Does JKR's portrayal of woment combat sexism?

[cindysphynx]

You know, I think we're really getting down to it, and there's a 
fair chance that there isn't much disagreement among the 
participants of this thread after all.  

Let's find out, shall we?  ;-)

Judy:

>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. 

<snip> 

>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. 

OK, then.  We all want to see thoroughly developed female characters 
in a variety of roles.  I suspect everyone would object to having 
*all* of the female characters be throw-away, unimportant 
characters.  That's progress, that's progress.

That leaves the question of whether "token" female characters (that 
is, female characters who are just there, not doing anything 
notable -- placeholders, if you will) are harmful or helpful in a 
work that already has thoroughly developed female characters.  The 
Helga Hugglepuffs, the Mafalda Hopkirks, the Madame Maximes, I 
guess.  

You know, my feeling is that I do not have a problem with "token" 
female characters under these circumstances, and their presence 
doesn't tick me off.  The reason is that books have major characters 
and minor characters.  If the major characters already consist of 
reasonable and satisfying characterizations of a reasonable number 
of women, then it can't *possibly* be harmful for some of the minor 
characters to be women.  Wouldn't it be rather strange to say that 
only men can occupy the role of minor characters?

That suggests to me that the problem with HP so far is *not* the 
presence of token women characters.  It is the lack of thoroughly 
developed and important female characters, IMHO.  

> Hmm, I'm not convinced that girls necessarily view the maternal 
>role positively.  I certainly didn't while I was growing up. 

It does seem reasonable that some girls may not view the maternal 
role positively.  As you say, this can vary depending on a girl's 
own family situation.  Fair enough.

What I don't understand is what JKR is supposed to do about this.  I 
really don't follow you here at all.  If a girl has a father who is 
hostile to the women in the girl's life, I fail to see how dozens of 
Molly Weasley characters will change the girl's perception of the 
maternal role at all.  In fact, I would imagine that such a girl 
would be comforted by the fact that she is not constrained to 
fulfilling the maternal role herself if she chooses not to, and she 
might well identify with and take some small measure of comfort in 
female fictional characters who fulfill non-traditional roles.

I wrote:

>I guess I can't get behind the idea that depicting a strong 
>homemaker is likely to encourage girls to see themselves as 
>exerting influence and enjoying success in some other domain that 
>is not the home -- such as in the business world. Similarly, I 
>can't see how depicting an especially competent black basketball 
>player is likely to help black children envision themselves as 
>chemists. 


Judy replied:
 
> 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. 

No, I was driving at something else there.  If a girl identifies 
with her mother, and if she is presented with a fictional character 
who is a strong and capable mother, this might encourage the girl to 
believe that she could emmulate her own mother's success in that 
area.  This doesn't strike me as particularly controversial.

My objection, however, was to the idea that a strong fictional 
mother will encourage a young girl to think she can "change the 
world" or that she can enjoy success in a traditionally male role.  
I think strong fictional mothers might suggest to girls that they 
can be strong mothers, not strong doctors, lawyers, plumbers, etc.

The point of tossing black basketball players into the equation was 
to make that point -- that you won't encourage a child to become a 
chemist by innundating him or her with images of basketball players, 
regardless of the occupations of the child's parents or how strongly 
the child identifies with his or her parents.

Judy:

>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. 

I certainly agree that if our goal is to encourage young girls to 
follow in the footsteps of their own mothers and occupy 
traditionally female roles, then you are quite correct.  If our goal 
is to bolster the self-esteem of young girls so that they will take 
pride in becoming mothers, then you do have a point.

I just don't think that should be our goal.  Many generations of 
women have been raised to believe that they ought to aspire to 
becoming first-rate homemakers and mothers.  I really don't see that 
we need to push young girls further in that direction.  It has 
already been done.

I think it is far more important to encourage young girls to "think 
outside the box" -- to imagine themselves as influential in 
government, influential in business, or accomplished in whatever 
field they choose.  It is precisely because girls may well *not* 
have women in their lives who have entered male-dominated 
professions or enjoyed career success that it becomes important to 
make them aware that these things *are* possible.  Granted, 
fictional characters aren't the only influence or even the strongest 
influence to help girls recognize that these male-dominated roles 
might be for them, but it is surely better than nothing.

>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. 

If the goal is bolster a girl's comfort level with the idea of 
devoting herself to having and raising a family, then you are 
correct.  

But here's a very serious question:  Why do you believe that women 
need a self-esteem boost in this direction?  Maybe this sounds a bit 
harsh, but if a woman lacks the self-confidence and self-esteem to 
have and raise a family absent societal efforts to convince her of 
the value of these choices, I'd have to wonder if she has the 
maturity to embark on this path at all.  Maybe she should wait to 
pursue motherhood until she is feeling more secure about things.

<Cindy pauses to consider just how controversial that last statement 
might be, but leaves it in anyway, figuring she can always retract 
it and slink away if it doesn't go over very well  ;-)>

>And, I think the role of mother
> should be held in higher regard in our society than it currently 
is. 

I'm just not sure about this.  I think women should become mothers 
for one reason only:  because they deeply and genuinely wish to have 
children.  I don't see how society or women are better off by 
additional efforts to hold motherhood in higher regard than it 
already is.  

Maybe I just don't have a clear idea of what you mean by "higher 
regard" for the role of mother.  I mean, we already have 
discrimination laws on the books to protect women from 
discrimination while pregnant, and we have federal laws like the 
Family and Medical Leave Act to provide child care leave.  I could 
list several other laws and measures to assist mothers (child 
support laws, for instance).  Can you provide some examples of what 
you are advocating that you think would enhance society's regard for 
motherhood?  

I'm having trouble understanding the argument, I think.  Maybe the 
problem is that I really don't see why a mother is entitled 
to "higher regard" in society than a woman who chooses not to have 
children or cannot have children.  Or a man who chooses to be a 
father, for that matter.  I just don't get it.

Cindy