Does JKR's portrayal of woment combat sexism?

[judyserenity]

Pippin said:
> 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. 

No, no, we have a misunderstanding here.  I don't see the Harry Potter
books as sexist, or anti-feminist, or whatever we're calling it.

My feeling is: 

1) The Harry Potter series would have been a great opportunity to
combat sexism (of either the "mistreatment of women" or the "unequal
division of labor" type), given that the story is so involving, has so
many fans, etc.  

2) It appears, possible, or even likely, that JKR was hoping to combat
sexism.  She made half the founders of Hogwarts female, half the
current Heads of Houses female, and half of the rest of the Hogwart's
staff female. (She says in an interview that the staff is exactly
50/50.  See
http://radio.cbc.ca/programs/thismorning/sites/boo
ks/rowling_001023.html
)  She also threw in a few female Ministers of Magic in the past, and
a couple of female QWC players, etc.

Given that JKR could have combated sexism, and perhaps wanted to do
so, I find it unfortunate that the books don't do a better job of
combating sexism. But I don't see them as *causing* sexism, or as
being sexist. I mean, if someone wrote an essay on global warming, and
didn't mention women at all, that wouldn't combat sexism.  But it
wouldn't cause it, either.  I don't subscribe to the idea that "if
you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem."  I don't
see the Harry Potter books as part of the problem of sexism at all. I
just don't think they are very effective at being part of the
solution.

****Additional Explanation****

Maybe the confusion is this: I've said a lot (a *whole* lot) on this
topic. Perhaps that makes me appear to have strong feelings about
sexism, or lack thereof, in the Harry Potter books. I actually *don't*
see the portrayal of women as a big issue, either way, for the Harry
Potter books.  Yeah, it would have been nice if the books did all the
things I think are important in combating sexism, but not everything
can combat sexism. It's OK if the books just encourage children to
read, or are just plain fun without also fixing society's problems.  

So, if I don't care all that much whether the Harry Potter books
combat sexism or not, then why I am writing so much on this topic?
Basically, because I have a strong interest in sexism, including the
issue of gender role socialization. So, the general question "What
sort of fictional portrayals of women are effective at combating
sexism?" is *very* interesting to me.  My interest on this topic
concerns combating sexism in general, rather than sexism (or lack of
it) in the JKR books.

**** End Additional Explanation**** 



So, Pippin, I don't think we disagree on the question of "Are JKR's
books sexist?"  I don't see them as sexist (and I take it that you
don't either.) 

We might disagree about what sort of portrayals are best for combating
sexism.  I feel that it isn't enough to just have a passing mention of
a woman in a particular role (say, Minister of Magic.) In order for a
character to have much of an impact on attitudes or behavior, the
reader must think deeply about the character, and preferably identify
with the character. Now, in theory, it is possible to think deeply
about a character even if that character isn't emphasized in the book
(think of the Avery discussion on the main list), but as a practical
matter, most readers focus on the major characters, and don't spend
much time thinking about the minor characters. (Otherwise, they
wouldn't need a book at all; they could make up their own characters.)

So, if JKR wanted to inspire girls to run for political office, she
would need a well-developed female politician as a character, not just
a passing mention of one. If JKR wanted to encourage readers (male or
female) to think more positively of women, the best thing would be to
have lots of well-developed, sympathetic female characters. I feel
that she has only two (Hermione and Molly Weasley), which is far less
than she could have had.
    

Amy said, on the topic of fictional portrayals of women:
> Whoopi Goldberg wanted to be on Star Trek (and got her wish, the
lucky duck) because when she was eight years old she saw Nichelle
Nichols on the bridge of the Enterprise and went running through the
house screaming about how there was a black woman on TV who wasn't a
maid. It changed her life. <

I can definitely see that happening; thanks, Amy for the example. (By
the way, it's interesting that Whoopi became an actress, not an
astronaut. So, she emulated the real-life woman that she was watching,
not the fictional role that the woman was playing.)  

Observant Star Trek fans may point out that Lt. Uhura (Nichols'
character) was a lot less well-developed than, say, Spock.  (Although
she was much better developed than, say Mafalda Hopkirk.)  So, if
Uhura wasn't all that well developed a character, and Nichols wasn't
on the screen all that much, why did she have such an influence on
Whoopi Goldberg?

I think the key thing is that this was the very *first* time Whoopi
had seen a Black woman in such a role. Even if the character is minor,
I think seeing a Black woman (or whomever) in a role for the first
time can have an effect. It expands one's horizons of what is possible
for that group in general, even if it doesn't necessarily change one's
view of oneself. (Presumably, young Whoopi was already looking for
something she could do other than be a maid.) 

