Rowling's Potterverse always seems to raise interesting topics for discussion. In her portrayal of men and women in the series, do you think Rowling is very traditional in describing male and female behavior, or is there an underlying, hidden element of sexism?

For example, the lovable Molly Weasley; sure she extinguished the life of Bellatrix, but is her character portrayed in an all too traditional manner? How about Hermione; she is the brain of the trio and is certainly intelligent; but why so much focus on her intellectual talents and not her bravery?

What about the trio and their interactions with each other. Didn't Hermione call Harry sexist? Was Ron being fair when he complained about Hermione's cooking in DH, and telling her that she did the cooking because she was the best at it?

How about the Marauders; Sirius, James and Remus? They can be perceived as a group of swashbuckling, arrogant males, full of machismo. Is this a fair assessment?

So, what do you think, are males and females portrayed equally in the series?

Have fun

Did anyone find that Tonks got a lot more flak than Remus for going into the Battle? Everyone complains that because of that she left Teddy motherless, but no one minds that Remus left Teddy fatherless.

Looking to the books, we know Harry minded. Of course it was prior to the Battle of Hogwarts, but recall the scene in the kitchen at 12GP where Harry and Remus got into the argument over Remus wanting to leave his family and help the trio. To me, that's a pretty clear message about where Remus was needed and how important his love and support were to his family.

There have been charges of gender stereotypes and hidden sexism since the HP series first came out and people were asking why it was Harry instead of Harrietta Potter.

This is an interessing topic


I think that the Potterverse is much like the real world when it comes to this issue, we see men and woman are generally equal, but there are the thypical womanly and manly traits we recognise from our world, like take Mrs. Weasøey as an example, she is often the thypical woman character, she is a stay-at-home mum, she's responsible for most of the cooking, washing in the house, a thypical housewife, but we also see she participates in the war, and even kill Bellatrix. But I believe the way she is, is just in her nature, she is a very loving, motherly, protective person, If she wanted a different life, I think she could have that, but the life she's got is probably what she wanted! Then there are other characters that differs more from the general gender roles, like Ginny, who has a sharp tongue, gladly takes on a fight, tough, plays quiddich(sport) but also has certain female characteristics. Or Luna who are care little for appearance, unmindful, independent, brave.

There are often occations where we can see some degree of sexism in the books, for instance:
- Ron saying in GoF something like it beeing sad for a girl to show up at the yule ball alone
- Ginny beeing refused to join the final battle by her parents. Mrs. Weasley "I won't permit it! The boys, yes, but you, yo've got to go home!" Now I don't believe it was entierly the fact that she was underage that made them denie her fighting.
- The way Fred and George and Ron act when Ginny gets a boyfriend.
- The whole half-blood prince buisness, them believeing a girl couldn't have made the spells etc. (though it was pretty far fetched with there beeing Prince there)


So I think there are certain gender roles, and a bit of sexism in Potterverse, but the facts are that, like it or not, men and woman often has certain traits associated with their gender, and though you can't label every woman/ man a certain way, but as the whole femal/male population, you will see certain features are more prominent with men/woman, so the thypical gender roles will remain.

It's hard to say for me, but in recent news. It's been discussed that Hermione plays a role as a feminin heroe in Harry Potter. More so as of a Role Model for girls who need one. There are other people in this world who can't play a well role model for girls due to drugs, alcohol and what not. But Hermione is this young brilliant, thing that I believe gives girl something to look up to. As for the guys, Harry and Ron I mean I feel amount to the same as Hermione, they are all the same. I feel the HP series made sure to watch on sexism and gender roles. It was well written in terms of people having equality.

I understand that, but I found it sexist that online certain people kept berating the fact that Tonks went and fought but had no problems with the fact that Remus did. I wasn't trying to say that the book was sexist.

I think male and female characters are accurately portrayed in the series by comparison to our society.

In general men and women are equally capable. But as is true of all individuals some are better at certain things than others, so by that logic, some men would be better at certain things than some women and contrariwise, some women would be better at certain things than some men and similarly some women would be better at certain things than some women and some men would be better at certain things than some men. Do you see where I'm going with this?

Look at Hagrid: He cooks(badly but still...) he knits and he darns his own socks.
Look at Amelia Bones: She's a high ranking government official and an extremely powerful witch.

I think the Wizarding world accurately reflects the real one, in fact it may even be socially more advanced. When I first read GoF I didn't realise the chasers on the Irish national team were witches I was accustomed to sports such as soccer where the teams are singe-sex and popular sports are male dominated. That is a society more porgressive than our own. But you can also look at the first time Harry encountered the Slytherin team and noted that there were no girl players. This is consitent with what we know of Slytherins as traditionalists and supremists.

As in our own society, the WW features both equality and sexism. So I don't think Jo's writing is sexist but the individuals she writes about may be, which is what makes her writing so realistic despite the nature of the stories as being so fantastical.

Interesting lead and question/thread, Irene.

The thread's title suggests hidden, rather than outright obvious sexism. It also seems to suggest that sexism is the same as gender identification, which is how one identifies one's own self in relation to the concept of gender.

If this is correct, then indeed, Irene, you have correctly pointed out how amazingly brilliant our author truly is. JK Rowling is brutally obvious with the sexist Gaunt family's portayal of gender heirarchy within the purest of blood lines (HBP), as well as with the Dumbledore/Grindewald "altercation" at Godric's Hollow (DH).

I admit that I do not follow mysteries, but I have tried to rack my brain through her website on a number of occasions. JK Rowling is a master at "well-placed" clues and leads.

