[HPforGrownups] Stereotyping

[Kathryn Cawte]

No: HPFGUIDX 84619

Kneasy
>
> Elves seem to be a cause of regular angst  with frequent fulminations
> against the evils of slavery.
> All well and good,  but is it applicable?
>
> Slavery has never, ever been a significant part of English society; at
> least not since the Romans left.
> Delve  into history and literature and it's quite difficult to find
> more than a few scattered examples of slavery  within the UK. Slavery
> is not part of our tradition. Why then assume that JKR would add such a
> perversion to an essentially English story?
>

Me (K)

If it looks like a rat, sounds like a rat and smells like a rat .....
People assume that elves are slaves because they are owned by wizarding
families, work for no pay and are unable to leave without the permission of
their owner. Unless you have a definition of slavery different to the one
most people use that pretty much sounds like slavery to me.

Kneasy
And traditionally
> money-lending had been an occupation specifically reserved for Jews,
> until the Italians started getting in on the act, at which point they
> became the despised group. It was not an occupation that endeared one
> to the hearts of the indebted. Thereafter the Jews got a much better
> press.

K

Money-lending was their profession because they were banned from most other
professions. After this so-called better press they were still seen as
scapegoats by society, banned from paracticing their religion outside of
their own homes, massacred on several occasions and then expelled from the
country.

Kneasy
>
> I  see a parallel with the Elves. It  seems JKR decided to add
> characters from old Scottish folklore  - Brownies. Elves that colonise
> houses, do  the chores for no payment, but vanish when offered gifts or
>   clothes, never to return.

K

But they are free to come and go as they will, they choose to work for the
families they help and can stop at any time they please. In fact they
generally only assist those people who have performed kind deeds towards
other humans pr faeries. While House Elves are no doubt based on Brownies
(see my previous post about JKR and mythology) they have evolved far beyond
the traditional mythology and are slaves. While I have no sympathy with SPEW
as Hermione seems insistent on forcing her views of how they should live on
them with no regard for their opinions, making her no better than the
Malfoys imo, the Elves are slaves, albeit willing slaves in many cases.

Kneasy
Even a superficial analysis of the text militates against
> Elvish slavery. They are too strongly magical, the majority  seem happy
> in their role and the bee in Hermione's bonnet is not
> supported by  *anyone* in the canon, not  soft-hearted Hagrid,  not
> compassionate  Dumbledore. Doesn't that  tell you something? Apparently
> not. "I can't wait, I've a conclusion to jump to" seems an all too
> common response.
>
K
I agree that most of them are happy to be in the position they are in but
that doesn't stop it being slavery. As a race House Elves seem to have no
rights whatsoever, are owned by others and are not free to leave their
positions if they feel mistreated. This is clearly slavery. This is a much
more complex ethical and moral situation than just presenting it as slavery
and congrats to JKR for introducing another issue that makes us think.
Slavery is wrong (I don't think anyone here would argue with that) but is it
worse to force your views on those 'victims' and force them to be free when
they don't want to be?

Kneasy
> Yes, Dobby  seems to have been badly treated by the Malfoys. So what?
> You expect baddies to be caring, loving employers? Get real. The plot
> demands baddies, and baddies act badly. Surprised? In contrast Winky is
> pathetic and Kreacher just plain nasty. A trio of very different
> characters formed, just as we were told by DD, by the attitudes of the
> families they are connected to. I don't get  the impression that more
> should be read into  it than that.
>
K
If Malfoy was nothing more than an employer then Dobby could leave without
Harry having to trick Lucius into giving Dobby clothes. He is an owner. And
I don't understand your point about them having different characters - this
doesn't stop them being slaves and I don't recall anyone terying to claim
that all elves are the same.

Kneasy
> Lately sexual stereotyping has been centre stage.  Oh, dear. Am I
> mistaken or  has freedom of choice been banned by some posters? Molly
> in particular has taken the brunt of the criticism. She is at fault
> because she is not  this, that or  the other. Mothers must not present
> a motherly image it seems, or at least only do so in the gaps in their
> busy, professional schedule. All women must conform to a certain
> fashionable profile or be damned.

K
I think the problem is not that Molly is a stay at home mother with all the
domestic and motherly attributes of a domestic goddess but rather that (at
least until OoP) there were very very few strong female characters of any
kind. In the wizarding world the impression was that as a woman you could be
a teacher, a nurse or a mother. Hermione was the only schoolgirl we saw who
didn't fit into a stereotypical giggling girly mould. In OoP Ginny was
developed into a storng character, I'm reserving judgement on Luna and
McGonagall became much more than just a teacher. Umbridge and Bellatrix gave
us some female bad guys and a past female Minister for Magic was mentioned.
I'm all for women following nurtut#ring professions or being stay at home
mums if they want but that was the *only* image that we were getting and
that was wrong, especially I feel in a childrens book. I don't think JKR did
it deliberately I think it just happened but the book needed some strong
female role-models.

Kneasy
 Rubbish. Of  course, Petunia does not
>   get the same amount of flak for the same behaviour  because she is
> not  intended to be a sympathetic character, so it's all right,

K
Actually she doesn't get as much flak because she is still a minor character
(little bit of development leading to unanswered questions in OoP) wo we
really don't know much about. Molly was much more central to the books as
she and her family take up much more space.

Kneasy
One thing I  will not
> do is moan about JKR not complying with my personal ethics. I  will
> compare the Potterverse ethical stances with my own, yes, but only to
> highlight a point, not to advertise my own smug political platform.
>
K
I don't think we can really comment on JKR's beliefs because none of us know
her. I don't think she personally believes that slavery is good or that all
women should be carers and nothing more, but that doesn't change the fact
that slavery exists in the books (despite what you seem to want to argue)
and that the WW was fairly sexist.


K