Sexist Themes in Harry Potter?

[Jade]

On our way to Maine last week me and my parents began talking about this.
Look at Hermione, she's the brightest witch of her year and you would expect great things from her, but instead she marries Ron and has kids.
Lilly Evans: Another promising witch, but instead of putting her abilities to use she settles down and has kids.
Tonks: An Aurar, who gets marries, has kids, and then gets killed off.
Fleur Delacour: The only woman in the Tri-Wizard Tournament, eventually gets married and has kids.
Anyone see a pattern here?

Ok, I was just putting this idea out there! 'Harry Potter' is a brilliant series (even if the epilogue wasn't very satisfying). Even though most women do get married, some do not. I just think that one or two female main characters shouldn't have settled down, so that younger kids won't grow up thinking that they will definitely get married, and they don't have a choice.

[Übereil]

Hermione is one of the most important characters.

But who does she lead? No one. She follows Harry though.

For one thing, Fudge was an incompetent leader. And Scrimgeour was also portrayed in a negative light. This goes to show that just because a man is the leader, doesn't mean they're the best fit for the role.

They're politicians. Being a politician automatically makes you somewhat incompetent. And that they're somewhat incompetent doesn't mean they weren't the best choice there was.

Also keep in mind that it's Dumbledore pepole wanted in their place.

Also, Bellatrix Lestrange was Voldemort's deputy. His most important follower.

An important follower is still a follower.

McGonagall was a leader, not only in being Head of Gryffindor House, but in being Deputy Headmistress and Headmistress of Hogwarts at different times.

McGonagall was merely managing Hogwards until Dumbledore came back. Not to mention that she had such problems she was close to having to shut Hogwards down while doing so.

Dolores Umbridge was Senior Undersecretary to the Minister of Magic and worked her way up to Hogwarts High Inquisitor and even Headmistress at one point.

Dolores Umbridge made a career working for others. She never really made it to the top - there was always someone above her.

I think we're blaming Jo for a problem SOCIETY has created.

I'm not blaming Jo. It's not her fault she grew up in a society that thinks men are the only pepole that can lead properly. I wish she could notice so she won't buy into prejudices like that in the future, but that doesn't mean I blame her for not.

But saying this is a problem only because society has made it into is just... shooting yourself in the foot. Since you're of the gender that's most primarily hurt by this kind of thing. The heteronormativity isn't made up, it exists for real. And it works by manipulating the self image of men and women by giving different encouragement to men and women. By making all the leaders in the book men Jo sends signals to men, but not women, that they're capable leaders. When the men grow up they will, because of signals like these, think they might become competent leaders. Women won't.

It's not up to her to make her books feminist, to please everybody else.

No. But she can choose to play into prejudices like these, thus strengthening the heteronormativity that takes away the option for both men and women to become who they really are. She can choose that, or she can choose to fight it by being careful with who does what. She could have made Dumbledore and Scrimgeour into women without changing another detail about their character, then the problem of signalling that only men can be leaders wouldn't have been there.

She chose not to. I'm sure she did so unconciously, but she chose not to nontheless.

It's all about how society interprets it, which is an utter waste of time because one of the prevalent themes in the Harry Potter series is EQUALITY.

It's even more of a problem because the theme is equality, since making the theme equality and still treating men and women inequally sends the signal that equality between the sexes is irellevant to equality.

Another angle is that because she has rooted Harry Potter into realism as much as she can in terms of discrimination, hatred, love, friendship, equality, etc. then she did make the majority of the leaders male, because that's how society actually is.

She invented wizard society! She could have done anything she wanted with it... and she chose to make it just as sexist as normal society. Without problematizing the sexism one bit to that, thus sending the signal that this is just how things (naturally) work.

[Danii]

She doesn't follow Harry. Harry isn't even a leader. He's just the protagonist. There's a difference between being loyal and following someone. Hermione and Ron are loyal friends, and Harry's the one everything happens to, 'cause he's the protagonist. And sometimes Hermione and Ron have even had to stop Harry in his tracks and make him think. Hermione has taken charge of the situation at times, and she's always been independent. She created S.P.E.W., even though her friends thought she was wasting her time. Luna's also a very independent character. I think characters like Hermione and Luna send a very positive message to girls, and to anybody, about being yourself and standing up for what you believe in.

 

If a girl reads this book and thinks,"Well, I sure won't amount to anything in life!" Well that's just ridiculous. Not everything is a signal. It's a story. Not a political statement. You're right: my gender suffers the most. But that doesn't mean I'm going to start scrutinizing everything to make sure there are just as many females "leading" as there are males. I don't find it sexist, because I still see prominent female characters, even if they're not in politics or the ultimate position of authority. It's not as if we see the degradation of women anywhere in the books. Ok, Scrimgeour could've been a woman. But he isn't even important! Other than the fact he's rude and formidable. I just don't think it's fair to call a series sexist if we're going purely by numbers. When I write, I'm not going to be worrying about whether the important guys outnumber the leading girls.

