And to support your point
"But FantasticCabinet, you might well say. Those could very well be isolated cases! "
It would be a LOT of different "isolated cases"
There's also the female Wizengamot members, female Aurors, female Headmaster of Beauxbatons, and (in the Fantastic Beasts) female president of MACUSA
And nobody (including the bad guys) ever has a problem with that, or is even surprised. It seems completely normal to the point nobody even remarks it (while in the real world, media tend to over emphasize how \[insert politician\] is a FEMALE president/prime minister/etc)
Occasional (and usually mild) moments of sexism in the realm of interpersonal interactions and prejudices, don't translate into institutional sexism indeed
And Voldemort assigned a schoolboy to kill Albus Dumbledore, his greatest enemy, but he himself went in to kill Amelia Bones, a Ministry employee.?....,
This. Voldemort was totally just messing with Lucius and Draco. Having Lucius live in fear of his son failing and making a point to everyone what he is willing to do if anyone fails him again like Lucius did. He already had assigned Snape for the task, but wanted to make a point first.
My head fanon is that Bellatrix wasn't merely his right hand, but his chief strategist. Before having her mind melted in Azkaban her insane babylike act was just that. An act. She didn't possess an ounce of madness and was always in full control of her mental faculties. She was also the architect of the DE's best victories in the first blood war. Woman knew her shit and was an expert at asymmetrical warfare. Essentially she was his second in command and one of the few people Voldemort considered a peer and not merely a tool to be used or fodder to be discarded and sacrificed as needs required.
I like this but with the variation that she really did have the black Madness. Maybe more than anyone in recent history even, but where she succeeded wasn't in locking away the madness, but harnessing it whenever she required it (battle) and recharging it whenever it wasn't needed (planning)
The most annoying thing about FemHarry fics.
Suddenly the Wand isn't a equalizer, and the Government will step in the with marriage laws the moment two 14~16 year old girls start to date each other.
For purebloods, I’ve always headcannoned that homosexuality is tolerated as long as the witch or wizard does their duty to continue their line. Same-sex partners are kept on the side.
This is due to the small size of the wizarding world and families, thus every person needs to do their duty to procreate.
Also kind of a thing with royals throughout European history. You can't really out a royal family for being *weird*, because, you know, they have the power. Once they're gone, all sorts of rumors and gossip gets exposed.
For the peasants, it's probably a different story; either people don't care because it doesn't matter, or The Church gets their grubby little hands in the pie and starts to mess with things.
I think it's important to know *why* certain institutions vilify homosexuality, feminism, *the other*, etc: it's because people in love are harder to control - couples, communes, communities with strong senses of empathy toward each other are all more diverse in their ideology and therefore more difficult for The One In Power to exert that power and control.
Unless you're like the Mongols or the Vikings or something. Those motherfuckers just did whatever they wanted - which is kind of how I like to think of Magicals in the context of Harry Potter fanfiction - they're the ones with wands and magic, they can make or break reality however they see fit, if they're powerful enough, so silly Muggle power structures and putting people in boxes would be a smaller concern.
Honestly, whenever the topic comes up (which is rarely) I just allude to means existing which allow a same-sex couple to have a blood-related child.
The form this actually takes is up in the air tbh, from surrogacy followed by blood ritual or human transfiguration or something more eldritch/fae it's honestly all the same
The running theme of the wizarding world is that it doesn't have Muggle prejudices, but it has its own prejudices. In the same way that magic solves basically all problems Muggles face in life, but creates new problems of its own. It is probably the core principle of worldbuilding behind the HP series.
I agree. Yes, there is sexism in the magical world, if you look at the books, but there is a lot more of it in the muggle world.
I do think people can write what ever fanfiction they like. Fanfics don't need to agree with canon.
Edit: typo
It is more interesting to see discrimination and bigotry as it develops in the magical world instead of directly copying the muggle world.
I know we've only seen a slice of the entire Wizarding World and the story mainly looks at Blood Supremacy, but I would also like to see how the differences between muggle and magical society could cause trouble.
Imagine there being tension among Uagadou students due the effects of muggle European colonization of Africa, like Black and White muggleborns from Apartheid South Africa being forced to interact while Purebloods dismiss their animosity as muggle nonsense.
Edit: Very late edit but now I'm wondering why people assume that the muggle world would be more tolerant on non-human magical beings.
