logic and math of sexism

[Porphyria]

No: HPFGUIDX 41330

I'm getting back on the issue of whether it's primarily the female 
characters who get 'taken in' by Lockhart and Trelawney. I still think 
that the books portray the female characters as being more susceptible to 
these characters' glitz than the men. Lockhart and Trelawney (especially 
her) have a good act, and by and large we see the females swayed by it.

Regarding Lockhart, Laura said:

> [Justin's] actually the only character to say anything good about him 
> aside from Mrs.
> Weasley (who doesn't know anything about him besides from the one book of 
> his
> that she owned -- and remember his books WERE well-researched and probably
> practically helpful) and Hermione, who I firmly maintain *did* have a 
> physical
> crush on him, but that didn't stop her from using him to get what she 
> needed
> now, did it?

I admit I forgot about Justin. I was hurrying to write that post before I 
left for work and I didn't have time to reread all of CoS before I replied.
  However, I still defend my original point.

I feel it's safe to say that Lockhart-worship is primarily a "witch" 
phenomena. (In fact it seemed primarily a middle-aged witch phenomena, 
which is also a bit troublesome.) Molly has a crush on him, Fred surmises 
that any Lockhart fan is likely a witch, when Harry goes to the bookstore 
the majority of people in line for his autograph are witches. Lockhart is 
bombarded by Valentines at school. I refuse to believe that all these 
witches suddenly developed an interest in defending against Dark Creatures;
  what the text depicts is more like celebrity-worship. Lockhart beguiles 
women with his charm and good looks (and unlike the Veela he does it 
without magic, so his victims are a bit more complicit). I agree that the 
content of Lockhart's books might have been helpful and accurate, but the 
book stresses over and over that his appeal seems to lie more in his 
sparkling portrait on the cover than the words written inside. Molly 
defends Lockhart's knowledge of garden-gnomes, but it's his smiling face 
and her blushing that we see in that scene, and she lets the boys de-gnome 
the garden without consulting the inside of the book. I do find the 
implication that women are more likely to judge the worth of someone 
according to their looks a bit bothersome. The fact that Justin is also 
taken in does not really appease me, especially when both Harry and Ron 
find it patently obvious that he's a jerk but Hermione must struggle to 
see this (and yes, she acquits herself nicely when she cons him out of the 
permission slip). Hermione and Molly are so much more important and 
otherwise sympathetic characters that their (initial) fondness for him is 
much more striking to the reader than Justin's jaunty, offhand approval.

But you know, this wouldn't bother me all too much if it were the only 
example. Lockhart is a comic character; I can take a little comedy. But 
women always seem to be, from the reader's point of view, the most 
palpable dupes.

Laura said about Trelawney:

> She had Ron quite under her thumb for a little while there. Although,
> perhaps this was more about being Anti-Hermione than Pro-Trelawney. But 
> he was
> very adamant that Harry was INDEED going to die because of the Grim 
> Trelawney
> saw in his cup. I should have thought, at least, that the kid would have 
> taken
> Prof. McGonagall's word on the fact that Trelawney was a sham. Harry also
> notes that "she was treated with respect bordering reverence by many of 
> the
> class." 'Many' couldn't possibly refer to just Lavender and Pavarti, 
> could it?

I feel like these cases are still qualitatively different from the sort of 
thing Lavender and Pavarti do. Let's start with Ron: Ron initially 
believes that Trelawney's point about the Grim is valid. Well, that's 
because Ron sincerely believes his uncle died after seeing a Grim; of 
course Trelawney's prediction seems worth listening to when it confirms 
what he already believes. He wasn't 'taken in' by her act, he was simply 
having his initial beliefs confirmed. This makes his belief seem much more 
reasonable and sympathetic. And naturally he was invested in sparring with 
Hermione at the time anyway and thus inclined to disagree with her points.
  In any case, Ron's subsequent skewing of Trelawney and subverting of her 
class and homework was more than enough to acquit him for his initial 
credence.

Laura quotes the scene in which:

> "Lavender Brown seemed to be crying. Parvati had her arm around her and 
> was
> explaining something to Seamus Finnegan and Dean Thomas, who were looking 
> very
> serious."
>
> Which indicates that they took the whole farce..erm, seriously.

Well, the girl was crying because her baby bunny had just died. If I were 
there I would nod seriously too, just out of respect. Of course the rest 
of the class was gathered around paying close attention, this was quite a 
scene.

BTW I do love the way Hermione contests Lavender in her logical, 
hardheaded, stubborn way, but I wouldn't have done it myself. Anyway, Dean 
and Seamus aren't so very reverent of Trelawney that they aren't inclined 
to laugh at Ron's jokes at her expense the following year while Lavender 
and Pavarti are still entranced.