Taken in a religious connotation (which Harry's "choice" regarding the Hallows seems to make very clear), gender roles throughout the series can perhaps be understood as more symbolic of "character traits," rather than suggesting the identification and removal of harmful stereotypes, and discrimination.

Therefore, the discussion regarding Abandonment (which may have perhaps both "male" and "female" connotations), is best carried out under two separate points of view. This may be exemplified not only by a targeted examination of Tonks' role in the Final Battle; but also by that of Remus Lupin, earlier at 12 Grimmauld (as a thread in General Discussion clearly expresses).

Finally, if Molly worked for the MoM, and if Arthur was a "Stay at Home Dad," couldn't they still have functioned well in these respective roles??? Just a thought.

ELC

I tend to agree with the general concensus here, which seems to be that the Wizarding World is an accurate reflection of the world we live in. Women have come a long way in their battle for equality (further in some places than others), but we still have a long way to go. i think there is an underlying thread of sexism, of the emphasis on certainl male or female qualities or behaviors, not because Jo is trying to emphasize those things, but because the world we live in would point out or emphasize those same things.

I do think Jo has gone out of her way to remove things like race or gender roles as much as possible in the books. Look at the brewhaha a few years ago when Jo was criticied about the appearance of Hermione and how the trio are all beautiful and fit etc. Jo very accurately pointed out that the visual representations we have of the characters have almost officially moved from her descriptions in the books to the film actors. Jo has consciously tried, I believe, to support the notion that anyone from any background can do great things if they want to. Neville is the perfect example. We see Neville grow from this sweet, bumbling comic foil to the leader of the student resistance who ultimately facilitates Harry's victory over Voldemort. And, Ginny! Ginny is so often referred to in OOTP, HBP and DH as an extremely powerful witch, even as an adolescent. Would I have liked Jo to give her a bigger role in the final battle? Absolutely! But, we still see her fighting alongside Harry and the others. She disobeys the direct order from Molly and stays to fight for her family (present and future). Not a traditional girl thing to do.

The long and the short of it boils down to this: if Potterverse were absolutely free of those dynamics that exist in our society that continue to prevent regular people from succeeding, things like sexism and racism and poverty, than the story itself would not be so compelling. It would not be nearly such an emotional and engaging story of triumph over adversity when poor little orphan Harry, belittled and abused by the only family he has, rises up to become the defeater of the greates threat the wizarding world has ever faced, with the help of his greatest friends, a muggle girl and the forgotten son of an extremely poor family. Without those understood challenges that Harry and Ron and Hermione all face to come together, we probably wouldn't be here debating the effect of sexism on the storyline, because the series wouldn't be what it is.

^ I completely agree with the most previous poster.

Okay, I'll first be upfront and confess to having started a Harriet Potter thread a long, long time ago. And say that I don't think there's any hidden sexism or gender roles in HP.

Why? Well, first off, I think sexism, when it occurs, is pretty much upfront. And often it's there as part of the interaction of the sexes. Ron is the most obvious sexist character, but poor Ron doesn't think, he's a collection of received ideas and secondhand notions. "Scarlet woman"? Puh-lease.

Now, Ron picked up some of his ideas from his mother. But does Molly believe that a woman's place is in the home, raising children, cooking meals, and cleaning. No. She just seems to enjoy having children. And let's be honest: raising seven children on a budget is more than a full-time job.

Does Molly promote gender stereotypes? Mmmm. Hard to say. But I'd guess no. Her children have all grown up to be liberal minded and free-spirited. (Although it does take Ron the longest time to find his voice. But that has more to do with being the baby boy of the family.) I think most of Molly's protectiveness can be traced to the trauma of first Death Eater war.

As for Hermione, well, I don't think I see a difference between intellect and courage. The term "intellectual courage" is something we don't hear much these days. But, from the first book, we see Hermione using her knowledge to challenge authority. It's there in the first book when she shows contempt for wizards who can't solve a logic puzzle. And it grows until she's founding SPEW and urging a revolt of the house elves. And let's not forget that it is Hermione who actually founds Dumbledore's Army and convinces Harry to lead it. Harry may have emotional courage by the bucketful, but it's Hermione's intellectual courage that gets them into the Ministry, Gringotts and, yes, into Grawp's forest hideout.

In many ways, it's Hermione's journey that is more important than Harry's. Harry learns that sometimes the hero is meant to die. And that it's but a quirk of fate --or plotting-- that saves him in the end. Hermione, on the other hand, learns that authority can be rational or irrational, good or bad, nurturing or oppressive. Authority is, like the imagination as described by JKR in her Harvard address, morally neutral. Hermione respects authority, but she's also skeptical and trusts her own judgement.

The Potterverse is not Utopia. From Aunt Muriel to Winky, from Molly to Bellatrix, the Potterverse reveals a diverse range of human responses and behaviour. It is, thankfully, not a piece of propaganda. Indeed, the lesson one might learn from DH is that remaking society for the Greater Good is the surest way to tyranny and destruction.

Of course, the word "hidden" in the thread title leads me to ask What is sexism? What does it mean to be a woman or a witch? What's the difference between a father and a mother? Which gender roles come naturally and which are taught? If it's a Man's World or Wizard's World, are we seeking to make women more masculine or do we need to change the rules to make the world gender neutral or both male & female?

I'd also like to suggest that the Wizarding World seems remarkably more egalitarian than the Muggle World it reflects. Witches have a more prominent place and greater equality over the last 1000 years than in our own world. So what exactly does 'magic' symbolize? And how is it less restricted by sexism than the power in our world?

Great reply, Davidenglish.

