I think reading that letter that JKR wrote about "fat" and "thin" shows us exactly the type of "feminist" she is. That's why Hermione doesn't care about how she looks - because JKR does not find that important. She thought that things other than her looks were important, like writing a book (and publishing it!) and having a child (which she obviously doesn't think is such a bad thing). But in any event, anything other than the way she looked. She wanted her daughters to be Hermione, not Pansy Parkinson (or Lavendar Brown).

In short, her idea of feminism may not be the same as some of you, though it's exactly what mine is - (1) stop worrying about how you look unless you are dealing only with it as a serious health issue and (2) you can be whatever you want. She wants her daughters to be independent, funny, etc. Nowhere there did she mention anything about being a "feminist" in any political sense of the word. She came across fairly neutral on that point. She wants them to be GOOD PEOPLE not GOOD WOMEN, and I think that's all that JKR was every trying to portray in her books - it wasn't about making a political statement about women or men, it was to be generally gender neutral and only point out GOOD HUMANS from BAD HUMANS, regardless of gender.

If she made a statement through Hermione and the house-elves (which someone mentioned here), that's fine, too. But it all goes to her hatred of bigotry of any kind, a hatred I share.

I think she's more worried in general about girls' self-esteem, which is something we women know goes downhill when we hit puberty, for whatever psychological or physical reason. If we teach our girls self-esteem in general, then we don't have to teach them anything else. If they feel like they can do anything, they will, and that includes whether to have a career outside the home or to be a "stay at home" mom, or get married, etc.

I think that even though she only has about 6 years on me, she is an incredibly wise woman and I think she has shown that wisdom through her books.

Maybe Meredith on Today will ask her the feminist question and maybe she'll answer it for us!

You are certainly doing an excellent job, however, I think, I must clarify what I mean.

"feminism" does not mean "caring for the well-being of women" Let me see if I can put my finger on it.

"Feminism comprises a number of social, cultural and political movements, theories and moral philosophies that are concerned with the impact of cultural, political, and economic practices and inequalities on discrimination against women. "

wikipedia to the rescue! I know wikipedia is not authoritative, but the lack of authority is perfect for today's purposes. Look at the first two words. Feminism comprises. Not, feminism IS.

I fall back on Heinlein's "stranger in a strange land", and the verb, to "grok". It's a concept which means to drink, to absorb, to immerse one's self in, to understand fully. To grok something is not merely to know it.

Feminism comprises so many things, it's hard to say definitively what feminism is, and to grok feminism. While I'm sure JKR is a good person and wishes no ill upon feminists, I don't think she self-identifies as a feminist, studies feminist philosophy, or cares about her impact on the movements which comprise feminism. In short, she does not grok it.

Or as I said before... with all respect to Mr. Pettigrew, maybe she doesn't give a rat's ass.

But that's been my point as well. Having read Stranger in a Strange Land (though a very long time ago), I get your "grok" reference. I don't think JKR does "grok" feminism and I'm glad she doesn't. I personally feel that many issues have gotten so politicized that we are unable to come to a civil agreement about what's best for EVERYBODY as a society. As a woman, I certainly don't want to be treated unequally because I have 2 more of one thing and one less of another. But I believe that OPPORTUNITY is the key. Once you have made sure that everyone is getting the same OPPORTUNITIES to do well, that's all that one can ask for and success or failure will flow from there based on what the individual does with that opportunity. Societies and species do better with competition. Who would want to work the hardest if they knew they were going to get the same reward no matter how hard they worked? That's why communism/socialism didn't work.

Women have far more opportunities today than ever. Still, many decide to be "stay at home" moms. And probably just as many decide to work and be moms, or work and not be moms. I have no problem with this because women are being allowed to choose for themselves what kind of life they want. I thought that ultimately that's what it was about. I don't think that either group was pressured to make the decision and I don't think either group should be made to feel guilty for their decision.

In that sense JKR's wizarding world is no different from our own - some female characters chose careers and some women didn't. I think because she's neutral on the issue, she didn't think too deeply about whether or not she mentioned if Amelia Bones was married with children or if Prof. McGonagall or the other professors were ever married and had children. There's a good chance, based on the interview she's going to do on TODAY, that her encyclopedia will contain all this wonderous background information, information that simply was not relevant to the story she was trying to tell. So what if Lily was important for her sacrifice, for the fact that she was loved by Snape. How could you create a story that would have such an emotional impact if her importance was leaving Harry in daycare and going out to work? Which is not to say that that's a bad thing. It just wasn't the story JKR was trying to tell. Many people theorized that Voldemort spared Lily because of her Potions aptitude, that Snape had told him she would be useful. But, JKR had already set up Snape to be the ultimate good guy, also the guy that sacrificed everything for the love of a woman that would never love him. That resonates more powerfully.