 

I respect your views, and you do make very good points. I still see it as a coincidence, though, or not a problem at all. It's all about interpretation. I see strong, independent female characters that are admirable and decent role models. I don't see an underlying message of the inadequacy of women in leading roles.

[Char Cook]

Personally, I couldn't agree more with Danii. I'm a young girl and I don't interpret any sort of sexism in the books whatsoever - quite the opposite in fact. The women portrayed in the books are extremely strong, independent women with great impacts on the wizarding world.

[Übereil]

She doesn't follow Harry. Harry isn't even a leader.

Except for the last book. And the whole "Dumbledore's army" thing. And being the one that takes most of the (key) initiatives in the friend group.

I think characters like Hermione and Luna send a very positive message to girls, and to anybody, about being yourself and standing up for what you believe in.

Oh, sure. They're still not leaders though.

To explain what I mean is the big problem when it comes to competentce divided between the genders we can cosider the dividion when we look at competence, graded on a scale of 1 to 5. Note that the grading is almost 1-4 and that the 5 is there only to single out the most powerful 4's.

In the 3 category it's pretty even between men and women. There's a fair number of somewhat powerful female characters like Tonks (who's too flakey to be a four), Prof Sprout and Dolores Umbridge. I'd say Quidditch stars also qualifies for a three, and there are quite a fair amount of quality female Quidditch players (from a non-sexist point of view Jo's approach to Quidditch was really good, by the way).

There are also a fair number of really good female characters. Prof McGonagall probably qualifies here (even though I'd argue she's really a powerful three), and Hermione certanly does, along with Bellatrix Lestrange. Male examples of four would be pepole like Snape.

It's clear that there's a level beyond these characters though. Hemrmione certanly is strong, but she just can't match Voldermort. At the same time, Snape couldn't take Dumbledore in a fair fight. Harry, though, (mostly by virtue of being the protagonist, I'd say) continuously shows that (despite being decidedly average at actual wizardry...) he actually has what it takes to cut it at this level. So these three characters need their own category of competence, this category being 5. Even though we don't know much of him Gellert Grindelwald probably qualified for this spot too.

(No, Lily doesn't count as a five, even if she beat Voldermort. Because she beat Voldermort once thanks to really specific circumstances, and she had to give her own life to do so.)

See something here? While there are a fair number of female fours there are not a single female five. A harsh interpretation of this could be that Jo thinks women are capable of becoming four, but only men are capable of becoming fives. Or, in other words, men are (on average) slightly more capable than women.

It could all just be a coincidence, of course. But I don't find that very likely, considering that the general belief held for the last few thousand years (if not the last tens of thousand years) is that it's only men who have what it takes to do the most important jobs. So Jo, without believing in that stereotype, still wrote a book that goes along with it. That's too big a coincidence for me.

To be fair to Jo though, this isn't a big problem. It only really becomes a problem because she's far from the only one who does mistakes like these.

Ok, Scrimgeour could've been a woman. But he isn't even important!

Scrimgeour could have been a woman, Fudge could have been a woman, Dumbledore could have been a woman, Voldermort could have been a woman, Harry could have been a woman. Since gender doesn't affect personality or capability this wouldn't in any way have affected the story, right?

When I write, I'm not going to be worrying about whether the important guys outnumber the leading girls.

The problem isn't that the important girls are outnumbered, the problem is that they don't exist. All of the most powerful characters are male. Powerful women exists, but they're not as powerful as the most powerful men.

Also, while you shouldn't spend 80 % of your energy on the gender of your characters, paying it at least some mind is something that's a good idea - to avoid situations like "oh, all the competent characters are men, and the women are all geese..." which tends to happen since we all unconciously have prejudice about men and women - which will be played into unless we're careful.

[Danii]

See, this is what I mean. You're reading far too into it. You're actually putting these characters on a power scale. It's a story, not a political statement. No one is meant to take these books as an example of the perfect society. It all goes back to the same thing. You won't be happy unless there's a "5" female, because you think it has an underlying message, when really, there isn't one! There is no degradation of women. Not having a woman be a leader does not count as degradation. It does not imply that women are not as competent as men. It's just how it happened. Interpretation is opinion, not fact, and that is why I do not see sexism.

 

I see where you're coming from- don't get me wrong- I just don't think your argument fits this particular series, because of what I mentioned earlier: a prevalent theme is equality. Not the condoning of the -isms, but the condemnation of them, which makes it hard for me to believe that sexism could have even a vague presence in these books.

[Übereil]

See, this is what I mean. You're reading far too into it. You're actually putting these characters on a power scale. It's a story, not a political statement. No one is meant to take these books as an example of the perfect society.