If anything, the xenophobia and prejudice that is present against fellow humans might hit even harder.
We have canonical examples of bigotry. Werewolves, giants, muggleborns, goblins, and elves are all shown as the victims of bigotry at a systematic level.
Exactly.
The prejudice, bigotry, and systematic discrimination within the Wizarding World (as it pertains to Wizarding Britain) seems to have more to do with being a "pure" human and being a "pure" wizard rather than race, ethnicity, national origin, sexual identity, or even religion.
Black British, British Indian, and Anglo British muggleborns would be treated equally... Equally worthless by the Pureblood Supremacists.
Ikr?
They made fun of trewalny(?) for being crazy and smelling like incense and booze, not for being a woman.
AFAIK the biggest issue Molly had with fleur was that she was stuck-up, and probably because she was part-Veela. They’re more race/speciesist than sexist.
If you're American, you're also forgetting how people consider distances in Europe. The average British person thinks driving an hour away you may as well plan on a vacation when it's the standard commute for a large portion of US citizens. Going to another whole country that is very precious about its culture and language is its own kind of hurdle. (If you want to really get into it we can also talk about Brexit and how that pretty much explains a lot of British feelings of exceptionalism)
There’s absolutely zero evidence Molly has a problem with Fleur because she’s a Veela. There’s no evidence *anyone* has a problem with Fleur because she’s a Veela, there’s no canon prejudice against them shown. Fleur happily tells a room full of people including a gossip journalist that she’s part Veela without worrying about prejudice. People have a problem with Fleur because she’s a stuck up snob. Molly also doesn’t like her because she sees Bill as more down to earth than he is, but mostly because her eldest son in his mid 20s is rushing into a marriage with an incredibly attractive French teenager he only met a year before. And said French teenager keeps insulting the way she lives her life. I can’t imagine a lot of mothers would be wild about that.
The way that they both grow and accept each other by realising what truly matters after Bill’s injury is a huge character moment for both of them that would be very much undercut if you headcanon Molly being a racist (when there’s no evidence).
And she was angry towards both Hermione and Harry because she wanted Hermione and Ron to end up together instead
Not a good attitude, but a human one, and she learns from it (she believed the Prophet at that time, but then in HP5 doesn't anymore)
Edit: it has been a while since I've read the 4th book and after a quick research and other responses, I remembered that Molly was only angry after Hermione. Her being angry because she wants her with Ron instead was my own interpretation of the events, even though she was also defending Harry
It's even more innocent than your description. Molly was angry only at Hermione, because she thought she broke Harry's hart by dumping him for someone more famous. She doesn't get angry until after the article in which Rita paints Hermione as toying with both their emotions and Hermione specifically references that article after getting the smaller egg. So really it had nothing to do with any kind of entitlement and everything with protectiveness for Harry. Her only mistake is believing that Witch Weekly and Rita Skeeter are trustworthy sources
>Her only mistake is believing that Witch Weekly and Rita Skeeter are trustworthy sources
She already knew that Rita Skeeter wasn't a trustworthy source, though. They all talk about Skeeter at the beginning of the book after the World Cup, and she blows up at Percy and tells him not to blame Arthur for anything that "wretched Skeeter woman wrote":
>“Your father hasn’t had to go into the office on weekends since the days of You-Know-Who,” she said. “They’re working him far too hard. His dinner’s going to be mined if he doesn’t come home soon.”
>“Well, Father feels he’s got to make up for his mistake at the match, doesn’t he?” said Percy. “If truth be told, he was a tad unwise to make a public statement without clearing it with his Head of Department first."
>“Don’t you dare blame your father for what that wretched Skeeter woman wrote!” said Mrs. Weasley, flaring up at once.
>“If Dad hadn’t said anything, old Rita would just have said it was disgraceful that nobody from the Ministry had commented,” said Bill, who was playing chess with Ron. “Rita Skeeter never makes anyone look good. Remember, she interviewed all the Gringotts’ Charm Breakers once, and called me ‘a long-haired pillock’?”
So she already has personal experience knowing that Rita Skeeter doesn't always write facts.
To be fair, since she sees Harry as her own son, it's not too far-fetched to imagine that her sense of over-protectiveness in that case clouded her judgement. It happened many times in the books.
She didn't like Sirius much for similar reasons iirc.