Yet, I would not entirely agree that sexism "is pretty much upfront." There is a constant flow to subliminal messages about gender in our society that limits gender into either a simpering beauty or a unfeeling tough. That limitation, I think, is the foundation of sexism. I think of gender as a verb instead of a noun. That is, it is something we do everyday and is continually shaped and reformed. The term gender encompasses much more, and can be seperate from, the fact of our biological sex because it is more culturally taught than intrinsically determined.

You ask what it means to be a woman or a witch. I cannot answer that because I don't really know. It becomes a very sticky subject, indeed. Rowling shows us in her books that a woman or a man can fulfill a wide variety of roles. This is a view that I whole-heartedly support and has served me well. However, defining each gender is still an interesting question.

I think that past feminist waves have suggested that for both sexes to be equal a woman must act more masculine. Yet, I think that feminism today takes a much broader understanding and encompasses the viewpoints of different races and classes. I also do not think that we have to make the world gender neutral but instead respect different ways to live and behave- just as we should not be blind to race but respect each other for thier person.

I also don't think that the wizarding world is restricted from sexism more than ours is - I just don't think it matters as much as lineage. Rowling created a different culture and, like cultures in our world, this culture emphasizes different traits over others. I think in the interview on Pottercast, Rowling mentioned that, with regards to Dumbledore, a person being homosexual would matter less than his or her bloodline. Yet that does not mean that Rowling does not utilize gender in her novels to convey specific and encouraging messages to both her male and female readers.

While this post does not sufficiently answer your questions or the question of this thread, I think I have gone on long enough. I am very interested to hear other people's understanding of what defines a woman or witch, what magic "symbolizes" and the plenty of other great questions you asked.

I think davidenglish's post exhibits very well the importance of choice in the matter of equality. Do the unfamiliar observer Molly Weasley could appear to promote gender stereotypes. As a stay at home mother who cooks and cleans and knits, Molly could appear to be limited by society, a victim of the oppression of gender roles. But as readers we know her to be an extremely powerful witch not least a formidable opponent in a duel. Admittedly her preventing Ginny from entering battle in DH may again appear to be the restriction of sexist views but if we look back to OotP we saw her refuse to allow Fred, Ron or George join the Order. In saying "I won't permit it! The boys, yes, but you, you've got to go home" I don't think it was simply or entirely a matter of 'they can because they're boys and you can't because you're not' but more a case of they could because they were of age and she couldn't stop them. Mike Newells film "Mona Lisa Smile" and Willy Russell's play and screenplay "Educating Rita" showed the importance of choice in oppurtunity. The purpose of equality I think is all too often mistakenly pushed as the idea that all people are the same and should be the same. This leads, as Orithyia said, to women being urged towards greater masculinity, when really the purpose of equality as a concept between genders or race or creed, is that all individuals should not be the same but be given the same oppurtunities and choices, which I think reflects true equality.

I think magic enables true equality more effectively than we have experienced yet in our own society. The concept of men as hunter gatherers and providers and women as homemakers and childbearers has endured for thousands of years. Men having possessed greater physical strength were thought superior, however in the wizarding world individuals would have been judged by the strength of their magical powers, this became reflected in the WW's own primary case for discrimination, lineage, and the concept that older wizarding families were magically superior. We saw this with Slughorn, he was not surprised by Lily Evans' great talent because she was a girl but because she was muggle born.

We know that JKR feels very strongly that being a good mother is a very important roll that should not be abandoned or taken lightly. She made Molly an amazing maternal figure, which is a figure that she values very highly. I don't think it's a matter of sexism so much as believing that motherhood should not be taken lightly and is a very important, if not the most important, part of a child's life.

May I be permitted to share a sensitive suggestion about Winky, the Crouch family (female) house elf? Winky may at first be thought to be a sad story about a miserable being; tricked into servitude, and too humiliated to accept liberty. She has big brown eyes and a nose that gives the impression of sadness and suffering. Why doesn't she want to be freed? Dobby, a hero, takes Winky to Hogwarts. She, in this safe place, is an emotional wreck.

I think that Jo chose Winky to be a female in order to sensitize her readers to a very dangerous, complicated situation. Winky is not drawn as "another character to fill the plot." Rather, I believe that Jo wants us to be aware of how often women are caught in abusive relationships, and cannot get out. Some live under threats, others are so physically/emotionally battered that they cannot even dream of escape. How can we imagine such desperation?

Jo, I think, gives us the clues with Hermione (S.P.E.W.) and with Ron (DH, Battle of Hogwarts). Guys, we have an obligation to protect, and to report. Share the Cloak, make it safe.

ELC

I don't really see a great amount of sexism in Harry Potter towards women in the way it is written, but every now and again some of the male characters can act misogynistic. Ron can be quite bad for this at times, in the way he acts towards women, It is almost like he fears them.

About Molly Weasley:
I don't believe that she's a stay-at-home-mom – from what we've learnt about Gamp's law she cannot conjure food 'from thin air' and we have never heard about her going shopping unless it's in Diagon Alley.
Therefore, she runs a chicken farm. Including the surrounding fields (the garden gnomes would never be allowed to be thrown onto Muggles' fields – Statute of Secrecy). And then she transfigures the harvest, maybe she even sells the surplus on the local wizarding farmers' market.

Now I don't know if this conclusion affects gender roles in HP but I think we haven't seen a real stay-at-home-mom in the series.

I agree with this sentiment, I really don't think there is anything wrong with the stay at home mother role. Now if every female character was shown like this I would understand the complaints against Molly. However when compared to characters like Minvera McGonagall and Amelia Bones who both seem unamrried and no children and very career centric it seems. Even Umbridge is an indepentant career woman. Sometimes I feel that if someone wants to find Sexism (or racism for that matter) they will find it somehow even if no one else sees it.