The story isn't intended to convey values and norms? Well, intended or not, it conveys values and norms. All stories does. There is no way around it.

I'm not the only one putting characters on a power scale. We all do that unconciously. It's not like it was only when I put the characters on a power scale that I realized that the three most powerful characters were all male - I've known that for years. I don't read more into this than anyone else, I just cast light on what I read into it.

You won't be happy unless there's a "5" female, because you think it has an underlying message, when really, there isn't one!

It's only when you consider the HP books as a part of society that you notice the problem. None of the three fives are women? Well, not that big a deal, too small a sample rate to draw any conclusions. But when you look beyond Harry Potter onto other books and realize how outnumbered female fives are, that's when you start to see the connection with what Harry Potter (along with other books) conveys and the lack of women in leading positions. Harry Potter isn't the sole cause of this, but it is part of the cause.

I see where you're coming from- don't get me wrong- I just don't think your argument fits this particular series, because of what I mentioned earlier: a prevalent theme is equality.

Claiming to favor equality isn't the same as actually doing so. Would you believe a book really favors equality if it claims to do so but the story is about how the good, white guys fights evil, unsophisticated, black savages and a conspiracy of hook nosed pepole who only cares about money? If pepole then believe that really is equality, wouldn't you then be worried?

[Danii]

Of course it conveys values and norms, but words do no harm unless people let them do harm. For example, if girls think Twilight is the perfect example of romance, we have a problem. If girls realize this isn't a healthy relationship, there is no problem, and Meyer's words do no harm. If HP is sexist, and someone thinks HP society is perfect, so they think sexism is positive, that's obviously NOT GOOD. But since I see no sexism, a world of fiction is still a world of fiction, and I mostly see only positive lessons and morals, this is a moot point.

And I never put them on a power scale, neither consciously nor unconsciously. I think the majority of fans didn't either. It's a story. I wasn't thinking, "Hmmm, when are we going to see a female leader?" I was more preoccupied with their hunt for Horcruxes. In fact, I'd never given sexism a second thought regarding this series, because I didn't even NOTICE there were more leading male characters. It's not important. (I obviously noticed them, as in, I am aware that there are more males than females, but I don't think anything of it.)

 

Well, that story's a far cry from HP. I could write another paragraph on equality being a theme in HP, but I presume you already know. And it's not as if J.K. Rowling said: "A THEME IN MY BOOKS IS EQUALITY." No, it's just there. It's not a claim, it's not an opinion, it's a fact. So, Jo is favoring equality, without claiming to do so.

[Mountain Smith]

They're books, not a conspiracy.

[Übereil]

The problem isn't that they're a conspiracy, the problem is that they implicitly confirms prejudices about the genders and thus strenghtens the heteronormativity.

That we raise men differently than we raise women isn't a conspiracy either.

[Kate Litman]

Luna Lovegood was said to go exploring the word (albeit with her husband) and then had kids, but I don't imagine her settling down. Also, you could say that it was sexist to males purely because most of the males also settle down and have kids. Hermione wasn't just a housewife, JKR says she got a high position at the MoM.

[Savannah]

No! 

Hermione- JK Rowling said that Hermione Granger, furthered the rights of subjugated creatures, such as house elves, in the Department for the Regulation and Control of Magical Creatures before joining the magical law enforcement squad J.K. said that Hermione, is "pretty high up" in the Department of Magical Law Enforcement, despite the fact that she laughed at the idea of becoming a lawyer in the scene with Scrimgeour in Deathly Hallows.

 

Ginny- JK said that Ginny Weasley, stuck with her athletic career, playing for the Holyhead Harpies, the all-female Quidditch team. Eventually, Ginny left the team to raise their three children -- James, Albus and Lily -- while writing as the senior Quidditch correspondent for the wizarding newspaper, the Daily Prophet.

 

Fleur- I do aknowlage the fact that she did not do very well in the Tri wizard Tournament, but lets think about Harry another contestant. Without Hermiones (and by the way HERMIONE THE GIRL!) help he would not have been able to summon his broom and get the dragons egg. Without Dobbys help with the dillyweed (i think thats what it was) he would not have been able to rescue Fleurs sister and Ron from the lake. And in the last tournament he was just lucky he didnt get attacked by Krum, and Fleur did. If Fleur had the help Harry did, she probably would have won.

 

Lilly Evans- She was a very talented witch and she was excellent in potions, she probably could have become very powerful in some type of job at th ministry but she had to go into hiding and then DIED SACRIFICING HERSELF FOR HER SON!!!

 

Tonks- She was always an active part of the OOTP and she died FIGHTING AT THE HOGWARTS BATTLE. SHE NEVER EVEN GOT THE CHANCE TO SETTLE DOWN BECAUSE SHE WAS FIGHTING VOLDEMORT!!!

 

Have a good day :)

[ryan brennan]

Gilliweed!