One reporter reacts to JKR's revelations

[sistermagpie]

> Katie wrote:
> > Well, I did [think that homosexuality is less
> > controversial than witchcraft]. Until recently.
>
> Del replies:
> I guess you fell for the false impression that most
> people don't have any problem with homosexuality.
> The truth is, though, that most people who do have
> a problem with homosexuality won't SAY so in public,
> most of the time, because they don't want to be
> verbally attacked, ridiculed, or even slandered. So
> they keep their opinions to themselves, and only
> expose them anonymously and/or in private.
This all
> gives an overall impression that most people don't
> have a problem with homosexuality, when in fact
> quite a lot of people do, but don't say so. I think
> you'd be surprised to realise just how many people
> around you, in your real life, only pretend to go
> along with your opinions.

Magpie:
Actually, I would suggest that the "outing" of Dumbledore proves
differently. There are many people all over the place who have no
problem saying they have a problem with homosexuality. I'm not
denying saying that can be met with being verbally attacked,
ridiculed or slandered, just as any opinion can do that. It depends
on what group you're in what opinion is going to be controversial.
But I don't think we've entered a world yet where it's swung so far
the other way that having a problem with gay people is in most
places something you'd have to hide. I, personally, have never
gotten the impression that "most people don't have a problem with
homosexuality." Most of my friends don't, and my family doesn't, but
that's my friends and people I know. This whole discussion on the
list has included plenty of people openly stating or heavily
implying they or others have a problem with it.

I mean, why would JKR be afraid to out Dumbledore in the book (which
many think she was) in a world where people have to hide their
problems with it? The huge reaction to her revelation seems to me to
suggest that opposite, that for some people it was controversial for
her to make the character gay. (I do agree that she could have
easily put gay people into the books as easily as she did bi-racial
couples etc.)

Tonks:
Susan:>
> Yes, Magpie, good point...it's okay if a cowardly, prissy,
pompous, unethical Lockhart is gay...or if a old fat admirer of
Riddle Slytherin is gay....THAT jives with people's stereotypical
view of gay men...but for the bravest and best wizard in the world
to be gay?

Tonks:
I just want to point out that what you have just said above is also,
what was the word we are not going to use? The B word. You are
implying here that someone who is old, or over weight is seen as
less that human. Slughorn, in your eyes, isn’t 'good enough' to be
the gay one. You are saying that someone like Lockhart who is
cautious, and cares about their appearance, is prissy and cowardly.
Do you see my point? No one is without some prejudges against some
group or other. The problem for me in all of this bickering back and
forth is that truth gets lost. Whoever is not like US, is
‘them’. We
are all discriminated against one way or another. Like it or not, it
seems to be a fact of life. I wish it were not so, but it is what it
is.

Magpie:
I think that's a bit of a dodge. The point is that someone said
that "they could see" Lockhart or Slughorn being gay, that it would
be okay for those characters to be outed. It's an obvious question
to ask what these characters have that make them okay to be gay
where Dumbledore isn't. She didn't say those characters
weren't "good enough" she questioned why those characters are okay
to be gay in ways Dumbledore isn't. Perhaps we're wrong in thinking
it's that they conform to a stereotype, but it seemed the most
obvious reason. Some people fit the stereotype and that's fine, but
the point is why must it be a problem to have someone who doesn't
fit the stereotype.

Lockhart and Slughorn are morally inferior characters as per canon.
Both of them are marked as being outside the circle of heroes, so
anybody saying they're not as good as someone else would have a case
there in canon. Neville is early on also described as being a bit
pudgy (and looked down on for that) and he's a crybaby, but he's
also a kickass hero. Slughorn and Lockhart are not admirable while
Neville is.

As for being fat and prissy being a bad thing--it seems like if one
had a problem with that one would have a hard time with HP. I've
been made very uncomfortable by the fat jokes in canon and being
prissy isn't a good thing in this universe either.

Tonks:
It has been a learning experience for me to discover, here on this
list, that for the younger people in our society, who do not
remember the way things use to be, that it is apparently is a whole
different world out there. Or maybe all of you are just from New
York. ;-)

Magpie:
I believe that in US society at least (we're not all from the same
society) that is a trend, that gay people are not as big a deal for
younger generations as they are for older ones. I don't mind saying
I like this particular trend and think it would be great if in a few
generations the furor over gay people marrying goes the same way as
interracial marriages and is no longer something people associate
with people marrying animals or something that destroys the world. I
do find it kind of interesting to hear references to the 1950s for
instance as being a time when gay people didn't exist when of course
they did, and before that too.

Hope:
He was never unreasonable, without a good excuse anyway, and
he was always one that Harry or any student at Hogwarts could go to
with any
problem that they had, and he'd give his words of advice.

Magpie:
Err...no he wasn't. Harry was about the only student who ever saw
the guy. And that was because he was pulling strings as part of his
plan.

Btw, I really like Mike's distinction about the reactions to the 
subject. There is a difference between a belief and what you are, I 
think.

-m (from NYC--which I assume is what you mean--yes, and happy about
it;-)