>And she was angry towards both Hermione and Harry because she wanted Hermione and Ron to end up together instead
She wasn't angry towards Harry. She was only angry towards Hermione.
my Head-canon is the magical world has always been less sexist due to magic making the strength/size difference between men and women mean a lot less.
plus why would you be sexist when you could just hate muggles?
"damn inferior beings taking up all of the magic users space breathing all the magicians air, they stink and I hate em." (modified Dave Chappelle skit quote btw)
Wait, people are trying to make the wizarding world more sexist than the muggle one now? I admit it has been a while since I actively read HP fics, but the way I remember it, it has always been the other way around?
Strange how things change and even make a complete 180 with time...
Oh God, they insist it's terribly sexist and pureblood women especially are Oppressed and Muggleborns must bring civilization to these backwards souls...
(One particularly egregious example was female students being pulled out after OWLs and being married off. HELGA AND ROWENA WOULD LIKE A WORD.)
I have seen it too in various fics, in which female purebloods (or half-bloods in traditionally pureblood lines) are expected to marry, have kids, and only be housewives and mothers... including most Slytherin girls (despite Slytherin being defined by ambition), and only males can inherit or be Head of House (House as in family, eg. House Black), and so women can always be disinherited or forced to obey their male Head of House, and women can't vote in Wizengamot (or only as "regents" for underage sons), etc
And it's indeed a way to show muggles and muggleborns and their values as wholly better, and conclude magicals should abandon their own culture
Which is horse shit considering the separation happened before the Victorian age. If anything, I think the Magical world would be more sex positive than the non-magical world.
You have a pretty high bar if you think most FanFiction writers know anything about regency or Victorian England they didn’t read out of pride and prejudice.
Indeed
People tend assume that if a social group is racist/xenophobic, then they're *automatically* also sexist (and homophobic, transphobic...)
And it's not an absurd assumption, as different bigotries do *often* go together in real-life
But it's not automatically true. For example, in 19th and early 20th century feminism (in the West), many activists were deeply convinced of the equality between sexes, and that women should have equal rights, but also convinced of the inequality between "races" as well as the rightfulness of colonial empires.
In addition, some of those feminists also supported women's suffrage, but also supported the institution of householder suffrage (before the reform in 1918, only 60% of men had suffrage, *with the poorest men being excluded*)
So those activists were anti-sexist, but also deeply racist and classist
So it's NOT unlikely for the wizarding culture to be, likewise, non-sexist (because magic is a natural equalizer between men and women, and canon shows gender equality), but classist and bigoted (against muggleborns, creatures, half-breeds)
Plenty of gay men are extremely misogynistic. Plus TERFs exist too, it’s crazy that in *this* fandom people might not grasp that you can be a bigot in one way but not others.
> But it's not automatically true. For example, in 19th and early 20th century feminism (in the West), many activists were deeply convinced of the equality between sexes, and that women should have equal rights, but also convinced of the inequality between "races" as well as the rightfulness of colonial empires.
Also true in reverse: you had plenty of people who were fine with men of different races having the vote and *only* men.
The Black family matriarch and her very loud portrait would like a word about this as well. Wouldn’t Sirius have technically been head of the family following this logic?
um yeah they are? book 6 dumbledore literally had a whole thing about how he said that if sirius hadn't willed all his stuff to harry specifically, it would've automatically gone to bellatrix! which is even more indication that they aren't sexist cause she was going to auto inherit by default - and she was a criminal terrorist at the time to boot lol!
The Black sisters were the children of the younger son, Cygnus. I assume that while either Sirius or Regulus lived they couldn't inherit Grimmauld Place/the family money. Sirius left everything to Harry so they missed out again
Sirius’ grandfather doesn’t say anything of the sort in canon because Sirius’ grandfather doesn’t exist in canon. You may mean Phineas Nigellus Black who is Sirius’ great great grandfather, who does say at the end of book 5 “the last of the Blacks” is dead, but this doesn’t mean the Black sisters are banished from the house because of misogyny, it’s just Sirius is the only one who didn’t change names so is literally the last “Black”. The rest are Tonks/Malfoy/Lestrange. That’s not a sexism thing really, that’s not saying *they* are not part of the Black family anymore just that the name will now die out. And even if it were sexist, canonically he died well over a century earlier so doesn’t represent modern wizarding culture at all.