Shnoing: I think your right about the chickens and I wouldn't be surprised if she was growing vegitables and herbs in her garden. Hence why she is always going on about cleaning the garden gnomes out and why they even keep coming back. That's still a stay at home kind of job that some people look down on. I think she is however a great mom and that's what I think Jo wanted to illustrate in the series.

I think Lily and possibly Andromeda were stay at home mothers, for that matter Narcissa may be one as well as we've never heard her working for anyone.

Could you give some quotes to support your view? I agree that Ron is a little nervous of women in some of the books, but I just interpreted that as his being a hormonal teengae boy and not being sure of how to act around them, not that he saw women as inferior.

There is definitely alot of sexism in the Harry Potter series. Fleur Delacour was treated like a beautiful
arrogant, prissy, pain in the , But she was actually very intelligent, but because she was beautiful,
she was portrayed to an extent as dingy. And why in the last book was she all of sudden content to sit
at home and nurse goblins and old wandmakers. COME ON!!!! She was a triwizard champion, the goblet
picked her not on her looks, but the content of her character.

Although I find your opinion to be very well conceived 'Ex Libres Cogito' , I disagree with the fundamentals of your theory. I agree that Winky is not simply "another character to fill the plot" and has greater purpose as a reflection of society but I don't think her circumstances suggested an abusive and unhealthy relationship.

By the standards of House Elves, I think Winky's life was very fulfilling. She had work which house elves crave for self-actualisation and she was IMO clearly well regarded and respected within the Crouch family as she was a confidant for Barty Sr. and he also had respect for opinion and trust in her abilities to have allowed her to take Crouch Jr. to the Quidditch World Cup. in short I don't think as you have suggested, that Winky wanted to "get out".

The relevancy of Winky having been female as opposed to male I think resides in the matter of her affection and nurturing/motherly disposition towards Crouch Jr. which is a more predominantly female characteristic.


I like Fleur but she was arrogant. She looked down on Hogwarts considering it inferior to the Palace of Beauxbatons, she scorned at Dumbledore's welcome to the visiting students, she's vain and she was indeniably obnoxious when Ron asked her to the Yule Ball. Being arrogant does not imply that one is void of intelligence, just like LV being a homicidal maniac doesn't mean he's not also a genius. I think it is these combined elements that give such depth to Jo's characters.

I think alot of what gives Fleur her 'arrogance' comes from the traditional and mostly unspoken rivalry between England and France. Readers from other parts of the world may not 'get' this, but it's something that's existed for centuries. We call them 'Frogs', they call us 'Roast Beef', they think we have the 'Stiff Upper Lip', we think they're overly emotional, etc, etc. I think that Jo is alluding to the ancient European rivalries here.



I think there were alot of people who were at home keeping their heads down. The wizarding world was a very dangerous place at this point. Fleur and Bill were newly weds, and were related to one of the most 'undesireable' people around. The whole family was under watch. The very act of nursing 'prisoners of war' was one of defiance.

By the way, I do think that to even discuss the concept that traditional female roles are sexist is to allude that these roles are subordinate in some way. I disagree with this. I think that Jo is highlighting the fact that the feminine characteristics are vital and necessary. She sees no dishonour in being a powerful witch and being a mother or homemaker. Do you have to have a career to prove that you are a valuable member of society? The happiest, healthiest families aren't necessarily those that are rich or socially important, but those with a close family bond. Even those children from a single parent family, who had a caring parent or carer (Neville and Luna, for example) were brave and loyal and rightous. I think in a way, Jo is making a comment on society, that strong family units are an essential part of society. Lets not forget that Jo herself was a single mother for many years and through her intelligence and strength has carved out a successful and secure future for her family whilst still maintaining a strong maternal presence.

She describes them as males and females, with behaviorisms and such, but they are portrayed as equals. Hermione is a fierce feminist, and doesn't take any flak from the boys for something she thinks they are judging her on because she is a girl. I think that if Remus had stayed at home with Teddy and then come later, he would be placed in the position Tonks was in. It was not the gender but rather the role that garnered criticism from some. I have been annoyed that the movies present sexism that the books do not, such as the teams at the Quidditch World Cup being made up entirely of males.

I'm not sure Fleur is necessarily content to be a homemaker at Shell Cottage. They are, of course, confined there due to the war.

Devil's advocate: I could say, "Yes, but the people she's writing about are her own creations, so it's Ms. Rowling's fault if they're sexist."

To some extent, that could be taken as a legitimate criticism of her writing if it was to apply to Harry at the end of the books, since he's the hero in a series where the hero is someone who's generally painted as flawed but mostly good. (excuse the oversimplifications here!)

But, of course, although she created the characters, I agree with those who've said that the world in the books mirrors our own pretty well, and honestly, sexism is just one of many flaws that characters in a realistically-written work can have and must have if it's going to ring true and connect with us.

Now, as far as whether the way she sets things up and tells the story is sexist, whether the thoughts and assumptions of the characters overall reinforce sexist views in the readers, ... no, I don't think her books are more sexist than other fantasy/adventure novels I've read (and certainly less than some).

If there were really a society where a few biological differences were the only thing that separated men and women, and in every other way they acted, thought, and treated each other as totally the same, they'd probably find more than a few things odd about the books (and about pretty much every other book ever written). But whether you blame it on society or chemistry or "natural inclinations", I think men and women are different in more ways than just the physical. To ignore that results in poor writing, in my experience.

And when people in the HP books are blatantly sexist, they usually sound stupid/funny/a total jerk. (Such as Ron's comment about girls going to the Yule Ball alone being pathetic, but boys going alone being alright.)

