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

[justcarol67]

No: HPFGUIDX 164682

Caspen wrote: 
> 
> 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 <snip> 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 <snip> 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. <snip>

Carol responds:
Yes, evidently, that's the problem. You're "exercised" by what you
consider to be an important issue, athe supposed sexism of the books,
and I'm completely indifferent to charges of sexism, ageism, racism
(as if Harry and Aunt Petunia were members of different races!),
speciesism or any other kind of -ism. Whereas you judge a book by
whether it conforms to your sense of how the world ought to be, I
judge it on its entertainment value, readability, humor and pathos, on
whether it can be reread multiple times with equal enjoyment and be
subject to interpretation. Rather than imposing my value system on a
book, I like to determine (when I'm considering values at all) what
the value system of the author or her created society is and whether
it's intenally consistent. I like textual analysis, interpreting the
words on the page (irony, subtext, unreliable narrator and all) to
figure out the meaning in relation to character, plot, themes and
motifs, symbolism, etc. I would even discuss setting and atmosphere in
relation to theme if someone posted on that topic. I like to examine
narrative technique and etymology in relation to the text. I am not at
all interested in the author's politics (I can barely tolerate SPEW),
and in her religion only as it affects the theme and characters and
probable plot of Book seven.

This thread started out as an examination of McGonagall's character
traits in relation to Dumbledore's motives in not confiding in her. I
provided some ideas on the subject--my view of her character and
responsibilities and possible reasons why Dumbledore might have
(apparently) excluded her from membership in the first Order and
(definitely) refrained from telling her about the Prophecy and the
blood protection. If you don't like my proposed reasons (her
underlying emotionalism or sentimentality, her already heavy workload
and his desire to have her focus her efforts on Hogwarts, and,
especially, his need-to-know policy), please present your own,
preferably supported by canon. I withdraw the remark about her age,
which would not be a reason for not confiding in her. My point in
presenting my reasons was that I don't think she's evil or enchanted,
and I do think that DD must have some valid reason (other than being
so brilliant that he has no equal or confidante) for not confiding in
her. He doesn't confide in Sprout or Flitwick, either, and in Snape
only because Snape is in a position to know more than anyone else on
the staff about the Prophecy and Voldemort. (Even he doesn't know the
entire Prophecy unless he's placed his own memory in a Pensieve to
hear it.)

As for McG's workload, it's really difficult to compare her workload
to Dumbledore's since we so seldom see either of them except in
relation to Harry, nor do I think comparing and contrasting them is
particularly relevant. But I will say (and please don't get upset or
offended if you disagree with me) that Dumbledore's duties as Chief
Warlock of the Wizengamot and so forth don't seem to impose a
particularly heavy burden on him as he's usually at Hogwarts (HBP
excepted) and his duties at Hogwarts are largely ceremonial and
administrative. He presides at feasts and other special occasions,
makes announcements, hires staff members and consults with them and
whatever else administrators do, but McGonagall also has
administrative duties as deputy headmistress (such as overseeing the
commentary at Quidditch games, attending meetings, and taking on
Dumbledore's duties when he's absent in books other than OoP) and
whatever is involved in being Head of Gryffindor House--all of that in
addition to teaching (classroom duties, class preparation, creating
tests, marking homework) and occasionally presiding over detentions.
Whether she's seventy or thirty-five, that's a lot of work for anybody. 

Caspen:
<out of sequence; sorry> 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?

Carol:
As I said, I'm not going to argue about whether I think her workload
is heavier than DD's, especially since we know so little about what DD
actually does when he isn't with Harry, but hers is a heavy workload,
witch or no witch, and I'm glad I'm not in her shoes. It has nothing
to do with sexism or ageism; if she were a youngish man of about
thirty-five, I'd feel the same way, having been a teacher myself for
eighteen years. I wouldn't want Snape's workload, either. And he, too,
is under Dumbledore's protection except when he goes out "at great
personal risk" to speak with DEs and Voldemort. There is no reason
whatever why McGonagall or any other member of DD's staff should be
exposed to that particular risk, any more than they should consort
with werewolves as Lupin, his former DADA teacher, is expected to do.
To each his or her own. The one time we see McGonagall at 12 GP, she's
dressed as a Muggle, so we can attempt to deduce her Order duties from
that. Her ability to disguise herself as a cat could prove important,
too. (I can just see her enlisting Crookshanks to chase after
Rat!Wormtail.) 

