Males and Females at Quidditch - and why this could be more than just a "Flint"

[Miles]

No: HPFGUIDX 185211

While watching the Source We Don't Speak Of on this list, I began to think 
about Quidditch - and why JKR uses teams with players of both sexes not only 
in private or Hogwarts matches, but as well in the World Cup?

I really don't think that, considering what we know about Quidditch, many 
female players would be able to play on a high or professional level in 
mixed teams/competions. What we read/see about Quidditch (in canon, 
secondary canon, and the SWDSO), it is a very rough and "physical" game - 
kind of Rugby on broomsticks. It's not only about being quicker on your 
broomstick, turning faster in midair or the best Wronski bluff, the players 
obviously have physical contact, trying to knock each other off the broom 
both with bludgers and body contact. The players have much better chances in 
the game if they are stronger and have more weight, with the only exception 
of seekers who should be better off being light.

In my opinion, one can't expect many female professionals in mixed Quidditch 
competitions. I'd think the seeker position is the only one suitable for 
female players. Not because women are worse players, but because they have 
less physical strength and weight compared to men - statistically, that is.
Despite that, we see at least two chasers in the World Cup final who are 
female (Ivanova and Mullet), we see many female players on all positions in 
the Hogwarts teams, and an all female team in the English League (the 
Holyhead Harpies). (all information from the Lexicon)

Now, is that just another inconsistency in the books? Just something not 
thought through by JKR? Or is there more to it?
Well, if you ask me (and you will get the answer even if you do not ;) ), 
JKR's picture of male/female Quidditch is as sloppy as her approach to 
women's emancipation in general.

While her intention obviously is to show witches as having equal rights and 
being emancipated, she fails to harmonize this (supposed) intention with the 
traditional family model she shows us. We do not see many female 
professionals who have both a job and a family (maybe there are, but AFAIR 
we can't be sure), but we see a fulltime housewife in the "model family" of 
the series (the Weasleys), and witches who seem to cancel their jobs after 
they married (Fleur?). We do see fathers who care for their child after the 
mother's death, but no married men caring for the household.

Do not misunderstand me. I do not like authors who want to present a perfect 
world to the readers, who put every positive clich in the story. The 
well-integrated openly gay character, the man caring for the children while 
mom works, the black/brown/green-skinned person with overwhelming 
intelligence and so on. To have too much of that can be really annoying. 
Speaking of myself, I hate being lectured in a fictional text.

But JKR thinks she shows us a world with emancipated women. A quote:
"Rowling: [laughs] That's not entirely true, because if you look at 
Professor McGonagall, she's a very, very powerful witch, and she's in a 
position of power. And in fact, if you look at the Hogwarts' staff - I had 
this discussion with someone the other day - it is exactly 50/50. Although 
it is true that you do have a headmaster as opposed to a headmistress, but 
that has not always been the case. As you will find out, there have been 
equal numbers of headmistresses."
http://www.accio-quote.org/articles/2000/1000-cbc-rogers.htm

IMO, she does not succeed. Because if we do not know any woman in the 
Potterverse who can coordinate job and family (which is one of the key 
problems of women's (and men's) emancipation), we can assume that women 
don't have good chances to have both. What JKR shows is a kind of 
superficial equality - both in witches' and wizards' everyday life, and in 
Quidditch. Both seem to be there, but both cannot be there if you have a 
closer look.

Miles, who knows that he stretched the parallel a bit in order to find a new 
approach to a problem already discussed in the past