[HPforGrownups] Re: Logic and math of sexism (was Males are just as silly as females)

[Laura Ingalls Huntley]

No: HPFGUIDX 41304

First off, to Jenny from Ravenclaw, Cindy, and anyone else who was offended by my last post:  I'm sorry.  Reading back over it, I realize I didn't exactly come off the way I meant to.  I'm a bit of an idiot sometimes and I hope you'll all forgive me.  I think I've mentioned this before, but I sort of have this problem where when *I* think we're having a nice, peppy debate, most other people think I'm biting their heads off.  It's not intentional and I hope no one's feelings were terribly hurt by it.

That said, I just want to clarify some of the more offensive things I said earlier.

I said:
> It really alarms me the way people here can be so dead-set on one thing that they take little pieces of canon that support their views and completely disregard the rest of it.  I mean, I know I'm not innocent of it *at all*...but, esp. with this "is JKR sexist" debate -- to me, it seems like people just latch on to bits of the book where female characters behave "badly" and are blind to the fact that there are just as many male characters acting just as foolishly.  So, what? To me, this suggests that the *readers* more readily forgive Colin, Neville, Justin, and Ron (think about all the inane theories and prejudices this one's come up with) for being silly/immature/etc. because they are male, but if Lavender or Pavarti do the same thing, WATCH OUT.  What's even more disturbing is that nearly all of the people I see doing this (on this list and off) *are* female.  So who's sexist?>

Cindy replied:
>Gee, to my ears, it sounds like you're taking issue with 
>some of your *fellow list members* on a personal level 
>rather than simply disagreeing with their *views.*  In fact, 
>if I read this correctly, you've come straight out and said 
>that the women on the list who disagree with you are 
>"sexist."

No, that's definitely not what I meant.  *thinks* It sure sounds like it though, doesn't it? Huh.  *turns a bit red*  Well, what I really meant to say -- and this may not be much better in your eyes -- is that...*tries to think of how to word this correctly* That by some of the standards some people have used (and, really, I didn't have any specific listies in mind here -- although I did have quite a number of specific articles that I've read -- I wish I had them so that I could put some references in here) to make statements like "JKR is sexist" (paraphrasing here) -- by those same standards one could also say that *they* must be sexist.  *pauses* I'm not sure exactly how to say it so that it would make sense, except to say that my goal wasn't to prove that any listies or the writers of these articles *were* sexist. In fact, my whole point sort of rested on the absurdity of the statement that these people might be sexist.  Also, to say that I was calling people sexist in that paragraph is pretty much also accusing me of calling *myself* sexist (given the paragraph - or two? - after it)...which I don't think I meant to do.  I mean, I admit I'm an idiot...but I don't think I'm *that* bad. ^_~ 


Cindy:
>Remember the Dean Thomas thread from a few weeks back?  
>IIRC, no one called another list member "racist" or 
>denounced another list member as "dead-set" in their beliefs 
>just because we were having a disagreement.  Which is as it 
>should be.

Well, I'm probably projecting myself onto other people a bit then (sorry). I do the things I was talking about in that paragraph all the time.  Most of the time when I'm trying to argue a point, I only remember off the top of my head the bits of canonical evidence that *support* what I say and I don't think to research my claims to find any counter-examples.  So when Pico Iyers says that, "And it is the female students who are easily taken in by the most palpably ridiculous teachers: Gilderoy Lockhart..." (when Hermione and Justin were the only students that I'm aware of that ever said anything good about the man) or Porphyria says that, "It is *also* only female students who are taken in by the palpably ridiculous Trelawney" (when this isn't really the case), I guess I just I assume that they're doing what I do and getting a little to close to the issue.  Which isn't really an excuse, I guess, because I believe that assuming things about people is just as bad as insulting them.

*sighs* so I'm a hypocrite *and* an idiot.

Jenny from Ravenclaw:
>Two female characters I like very much are Fleur and Cho.  I don't see 
>Fleur as vain as much as I see her as tough and probably wary of all 
>the attention she gets from men.  Even when she does not turn on her 
>Veela charms, boys' heads turn when she walks by.  It must be 
>frustrating for her that people are only interested in her for the way 
>she looks.  We see her emotional side when she claims to deserve a 
>zero for her second task performance and her eagerness to see her 
>sister safely on shore.  She is also very gracious to Harry from the 
>second task on.  I like her and look forward to seeing how her 
>character will be developed next.

I agree with you about both Fleur and Cho (more on Cho later).  I like Fleur a lot, I just can't help it.  Although I was a little miffed when she dismissed Harry as a "little boy".  Personally, I feel she was a little gypped in the Triwizard tournament.  If there was a part of any of the books that I thought was a little sexist, I'd say it was the fact that Fleur, the only female champion, did the poorest in he tasks.  I think that JKR was trying to illustrate that...actually, I have no idea what she was going for there. But it doesn't really seem fair, does it? 

Anyway, I think Fleur *is* probably a little vain, but can you really blame her?  Other than that, she's proud and graceful and brave and she very obviously loves her little sister.  It's not her fault that boys insist on making fools of themselves around her. ^_^

As for Cho, I don't particularly want her with Harry, but I've got a lot of respect for the girl.  Anyone her age that is capable of withstanding peer pressure is pretty spectacular in my book.

In closing I just wanted to say that I don't take issue with the fact that the ratio of male to female characters is markedly uneven.  I don't even mind when females like Pavarti and Lavender are criticized -- personally, I can't stand them.  What bothers me is when people take Pavarti and Lavender (or Trelawney or Rita) and say that, based on these examples, JKR *in general* portrays females as silly/stupid/etc. (as opposed to the way she portrays males).  And that is what I thought I saw going on.

Of course, I could be entirely wrong -- you probably don't have to take my word for it, but trust me, it happens all the time.  *half-smile* Please also trust me when I say that I never *mean* to hurt anyone, ever, and I really am pretty open-minded, although I tend to argue like I think my view's the only one in the universe.  It's a bad habit, and I'm working on it.  


laura


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]