[HPforGrownups] Gender discussion: An original thought! Alert the media!

[Jen Faulkner]

No: HPFGUIDX 15102

On Sat, 24 Mar 2001, Amanda Lewanski wrote:

> 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.

You're right, Amanda, how one views and defines oneself is certainly a
*very* important factor.  Gender plays only a minor part in that: the
woman who defines herself only in terms of her mother, never developing
an independent personality, never acting in a way her mother would
disapprove of, never developing any other important relationships, is
just as unhealthy as a woman who defines herself solely in terms of her
husband.  Having a life of one's own is key; psychological well-being is
at stake.  (I'm certainly not trying to argue that bonds with/between
women are in any sense 'better' than those with/between men.)

And on the other hand, self-definition completely independent of social
relationships is also unhealthy.  It *is* important to let connections
to others influence your life, in a major way.  Real psychological
problems can/will result otherwise.  Personally, I can/have define(d)
myself as a daughter, sister, friend, lover, student, teacher, leader --
all of those absolutely central and in terms of other people.  And while
most of those central relationships are to other women, some are
not. 

The problem that I have with gender and the HP books is that all of
those important, necessary, defining connections are, for men and women
alike, to men.  That doesn't make any of the characters, male or
female, less strong, but it does seem, to me anyway, to say something
about which sex is more valued (at least by Harry, so far).  Only very
minor characters (Fleur's sister, Hermione's parents) are defined by a
relationship with a female; important characters are defined by their
relationships to important people, and thus far, those are male.  That
doesn't make any of our important female characters less strong,
though.  

Molly, for instance, is a very strong woman.  She keeps her family
together and is absolutely responsible for their well-being.  But from
what we've seen in the books, this other-focusedness is her primary
characteristic.  And 'others before self' is a traditionally feminine
mode of relating to the world.  It's not an issue of strength/weakness,
to my mind, but of traditional and non-traditional roles.  I actually do
think and hope JKR will show us women in more non-traditional roles as
the series progresses, as it seems she's doing in QTA, but as of yet, I
don't think she particularly has.

--jen :)

* * * * * * 
Jen's HP fics:
http://www.eden.rutgers.edu/~jfaulkne/hp.html
Snapeslash listmom: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/snapeslash
Yes, I *am* the Deictrix.