Logic and math of sexism (was Males are just as silly as females)

[darrin_burnett]

No: HPFGUIDX 41283

Amy Z wrote:


> Specific examples in and of themselves are useless
> either in arguing that JKR deals with female
> characters badly or well.  Details are important, but
> it is a big-picture argument.  Saying "She isn't
> sexist--look at Hermione!" is like saying "Women have
> just as much control over world affairs as men--look
> at Thatcher!"  "Women make just as much money as
> men--look at Oprah!"  Likewise, the fact that Lavender
> is silly means nothing in isolation.  
> 
> The fact is that if you list all the characters who
> are important to the books, you will find that they
> are overwhelmingly male.  The presence of Molly,
> Hermione, and McGonagall on the list does not change
> this fact.  Darn, I posted so eloquently on this once,
> but it was about a year ago and I just can't face The
> Search Engine That Must Not Be Named today.


OK, so the main characters are, so far, overwhelmingly male.

First, let us determine the most female characters, and by important, 
I mean the ones who drive the story to its next point.

Start with Hermione, Molly and McGonagall

Rita Skeeter: Responsible for major plot points in GoF
Moaning Myrtle: The key clue-giver in CoS and has a similar role in 
GoF, with the bathtub scene
Lily Potter: Arguably the person who started the story, by 
sacrificing herself for Harry. 
Trelawney: Again, a clue giver in PoA.
Pomfrey: In any adventure, the healer is important
Ginny: Another major plot point in CoS

Now, this list, and it isn't complete, because I could argue for Cho 
Chang as being a spur to Harry's growth, and Fleur, who obviously 
represents sexuality, does pale in comparison to the men.

But I guess my question is, is this necessarily sexist?

Simply having more male important characters than female isn't 
sexist, unless you want to implement a literature quota. 

So, let's look at positions of power. 

It is true the Ministry is sexist, but the ministry is not exactly 
representative of the ideal society, is it? 

The Headmaster of Hogwarts is male, but two of the four heads of 
houses -- Sprout and McGonagall -- are female and the second-in-
command is female. 

Blinns, Hagrid, Snape, Flitwick and the continuous DADAs are male 
(for now), but McGonagall, Sprout, Hooch, Sinistra, Vector and 
Trelawney are female, so, of the teachers we know -- Muggle Studies 
and Ancient Runes are as yet unknown -- there are more women than men.

The friend-relationships are by far overwhelmingly male, but again, 
what did you expect? This is the story, so far, of an 11-14 year-old 
boy who apparently doesn't go through puberty until age 13. OF COURSE 
his defining friendships, and therefore the story, will be mostly 
male-bonding type ones.

Frankly, it is a touch unrealistic that he is so close to Hermione. 
Boys 11-13 are hardly ever just chaste friends with girls. This is 
borne out, I would think, by the cliques around the HRH trio. 
Lavender, Padma and Parvati have their own little girly group and 
Dean, Neville and Seamus have their own group. Even older students 
have this. Angelina, Katie and Alicia have a little group, as do 
Fred, George and Lee Jordan. Sure, the HRH cross paths with them from 
time to time, but the only mixed-gender group of close friends is HRH.

So, perhaps instead of being sexist, the books actually depict a 
healthy relationship between boys and girls, one that has some 
undertones of hormonal feelings, but so far has been entirely chaste?

So, I take the "details versus big picture" argument a step further 
and say that the entire notion of "There are more male characters -- 
the book is sexist" is flawed.

Darrin