Gender discussion: An original thought! Alert the media!

[Amanda Lewanski]

No: HPFGUIDX 15098

I had what seemed to me a profound insight into the whole gender thing.
I wasn't sure if anyone has made this distinction before, and I
apologize if it's been said, but I don't often get original insights and
I tend to run with them when they come. Also, much groveling in Penny's
direction if this belongs on Chatter (salaam, salaam), but I thought it
ws relevant.

Re: female characters (or any characters) defined by their relationship
to men in the books.

Something about the knee-jerk objections to this sort of "definition"
bothered me. I quite often am perfectly happy to be defined by my
relationship to someone else (my wedding day springs to mind as an
outstanding public statement of this). Every time I am introduced as "my
wife, Amanda," or "Mom," I am allowing myself to be defined by my
relationship to someone else. Every one of us lives in a web of
relationships and is occasionally seen by others as a component of
someone else. So I don't think personal definition via a relationship
with someone else is a bad thing on the face of it. The danger, and the
grounds for objection, and the loss of dignity as a person whatever
gender, seems to me to arise in how one defines oneself. If one's
self-definition is based on a relationship with another, *then* you have
problems.

Okay. So we have been discussing that most of the female characters
we've seen in the books are defined by a relationship with a man.
However, none of these female characters seems to define *themselves*
that way (or they don't act like they do; they act like strong
individuals). I would agree that there was a sex bias in the books if we
had been confronted with any variety of Stepford wife, the sort who, in
her own mind, thinks first and foremost "I'm X's wife" before her own
name. But we have not seen much of that at all.

In fact, there are only two characters in the whole series that I can
think of whose selfhood or internal value, in their own mind, is derived
from a relationship with someone else. And the most blatant one is not a
woman. It is Peter Pettigrew. He apparently has discarded any inner
strength he had, and exists, not only to Voldemort but to himself, as a
tool of another. His portrayal by JKR is not flattering.

Only one other character even remotely can be seen as self-defining in
terms of another--Lily Potter. From what little we've heard of her, she
did have her own mind and self-identity, but her final choice was to
define herself as Harry's mother, and die for him. *Her* choice to
define herself this way was a product of her inner strength. And her
portrayal by JKR is heroic.

At the moment, we *are* largely limited to Harry's point of view and his
interpretation of other characters. This does not equal those other
characters' views of themselves. I think this series is about
personalities and choices, and I further think that Dumbledore's comment
about "It is our choices, rather than our abilities" must be interpreted
to extend to gender itself. A man in the series chose out of weakness to
define himself, to himself, exclusively by another, and he has little,
if any, self-image or honor left. A woman in the series chose out of
strength to define herself by another, and her sacrifice has been the
"edge" which may bring victory to the side of good.

I think JKR's balance is just fine.

--Amanda, back to housecleaning now