The continued short shrift that Harry gives Hermione is INCREDIBLY frustrating in this book, more than in any other. Perhaps Rowling's one effort to comment on this is when she complains about having to do all the cooking - which is not only immediately dismissed, but also like, come on! The one thing Hermione is going to complain about is something so easily dismissed by the unsympathetic reader as an 'age old' feminist complaint. How about the fact that Hermione does freaking EVERYTHING and never gets a shred of the credit, other than some astonished expressions and the (very) occasional 'Mione thats amazing!' Or about the fact that nobody seems all too concerned when Hermione is nearly TORTURED TO DEATH (after harry asks after her to bill, he never bothers to ask her directly, if i remember correctly - but maybe i missed it in the very fast read i gave it saturday) Or how the 'mudblood' epithet has always in these books been used in a gendered way, with particular vitriol against Hermione, and yet nobody has ever really attacked Harry for his far less than pure blood.

She is consistently the character who saves Harry's ass and I continue to be frustrated that in the last book Rowling does nothing to really acknowledge or challenge this within her book - it is not just enough to assume that readers who like Hermione are going to get it, especially when Harry remains on such a pedestal, or that the lack of thoroughgoing challenge to Harry and Ron's behavior will be picked up on by readers with feminist sympathies, especially when most readers do not share such sympathies! It is especially important to be challenging this, I think, in a children's book. Also, it is not really believable that Hermione wouldn't challenge Harry more when she so relentlessly stands up for those who are denied rights, equality, and dignity. Maybe it's that other tendency on her part (or Rowling's?) to view her guy(s) as the only ones who are not sexist - they're my best friends, how can they be sexist? etc

So does Rowling's overall failure to inject a feminist critique into Harry Potter reflect her desire to prevent the boys from having to engage in some serious self-critique, a caving in to popular dislike of feminism, or her own discomfort with feminism?

It's all especially important, I think, considering how often Rowling compares herself to Hermione, and I don't think she meant just in intellect.

I think it's a mistake to view Rowling's ideas on feminism through the lens of Hermione alone. Not saying I disagree with you on this, but let's look at how she deals with women generally by reviewing some of the major female characters.

• Bellatrix Lestrange - slavishly attached to LV, e
• Molly Weasley - homemaker of the year, reacts most strongly when her children are in danger
• Minerva McGonagall - powerful schoolmarm
• Sybill Trelawney - alcoholic sometime-seer
• Narcissa Malfoy - completely abandons loyalty to LV when child is threatened (to be fair, so does Lucius)
• Nymphadora Tonks - important and interesting in Book 5, then gets married, pregnant, has a child, disappears and dies
• Grandmother Longbottom - shows up to last battle, heavily invested in life of grandchild
• Rita Skeeter - bitter, nasty muckraker
• Ginny Weasley - has life and independence in Book 6 - falls off the pages of 7 until she appears at the end, an apparent "Quidditch Mom" (borrowing phrase from Book Club article.
• Lily Evans Potter - dies for her son, apparently a real whiz at Potions
• Aunt Petunia - nasty homemaker, grudgingly saves Harry's life by taking him in
• Dolores Umbridge - maims kids under her care, nasty piece of work.

So, overall what are women like in the HP unverse? Motherhood and sacrifice as women's themes are immensely important; teaching, nurturing are also clearly important to Rowling. Are those anti-feminist themes? If so, why?

Thanks for an interesting discussion point.

hey bright virago,

thanks for a thoughtful reply. i think that i'm not yet ready to brand rowling as actively anti-feminist, but i do think there is a real failure in the book to address feminist issues, especially those raised by hermione as a character but also by others.

i would say that i tend to think that we have to focus on hermione with particular scrutiny here, as she is far and away the most important female character, but also the one whom i think young women will look to. i think the choice, too, to have built such a deep and complex relationship between the her and ron and harry means that readers of the books, particularly young readers, are going to be conscious of these characters in a way they wouldn't be of others in the hp universe. young readers, but also people of all ages i think, tend to really identify with the struggles and quests of these kids. so in examining the place of women and feminism in the world of harry potter, i do think this is the particular place to look.

in response to your point, however, i dont think motherhood and sacrifice are anti-feminist themes inherently, but i think there are real questions that do have to be asked about them.

but moreover, i think there is an overall failure on the part of the books to imagine these women outside of the spheres of motherhood, nurturing, etc, and when they do (as with hermione) the books fail to confront the issues raised as they enter these spheres.

ginny isnt just stopped from fighting because she is 16, after all, but because she is a young woman. and yet nobody really seems to question this really unfair situation, not even harry, who accepts it unthinkingly almost, seeming to rationalize it with not wanting her to get hurt.

