The unattached, the Dursleys, the role of women

[lealess]

No: HPFGUIDX 188128

On unpartnered men:  I do not think that Slughorn, Snape, Dumbledore, Fudge, Hagrid, Voldemort, Pettigrew, Sirius Black, etc., are living lives that JKR would want her readers to emulate.  I'd say the lack of partners in their lives, or even close friends, isolates them and limits their worldviews.  The unattached women: McGonagall, Umbridge, Skeeter, Trelawney... they may be admirable for their professions, but as people, they are not exactly welcoming or even well-balanced.  I'm all for living the solo life, but I think JKR is mostly for marriage, family and children.  The perversion of that ideal, putting another above it, doomed the Gaunts and Crouches, and Bellatrix Lestrange.  The preservation of that ideal ultimately saved the Malfoys and the Dursleys.  Marriage and children are the happy and hopeful endings for the heroes, and even Draco.  While it was great to have many unpartnered people in the story, they were also more likely to die than those in happy families.

On the preservation of the Dursleys: I think they were placed under wraps in case the Seven Potters plan failed and they needed to be called back to keep the so-called blood protection in place.  Once it was clear the Seven Potters plan worked, they were memory-charmed just like the Grangers and sent on their merry way.  This would be more efficient than having Order members babysit Muggle adults (not that those Order members would serve any better or more logical function in the story).

We've seen wizards violate human rights by wiping Muggle minds or keeping them in the dark whenever they felt like it.  Wizards built their whole society on hiding and lying about who they were, after all.  I don't think the Order, or Hermione, were any different, even when they convinced themselves were serving as Muggle protectors -- especially Hermione, who appointed herself protector of the House-Elves and acted against their wishes, who assumed she knew best about Centaurs and wanted to use them for her own ends, who Confunded McClaggen to help her would-be boyfriend.  But, she'd never arrogantly assume she knew better than the parents who accepted her all along, who she'd lied to in the past for her convenience (ski trip)?  She'd never wipe their minds just to get them off hers?  Just because she'd gotten away with violating the rights of others for so long didn't mean she'd do that to her parents, right?

On female/male relations in HP: Generally, it is the stereotypical role of women to nurture physically and emotionally, to seek to establish and maintain relationships, and to subsume their desires in doing so.  Generally, it is the stereotypical role of men to secure food and shelter, to represent a group to the larger world, and to lead that group or follow a greater calling.  In other words, a woman's world is small and internally-focused, while a man's is large and externally-focused.  Generally, the HP books follow these stereotypical roles, except for the tip of the hat to the fact that women actually do everything. Hermione, as others have pointed out, not only tried to maintain harmony and run social interference for the Trio, advising Harry and Ginny on matters of the heart, and in DH providing physical nurturing by washing the underwear and obtaining and cooking almost all the food, but she usurped the boy's protective roles by pitching the tents, casting the spells, strategizing and taking action.  The thing is, her personal campaigns (House-Elves, Centaurs, McClaggen) were misguided and made things worse for everyone.  Better for her, in general and in DH especially, to give her heart, her mind, and her initiative to Harry Potter -- just as Umbridge followed Crouch, Lestrange worshipped Voldemort, and McGongall demurred to Dumbledore and His Plan.  It is the men who make the ultimate decisions and lead, while it is the women who support the men and sustain relationships, fulfilling the usual roles for the sexes.

lealess