JKR prone to old preconceptions about females?

[dina_aka_nicky]

No: HPFGUIDX 41094

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "darrin_burnett" <bard7696 at a...> wrote:

Hi,

> 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. 

I agree to a certain extent. While it's definitely important to 
slowly separate the undefined Gryffindor bunch into adolescent boys 
and girls, and maybe even exaggerate this separation by using 
stereotypes I still think that JKR overdid that a little. It's one 
thing to show that girls have different interests (Parvati, Lavender) 
but a wholly different thing to have them fail all the time when it's 
really important.

> Quidditch. Notice that Slytherin -- the villains of the school -- 
has 
> no girls on the Quidditch team while Gryffndor has three 

Well, but I don't think that this is because they think women are 
inferior (well, they do think so) but in this instance they prefer 
physical strength and the ability to throw the opponent off of their 
broom to actually winning by tactical finesse. And I think we can 
agree on the fact that boys fit better into a physically imposing 
team than girls...

>To me, that's a 
> statement about the enlightenment of the "good" houses versus 
> the "bad" house.

I think it's rather a question about which means you use to achieve 
your goal, not a question of having girls in a team per se.

> 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.

I agree with you that Lily's sacrificing herself showed much strength 
on her part. But as you said yourself, I'd rather expect a mother to 
do that when she finds herself and her child in such a situation. 
Such an act would have even more impact on it when Lily somehow knew 
from the beginning (perhaps from a prophecy) that she'll have to meet 
this fate. Going through with having a baby, knowing in advance that 
she herself is going to die... Now that would add indefinitely to her 
character. (And I really hope we are going to learn more about her!!)

> 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.

Yes, I know I was a little harsh on Hermione... *g*

But *why* aren't many females in those crucial positions you speak of?

> The Marauders are necessarily all-male.

*g* I wouldn't have them any other way! But that still doesn't answer 
the question why there's no mention of Lily's friends...

> 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.

But so far McGonagall only followed Dumbledore's orders - she didn't 
have to take action once so far.

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

Agreed. But again those 2 houses aren't the important ones.

> Ginny. Something important is happening with this little girl.

I really hope so. Having Riddle control her mind has to have left 
some traces...

> Molly Weasley. This woman might be the strongest in the books.

Definitely. That's why I didn't mention her in my examples even 
though she fulfills the female stereotype of being a housewife and 
mother. And she's the closest to a mother-figure Harry has, IMO a 
very important thing seeing how love-deprived Harry had to grow up.

Claudia