bellatrix as the ultimate evil mega bitch is also a depiction i am deeply uncomfortable with - only reinforced by molly calling her a bitch right before she puts her in her place by killing her (why does she deserve such punishment and not lucius, for example?) and the depiction of molly in this moment, with harry gaping in astonishment when he should be moving, suggests just how profoundly out of character it is for her to be a fierce fighter for justice here, and even though we cheer for her in this moment, the framing of it as all about the kids just cannot help but make me feel uncomfortable.

i think we can also see gendered depictions cropping up throughout the books of some of the other characters you mentioned - the astonishment when mcgonagall has herself a good time at the yule ball and isnt just an old matron, the total battiness and 'stupid woman' depiction of trelawney, the exocrication of petunia for being such an unfeeling woman re harry, ie for not being a proper woman

and there are more examples. but i think the larger point is that there is something problematic in rowling's overall failure to challenge within the book the problematic treatments of women like hermione who step outside of what are traditionally female spheres, and that the books' nearly total silence on questions of gender certainly does not help to foster equality and respect for women but, maybe most importantly, it does not foster in young readers the kind of critical engagement needed to properly move beyond what is merely in the text and to ask the right questions about the treatment of hermione and others, and not just have those questions put down by peers as just the rantings of a crazy young feminist mind

As I recall, a great deal of the most powerful and influential characters in the book (and in the Ministry of Magic) are women.

Amelia Bones, as I recall, is quite the professional bigwig and her death sets the wheels of state in motion in Book 6. Bathilda was obviously quite the powerful witch before being taken advantage of in her dotage. McGonagall is the second most important person at Hogwarts after Dumbledore (who, let's be fair, didn't get much shading in his character until this book). She has been routinely tough, smart, effective and hilarious, though undeniably a little schoolmarmy. (Though she did bend the rules for Quidditch, no?)

I actually think Hermione got an enormous amount of note in this book. A lot of praise from everyone, and Dumbledore even says at the end he counts on her to slow Harry down to assure that things happen methodically and not in a hotheaded teenage boy way. Ron and Harry go beserk when she's tortured.

Most importantly, there's always women involved in the battle situations on both sides of the conflict. Tonks and McGonagall and various other aurors we meet in passing are women. Lavender and Pavarti and Luna and Angelina and Katie Bell and Cho Chang all fighting on the side of righteousness at the school. Bellatrix (notably) on the other side. (The reason she gets killed by Molly and not Lucius is pretty straightforward, I think. Bellatrix actually kills some of our most important characters -- Sirius, for example, and tortures others, including Hermione and the Longbottoms. She is unrepenetent. Lucius is wandless -- a nice metaphor for emasculation if you ask me -- and the teeniest bit repenetant in order to find his son.)

Are all the characterizations a trifle cartoonish? Well, sure. That's the nature of young adult fiction, if not fiction generally. But the male characters suffer that fate just as much as the female ones.

Thought experiment:

Flip the genders of all characters in the books. Leave their behavior and motivations the same. Do you buy it? Why or why not?

Do you believe men and women are exactly alike, or do you believe that women's differences from men should be given special status? If your thesis is that feminism should have been a major consideration in JKR's stories, why should it be more worthy of attention that a woman is tortured, versus a man? Shouldn't it not matter?

One moment in the series where I think Hermione addresses this specifically is when she chides Harry and Ron for assuming the Half-Blood Prince is a boy. They dismiss her assertions, but it's there, nonetheless.

I'm glad rundeep mentioned Angelina and Katie because I always thought it was pretty cool that Quidditch is a gender-neutral sport and nobody, not even the Muggle-borns, thinks it's a big deal. And maybe that's a reflection of what Rowling's saying to her intended audience - the "millenials" tend to think less rigidly about gender-role identfication than do other generations, according to demographers anyway.

(Yes, my list was definitely more caricature than it was characteristic-comprehensive.)

Don't have the books in front of me, so I can't quote or anything, but here's my 2 Knuts:

First, I watched the movies first and noticed Hermione to be "feminist" in the sense that she was not afraid to give her opinion, always raised her hand (don't people try to support all girls' schools because they think that girls don't get noticed by the teachers, or something like that), and, later I learned, is not all that giggly about boys.

When I read the books I felt the same way. I'm not a millenial but a Gen-Xr (and an early one at that: 35 yrs. old) and if you ask me, it's MY generation that started the gender-neutral thing. I find most men and women my age to be completely disinterested in gender roles of any kind and most men my age that I've met love it when women like to watch football with them and get down and dirty (camping, hiking, mountain biking). Of course, I know men that like the opposite. In other words, it's all normal and all human. In other words, no real gender roles. Now, housework, that's a whole other issue and that may never be solved!