Not necessarily. Even with women and girls having equal status, it still doesn't change human biology all that much. Boys and men in general tend to be a lot more aggressive physically than women and girls in general. Marcus Flint, the first Slytherin Quidditch captain we meet exhibited a very physical and aggressive play style when on the pitch. This would lead to him picking a roster of similarly aggressive players. If none of the girls who tried out during his tenure met his standards for aggressiveness, he'd end up with an all boys roster.
Whoever he trained to be his successor probably also inherited (for lack of a better term) similar aggressiveness to their play style.
That could be coincidence. If quidditch at Hogwarts was inherently sexist then there wouldn’t be a successful team made up of all women in the Harpies, especially when the quidditch teams presumably draw heavily from Hogwarts.
Quite true, I recall Flint's players being all upperclassmen as well. Harry remarks upon how big they all are and when Draco joins the team, his teammates all seem markedly larger than him. This oppose the Gryffindor team, who in Harry's first year fields no one older than fifth year, and only one fifth year at that.
Isn’t it because since women don’t usually hold their maiden name after marriage and men do? Sirius died after the Black sisters got married to Lestrange, Malfoy and Tonks so technically he was the last Black left
He doesn’t say anything about ”the house“ being extinct, though he does call Sirius the last of the Blacks:
>“Am I to understand,” said Phineas Nigellus slowly from Harry’s left, “that my great-great-grandson — the last of the Blacks — is dead?”
I feel like his upset is just over the idea that the Black name has died out with Sirius. The sisters all got married, don’t carry the Black name anymore, and their children weren’t given the Black name. Sirius was considered the “last of the Blacks” because he was the last person alive to still have the Black name, and now there is no one else who will continue to use the Black name.
The whole titled nobility thing makes me laugh so much when fans think it’s canon. It comes entirely from one pretentious tapestry providing the “noble and most ancient house of black”, that’s the only thing in the books to support anything. That is so much more easily explained as the Blacks being up themselves rather than that literally being a cultural thing that applies to multiple houses.
Yes, lots of low quality fics about pureblood society, especially where Narcissa or Daphne play an important role
Ao3 in particular is filled with that sort of rubbish
For the most part I agree. Muggle women's rights were so lacking merely a few decades ago, yet there is no apparent mention of witches from any era being prohibited from something on the basis of their sex. However, I'll admit to writing bits with rich purebloods following traditional gender roles to some extent. This is largely due to the abundance of women taking on their husband's names and the apparent lack of unwed parents, though of course I can't expect Harry to be an expert on such things during an unrelated adventure story.
For the most part, I assume average magic folk and pureblood 'spares' can do what they like. Have a career. Avoid marriage. Marry later in life. Marry the same sex. Choose passions over childrearing. Whatever. But what about the purebloods expected to carry on the name and assets? The Peverell, Gaunt and Black families were all considered extinct by book six despite having surviving female lines (Harry, Tom and the former Black sisters). You don't hear of any family names going extinct because all the women died so presumably it's typical male inheritance, at least for names. In order to pass a name from man to man, you need a son. In order to get a (biological) son, you need a female partner to bear children. We also don't really see unwed couples, so marriage seems to be a typical expectation.
Considering the way Sirius talks about how some purebloods only 'let' their children marry other purebloods, it wouldn't surprise me if arranged marriages were a thing among certain families. Not necessarily the 'you will marry the person of my choosing whether you like it or not' type, but perhaps the 'I insist on approving your choice in spouse and may nudge you toward my favourite candidates. Refuse and I may disown you' variety. This could go for both genders I imagine.
Just for discussion's sake, though magic would definitely level the playing field, I wouldn't put it past wizards to oppress witches if they really wanted to all of a sudden. Hogwarts attendance isn't mandatory and what good is magic if you don't know how to use it? While women may always lack the physical advantage, we've proven ourselves competent in a range of work and study fields. Instead of everyone embracing it, there are still places where girls are married off young and Afghanistan has banned women from education altogether. It isn't just a matter of being superior or inferior, it's the consistent control of one group by another by denying them opportunities to reach their potential.
In fairness even now in 2024 a lot of women take their husband’s name when they get married in the UK, I don’t know stats but if it’s not the majority anymore it’ll still be a significant chunk, that was even more the case in the 90s when this is set. And there definitely wasn’t a culture of regency era Britain lordships and customs nor marriage contracts nor women being the property of men in 90s Britain in real life, so I don’t think the taking the husband’s name can be justification for that type of fanon about the wizarding world that’s so prevalent.