> I think the old bat's got Neville in her thrall as well.
>
> "She says the crystal ball's told her that if I tell you, I'll have a 
> horrible
> accident!" squeaked Neville
>
> And don't tell me that Neville doesn't count because he's *supposed* to be
> laughably silly like that -- because so are Pavarti and Lavender. We're
> supposed to think they're *all* gullible and a little stupid.

It think it is significant -- it changes our perception of things -- that 
Neville is superstitious, nervous and terrified of everything in the first 
place. In CoS he invests in talismans to protect himself from the monster:

"Neville Longbottom bought a large, evil-smelling green onion, a pointed 
purple crystal, and a rotting newt tail before the other Gryffindor boys 
pointed out that he was in no danger; he was a pure-blood, and therefore 
unlikely to be attacked."

So my point is that Neville's not so much seduced by Trelawney as he is 
simply taken advantage of by her. Since we know he's under the thumb of 
his intimidating Gran, plus later we find that he's been traumatized by 
his parents' madness, we find his timidity more poignant. Neville can seem 
silly, but he's also deeply sympathetic. Lavender and Pavarti never get 
moments of pathos like this. We don't find him "gullible and a little 
stupid" in the same way, or for the same reasons. In fact I don't find 
Neville gullible or stupid at all; he's more terrified than anything else.

However, the clincher is that Lavender and Pavarti are the ones who hang 
out with Trelawney during their spare time; they eat lunch in her 
classroom, they sit at the front of the class to be close to her. This is 
qualitatively different than the other students who naturally pay 
attention when they are trying to do well in her class. Lavender and 
Pavarti are depicted as being particularly in her thrall, they are the 
ones who love her, not just try to give her the benefit of the doubt. They 
actively support her, while Dean and Seamus simply listen and nod in a 
passive way. I find the girls' depiction sufficiently different from the 
boys that I at least think it's worth pointing out. It does bother me.

> Also note that the people who react most violently towards her are female.

This I do realize, and I do enjoy both Hermione and McGonagall taking pot 
shots of her. But the boys subvert her in their own way.

> Harry doesn't really like her, b/c she's always predicting his death, but 
> both
> he and Ron tolerate her fairly well.

In GoF Ron can't stop making wisecracks in class and they both make a 
mockery of her subject by faking their homework, which BTW I think is one 
of the funniest parts of the series. And by that point Dean and Seamus 
seem to agree.

> It's Hermione who gets in an argument
> with her on the first day of class, and it's also Hermione who *walks out*
>  on
> her towards the end of the year. It is also apparent that McGonagall 
> loathes
> the woman.

True, I'm not arguing against this. My point was that women seem to be 
more frequently taken in, and this bothers me.

Also, Kel said:

> And also don't forget that EVERYONE was taken in by Crouch/Moody! Yes, 
> even Dumbledore.

I agree that Barty Jr. fooled everyone with a brilliant show, but I don't 
consider this particularly relevant to my argument because *he was acting 
just like the real Moody.* Even Dumbledore didn't suspect him because he 
acted just like the man Dumbledore already knew. This, to me, is different 
from Lockhart, Trelawney who are both somewhat burlesque depictions of 
frauds.

In general I have a problem with the fact that while JKR's male characters 
have flaws, sometimes terrible ones, the are often shown as sympathetic 
despite those flaws. Snape, Sirius, Lupin, Hagrid, Arthur, Ron, and 
Neville and even Harry all have flaws but we *understand* them. They are 
moving flaws. I don't think her female characters get as much of a chance 
(aside from Hermione), especially her morally grey ones. I don't find 
Trelawney sympathetic, but Filch with his love of his cat and his 
frustrated state of Squibhood, I do find sympathetic. We don't sympathize 
with Skeeter that much, whereas I find Karkaroff and even Peter somewhat 
more sympathetic. At least we understand their fear and panic. Women don't 
usually get quite the same complexity.

I understand the arguments that the books are from a young boy's point of 
view, but I just feel that in many other respects that PoA and GoF are 
sufficiently complex books that they'd have room for a more comlicated 
version of gender, and Harry is expected to take on very adult 
responsibilities in many other areas (saving the world and so forth), so I 
still feel justified in saying that the complexity and appeal of the 
female characters lags behind that of the males. That's how I judge, by 
the way. I don't care if there are simply more male characters, or if 
there are more male characters in official positions of power, but I find 
the characterization makes the male characters more complex and 
sympathetic even in their faults, and the females are less well developed.

Laura later said:

> [...When] 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.

I appreciate that you didn't mean to sound quite as harsh as you did at 
the end of your reply to my post and that you've better explained what you 
meant. I only ask that the next time I make a factual error or forget some 
important fact related to my argument, please point it out to me and quote 
the relevant text, but please do not attribute any particular motive to me 
for forgetting about it. I'm only trying to have a discussion, and we all 
need to respect each others different takes on the books. That's why we 
have a discussion group; if we all agreed all the time, there wouldn't be 
much to discuss. :-)

~~Porphyria


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