And I've seen that bleed into the next generation as well and that helps. It's about being NEUTRAL, not about making women extra special. That's the problem I have with feminism - it's special treatment (women don't have to do the same physical tests as men, even though the physical requirements are there for a reason), not equal treatment. And that doesn't mean that ALL women in literature have to be portrayed as wonderful and good and perfect and smart because, guess what, all women in the real world are not wonderful and good and perfect and smart. That's what makes JKR so wonderful - she knows that. Just as Sirius explained to Harry, the world was not divided between good people and Death Eaters, and so men and women are not divided that way and neither are women themselve divided that way.

I noticed this generally gender neutral thing about the books almost immediately because I didn't find myself LOOKING for feminism. It wasn't an issue. And as someone pointed out to me, it shouldn't be much of an issue in the wizarding world since it's all about wands, not about physical strength.

I don't think JKR was trying to write a feminist critique and if you are looking for it, you will be disappointed.

Several other things:

(1) While adults enjoy them, she was also writing to children and while she doesn't think them stupid, she probably wanted a little caricature and a little familiarity. Didn't we all know a Draco, a Lavendar, a Neville. The brilliance of a good writer, especially in fantasy or sci-fi, is to write characters in a very human and familiar way. If all the women in the books were "feminists" (whatever that means), I think it might be boring and completely unbelievable. There's "fantasy" and then there's fantasy. It has to be grounded in some reality in order for you to suspend at least some of your disbelief. And remember, the wizarding world is not perfect. Bigotry abounds, just not of the gender type. It's human vs. non-human and pure-blood vs. half-blood/muggleborn.

JKR's themes are against bigotry and she has said that herself. She just chose to do it the way I described above rather than with gender.

(2) We also see, for almost the entire series, through Harry's eyes and I think she was trying to keep that consistent. An 11 year old boy is not thinking about feminism. Neither is one at 12 or 13, etc.

And I don't think Harry underappreciates Hermione at all. Neither does Ron. I think they know what they've got, but it doesn't mean that she can't still impress them. She impresses me, too!

And Ron was absolutely a mess hearing Hermione scream. Harry, I'm sure, was also a mess, but was trying to keep his head to get out of there. Ron in loving Hermione may be more apt to lose it than her friend Harry, even if Harry "loves" her, too. I remember that my husband, trained as a medic in the Army, said he looked down on me after a serious car accident (in which I was hit by a car as a pedestrian) and he couldn't think of what to do except don't move me. He just stared and was so scared he couldn't think. Again, an example of how JKR writes such REAL stuff, such REAL moments.

That is why she is brilliant!

Kudos from a fellow Gen-Xer.

(Side note: For anyone looking for an interesting feminist sci-fi/fantasy author, I recommend the late Octavia E. Butler.)

"So does Rowling's overall failure to inject a feminist critique into Harry Potter reflect her desire to prevent the boys from having to engage in some serious self-critique, a caving in to popular dislike of feminism, or her own discomfort with feminism?"

Or what if, God forbid, she didn't give a rat's ass about feminism??

Sorry, couldn't resist.

I think she does. But it's not necessarily germane to the HP universe.

I had trouble linking to JKR's site previously and can't preview for some reason? If this link takes a powder, here's the hard link:

<link>

And if that fails, it's jkrowling.com under Extra Stuff - For Girls Only, Probably...

bellatrix as the ultimate evil mega bitch is also a depiction i am deeply uncomfortable with - only reinforced by molly calling her a bitch right before she puts her in her place by killing her

If anything, Bellatrix is the character that shows that JKR doesn't confine characters to gender stereotypes. You have a character that is Voldemort's most devoted and loyal servant, a powerful combatant, evil to the core, second in command. She kills Sirius, the Longbottoms and I don't remember who else. This is the character that you would traditionally assume would be male, but its a female in HP.

(why does she deserve such punishment and not lucius, for example?)

Bellatrix was the maniacal killer! by the end of the book, Lucius didn't even have his wand and was powerless. If a female character had received the treatment that Lucius had (treated with zero respect, wand taken away, etc.), we would hear howls of anti-feminist propaganda.

and the depiction of molly in this moment, with harry gaping in astonishment when he should be moving, suggests just how profoundly out of character it is for her to be a fierce fighter for justice here, and even though we cheer for her in this moment, the framing of it as all about the kids just cannot help but make me feel uncomfortable.

That is Molly's character, and her going crazy in battle is out-of-character. She is the homemaker who places her kids first.

But Arthur is practically the same way. What about when they arrive at the house after separating as 7 Harry's (I forget where they met)? Someone tries to make Arthur prove it is really him and he freaks out and screams "I'll talk to you after I've checked on my son!" in a way that Harry has never heard him yell. Isn't it a woman's job to be emotional when their child is hurt?