Sorry if I sound nit-picky, but if memory serves me right, Ron doesn't say this in the book, only in the movies.

That being said, I don't think there is hidden sexism in the books as in JKR supports traditional gender roles by having a male protagonist and a house-wife as one of the mosts prominent females. There are sexist characters and sexisms just like it's the case in the real world, but overall I got the impression the Wizarding world is even a bit advanced when it comes to equality in comparison to our real world. Hogwarts has two female co-founders who worked on establishing the school in the wizarding world 1000 years ago. Admittedly, we don't know if they were two of very few exceptions in their time, but no one specifically comments on the fact of two female Hogwarts founders, no one seems to think it extraordinary. There also seem to have been female Hogwarts Headmistresses before Umbridge and McGonagall. A couple of the basic Hogwarts literature is written by women. I don't recall someone in the books ever saying 'you can't do it because you're a woman'. I think Molly forbade Ginny to participate in the Battle because she was still underage. Most likely Molly would have liked to send all of her children home, but she knew she couldn't say much to her sons because all of them were of age.

The only character, as far as I remember, who accuses another character openly of thinking in sexist terms is Hermione whe she complains about Harry not taking into consideration the HBP could be a girl. And Hermione has been growing up in the muggle world.

I think the characters are portrayed in such a way that their individual strengths, weaknesses and choices have more to do with the roles they fill than their gender. Molly is the traditional stay at home mom because that's what she wants to do. With Hermione's character it's not that the focus is on her intellect at the expense of her bravery -- its because her intellect really is her greatest strength (with loyalty and bravery being second and third). As others have already posted, there are career witches in the books, and witches who've had quite a lot of power.

As far as Harry's sexism regarding the Half-Blood Prince, I do agree that was a bit sexist, but in a way I actually thought the sexism was directed more towards males than females. I don't think Harry thought a witch wouldn't be clever enough. More that the tone of the Prince's entries was very rebellious, arrogant and aggressive and that he thought a male was more likely to be that way than a female.

I cant for the life of me remember which artical it was in- i found it that long ago but this quote from jo really stuck out for me : For the outside world at least. What has lesser status and is more difficult then raising a child? it was actually my sig on here for a long time and is now my sig on another forum. Its a very hard job- trust me! (i have a 2 and 3 year old!) Can't think how hard it would be having 7! I think it is great having stay at home mothers 'promoted' in a book aimed at young people- girls these days are told how they must have it all (own property, have a brilliant career, and have a family!) and seeing happy strong stay at home mothers can only be a positive!

Also in regards to Fleur (to another poster), she had a lot of potential but by marrying a member of the order i dont think it would have been easy or even possible for her to go out to work in the climate that DH takes place in- while she cant work out of the home she used her talents to the best to support the order and take care of the injured people/goblins in her home.

As a matter of fact, nearly all of the female characters were given the chance to "prove themselves" as exceptionally brave at one point in the books, which is great. In reguards to Fleur's role in the 7 book, she had already been given this chance, so she didn't need to "prove herself" for the plot.

One thing that does irritate me is the role of women as secretaries and nurses. The only secreatries we see are women, and the women in the series, in a tight situation, usually are portrayed to be the ones that take care of the injured. Madame pomphery, for instance. The only time a man fills that role are when they are "official" healers (or assistant healers, probably to become healers). So women fill these traditional felame roles of nursing and being a secretary by title. That irritates me, though it does make the book more realistic.

Personally, i would have loved to see the "welcome witch" at St. Mungos' be a man, or to see one of the men taking care of someone like a nurse (when they didn't have an official "doctor" title to excuse it). It would be super equal. it would say that it's OK for a man to be in those positions.

However, i can't critisize too much, because women in the series aren't limited to those roles. more like men are excluded from them.

So basically, a sexast ststement in our world, "if you are gonna go to an engineering school, you have to go to the one attached to a nursing school if you want to meet girls" wouldn't be true in the wizarding world (and the idiot muggle that said that was speaking to 15 girl engineers too, but he was too much of an idioit to realize!!). Instead, it would be "if you wanna go to nursing school and wanna meet any guys, make sure its attached to an engineering school too".

So basically, in the wizarding world, men are restricted by sexism, but women have broken through most of the boundaries. Good on the women side, but it still has a ways to come.

Kingsley was a secretary, though admittedly for the muggle prime minister, but otherwise i agree with you totally Fawks7

As someone said above, those looking for sexism can find it, even when most people wouldn't

It would have been a very stupid move on J.K. Rowling's part to have made Harry a female. I don't mean to sound sexist myself, but in order to touch the interests of more people, Harry would have to be a male. If Harry was a woman, even more guys would be embarassed about having read and liked Harry Potter. Lets face it, there is more flexibility with a male character. Fan numbers increase, and there are fewer stereotyped roles for men which allows the male character to do more without it seeming too far fetched or awkward.

On the whole topic of females being healers.......Yes it is okay to have male nurses, but this stereotype goes back to instincts. If you notice with animals, lets take bears for an example, the mother is the one who gets aggrivated when she feels her cubs are in danger. This is only because she is the one that provides the food when they're young (because the father can't) therefore bonding with them. The father is out getting more substantial food when they're older a lot of the time, which forces him to be away from the cubs. Humans see this as the mother (female) being around to care for the injured, not really protect but to put them back on their feet. Going off of my earlier reply, the public just wouldn't grasp a male healer as well as they would if it were a female. In a perfect world, yes, but in no way does that describe where we are today.

