ESE!McGonagall (not what you think)

[justcarol67]

No: HPFGUIDX 164627

Carol earlier:
> > I think her usually concealed softness or emotionalism is the
reason that DD doesn't trust her with every detail of his
anti-Voldemort plan, that and her already heavy workload and his
need-to-know policy. She doesn't need to know about the blood
protection, for example, because she's not involved. McGonagall is
quite competent as a teacher, disciplinarian, HoH, and assistant
headmistress, but that's a heavy workload for a woman of her age,
"sprightly" or not, witch or not. He only uses her, at least until
OoP, for matters directly related to Hogwarts and its students, and
even there it's not clear what she does for the Order during the
summer holidays. something not too strenuous, probably, involving a
disguise as a Muggle. 
<Snip>
> 
> Caspen: 
><snip>
> I've no wish to offend, but I have one huge problem with every part 
> of Carol's theory as to why Dumbledore doesn't trust Minerva
(above), except her proposition that he distributes all information on
a need-to-know only basis. In fact, my huge problem may not even be
primarily Carol's, but, (and I am very sorry to say this, as I admire
her work so deeply) Jo's -- harking back to the famous interview in 
which she was aked why there weren't more strong female characters in
her HP saga. She responded that she felt both Hermione and Minerva 
> are those characters. <snip>
> 
> Unfortunately Carol, and, I doubt this is conscious on your part, 
> every one of the reasons you offer above for Dumbledore's lack of 
> trust in McGonagall, with the exception of "need-to-know," which may 
> be the correct answer for all I know, is just frankly extremely 
> sexist. I fail to see how Minerva's "usually concealed softness or 
> emotionalism," for instance, exceeds Dumbledore's in any way; in 
> fact, it seems to me that we see a lot more teary eyes from him 
> throughout the books. As for "her already heavy workload," how's 
> it any heavier than his? I don't see McGonagall, who actively
enabled Hermione to carry an extra-heavy work load in POA, shrinking
from any extra work. And what on earth is the justification of these
(oft repeated in this thread) words, Carol? "For a woman of her age?" 
> Haven't I just read in this thread that it's generally accepted that 
> Dumbledore is considerably older than Minerva? Didn't she fully 
> recover from the effects of multiple stunnings in OOTP? 
><snip>

Carol responds:
Don't worry. I'm not offended. I've been called worse things than
sexist on this list ("List Nazi" or some such thing). But I'm at a
loss as to how "quite competent as a teacher, disciplinarian, HoH, and
assistant headmistress" could be interpreted as sexist or how "heavy
workload" could be interpreted as anything other than fact. (Snape
also has an exceptionally heavy workload, but he's half her age.) It
seems to me that Dumbledore wants McGonagall where she's most needed,
at Hogwarts, which is why he won't let her follow him when he defies
Fudge. And we both agree on the need-to-know policy.

But there's also no question that McGonagall has a soft spot for Harry
beneath her stern exterior. We see her with a tear in her eye more
than once. This touch of humanity is not meant, IMO, as a weakness.
It's meant to make us care about her. (I did criticize her rule
bending and favoritism in another post, but that's not a "sexist"
criticism. Most of the Heads of Houses, and notably Snape, favor their
own houses.)

When I was young, I would probably have taken a position similar to
yours. I once believed adamantly that all differences between the
sexes were a matter of education and societal expectations in
combination with individual personality differences. I now know from
long experience that women (in general) really do think differently
from men (in general) and really are more prone to motherly instincts
than men. JKR, who lost her mother and mourns her, values mother love
highly and I think she values the compassion and tenderness that
sometimes escape McGonagall highly. But these emotions in McGonagall
would, IMO, conflict with any realization of what Harry must face in
the future, what he must be prepared to face or die. McGonagall's
instinct to shield and protect Harry, to comfort rather than arm him,
could prove dangerous, and I think, though, of course, I don't *know*,
that his awareness of McGonagall's softer is one reason why DD doesn't
share his knowledge of the Prophecy with her. If that's sexist, and I
don't think it is, blame JKR and Dumbledore, not me. I think it's
common sense. (He doesn't tell the excitable Flitwick about the
Prophecy, either.)

Carol, who enjoys being disagreed with because it makes her consider
the merits of the opposition arguments but who respectfully requests
other posters to avoid labeling each other's views as "sexist" (or
"bigoted" or "intolerant" or any other label that implies disapproval
of that person's philosophy, religion, or moral standards)