And think about it - Voldemort's biggest flaw is his inability to see certain kinds of power - the power of Lily's sacrifice (which he never understood, even in the end), the power of non-humans, the power of children, the power of love in general. JKR showed us that EVERYONE is powerful in their own special way and maybe teaching we women, we modern women, that being a mother, or not being a mother - well, both are powerful in their OWN way. She also teaches us about the power of love, how great and terrible it really is: Aunt Petunia and Narcissa, Lily, Snape, etc.

Just because JKR s a woman doesn't mean that she has to identify herself with feminism in any sense of the word. I think if you understand that about her, then you don't have to start digging through her work looking for feminism because it's not there, or if it is, it's not there in the politicized sense.

thanks for an interesting post Ceallach, sorry I haven't posted back sooner (traveling at the moment) but I must say I'm surprised by how much attention this post has gotten. or maybe i shouldn't be, given how volatile questions of gender and feminism are when you throw them into contexts where they otherwise aren't being discussed (as a nineteen year old college student i have been witness to this many a time)

i think you make a good point about the way house elf work is degraded in ways similar to women's work, but i guess i wonder again about the absence of this kind of explicit comparison in the book - again i dont have the books in front of me, maybe its there, but ive always felt that the primary ways their plight is framed is as the servant class and as another 'magical race'. i guess i wished jk just took on these issues more directly as bearing connections and ties to feminist concerns as well, and was actively trying to make the linkages between gender, race and class oppressions clearer to her readers.

also, in response to comments by some people that these are childrens books, i again really dont see why that should exclude a gender critique, if a race/class critique is permissable.

and just because she may or may not be a feminist doesn't mean we can't question the kind of politics and pedagogical position of a series like harry potter on feminist grounds. if anything it should impel us to question her politics more, to question what are we reading and what we are encouraging our children to read. this isn't about trying to pick her apart and brand her as one thing or another, for the purposes of trashing her. its about trying to understand the impact these books have on people in more than just the thrill of the narrative.

i wish i could write more in response to some of these other comments on the different views and impacts of the book from a feminist point of view - unfortunately i have to leave where i am shortly and wont have internet access till tomorrow. but what i will say is that the variety of views clearly reflect that feminism remains a live and contested area, not a unitary entity but a multiplicity of voices with different values and differnet politics. i often think we need to speak of 'feminisms' rather than feminism as a single clear ideology. it's far from it.

on a different but related note, i'd encourage people who have the time and a good library to look up audre lorde's essay 'man child' for a beautiful and heartbreaking discussion of the challenges of raising a feminist son. well worth reading. also, a book i have not yet read but is on my list - feminism is for everybody by bell hooks

more to come, and im excited to see what other people have to say!

I tip my witch's hat to all of the participants in this thread - what a great discussion! Thanks!

You know, I was reading DH again last night (my husband finally finished and now I can do my more-thorough second read) and came across the scene in which Ron, Horcrux-enabled and cranky, is complaining about the food.

Hermione says (not an exact quote here, but close) If you don't like it you can cook. In fact why am I the only one cooking? Is it because I'm a girl and I'm supposed to be best at cooking?

Ron snaps back at her, No it's because you're supposed to be best at magic.

To say there is nothing of (let's call it second-wave) feminism in JKR's books is a mistake. It's one small part of the overall landscape, just like the giant squid in the lake. The squid has a couple of moments, but it mostly hangs out off-page. That the squid makes a few appearances is interesting, but you could probably remove it and lose nothing from the story. Same with Hermione's snap about cooking. It's not the point, but it's there.

The point of her books is not feminism, I quite agree with ladyk and others here on this. (Aside to ladyk - they're also not about the inherent facism of American Democrats. And yes, I have been deliberately provocative in this thread - what can I say? I'm an English Major, just like b-a [grin].) They're absolutely about the redemptive power of love, about people choosing selfless, sacrificial love of their fellow creatures over love of personal power and selfish control. That's a message every daughter and every son needs to read.

Thanks again heypop (and congrats on getting a checkmark!) for starting this thread - I've really enjoyed reading everyone's thoughts here!