Edited by Moderator to merge consecutive posts and to fix font tags

Obviously it's Jo's "fault" if her characters are sexist but the purpose of the statement in it's entirety is to illustrate the dichotomy of the situation which is that there is both sexism and equality which is reflective of our own society.


Disregarding the sex of the lead character, the HP books did face a great deal of skepticism and opposition early on and many of these former skeptics are now fans. It is the quality of Jo's writing and the creativity of her stories that has lead to HP's great acclaim, a fact that i don not think would have been hindered if the series were about "Harriet Potter". Look at "His Dark Materials", the trilogy's primary protagonist(Lyra) is female, which(to my knowledge at least) did not marginalise the series' audience. I think the authors abilities speak for themselves.

What about His Dark Materials? Those books have a great following and the lead character is a teenage girl, Lyra. The books appeal to adults and children alike.
Or the children's book Pippi Longstocking?

Hmmm...I thought that bears and other predatory mammals (many but not all of the cats like tigers, cheetahs, jaguars for example) only "get together" for the purpose of procreation - and the females then raise the offspring by themselves, with the males having no vested interest in the resultant offspring. Other mammals have different social structures, such as elephants in a "sisterhood", where the males are sent out to find their own bachelor groups after a certain age.

I don't know about the public not grasping a male healer as well as a female one. Certainly, there were many television shows and books written about male doctors (where would the Soaps have gotten many of their stories? lol ). After all, the primary function of a physician is to heal...or else, what is meant by the biblical reference of "Physician, heal thy self"?

Percy was secretary as well for Fudge and Barty Crouch.

Momwitch I don't know about all male predators but Lions and Tigers are particulary interested in their OWN offspring. A female lion had cubs with male lion and he was killed. She then mates with another lion, who then kills the previous cubs to insure his own. I'm pretty sure that the Feline and Ursus predator's are pack animals and in general stick together.

Sure the author can write whatever he or she wants, but why have i, nor any of the people i've asked, know of "His Dark Materials"? This only shows that it did not reach out and grab as many fans. Harry Potter was all over the news, everyone knows what one is talking about when you say that name. It has made it's way into all lives. This "His Dark Materials" isn't very well known. It clearly didn't take well with the public.



Notice the word children's in that sentence. At a young age, not many children know about the gender-roles of society, or the personality that each gender has taken on. In order to fly as a children's book, one just has to have a catchy/spunky story. Deeper meanings don't really go well in that case.



Okay......the whole "bear" thing was not really the point. The way in that females take on the nursing roles was. Sorry.



Firstly........nice reference to "the Soaps" Secondly, notice how the male is the DOCTOR. The doctor is looked upon as the one in charge. The nurses prep. the patient to the point that the doctor (male) can take over. He is not the one to care for the patient after either. The man is only there to do the.......how should i phrase this???.......more intricate job??? yeah, that's close enough to what i meant.

Physician= heal THY self, yes, but i'm focusing more on the caring role.

Women can be Doctors as well now and lawyers and pretty much anything they want even ruler of a Nation. Just because there are many caring and nurturing women doesn't mean they all are or that they all want to be. I think your understating the sucess of His Dark Materials, there are actually people who have not heard or read of Potter I'm sure. I don't think the sex of Harry/Harriet would have really made that much a difference. As a young boy I read many books where there was a female lead, the only reason they would be embarresed to do so is if it was a LEARNED response to a woman in the lead.

Another female lead that I think is doing good with the kids would be Dora the explorer, her stuff is litetarly everywhere.

LOL Shard! I didn't include lions in that list for that reason - lions live in Prides (interesting choice of naming I think ) which include both males and females...but the females are the hunters, while the males chase away other predators such as hyenas and younger adult males looking for prides of their own. Many of the cats are solitary, such as tigers, which have large territories and don't tolerate others of their own kind on their "turf" - with the exception of mating season.

HP777 My answer was based upon the choice of the word "Healer" to describe the female roles. A healer can be of either gender, and indeed midwives were considered the prominent healing practitioners in many societies, most often for childbirth issues (the overwhelming concern for any social group in bringing forth and the continuation of that society into the next generation), as well as being considered the "wise women" for the entire community.

Although Harry is male, I do see him almost genderless in his characterization. Let me try to explain...Harry is described many times as looking like his father, but having his mother's eyes. He is written almost to be the ideal "sensitive male", with qualities evident from both "sides". He is easily related to by both males and females because he is a combination of both in a boy's body. A girl characterized like this can often be threatening as not being "girl" enough...as we see in Hermione's character, and although Hermione is very popular now, if the book was written with her as the main, I don't think the Series would have been as successful. It takes a while to warm up to Hermione, yet we take to Harry right away. We want to protect him, yet as a boy, he doesn't fall into the stereotype of a princess needing rescuing, so we can be more open as to how he can go about rescuing himself.

Interesting topic!

And momwitch, I liked your comment about Harry "being almost genderless in his characterization" (at least in the early books). Although naturally he identifies more with his father (and fortunately has inherited the Quidditch talent), DD is surely right in saying that 'his deepest nature is much more like his mother's' (HBP33).



Nothing wrong with Molly being a full-time mother; as has been said before, her children are (basically) a credit to her. The family may be materially poor but in every other way they're rich. Ginny is perfectly able to hold her own with six brothers... Ron seems to be the slowest to mature but the way that JKR portrays his relationship with Lavender is full of affectionate mockery...

How about Hermione; she is the brain of the trio and is certainly intelligent; but why so much focus on her intellectual talents and not her bravery?

Not sure that's quite fair... Hermione is immensely brave: not only when being tortured by Bellatrix but throughout the series we see ample reasons to justify her place in Gryffindor. In particular, she and Neville both have the moral courage to stand up to their friends...

