Sexist JKR? Was Re: ESE!McGonagall (not what you think)

[caspenzoe]

No: HPFGUIDX 164654

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" <justcarol67 at ...> 
wrote:
 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)
>

Caspen: 

I'm very glad you're not offended Carol, and that you like 
disagreement, because I'm afraid I've still plenty. However, before I 
remove my gloves, I'd like to to congradulate cassyvablatsky, for her 
excellent and inadequately credited (in my last post) list of 
citations to JKR's interview comments On Minerva. I'm not a regular 
poster here - mostly just a lurker who happens to be exercised by 
this particular issue at the moment - but, I think Cassy has managed 
to make a huge contribution in her very first post. So welcome Cassy! 
And congratulations!

Carol, I'm not all that young either (though I'm certainly not too 
old for anything), and I still have to come to the conclusion that my 
fascination with ESE/enchanted McGonagall at this point in my 
following of the series, and I've read the whole thing published so 
far several times now, stems, in large part, from a now (still 
barely) conscious urge to repress a very sick feeling that JKR's 
treatment of Minerva thus far is simply sexist abuse. While Pippen's 
post dredging up new (to me) JKR interview material gives me a tiny 
bit of hope for some reasonable character development for Minerva, 
not to mention Lilly and even Petunia, all of whom are, IMO, way too 
flat, so far, I'm feeling that JKR's teased us with regard to these 
characters too many times now. 

There are a lot of interviews in the record in which JKR has promised 
us new and fascinating information on both Lilly and Petunia, and 
(thanks to Pippen), apparently, even Minerva, but so far, as far as 
I'm concerned, she's delivered bupkiss. And she's down to her last 
book. If I don't see some substantial effort at making good on these  
teasing hints in the final installment (and why do we even have to 
wait this long?) I'm going to be very disappointed, and will have to 
revise my opinion of JKR's talents and literary contribution 
accordingly, downward. 

I'm a little disappointed Carol that you haven't really addressed any 
of my points in your response above: namely, how is Minerva 
any "softer" on Harry than Dumbledore? I don't believe she is. Like 
Jeremiah, I too will be beginning my umpteenth and possibly final 
(depending on how badly Jo disappoints me this summer) re-
reading  of the entire series soon, and I'll be noting every teary-
eyed scene for every character. Care to place a wager on not just 
whether, but how many male charachters' tears exceed those of 
Minerva? And how, exactly, is Minerva's workload so much heavier than 
Dumbledore's? It's not, what with his extra-curricular Wizengamut 
activities, Voldemort history compilation activities, etc. Finally, 
why is Minerva's age such an issue for you, while Dumbledore's (who's 
far older, no? Someone please correct me if I'm wrong here) and 
Hagrid's (who's the same age, but spends the summer lately 
in "diplomatic" missions with giants, and spent a recent school year 
sparring with Grawp) are not? I'm sorry, but I can't see it as 
anything other than sexist malarky. 

Unlike you, I do not now, nor have I or in the past believed 
that "all differences between the sexes [are] a matter of education 
and societal expectations in combination with individual personality 
differences." Rather I believe that obvious, factual biological 
differences are, and, unfortunately continue to be, even, apparently 
by my erstwhile heroine, JKR, grotesquely exaggerated for political 
purposes. In short, the first step in discriminating against anyone's 
humanity is to define them as being as different as possible from 
oneself. Participation in this process, however benign the personal 
motive, is, IMO morally egregiuous. 

Yes, women, are biologically different from men. Yes, these 
biological differences on average, create, on average, some 
psychological differences from men (however, there's another post in 
the "Sex among Hogwarts students?" thread in which another poster 
recalls how he was adamantly taught to put the notion of the 
mythical "average" student out of his head) in some - limited - ways. 
Nevertheless, the most glaring and imprtant fact is and remains that 
biologically we are all the same species. Biologically therefore, 
each and every one of us gets one half her or his genetic complement 
from a member of the opposite sex (except that, biologically, males 
actully have slightly less genetic material altogether due to the 
missing leg of their otherwise x, but instead male y, chromosome). 

Therefore, any "differences," are, in fact, incredibly minor, if not 
illusory - when viewed in any proper biological perspective. So minor 
in fact, that they simply do not translate into any reason that age, 
per se, should be any more an issue for Minerva than for Dumbledore, 
or any other male character. As I pointed out, and as you failed to 
address, if anything, age should be more an issue for him, as 
real, "muggle" women (upon whom you claim to base your sexist 
assumptions) are in fact, on average, the sturdier sex of the 
species. 

So, don't expect me to sit here in my not so young state and respond 
with "oh, of course,...obviously..." when you excuse JKR'S sexism 
toward Minerva, based upon Minerva's age and supposed excessive 
emotionality. By comparison, she's not especially older, frailer or 
more emotional than any other comparable character in the books. You 
wouldn't excuse Dumbledore, Hagrid, Snape, or any other character for 
any of those reasons. Despite the glaring (!) biological fact of 
JKR's femaleness, she's not entitled to excuses here either, as far 
as I'm concerned. So, Jo, I sincerely hope you've managed to pull 
your head out of the sand here in your last book.

I'm not a shipper. In fact, I scroupulously skip most specifically 
shipping threads here, and I don't use the time I save thereby 
watching soap operas. I'm not eager to learn whether Remus and Sirius 
were secretly lovers or whether Snape's entire plot trajectory has 
been dictated by some mysterious unrequited love for Lilly. But, 
particularly in light of the quote Pippen unearthed, and now that the 
series is essentially finnished, JKR better have made good on her 
promises and done better by her female characters, or she'll go down 
in my book as a last stale gasp of mediocre twentieth century English 
literature, rather than its first fresh breath of excellence for the 
twenty-first. For me, at this point, her place and reptutation as a 
writer are on the line and turn on this issue. 

CaspenStillPeeved