There is certainly a lot to read, and I'll admit straight off to not having read all the posts, but I'd like to join the conversation. Hopefully, I won't repeat too much of what has already been said. I just finished Deathly Hallows and admit I too, was irked by some of Hermione's "shortcomings" on the feminist side. I think Rowling was a bit careless when it came to the strength of Hermione as a feminist character, especially where giving her due honor is concerned. But clearly, Hermione is female. She cries, she cares, she cooks. These to me not negative female attributes, and I don't feel she was ever portrayed negatively. On the contray, she is always put in the light. Hermione is a vehicle for a much larger role than simple gender issues can hold to. Plot-wise she is the informant. She discovers most of the clues and due to her extremely high intelligence, informs the reader of much of the goings on in the story. She is also the true muggle among them, and I feel her role as Rowling has written it to garner empathy from the readers who can most associate with her character (being that we are all muggles that is). Remember, it is often Hermione that is given the most difficult and interesting "tasks" by Dumbledore. She travels in time, keeps secrets, and deciphers riddles often at his command and often in secret. It is always Ron who is "jealous" and "overshadowed" by Harry's heroics. Hermione seems to participate on a level that beyond mere emotion. In the early books, it is almost a mental game for her to help Harry, and has nothing to do with heroics. In the end, it seems she understands the mission as clearly as Harry does, it is Ron who becomes confused and susceptible. Whereas Ron is often the befuddled fool, overcome by emotion and what I like to think of as teen-angst, Hermione is level headed. Always. She never loses sight of the task. I find if the roles were reversed and Ron were female, it would be quite easy to argue the feminist card against him.

bright--- good point. Isn't it interesting, too, that Hermione's cooking is awful???

I'm not saying we shouldn't question JKR or her writing. I just think that it's a lost cause. When we question her, the answer will be just what I said: she's not a political feminist. I'm sure she'd speak out against genital mutilation and domestic violence etc., but I don't think you are going to find what I call political feminism in her books. Why? Because she's not one, that's why. I know she answered a question like this previously about Hermione and she seemed really put off that people were thinking that Hermione wasn't a good role model for girls or not feminist enough. I don't have the link; if anyone else does, feel free to put that in. I find that certain things are better explained by the authors themselves, especially when they are still alive to share it with us, than it is for us to speculate about it.

And that's it. I'm just saying that the question should be asked, but the answer leads you nowhere. Since she isn't trying to make a statement, you can lead yourself around in circles about why McGonagall isn't shown with children, why isn't she Headmistress and the "wise one" for Harry instead of Dumbledore. Heck, why isn't Harry Harriet instead? Why didn't Lily have a job? Did she have a job? Why Narcissa didn't have a job? Etc. etc. etc.

To me, if you are asking what careers these women had, if any, then you have missed the point of the book (and the point of what I consider to be real feminism). The book touches, satirically, on political issues of government, bureaucracy, and not so satirically, on bigotry. But it's main theme is LOVE. It sounds sappy but it's true. It's about how LOVE affects everything around us, both in good ways and bad ways. Aunt Petunia's love for Dudley turns him into an overweight brat and bully (thankfully he comes to his own conclusions in the end and his statements to Harry were very moving). The Malfoys' love of their son make him into a skinny brat, and even more dangerous as he tries to become a Death Eater. Lily's love saves Harry. Snape's love for Lily protects Harry. Harry's ability to love, despite such a horrible childhood, saves him and everyone else.

All the other stuff is just fluff. She didn't take the time to talk about careers because it wasn't important. I'm sure she has a career and background story for each character, hence talk of the encyclopedia. It just wasn't going to fit in and it wasn't important to the telling of the story, even if it took up a few lines. If she has a different answer, I'll eat my hat.

In fact, it shows how neutral she is on this issue and why I respect her. I buy her books because I like her stories. If I thought that she had this "girl power" or political feminist leaning because it showed in her books because she pointed it out time and time again, it would probably get old for me.

Reminds me of The Mists of Avalon (can't remember the author). At first I liked the idea of telling the story of King Arthur from the perspective of a time when paganism was being overrun by Christianity. But what got old was the constant feminine is better, yada, yada, yada. That's how I took it. I don't know if the author was a political feminist, but it sure seemed like it.

I get what you are saying about wanting to know what our children are reading, about finding out what impact the books will have outside the narrative. But if you are going to look for a feminist take in every book written by a woman, you may find yourself to be disappointed (especially since many of the romance authors are women and we know who ridiculously sappy those books are!).