What about the trio and their interactions with each other. Didn't Hermione call Harry sexist? Was Ron being fair when he complained about Hermione's cooking in DH, and telling her that she did the cooking because she was the best at it?

Hermione has a fair point about the cooking... but then so has Ron, in a way! Ron and Harry have never denied that Hermione
is the best at magic; indeed, Harry is stung by this in HBP when he and Hermione argue over the 'Prince':



How about the Marauders; Sirius, James and Remus? They can be perceived as a group of swashbuckling, arrogant males, full of machismo. Is this a fair assessment?

Possibly! I must admit to being a bit of a Sirius/Remus shipper before HBP.

I was disappointed that we didn't see more of James's transformation in DH (especially now we know that the events of 'Snape's Worst Memory' occurred after 'the Prank'). I felt that we should have seen why a woman of Lily's moral integrity and academic brilliance (according to Slughorn) should have fallen for the swashbuckling Quidditch Captain. Otherwise, the suspicion lingers that he was not worthy of her... (The most that Sirius gave us was that James 'always hated the Dark Arts'.)

We do learn that Sirius Black was a damaged character even before his imprisonment in Azkaban... I feel that the revelations about his upbringing in OotP went along way towards explaining his behaviour (though I'd still love to know if the Prank was revenge for Snape subverting his brother - one of my pet theories pre-DH).

If I might add...

Finally, I do appreciate the way in which JKR shows us so many different positive models of femininity. Hermione and Ginny are friends despite being very different (Ginny is sporty and popular but she is grateful to Hermione for looking out for her at Hogwarts) and they learn to appreciate Luna and even Fleur (who is initially seen as a threat). I the sisterhood!

I think this balances out the secretarial debate. We saw the St. Mungo's Welcome Witch and Umbridge as female secretaries and Percy and Kingsley as male secretaries(are there any other exampes?) Which I think balances very well and sucessfully illustrates that as a society the Wizarding World has greater equality and gender stereotyping is not as common.

I honestly can't say why you or the people you've asked have never heard of Phillip Pullman's trilogy (The Golden Compass/Northern Lights, The Subtle Knife and The Amber Spyglass) The stories are internationally reknowned, have been adapted for the stage, turned into a radio serial by the BBC and most recently transformed into a very sucessful film franchise featuring the talents of Nicole Kidman, Ian McKellan, Christopher Lee and Daniel Craig.

Granted Harry's sucess may surpass that of His Dark Materials but the trilogy still has a very extensive fanbase which has not been hindered by a female lead character.

what you have got to realize about Ginny and her brothers and Mrs Weasley is:

Ron, Fred, and George are her OLDER brothers. they are probably very protective of her (like most brothers are). To them, she is a younger sister, and they don't want her to get hurt. They feel they should help her, because she is the youngest. I know a girl with 2 older brothers, and they act the same way, because they CARE about her.
Also, Ginny was underage when the Battle of Hogwarts was going on. And if I had a daughter, I wouldn't want her to be fighting, knowing she could die. Especially if she were my only girl. Plus, Mrs. Weasley knew that she couldn't stop the boys; they were going to fight wether she liked it or not. But Ginny simply had to do wat she was told.

I've seen several posts that talk about Molly Weasley and her marriage with Arthur.

Let's look at another marriage -- the Malfoys. Not once do we see Lucius acting domineering toward Narcissa. In fact, it is mentioned that Lucius had wanted to send Draco to Durmstrang, but respected Narcissa's wishes for him to go to Hogwarts. In books six and seven, Narcissa acts very protective of Lucius; against Bellatrix's put-downs, against Harry's sneering comments, and during the time Voldemort was in residence and treated Lucius in a demeaning fashion. In book 7, Narcissa seems like the stronger partner, though I imagine there have times in the marriage when it has been the reverse. And I imagine that for most of their marriage, they were roughly equals.

I think this is telling because if JK Rowling was going to portray anyone in a sexist marriage, it would have likely been the marriage of a Death Eater.

Absolutely!!! There are so many positive female role models that just about any girl can look at the Potterverse and find that she too can be a strong, independent woman, valued for who and what she is. Tonks, McGonagall, Molly. Hell, even in her own way, Narcissa Malfoy could be seen as a strong woman role model. I don't think that it is a matter of whether or not the girls/women in the series are on equal ground. As I have said before, that makes the whole story seem so unrelateable. The unfortunate reality is we live in a world where that will not happen in our lifetimes. What the Potter women do is inspire us to a) be the best women we can be. And, b) work to make sure that this isn't a question for our daughters, nieces and other little girls growing up.

So why does the thread "invite" us to look for sexism and gender behavior in the series? Not a bit of light reading, this thread, is it?

What is with people? Molly was a house wife - that's sexist, she should be a wizarding GOD (Not goddess cause that's sexist). Hermione was smart but why didn't they talk about her being brave?

I think JKR had it right. There is no way to please people. Do something for one group and another has something to complain about.

Your perceptions are all in your head and you wiil find evil if you look for it. There is no sexism in these books, but if want some, I'm sure you'll make up reasons in your head to find it.

Why is Molly being a house wife an issue? No one here know's a dang thing about her past, as it was never written, but you can be darn sure she is where she wants to be. If that wasn't so, her relationship with Arthur would be different than what is written. Since no longings for a different life were ever mentioned, JKR probably felt the character was HAPPY where she is. And why write about Granger's bravery when its apperant. Harry's was probably because he's the main character.

