Logic and Math of Sexism (WAS Article)

[dicentra63]

No: HPFGUIDX 41339

Cindy, who hopes this doesn't make her sexist, wrote:

> Personally, I think JKR hasn't done much to develop very many female 
> characters.  This could be by design or an oversight.  She just 
> might be more accomplished at writing male characters than female 
> characters.  I find this aspect of the books to be less than 
> satisfying for me personally, and I hope that it changes in future 
> books.  
> 

It interests me to know why you find the relative paucity of developed
female characters to be "less than satisfying," (not just Cindy but
all the other listies who have expressed similar dismay at the
decidedly uneven male-to-female ratio).  Do you see it as a sign that
the goal of female equality is not being met?  Does it feel like JKR
is falling back on old, "patriarchal" patterns of writing fiction?  Is
JKR setting a bad example for girls?  Or do you just prefer reading
about female characters?  More important, are you looking at who runs
things in the WW or are you looking at who gets more page time?

Cindy implies that it's page time, so I'll address that: Why do males
get more page time than females (and they do)?

I'm fairly sure I heard JKR express exasperation in an interview over
her least favorite question from fans and reporters: "Why aren't there
more strong female characters?"  Her answer is that she's telling
Harry's story, so she does what has to be done to accomplish *that*
goal and none other.

Fair enough.  So why would telling Harry's story result in such an
imbalance?  (All of the points I'm going to make have been made on
this list in the past, but they always bear repeating.)  

First, Harry's female schoolmates come across as one-dimensional
because for pre-adolescent boys like Harry, they *are*
one-dimensional, if they're on the radar at all.  Parvati and Lavender
might actually be deeper than we know, but all Harry notices is their
giggling.  Furthermore, Harry's not going to go out of his way to
include girls in his circle of friends, nor is he going to have any
insights about those he knows.  He likes Hermione, but he certainly
doesn't understand her.  Witness the scene in GoF when Ron and Harry
finally make up.  Hermione bursts into tears, hugs them both, and runs
off bawling.  "Barking mad," Ron observes.  There's no reason to
believe Harry has any more insight into the situation than Ron does.

Second, part of the story JKR is telling deals with Harry's growth
from boy to man.  Boys usually have their fathers as role models, but
Harry's father is absent, so the fictional world handily presents
Harry with a gamut of model fathers from which to choose: Dumbledore,
the wise old man; Snape, the strict, mean father; Uncle Vernon, the
anti-father; Sirius and Lupin, ideal fathers that are just out of
reach; Voldemort, Harry's potential dark side.  It is common in
literature to fragment a single role into several people.  Keeping in
mind their function in Harry's psychological development, could you
swap out any of these men for a woman?

Furthermore, if Harry had been Harriet, I'm sure McGonagall and the
other female professors would figure much more prominently than they
do now.  Take Hermione, for example.  Who would we name as her primary
mentor?  McGonagall, of course.  Trelawny would also figure in as a
negative example, and other female professors would have enlarged roles.

Third, you can't help but notice the "Hero's Journey" archetype that
informs much of the series' action.  In the Hero's Journey, the young
man leaves home (and his mother, by extension) and searches for The
Father.  Along the way there's the wise old man who gives him advice
and/or a talisman, and the women he meets are either soothsayers that
help him along or temptresses.  He often does find a woman worthy of
him at the end, and once he's found The Father he has also acheived
maturity.  Again, as in the second point, Harry is on the road to
manhood, and all these father archetypes are helping him in one way or
another to become a man. Even Snape.

I suppose you can stand back and notice who is in power in the WW: the
MoM, the Headmaster, etc.  But is this "male dominance" a result of
suppressing females or is it just the way things happen to be at this
juncture?  We don't hear anyone imply that witches are less capable
than wizards, nor do we know how many females have been Hogwarts
Headmasters or Ministers of Magic in the past.  It is noteworthy that
two of Hogwarts' founders were female, and what's-his-face's
observation notwithstanding, Ravenclaw and Hufflepuff aren't exactly
turning out losers: Cedric was the Hogwarts champion, after all, and
Ravenclaw came in second in PS/SS in the House Cup before Dumbledore
added the last-minute points.  I doubt that a Headmistress at Hogwarts
is unheard of, and a female Minister of Magic might be fairly normal,
for all we know.

As a last point, I have to side with Jai Marie: these fictional
characters have universal qualities.  I never cared if the main
characters in the books I read were male or female--I just wanted a
good read.  And I never, *ever* have believed that being female made
me less intelligent, less capable, or less important than men, even if
most of the books I read did carry an implicit male bias (this was the
late 60s/early 70s).

So to get back to the question: do you think that the imbalance
between male and female characters constitutes a failing in the books?
 Are you afraid girl readers are going to wonder if they're important
after reading HP?  And given that Harry's going to have normal
hormones, do you think he'll start to see girls as more than
one-dimensional?  (All too many real-life men don't, even after
they've grown up.) :D

--Dicentra, who thinks the male/female ratio is a non-issue in the end