I see that you are a 19 year old college student and I commend you on your ability to think critically. I won't presume to know anything about you, but I will say that I remember being a wide-eyed 19 year old college student, susceptible to everything my professors told me. Be wary of getting sucked into anything, or any particular way of thinking. Keep that critical thinking going. And please realize that most college classes are not practical at all. It's great to theorize about things (like we do with what will happen in HP), but these things don't always work well in the real world. I love theorizing. My favorite political science classes were theory classes. And I'm sure if you are taking a woman's studies class, it's also interesting to dig into things, and theorize about things, but again, it has nothing to do with the real world. Communism sounds great on paper; so does capitalism; so does religion in general - but all of these things are wasted on humanity which is imperfect. If you remember that, you can remember to take your classes with a grain of salt. Even management classes (if you happen to be a business major). My father never took a management course in his life, but he managed people from his early 20s until his late 50s and everyone thought he was the best manager in the world, both his subordinates and his bosses. Why? Practical experience and natural knack for handling people.

Okay, lecturing done. I'm sure you're thinking I'm just a dumb old fart, so I apologize. It's the mommy in me. I'm actually only 35, so I'm not that old (or at least I don't think I am). I'm sure other people on this site have more experience than me.

The hairs on the back of my neck stand up when I start hearing people complaining that somehow the women and girls in the Harry Potter novels don't have careers, or they were mostly mothers and didn't work, or if they worked, they didn't appear to have families. Why is any of that meaningful? Isn't it better, as JKR said, that the girls (and boys) are happy, well-adjusted, funny, intelligent, etc.? The choice between mom and not mom, work or not work, is not always one that you are allowed to make. What if you are not able to have children and you want them? What if it's more economically sensible for you to stay home with the kids than it is to work?

To make the statement that somehow the women have to be portrayed as super-moms, or they all have to have careers is a judgmental statement. It's the statement from that realm of political feminists who seem to think that motherhood is a bad thing, that it stifles women.

And the same is true for women who think that going back to work makes you greedy and evil. Or that not having children is like having a disease of some kind.

Again, the choice to become a mother or not, the choice to return to the workforce or not, is all PERSONAL AND INDIVIDUAL and should not be judged. PERIOD.

It is not important in the epilogue to know what everyone is doing. That's only OUR desire to know, but not important for the ultimate ending. The ultimate ending is that Harry has what he always wanted - a family, that Harry tells Albus Severus that Snape was a brave man (which was very moving and a confirmation that Harry understood everything that Snape showed him and that he's obviously matured), that Harry is still recognized as a hero (people were staring at him), and that All is well.

I'm sure the encyclopedia will tell us all the mundane stuff we need to know.

Personally, I don't think knowing anything about the personal lives of Sprout, Pomfrey, McGonagall, Umbridge (especially her - can you picture her with children, honestly!), Narcissa, would have made the story anymore rich. Now, about Lily, I'll give you that much. But in the end, I don't think we could have learned that much more about her than we did about James.

We were shown the following about James: he was a git, he was a Chaser on the Gryffindor Quidditch Team, he became an Animagus while at Hogwarts (good at Transfiguration), he turned around and became Head Boy is the last year, member of the Order of the Phoenix and bravely tried (though apparently wandless) to fend of Voldemort and give Lily a chance to run with Harry.

What we know about Lily: her wand was good for Charms, she excelled at Potions (attention to detail), was friends with Snape both before and sometime during school despite the fact that he looked greasy, unattractive, etc., defended Snape from her future husband, tried to keep Snape on the good path, but failed, gave her life for her son which created a special charm (without her even knowing) that kept him safe and allowed him to defeat Voldemort.

I don't think that we know anymore about James than we do about Lily, except that most of Lily's stuff came not until Book 7.

And I know people have said - well, great, she's only known for the sacrifice she made for her son. Why is that not a valued thing? Because it's not up to snuff with the political feminist, that somehow all women need to separate themselves from any and all traditional roles in order to have worth? That would mean that a childless 40-something woman with a great career should be considered more valuable than a stay-at home mom of 4 kids and no career.

That's what I'm afraid this kind of questioning leads to.

A woman is valuable just as a human being, whatever she does.

And Bright asked about why Hermione wasn't given an award in CoS and I've tried to think about the answer to that or how to address it - right now, my thinking is this. Why does she have to have the award? Why does she have to be recognized? Why do political feminists insist on having everything that men have, including shutting down all-male clubs, but all-female clubs are still okay? Why push to have women in combat if you are going to complain that the men talk dirty talk? Why push to have them in combat if they don't have to meet the same physical requirements as men? My husband's in the military. A combat pack is almost 100lbs and everything in that pack is 100% NECESSARY. If a woman (or a man) can't carry that successfully and carry out their duties, then they shouldn't be allowed to do it. Gloria Steinheim said it would be okay if a woman just dragged a 200lb man down the stairs in a fire (yes she did, check John Stossel's archives if he has any; she said it, I saw it)!

