JKR prone to old preconceptions about females?

[darrin_burnett]

No: HPFGUIDX 41085

Claudia wrote:

<snip the excellent examples>
> 
> So I wonder why JKR doesn't achieve such a depth in her female 
> characters. I really don't understand this discrepancy - and maybe 
> this is what truly bothers me: Not so much the lack of female 
> characters itself but that I can't understand the reason for it. 
I'd 
> expect a male author to describe females in such a conservative way 
> by adding fuel to a couple of old preconceptions and role-models - 
> but never a female, though...
> 
> Any thoughts on the topic?
> 


I'm not going to dispute that some of the stereotypes about women are 
used in the books, and I do think some of it can be explained -- at 
least with the children -- as the age group we're dealing with. 
Remember, this is a time when boys and girls are exploring their 
roles. Hermione has been fascinating to watch for their slow but sure 
transformation from "one of the boys" to a young woman who expresses 
her feelings and frustrations differently than Harry and Ron. 

I expect Ginny to make a similar transformation. Parvati, Padma and 
Lavender are background characters, and frankly, they are necessary 
foils for us to watch Harry and Ron go through THEIR transformations. 
Fleur really serves this same role -- so far -- but with a bigger 
part. I would expect no more developed characters from Parvy, Paddy 
and Lavvy than I would Dean Thomas or Justin Finch-Feeley.

I will try to counter your examples with a couple of my own.

Quidditch. Notice that Slytherin -- the villains of the school -- has 
no girls on the Quidditch team while Gryffndor has three and 
Ravenclaw has a girl playing Seeker, the most important position. We 
don't know about Hufflepuff to any real extent. To me, that's a 
statement about the enlightenment of the "good" houses versus 
the "bad" house.

Lily herself. It is her strength, although I suppose the notion of 
motherhood being the strongest power a woman possesses might not sit 
well with feminists, that really starts this whole story in motion.

Voldermort makes a pretty chauvinist statement, "Stand aside, you 
silly girl," and then he gets his head handed to him because of 
Lily's strength.

You know, in writing this, I realize that I am talking about concepts 
and ideas in the books and you are talking about characters. 

The problem, as I see it, with the characters, is that except for 
Hermione, who I think is more developed than you give her credit, 
there aren't many female characters in crucial positions to get this 
development.

The Marauders are necessarily all-male. Why necessary? Only the kind 
of free time together that comes with being in the same dorm would, 
in my opinion, be conducive to learning Animagic.

The Weasley clan is mostly male. Why JKR chose this is interesting. 
Perhaps she knows a family that kept having kids until they had a 
girl -- which could be what Arthur and Molly did -- and worked them 
in. Having so many older brothers is a major part of Ron's ambitions, 
so that is necessary.

As for the female professors and traditional roles... rumor is that 
we'll be getting a female DADA teacher next book. But I think it's 
interesting that the second in command and head of what could be 
considered the most important house is a woman.

AND... speaking of houses, two women were founders at a time when 
Muggle women were certainly not given such rights.  

Now, female characters that bear some examination in the upcoming 
books as potential better roles:

Olympe Maxime. She seems to have mastered her giantess tendencies 
where Hagrid gives in to his. Something is there.

Ginny. Something important is happening with this little girl.

Molly Weasley. This woman might be the strongest in the books. She is 
the matriarch of a clan of mostly men and she rules the house pretty 
well, it seems. I realize feminism sometimes looks askance at the 
skills it takes to run a household, and a school of feminist thought -
- not THE school, but a school -- somehow thinks this is less worthy 
than running a corporation, but the achievement is no less 
significant.

Darrin
-- Two things:

1) Hope I come out of this relatively unflamed
2) Parvy, Paddy and Lavvy really would suck as a name for a band