I wonder if the people who find this an issue would rather humanity be asexual. That way there are no sexes and we wouldn't have to deal with the differences between man and woman (oops, sexist remark, I should say woman and man, but then woman contains the word man so that's probably a sexist thing, so maybe I should say male and femal...nope, dang...I'm so confused.)

Crimmany people, stop looking for problems where none exsist. We have enough problems as it is.

First off, kudos to the wonderful and insightful posts so far

I understand your point of view greenusmarine53 and respect it; however; equality and gender roles are very prevalent and real topics in the world today. We don't live in a Eutopia. I think the topic of gender issues in the HP series is a very valid discussion and there is nothing evil about it, nor is it purely imagination. Differences will exist forever simply because men and women are different and are perceived differently in society. I am very happy that you feel all of the characters were treated equally and gender roles don't exist in Rowling's Potterverse; however; others might not share that opinion, and are very free and welcome to disagree. If we all agreed, the world would be a much more boring place to live in

I'd just like to say a few words about Ron. My take on Ron is that he wasn't really sexist; just immature and it took him most of the series to fully grow into his own. I never felt that Ron looked down on females, but the scene in the tent in DH to me shows Ron making an emotional parallel between Hermione and Molly. He expected Hermione to be the mother figure if you will and take care of him and cook for him; just like Molly. We know from canon that his missing his home and his cooked meals was one of the reasons why he left the trio. But he came to his senses and returned.

You're right, ELC...not your average piece of light reading - maybe more in line with the bedside tome "Hogwarts A History"! lol I'm thinking that the thread "invites" us to examine our own perceptions of how the characters were developed. As another poster mentioned, we bring a part of ourselves to everything that we read and experience...in other words, we are always going to see the world through our own "colored glasses". If we feel affected by a perception of sexism or racism, we will be more likely to pigeonhole that particular event as an easily referenced example, which can either strengthen or weaken our attitudes of similar events taking on the same significance.

I do think that some of the characters did exhibit certain sexist attitudes, but they serve in many cases as learning experiences from which the character eventually grows. I believe that Ron's behavior during the camping exile was already mentioned, but he ended up coming back, which shows in part that there was a measure of newly found respect for what his mother actually provided for him at home. With his return to Harry and Hermione, he was fully aware of what he was leaving again, and to not expect Hermione to provide for him what his mother always seemingly, effortlessly whipped out of thin air.

A sexist attitude lacks respect - which is a sincere appreciation for the person or situation for simply being what it is...with no expectations attached. I agree with another poster that it isn't necessarily equality that most women (at least the women I've spoken to) are looking for, but fully realized respect as human beings. I myself am very glad that I am a woman, but it is when someone else treats me less as a person, and more how they expect I want to be treated (without letting me answer for myself) because I am a woman that really gets my ire up.

Stunning post, Momwitch! If my understanding is correct then, we as individuals can ask questions in this thread like: "What is sexism?", "What do we view as gender-specific behavior?", and "How do we relate these concepts to individuals or to groups of characters that we encounter in the Harry Potter Series?" I believe that the originator of this thread intended it to be "enjoyable." The first post ends with "Have fun!" But now I believe that this may be the venue to talk about some very misunderstood things.

Please. What is sexism? What is it about sexism that many people (men) don't get? Who decides what "gender specific behavior" is? Is this behavior intended to be gender-specific? What ramifications could arise if the behavior is "mis-understood?"
Where can a reader begin to identify these issues with any of the characters? Does it matter if these characteristics are "hidden?" What if JK Rowling never intended this character or that character to possess sexual biases, or perspectives of behaviors exhibited by one gender or the other?

No, Momwitch. This thread is not light reading. And maybe it shouldn't be. It is still, though, a very worthwhile thread.

ELC

I can't speak for lirene, ELC, but the way this thread is moving, as long as it pertains to and is somehow tied back to references in the books, we can certainly attempt to shed some light on the complex questions which you are asking.

As for being enjoyable and fun? I find these types of discussions extremely enjoyable, though like riding rollercoasters (which is also one of my favorite things ), might not be everyone's cup of tea or for the faint of heart! lol The important thing to remember is in discussing these types of issues, we have to be aware that others might not share our points of view, and that anyone who participates in the thread should not be personally attacking a specific poster when their opinions don't quite get along harmoniously with their own.



To start, I think sexism goes both ways. Molly and Ginny exhibit some extremely sexist behavior towards Fleur in (what I saw as) their assumption that she was a gold digger or man-eater just because she was extremely beautiful. Women, especially when they feel threatened, tend to cast the "other woman" (take a moment and really think about what that phrase - other woman - conveys to you) in a villianous light. It takes Fleur to get an "O.W.L" to prove that she loved Bill to them in going above and beyond the reaction they expected from her when Bill was scarred by Greyback. Bill didn't question Fleur's love and committment to him, yet his mother and sister were connivingly suspicious of her - casting Fleur in a role which she didn't deserve.

One of the big problems I have with the proposed movie versions of HBP and DH is that the growth that is realized in both Molly and Ginny through these exchanges is not going to be portrayed on screen through the Bill/Fleur engagement and wedding. I think it is one of the most "telling" subplots the Series, and extremely significant to how women are often the perpetuators of the stereotypes and gender bias that we say we want eliminated. I thought JKR was brilliant in bringing this into her story, and it bothers me that it won't end up reaching the wider cinema audience.

I too agree that the Potterverse does somewhat go along with the real world. Like in Deathly Hallows where Harry and Ron expected Hermione to be the one to take on the cooking * i think it was actually mentioned as a woman thing*. They actually expected her to be the one to think of and pack everything so they would be ready to leave at a moments notice. So yeah there is some sexism and gender classification. Even concerning Ginny