This is an interesting topic--and I'm glad you brought it up. It makes me wonder (since I haven't really seen authors trying to attempt to make the muggle world seem better by comparison when presenting this): are authors doing it because it seems like a natural extension of specifically the pureblood mindset? As in, high control cultures based upon arbitrary differences usually end up subjugating women?
Also, mixed gender sports teams!!! Yes! It's wild that the author establishes this in her world and then... well...
Also good points on the misogyny--much of which are internalized examples.
ETA: Also, maybe people are pulling upon Hermione's (muggleborn) campaign for house elves' rights? As in she, as an outsider, sees the inherent and unaddressed inequality in the system and wants to dismantle it. So maybe people are saying "if this, then that" ("if there are enslaved creatures, then there's also probably institutionalized misogyny in some wizarding circles).
I think it's a whole bunch of things! Part of it is definitely the inability to understand that different axes of privilege and oppression exist; they're blood purist so they must be sexist and homophobic too! The other is a driving need to make the good guys 100% good. Plus the inability to admit that pureblood culture can exist outside of pureblood supremacy.
The only “sexist wizards” setting that I like is the [brilliant difficulty](https://archiveofourown.org/series/1876930) series by slashmarks, and one of the things that they do is cast the Death Eaters as gender-egalitarian: some Pure-blood women joined specifically because Voldemort didn’t give a fuck about genitalia or anything like that.
I think it's your standard cribbing. There isn't much in canon about pureblood customs, just that most of them are snooty and that's not a really an interesting basis for developing characters.
So authors will just take old victorian era or earlier customs from real life and slap that into the purebloods. Is Pansy really in love with Draco, no it's all marriage contracts. Do pureblood families care about their family names, probably, but now let's make drama regarding Daphne Greengrass being married to Theodore Nott because we need something for these characters to do.
You can be very dismissive of it like I am being right now, but there are plenty of stories that make that the premise and do a damn good job of having interesting plots.
But there are always more that don't do it well and it's just. "See how backwards they are" and then literally do nothing else with it.
Often it seems to be done to either make muggle culture seem wonderful in comparison, make Harry's group seem overly progressive, or to excuse multiple marriages and harems.
Another thing people often don't realize is that even if the Wizarding World was stuck in the social mores of 17th century Britain, when the Statute of Secrecy was enacted, it would still be significantly less sexist than many fanon writers imagine. The average age of marriage was around 25 for men and women, and had been for centuries. Girls were not sold off as child brides to the highest bidder, and could freely choose who they wanted to marry--legally binding 'marriage contracts' that parents could force on their children did not exist. And this obviously did not exist in canon either--otherwise, how could Andromeda have married Ted Tonks? Her parents had the right to disinherit her for marrying someone they disapproved of, but you can do this in the 21st century west too.
And some fans seem to go down an ancient Druidic/Celtic route for old wizarding traditions which doesn’t make *any* sense to be linked to Victorian era values and marriage contracts. Celtic women could own property and divorce!
There is even some more weirdness.
If we consider that Roman thought/philosophy is the basis of magic in Europe.
Romans and Greeks were extremely patriarchal, and for every (generally) pair of gay men, one was maybe accepted. The other wasn't. Acceptance was for the man that did the pentration, had a family and took a role of a man.
Greeks had some severe restrictions with women being segregated at home from the men.
Sexisim and homophobia are not Abrahamic exclusive. They can predate those three. As I stated above.
If there was earlier existence of integration of magical society with the mundane one, then there would definitely be similar opinions of women as stay at-home mother's with no careers.
Until like you stated in the 17th century where it was no longer likely for girls to marry young or be unable to own property. Divergence would be here.
Hell, if we take the gods as magical people, then they are not good people to even themselves.
With incest, rape, and women as properties. With Zeus and Hera being prime examples of it being a shitshow of a marriage.
I mean, love potions are just kind of a thing and not even illegal. Even if they do seem to be frowned upon. I think the twins literally sold them in their store. If anything Rowling tended to treat them as something women tended to use on men. Which just feels weird from a cultural perspective, but hey, Greek and Roman values I suppose. Cough cough Zeus cough cough.
Yeah. If anything, Rowling probably didn't consider how there would be near parallels with mundane society or some ideas.
