Logic and Math of Sexism (WAS Article)

[elfundeb at aol.com]

No: HPFGUIDX 41346

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

> 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?

I haven't expressed anything on ths topic so far, but I'll offer this since I 
share Cindy's disappointment.  The issue, as I see it, is that the numbers 
*are* emphasized.

It seems to me that there is more than one issue lurking in this thread, and 
that, for me, they all interconnect.  

First, there's the math question.  It would be very sad if novel-writing were 
reduced to a PC numbers game.  There's absolutely no problem that a series 
with a male protagonist, especially an adolescent one, is more heavily 
weighted on the side of male characters than female characters.  That's to be 
expected.

Second, there's the undeniable fact that the female characters are 
intrinsically less interesting as characters; none of them appear outwardly 
to be engaged in the kind of struggles with the effects of their own quirks 
and histories that illuminate male characters such as Snape, Lupin, Sirius, 
or even Hagrid.  Based on the first half of PS/SS, I expected McGonagall to 
have more of a role than she has occupied so far.  That's been disappointing, 
but not offensive.  After all, the protagonist is an adolescent male. 

Third, as you pointed out, the the men are clearly in charge of the political 
side of the WW under the current regime:
> 
> 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.

Surprisingly, I see the equal ratios at Hogwarts as part of the problem.  The 
math favors the male characters.  That's ok.  The current state of affairs at 
the MOM seems also to reflect a bias toward men in powerful roles.  I can 
accept this as well.  This is a wizarding society which displays the warrior 
ethos so proudly, and which is still feudalistic in its enslavement of 
house-elves.  That women are not taking on traditional male roles in the WW 
is something I can accept in the context of wizarding society.

What I find more troublesome is the jarring (to me, anyway) emphasis on the 
equal division of males and females at Hogwarts, that stands in apparent 
contradiction to the above points.  If this is such a patriarchal society, or 
a male-centric book, why emphasize the numbers?

In particular, the fact that the Founders of Hogwarts were 50% female, as are 
the faculty, doesn't seem to square with the picture of wizarding society she 
otherwise is depicting.  And in response to an interview question (CBS, 
October 2000; I'm sorry, I can't do  a link with my antiquated software but 
it's on Aberforth's Goat's search engine) about her depiction of females, JKR 
felt compelled to point out not only the foregoing, but also that there have 
been an equal number of headmasters and headmistresses of Hogwarts throughout 
the years.  (For the record, Fantastic Beasts and QTTA also indicate that 
there has been at least one female Minister of Magic, as both cite to Elfrida 
Clegg who held that post in the 14th century.)  She did hint that there would 
be more happening in future books, and that she couldn't give a full answer, 
but she didn't say what.  I'm rather hoping that there's a plot-driven reason 
for Hogwarts to be so well balanced but career women to be so poorly 
represented elsewhere.  (And I note here that the sole example of a working 
parent in all of HP, IIRC, is Mrs. Granger, who is, of course, a Muggle; the 
Hogwarts professors all appear to be single.)

If it were not for JKR's own compulsion to point out so defensively the 
indicators of gender equality in the books, both within their texts and in 
outside interviews, I would not be at all offended by the male-centric focus. 
 I would write this off as a facet of the WW she has created.  But pointing 
this out sets up expectations that have not, so far, been met.

A possibly related point that has been made is the unflattering stereotyping 
of the female characters.  I do think she is guilty of that sometimes, which 
undercuts the "equal founders" message.  

For example, there are certain aspects of the portrayal of Molly Weasley -- 
often cited as a strong female character -- that annoy me to death because I 
see them as inconsistent with the intelligent and dedicated mom that she is 
otherwise depicted to be.  One is her apparent crush on Lockhart, though I 
can dismiss that on the basis that Lockhart seems to have a kind of veela 
charm that seems to affect middle-aged women the way Fleur affects adolescent 
boys (one more can(n)on for Weasleys with Imperius, perhaps?).  But one 
sequence that irks me to death no matter how many times I read it is the one 
where she gives Hermione the tiny Easter egg and then the cold shoulder 
because she read in Witch Weekly that she was two-timing Harry.  Now she's a 
pretty sharp cookie, right?  How come she doesn't know what kind of 
journalistic standards Witch Weekly employs?  I don't believe the headlines 
in the National Enquirer.  Why does she believe Witch Weekly?  This is the 
kind of stereotyping that really angers me.  Parvati and Lavender don't 
bother me because they are caricatures and far outweighed in significance by 
Hermione, but Molly seems to have a much stronger role.  What was the point 
of putting this in?  If it was an attempt at humor, I didn't find it funny.  
Perhaps we were intended to realize her protectiveness of Harry, but there 
were better ways to accomplish that than to imply that Molly lacks the 
discernment to realize that Witch Weekly is trash.  I accept that this 
irritation may be personal; I'm sure everyone can point out at least one or 
two scenes in the book that really annoy them.
> 
> 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).

I absolutely must echo this; as a child in the same time frame, I read 
through my older brother's entire bookshelf.  I have The Hobbit in my satchel 
right now, which is virtually, if not totally devoid of women characters.  I 
have great appreciation for books or movies that do not feel compelled to 
insert a female love interest into a male-oriented plot (I'm a fan of 
military history and war movies, among others).  But it does bother me that 
some pains have been made to direct our attention to the male/female math, 
but that those numbers are not borne out when we move beyond the background 
facts JKR offers.  As I said above, I'm hoping that future books will reveal 
something that will explain this disparity.  Nevertheless, I don't have 
tremendous confidence that that will happen.  The potential problem, as I see 
it, is not that women don't get enough face time; it's what happens when they 
do get face time.

> 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
> 
Finally, an easy question!  
No.  Harry's friendship with Hermione ensures that he sees girls as more than 
crush objects.

Debbie, who just realized that it's her "anniversary" because one year ago 
today, she borrowed her daughter's copy of PS/SS and began to read it, and 
who doesn't think HP sets a bad example for her daughter at all


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