[HPforGrownups] Stereotypical Sexism (was Re: Stereotypes, Sexism & Masterful Writing Reviewed)

[Kathryn Cawte]

No: HPFGUIDX 88308

Laurence

To be honest, we don't know. We don't know either if it there are
magical crches or magical primary school, Ron, which is the
magical
child Harry the closest to Harry, never speaks about his primary
school. That could be quite difficult to be anything else than a
stay at home mum if those don't exist. Also Petunia, Lily, Molly
against Mrs Granger, that's three mothers against one we don't know
anything other in their life than their children (a least according
to the Lexicon, and speaking about "work").
I have nothing against stay at home Mum, but to free completely JKR
from the accusation of "inconscient sexism", that I probably should
call "stereotypical sexism", I would like for Harry to meet the
husband of Tonks and her children (Yes I know she's too young, but
you get my meaning).

K

Firstly - and I'm not trying to be bitchy or get at you with this but
'inconscient' isn't a word in English, I *think* you mean unconscious or
subconscious - I'm not entirely sure because I don't know *exactly what
inconscient means in its native language.

Secondly - I think there's a problem with your examples in that you seem to
be assuming that they would necessarily go out to work if they didn't have
kids and in the case of Petunia and Lily I think that's unlikely. Lily was
in her very early twenties when she died and, as far as we can tell, a
member of the Order of the Phoenix. At that age it's not shocking that she
woudn't have decided exactly what she wanted to do with her life, especially
if she'd been fighting Voldemort since she left school (which bearing in
mind how short a time there had been between her leaving school and her
death is a fairly reasonable assumption I think). Also her husband was
wealthy and had no need to work so it seems that both of them devoted their
life, what there was of it, to the Order and to their child. We have no
indication that after Harry's birth Lily stayed home and James went out
fighting the bad guys. It would have made sense for one of them to stay out
of the fight - but they could have taken turns for all we know. The fact
that you are assuming Lily was a stay at home mum with no life outside of
her child and not assuming the same for James does indeed show a
subconscious sexism - on your part not on JKR's.

Petunia is slightly different, yes she would be in a different role than her
husband, in my opinion, and have stayed at home even without a child - but I
don't believe that it would have been anything to do with society but more
to do with her attitudes. She wants to be normal, no make that supernormal,
she wants to be the perfect stereotype - and if she were to have a job
outside of the home it would be terribly out of character for her. She is
actively trying to be a stereotype - she's probably a member of the WI and
possibly the Amateur Dramatic society and she no doubt hosts wonderful
social dinner parties for the parts of society she wants to impress (ie
other middle class people).

Th other problem with your theory is that you're saying the unconscious
sexism is with JKR rather than society in general - it *is* still more usual
for the mother to stay home with the kids if one of the parents needs to and
JKR's books are (if you ignore the whole magic and dragons thing <g>)
realistic. She could have had Arthur be a stay at home parent and all the
other mothers go out to work but that wouldn't have been realistic because
men who stay at home are still in the minority. It's not sexism, it's
realism. If I were writing a book set in 1950s Deep South America I wouldn't
have blacks and whites treated as equal - that's not racism, it's realism.
If I wrote a book set in the modern world focussing on politics I wouldn't
make 50% of the House of Commons female and 30% (or whatever the correct
figure is) from ethnic minorites - it might be more egalitarian that way but
it wouldn't be realistic and more to the point it would mean that that was
what people focussed on rather than the plot I was trying to write about.

Laurence

Maybe Molly isn't a stay at home Mum, but Ron never talked about the
job of her mother, instead we see Arthur and Percy going to work,
and never have we heard about Molly having to take a day off to be
there for her children, we never heard her talking about going back
to work, even if Ginny isn't home anymore. It looks a lot like a
stay at home Mum stereotype.

K

And I don't see a problem with this. Stay at home mums exist, we've only
seen two throughout the entire series.

Laurence

If she's so strong, why don't we ever hear about her public life?
What I mean is, in fanon at least, it's quite common for Arthur to
be candidate to be MoM which is to "govern" the +/- 30.000 wizards
and witches of the UK, and Molly. reigns over the 8 people of her
family, well, sorry if I don't find it equal. But I've never come
across a fic where MOLLY becomes MoM (oooh, plot bunny there!), and
I think that is quite connected to her canon description.


K

Well it's nice to know that you can't be a strong character if your life is
centered around your family! Molly is clearly the heart of her family, she's
obviously considered an equal Member of the Order since Dumbledore treats
her no differently from the way he treats Arthur, she is one of the first he
trusts with the secret of Sirius' innocence, he trusts her to be able to
protect Harry when he stays with the family over the summer - as you say
Arthur goes out to work, he'd be useless if Voldemort attacked during the
day because he wouldn't be there.  And as for your comments about fanon -
Arthur is about as likely to become the next Minister of Magic as Hedwig is,
he's a minor official in an out of favour department - and he likes it that
way. Molly is also unlikely to become MoM, but so are Remus and Hagrid and
Mad Eye and Tonks - this doesn't make them less strong as characters, it
doesn't make them less significant - it just means that that is not the
direction in which they are focussing their energies.

Laurence

Same as before, I preach the "we don't know", and so for me
stereotypical role means stereotypical sexism which is true
for "our" world too. My point of view is that the space given for
women in JKR's world is not better, and I would even say a little
bit worse for what we have seen, than a European (or American)
western country that I personally consider sexist.

K

So because we see two stay at home mums that automatically means women in
JKR's world have little power? What about Umbridge? Or Bellatrix? Or the
Female MoM we saw briefly mentioned. Heck the entire school system is based
on something founded a thousand years ago by two men and two women. You are
basing your entire theory on two individuals - well if you use such a small
survey group you can prove anything. Let's take Rowena Ravenclaw and Helga
Hufflepuff for example shall we? Based on the two of them you could argue
that the ww is practically a millenium ahead of our world in equality
between the sexes. Maybe they've even got to the point where a woman can do
whatever the heck she darn well pleases without someone trying to draw an
analogy to how women in general are treated as if we're some kind of sub
species. The fact is that if you don't have staff or house elves then
*someone* has to stay home to look after the kids, in the Weasley's case
that is Molly, but that doesn't make it any more or less likely that in the
family along the road the woman is also the primary care giver.

Laurence

For me, there is sexism as soon as you find it more "normal" to find
a stay at home Mum, than a stay at home Dad (still not met in JKR's
world, for how much Mum!), or that if you're a women with a career,
you can't have children. Have we ever heard of the family members of
the professors? Where are Mr Sprout, Mr Mac McGonagall, Monsieur
Pince? Where are their children?

K

Well what about Mrs Dumbledore and their twelve kids, or Mrs Flitwick or Mrs
Snape? For that matter the only career person we know about with a family is
Arthur Weasley. The fact is we don't have enough evidence to argue that
women with kids can't have careers any more than we have enough evidence to
argue that men with kids can. We have one or two at the most individual
anecdotes. The fact that you are taking these totally inconclusive facts and
assuming that it shows all women have no careers says a lot more about your
subconscious views of the world than it does about JKRs.

K