay-at-home moms, but almost all do some of
the maternal functions that Molly Weasley does, such as cooking, and
comforting their kids when they are upset.  Not many kids have a
mother who is the head of a government, and none that I know of have a
mother who is a star world-cup soccer player.  So, I think most girls
would identify Molly Weasley (at least partially) with their own
mother, but far fewer would identify a female Minster of Magic with
their mother. Therefore, a positive portrayal of a mother might have
more impact on a girl's opinion of herself than would a positive
portrayal of a female head of government, even if both portrayals were
equally fleshed-out. I imagine this effect would be pretty small, but
then, it's only one set of books; probably the effect will be fairly
small no matter how JKR portrays women. 


Jennifer Boggess Ramon said:
> 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? <

I hope I'm not devaluing the role of teacher, because I teach, too.  
The reason I didn't cite any of the female Hogwarts teachers as
examples of well-developed, substantial female characters is because I
think they're *not* well-developed and substantial.  It has nothing to
do with the fact that they're teachers. 

I seem to somehow have given the impression that I think women should
be denied roles other than wife and mother.  I don't think that at
all.  I think the way JKR portrays women in non-traditional roles is
useless, or worse than useless, in encouraging girls to strive for
those non-traditional roles.  I also think that trying to get women
into roles like professional athlete (that is, traditionally male
roles with no overt political power) does little or nothing to solve
the problems facing women as a group.  And, I think the role of mother
should be held in higher regard in our society than it currently is. 
But, I definitely want roles other than mother to be open to women.
I'm not a mother, and I want *some* sort of role open to me. 



I said:
>>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.<<

And Jennifer Boggess Ramon replied:
> 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....
I don't think _any_ person, boy or girl, would take Bertha as an
example of anything....  <

And Cindy said:
>It sounds like you're assuming that when women meet *complete*
barriers to their participation in a profession, they will respond as
tenacious fighters who will be motivated to succeed in that
profession.<

Well, this actually would be a pretty easy thing to investigate, if
someone works at a school where they can get a substantial number of
girls to participate.  Divide the girls into two groups.  Group A)
reads a story where women aren't allowed to work in government, and
Group B) reads a story where women are allowed to work in government,
but the only one shown doing so is a complete loser. Then, see which
group of girls is more motivated to work in government in the future.
 I'd very confidently guess Group A, but I don't know if this study
has been done, so I don't know if the data is out there. 



Jennifer Boggess Ramon said
>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.<

I don't really see it as either.  I see Arthur and Molly both as good,
loving parents.  I think they've assigned parenting tasks based on
their respective personalities, and do a good job of complementing
each other. 



And Kathryn had an interesting point:
> I know that pretty much all we've seen of Molly so far is Molly
Weasley the mother but I think JKR may be setting her up to be more
than that. From the way Albus was interacting with her I think she's
going to be quite important in the fight against Voldemort <

I'd like that!

-- Judy