I think most of the complaints are people reading their own traditional gender roles into characters.

I think that one of the things that makes the books work for people is the very fact that JKR goes with, rather than against, many general cliches and stereotypes. I wonder if she had gone to greater effort to shake up some of the stereotypes and cliches if we'd even know her name or be discussing the books here? Commercial success comes partially by appealing to a certain amount of lowest common denominator things, things that 80 million people have in common, and stereotypes, harmful or benign, are one of the lowest common denominators around.

Kolmogorov

P.S. Hermione is my favorite character, probably because I'm a bookish pedant myself.

greg2442:

If anything, Bellatrix is the character that shows that JKR doesn't confine characters to gender stereotypes. You have a character that is Voldemort's most devoted and loyal servant, a powerful combatant, evil to the core, second in command. She kills Sirius, the Longbottoms and I don't remember who else. This is the character that you would traditionally assume would be male, but its a female in HP.

Of note, however, is the way Rowling describes Bellatrix leaning towards LV, as if to a lover. Like she's hoping she's the evil gal for him and maybe they'll settle down a raise a nest of little death eaters? Sorry, I know that's going to sound worse on screen than it does in my head...

greg2442:

But Arthur is practically the same way. What about when they arrive at the house after separating as 7 Harry's (I forget where they met)? Someone tries to make Arthur prove it is really him and he freaks out and screams "I'll talk to you after I've checked on my son!" in a way that Harry has never heard him yell. Isn't it a woman's job to be emotional when their child is hurt?

Granted, this is a twist on strictly-traditional gender roles, but not unexpected coming from Arthur in this situation. It surprised Harry but it didn't surprise me.

Now, let me throw some gas on this fire before I leave for the day (insert evil laugh here)...why didn't Hermione win a Special Award for Services to the School at the end of Chamber of Secrets? Harry did, and I think that makes sense, killing the basilisk and destroying the diary/horcrux and all. But Ron got one too. Now, how does getting trapped behind a wall of rubble qualify one for the award, exactly? And it was Hermione that figured the whole thing out for the two of them to get down there...

I always have noticed that the girls in JKR's world get the shaft a little too often, particulartly from a female writer with a daughter, in that they are either playing traditional roles, or secondary roles. Why and where this comes from is probably complicated. But that doesn't mean that there aren't strong female roles in the book to look up to. I think JKR tends to like to attack social problems from the angle where it is made a complete abstraction form the everyday world we would recognize ( ie: mudbloods) and can thus be applied to recognized and unrecognized injustices kids may come across (and adults can use to freshen their perspective). In fact, if you want a commentary on gender, I think the best place to look is house-elves, particularly because it is Hermoine who champions it. While the house-elves are a clear commentary on servant classes and slavery, the trend that their work is always hidden and underappreciated also rings true for work that has been segregated and devalued by gender as "women's work." And the way that house-elves have come through their generations of this treatment as dependant and ideologically embracing of this structure that brands them as "natural" slaves also reeks of the cults of domesticity, fashion,child rearing and beauty so many modern women succomb to even today.

I think the best thing a parent can do who wants to foster gender equality and diversity in their children while reading these books is to encourage their children to identify with characters who aren't of their gender. Girls have been forced to do this for years through sheer lack or alternative, but for a parent to encourage a boy to like and identify with Hermoine, Ginny, or Luna is exactly the kind of exercise that I think will lead to true gender awareness, and eventually neutrality in a child's perspective.

That being said. I *highly* reccomend the books by Tamora Pierce, particularly her "Song of the Lioness" and "Protector of the Small" series, as fantastic fantasy books for 9-15 year olds that is both thrilling (I still pick them up for a re-read every once in a while) and doesn't shrink away from issues of gender, class and prejudice. She writes mostly female heroines, but that makes it even more important that boys read them too.

Oooh, bright, you are EVIL! It's a good question, but I think the problem is that sometimes we read too much into it. Kind of like the Phoenix or the Egg question to get into Ravenclaw Tower. Actually, I think it would be great if JKR took the time now to answer EVERY SINGLE QUESTION WE EVER ASKED HER before the books were finished, including some of these types of questions. I mean, when have we ever been able to ask a great author directly about their books. But, she's a cheeky thing, and she may not want to answer them all and leave it for us to discuss, as we discuss books written by authors long dead.

In the end, these questions are only important to some and unimportant to others. I really don't care, although I would like to see what she would say to all this feminist stuff, just on a general level.

But you see, I just thought, maybe the problem is this: Because she's a woman, we expect her to have "feminist" thoughts (whatever those are, by the way) or to write "feminist" themes (whatever those are, by the way). But maybe she's just a regular gal who just doesn't think that way (like me) and so it never occurred to her to write in a feminist way.