So, if the Harry Potter books had been written in, say, 1950, then I
think passing mentions of women as Ministers of Magic might have had
an effect.  But they weren't; they were written in the 1990's. Girls
have already heard mention of women in a wide variety of roles. In
JKR's own country, the most powerful Prime Minister in decades was a
woman, not to mention that the monarch for the past 50 years has been
a woman.  So, what will a passing mention of a female Minister of
Magic do to convince girls that women can be leaders, that the
real-life examples of Margaret Thatcher and the Queen don't do? 
(Yeah, I realize that *American* girls may have never heard of the
Iron Lady, but I'm not sure they think of "Minister" as meaning the
head of a government, either.) 

Of course, one might say that this is a nit-picky point -- JKR's books
would have been useful in combating sexism if they had been written 50
years ago, but don't have much effect now.  And, when it comes to
critiquing the books, this *is* a minor point.  But, for someone like
me who cares a lot about sexism, "What's the best way to combat sexism
right now?" is a major question. 


Pippin said:
> The problem is not in the Potterverse but in ourselves, if we  
> think that the nurturers are less worthy than the warriors.

Well, I'm not sure if this point was supposed to apply to me or not. 
But if it was, I'd like to note that just a few responses up on this
thread, I was being accused of *only* seeing nurturers as worthy. (See
post 11378.)
 

David said that in addition to a difference in group versus individual
focus: 
> There is another important difference between Judy and Cindy, IMO,
which is that Judy is a pessimist and Cindy an optimist<

I think that is probably true.  But, it's not *just* that I fear
salaries will fall once women enter certain fields, leaving the women
no better off financially than before. It's also that I worry that
problems such as violence against women are very prevalent, so I put a
much higher priority on these issues than on, say, having satisfying
work. 

I'm not sure if people here are familiar with Abraham Maslow's
hierarchy of needs. Basically, Maslow said that people must satisfy
basic needs (food, shelter, safety) before they become concerned with
"higher order" needs such as companionship or prestige. Maslow put
having a fulfilling occupation (self-actualization) as the pinnacle of
his pyramid of needs, which means he saw it as the one that got filled
*last*.  One can quibble with the exact order in which he placed the
various needs, but I think his basic principle holds. People who are
worried about filling basic needs such as food or safety won't worry
whether the work they do is satisfying or not. My belief is that a lot
of women *don't* have their basic needs filled, so I worry much more
about violence against women than I do about women having fulfilling
work. Perhaps my view of the number of women still struggling to meet
their basic needs is more pessimistic that Cindy's or Amy's views. 

Ok, one more quick point about Pippin's post:
Piipin suggested the term "anti-feminist" for mistreatment of women. 
The problem with this term is that it already has a specific meaning,
referring to activists (especially female ones) who oppose the
feminist movement. So, if people who want sexism to mean "gender
discrimination in the workplace" won't relinquish their claim on the
term "sexism", I guess I'll have to share it with them.  ;-)

 

Since I've written a ton, I will now give the
***Reader's Digest Condensed Version**** 
of my beliefs.

I don't think the JKR books are sexist.  But I don't think they combat
sexism much, either.

I think JKR did a great job with portraying a mother positively (Molly
Weasley), but her other adult characters lack detail. 

I think having women in positions of power is useful for preventing
mistreatment of women. I don't think having women in male-dominated,
non-political positions such as plumber or truck driver is
particularly helpful for preventing mistreatment of women. This is
partly because I fear salaries in these fields will decline following
the entrance of women into these fields.

Adolescents can be influenced in their career choices by portrayals
that they read, however, the portrayal must be substantial, enough for
the reader to actually care about the character. A passing mention
won't do. Also, I suspect the more realistic the occupation, the more
likely it is to have an influence on actual career choice.  Even an
unrealistic occupation might influence self-image, however. 

I think positive portrayals of women helps prevent mistreatment of
women, both by encouraging people in general to see women as valuable,
and by encouraging women to stand up for themselves. Again, the
portrayal must be substantial, not just a passing mention. For young
girls, positive portrayals of mothers may be particularly important. I
don't think positive portrayals of mothers pressure girls (or women)
to be mothers, nor do I think positive portrayals influence them to
avoid having a career.


Ok, I am now going camping until Sunday. That means I will finally
stop posting on this topic for a while.  Have a nice week, everybody!

-- Judy