ESE!McGonagall (not what you think)

[julie]

No: HPFGUIDX 164649

Caspen wrote:
 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.)

Julie:
I guess I'm somewhere in the middle. I agree that there are 
differences between men and women, and McGonagall might well be more 
prone to protect and shield Harry than arm him. OTOH, Lupin would be 
more likely to do so too, given his character and relationship with 
Harry. It doesn't mean she can't repress that instinct when 
necessary, if lives depend on it, or why would she (or any woman) be 
allowed in the Order? That's what Molly must do when it comes to her 
sons work for the Order, after all (though of course, she wrings her 
hands repeatedly over it).

I suppose Dumbledore may be old-fashioned enough to not confide Order 
business and matters pertaining to Harry's part in the defeat of 
Voldemort because he wants to "protect" her, and McGonagall accepts 
that for whatever reason. Or perhaps he doesn't involve her deeply 
because he does think she needs her full attention focused on 
Hogwarts and its students. Fair enough. Neither makes JKR a sexist 
writer. 

I guess my real disappointment with Canon!McGonagall then is that she 
is such a one note character, which seems to be par for the course 
with the adult female characters. It's the male characters who are 
complex and multilayered, shaped by their often painful pasts, given 
to questionable and conflicting decisions and actions. Snape, Lupin, 
Sirius, Dumbledore, even Pettigrew and Voldemort have complicated and 
sometimes mysterious motivations. Meanwhile McGonagall, Molly, 
Bellatrix and Umbridge are each exactly what they appear to be, stock 
characters with virtually no gray areas to them. (Yes, *some* of the 
adult male characters are stock characters too, Hagrid, Arthur, 
Greyback, but some aren't.) Even Tonks lost most of her potential 
complexity by HBP.

Maybe JKR is more comfortable writing complex and dynamic adult male 
characters. Maybe Lily will prove to be the exception. Or maybe 
McGonagall is more then she appears, Enchanted or ESE. Or maybe Tonks 
is really under deep cover, not mooning piteously over Lupin but is 
reeling him in so she can expose him as ESE!Lupin. Or maybe Molly is 
really running an Underground railroad for DEs who've switched sides 
and she's training them to fight in the final battle. And she's 
pulled Fleur into her camp. Meanwhile the Weasley males go about 
their manly business, blissfully unaware...

Okay, probably not. But one can dream ;-)

Julie