Anyway, please, let's keep our gloves on and maintain a civil and
impersonal tone, not to mention keeping our emotions out of the
discussion as far as possible. I'm not going to respond to
combativeness (this list isn't a boxing ring), and I have no intention
of arguing about whether the depiction of McGonagall is sexist.
Frankly, I don't care whether it is or not. I'm only interested in
what makes her tick and why Dumbledore doesn't treat her as his equal
despite a high degree of competence as teacher, administrator, and
disciplinarian. (She's a little too ready to close down the school
when times get hard, but that's her concern for the students.
Emotionalism again?)

Caspen:
> 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. 

Carol:
Forgive me for overlooking this point. I was distracted by the
emotionalism and personal nature of the response. I do think she's
"softer" than Dumbledore, but I don't think that's necessarily a bad
thing. So is Hagrid. So are a lot of other characters. Dumbledore left
Harry at the Dursleys' despite McGonagall's objections (giving her
only a partial reason for not doing so and concealing the
all-important blood protection). McGonagall buys Harry a broom and
allows him on the Quidditch team as a first-year (perhaps not
"softness" but certainly giving him special privileges for the sake of
her Quidditch team.) We several times see her with a tear in her eye,
revealing what I see as maternal concern for him, matched, perhaps, by
the overly sentimental tear in DD's eye over, of all things, giving
the Prefectship to Ron rather than Harry (not one of my favorite DD
moments). But Dumbledore gives Harry his father's Invisibility Cloak,
not out of softness but (IMO) to see how he'll use it. He encourages
Harry and Hermione to use the Time Turner to rescue Buckbeak and
Sirius Black, a difficult and dangerous challenge for a thirteen- and
fourteen-year-old. He allows Harry to participate in the TWT (probably
he has no choice) without training him himself. He assigns Snape, a
strict teacher with no love lost for Harry, to teach him Occlumency
without explaining why he isn't doing it himself. He takes Harry with
him to a cave which he knows will be filled with deadly dangers to
find a Horcrux, in itself a dangerous object (or it would be if it
weren't a fake). Dumbledore alone (except for Harry) knows the full
Prophecy. Dumbledore alone knows what Harry will face and exactly what
he has already faced. (I'm not sure exactly how much either McGonagall
or Snape knows of Harry's various encounters with Voldemort, but
neither is present for all of his discussions with Dumbledore.)
Dumbledore, with Snape's help, is trying to prepare Harry for what he
must face. Except for teaching him Transfiguration, along with all the
other students, and her vow to make sure he takes the classes he needs
to become an Auror, McGonagall has no role in that preparation.

To return to McGonagall, the occasional softness humanizes her
character. We know that she genuinely cares about Harry. The stern,
no-nonsense exterior masks a caring heart. What on earth is wrong with
that? Softness is not cowardice or weakness. She stands up to Umbridge
and takes four Stunners to the chest as a consequence. The cowards in
the books are male--Karkaroff and Wormtail. 

Caspen:

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. 

Carol:
Why doesn't Dumbledore appoint her as ambassador to the giants?
Because she'd probably be killed, just as Snape or Bill Weasley would
be. It makes sense to send Hagird and Madame Maxime, two half-giants,
just as it makes sense to send Lupin to the werewolves and Snape to
the DEs. DD isn't questioning her courage or her competence. He just
has two people who are tailor-made for the job. "Sexist malarky?"
Madame Maxime is female, or was last time I checked the text. (As for
age, it's true that Hagrid is only about five years younger than McG,
but maybe age shows up differently in half-giants? Actually, I think
it's an oversight on JKR's part. She doesn't seem to think of Hagrid
as being in his sixties. But I'm not going to lose any sleep over it,
regardless.)

Caspen:
<snip> Care to place a wager on not just whether, but how many male
charachters' tears exceed those of Minerva?  

Carol:
Considering that Hagrid cries buckets in every book, I think he's the
clear winner. Exactly how that qualifies as sexist, I neither know nor
care.

> <snip>
> 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. <snip>

Carol:

Let's skip the personal attacks, shall we? I'm not excusing what you
perceive as sexism. I just don't read the books in that way. I analyze
motives and character traits. I interpret the text in hopes of
understanding the books more fully. My own politics, philosophy,
religion, and moral philosophy are my own business and have nothing to
do with the interpretation of JKR's works.

Carol, who has nothing more to say on this topic but will (silently)
accept your apologies if they're offered