The problem with some political feminism is that it refuses to acknowledge that women and men are different; not better than each other, just different. Yes, the differences can be used against each other. So, we, like Fudge, should put our heads in the sand and pretend like there aren't any differences, instead of owning up to them and dealing with them at face value.

Besides, nowadays, most jobs use the brain, not the brawn and in that respect, as long as neither side is given any advantage or special treatment, then women and men can compete equally. I'd rather be hired for the job because the person thought I could do the job, rather than because they had to fill a quota for women that year, or because they thought I would sue them if I didn't get the job. That makes me feel my worth, not some law that says that they have to like me. That makes me feel like shit.

And Hermione has brains. I don't think she needs the award in order to have value. She knows that she's done good and that's all she needs. That's my take on it. Maybe that's a subtle lesson that JKR was trying to teach us. Maybe not. Somebody ask her, then we'll know.

In some ways it's ironic that some political feminist try to be like men, and want what men want. Instead, we should just do what we want to do, what's best for us, as women and as human beings. The other way perpetuates a system that divides to conquer. We should celebrate the humanity in everybody and if we did that, and remained gender neutral and color neutral then we would have achieved what Martin Luther King was looking for - to be judged by the content of our character and not the color of our skin (or our gender or our religion). Instead of trying to break into the club, create your own. Show everybody that you can do it, and they will see. Complain, whine, that you are not in the club and try to get the club to admit you, just annoys everybody and doesn't really get you anywhere.

Well, I better stop, because I'm starting to repeat myself. It's been a long day!

Marion Zimmer Bradley.

Thank you, bright! That was it!

I love Hermoine's Character and I think she is a very strong willed woman but the book is called Harry Potter for a reason he is the figure head and if you cannot see that then I don't know how the help you.

I don't know if it doesn't mean anything. I just can't vibe with that. As a former student of literature myself, I was taught to question question question EVERYTHING in the TEXT. I was also taught that the text should stand alone, without the author holding it up. It should be strong enough for that, and someday, the author will be gone, and the TEXT should survive. So I say, I could give a rat's ass on what Rowling has to say on the issues of feminism. From the book, it is quite clear, she has very little to say about it. As I said before, I don't think it matters much to the story. You are right, the story is not about feminism but really good old fashioned heroism and LOVE. What it does reflect about feminism IS important, however. If these books do last, become classics, they will reveal much about the way our society existed. I say, the fact that Hermione and others are relagated to mostly (I use that word purposefully) traditional feminine roles reflects that we as women, today, in our society, are still relagated to mostly feminine roles.

Hmmm, JKR being feminist shy has come up many times. But, i think Dealthy Hallows was the first work that i found her the least shy, if not quite feminist through her writing.

As you mentioned, Hermione continually saves Harry's ass in this installment and as my little brother and i read, not once, but a few times we were like "Hermione's a flippin genius!" "what the hell would Harry and Ron do without her!". I mean, Hermione in this installment saves Harry and ultimately the wizarding world through not just physically getting the trio out of harms way time and time again, but continually being a step ahead mentally it seemed.

That sone through quite well in this installment i thought. Fine Harry may have been the most brave, and atheltic, Ron was just the silly lucky type, but throughout the series Hermione has been the brains....that's pretty feminist i thought. I mean, growing up i don't remember a lot of stories where i had heriones like that to look up to. All i recall is fair, damsles in distress complacently waiting to be desired and consumed by thoughtless yet very handsome princes.

Thamus, can you give me examples of "relegated to mostly feminine roles", especially for Hermione (and especially in light of the fact that we now know that she's head of the Department of Magical Law Enforcement).

And I understand that you were educated in literature (I was an English Lit minor by the way, but years ago). But at some point, I just enjoy reading stories for what they are, rather than trying to analyze them.

And frankly, I'd rather know what the author was talking about. It's nice to say that we're not supposed to know what the author thinks because the text should be separate and survive, etc. That's easy for most "classical" literature, isn't it? They are all dead!

But why not ask the author what they were thinking or trying to get across? I find it fascinating; like a real time analysis of the books. You can still get a different interpretation of it. And I think the Harry Potter books will always live on as classics whether we question JKR now before she dies, or not.