Does JKR's portrayal of woment combat sexism?

[pippin_999]

Judy said:
>>On the topic of what term to use for mistreatment of women, I 
said I'dlike to use the term "sexism" for that, and asked:
>> If there is no term that specifically refers to mistreatment of
women, then won't that problem become invisible? <<

How about "anti-feminism"?  Judy's position, if I understand it,  is 
that JKR's writing might be anti-feminist, ie it works to the 
detriment of  women as a group,  because we don't see any 
witches kicking Dark Side butt. 

Judy feels, if I understand her, that this might lead girls to think 
that it's not their part in life to challenge evil, and this in turn
will make them accepting of  mistreatment and discrimination. 

It's interesting that this does not happen in the Potterverse itself. 
There doesn't seem to be any  discrimination against witches 
with the  exception of the Slytherin Quidditch team, but then 
again, discrimination is the Slytherin way. Witches have been 
Ministers of Magic and Hogwarts Headmistresses, and probably 
will be again.  No one seems to think they are magically weaker 
than wizards, or inferior in any way,  despite the fact that they 
seem to be disadvantaged in magical combat. They do find ways 
to change the world without fighting, such as founding schools.

It would be fun if JKR gave us a warrior princess. 
But even witches can't both die to protect their children and live to 
nurture them.  As  the ultimate power over evil is depicted as the 
sacrifice of one's own life, it is a power denied to those who 
choose to be nurturers, or follow the instincts of nurturers. Is it 
anti-feminist to point that out?

The problem is not in the Potterverse but in ourselves, if we  
think that the nurturers are less worthy than the warriors. It's a 
difficult question, for what have we to offer those who die in our 
defense, except honor?

Pippin