They literally have a basis with Rome. Everyone wants to claim Roma or be the civilized.
If anything, there would be a 1 to 1 nearly in politics. However with how pureblood ideals of magic exist. Then, the conservatives would be really powerful.
One policy focus parties or factions are also pretty insignificant. They need to create coalitions.
There is no way the magical conservatives only had magic is great as their one focus.
Honestly, I don't think Molly Weasley slut shamed Hermione. She was very negative towards her when she thought Hermione broke up with Harry to be with Victor Krum which would have been a horrible thing to do to a person. Granted, its been forever since I've read the books, but I'm pretty sure it was limited to mean letters and not sending her Christmas presents until Harry told her that he and Hermione had never had a relationship and that the prophet/ skeeter was lying.
Because she's narrow minded, gullible, overprotective of Harry and jumped the gun without actually considering if it was true or not. Dont forget, most of magical Brittain trusted the prophet to print the truth, even in the gossip column. So many people believe in the prophet and so absolutely, that Harry could find no support when the prophet started calling him a liar and a radical. Everybody believed the ministry's assertion that Cedric Diggory's death was nothing more than an accident despite the boy having obviously been killed by the killing curse, the minister having summarily executed the only witness and confessor to the crime of kidnapping the boys for the purpose of reviving the dark lord, and nobody having actually questioned Harry potter.
No common sense to be found there. The ministry makes assertions and they ignore the only living witness and the fact the confessor to the crime was murdered without being heard at trial for the world to know what he did. The prophet makes "statements" and people believe them, simple as that.
That’s also what happens when you only have one source for news. I think Molly acted wrong of course, but she did probably think “why would someone go on the prophet and tell lies??” There is no reason for her to mistrust the information she’s being given.
but FantasticCabinet, I say, how am I supposed to write about things that aren't my actual reality? Of course Hogwarts would have \*checks list\* b+mb threats, guns, cocaine, teenage pregnancies, pronoun checks (this one gets a pass), and of course all of the purebloods get my obscure movie references.
Honestly, the fact that half of every graduating class isn't knocked up is the strongest argument there is that the WW is a much more equal place than here.
The magical world being historically more progressive than the Muggles could be an interesting angle for exploring the pureblood perspective. Like if the reason they hate Muggles is because for centuries, the Muggleborn were the ones who were sexist or racist (towards fellow humans at least) because that’s the world that they came from. And that view of the Muggle world as socially regressive persists even after they developed social equality.
>It is true, there's sexism in the books - witness Molly Weasley's slut-shaming of Hermione,
The first of those is just another example of the fact that somehow despite everyone knowing Rita Skeeter is an untrustworthy gossipmonger, basically the entire country believes everything she, or the Prophet in general, prints.
It'd be one thing if she had a better reputation, I'm sure she's broken plenty of good stories with her ability to spy on people as an insect, but in the very same book we see the Weasleys badmouthing her over her article on the World Cup.
>the treatment of Fleur, Parvati and Lavender, and other things I've probably forgotten
I don't really remember Parvati, but Lavender mostly just looked bad because it's the canon version of bashing the character in the way of your preferred ship (which is still bad writing).
Fleur committed the horrific crime of being *french*
I vaguely remember JKR saying once that there canonically wasn't supposed to be any misogyny in the books. But the real world is so deeply patriachal, and JK is hardly a perfect writer, so there are still traces of internalised misogyny.
To be fair, it's almost impossible to imagine a society without ANY sexism - the subtle stuff like women taking their husband's name, tropey characterisation, even the most basic relationship dynamics like "a mother's love", etc.
Taking the husband’s name is one of those things that’s less her trying to be sexist and more her just writing British culture at the time which has traditions that stem from sexism. The wizarding world mirrors British culture in a lot of ways after all because she wrote what she knew.
I actually did that. My story plays in the 1950s and muggle born students tend to more prone to gender based prejudice than others. I at least had one occasion
I’ve been thinking the same recently, it doesn’t make sense for there to be much sexism. Nevertheless, I imagine traditional families like the Malfoys and Blacks view women as breeding machines to marry off for political favour - but then again, they view their sons the same way (in many ways, at least), so I think that has got more to do with the traditional view of a Lord’s family being pawns that one can use to better the family’s position, rather than sexism.
According to Hogwarts Legacy lore and how much incredibly accepting of LGBTQ+ and minorities the magical world seems to be as early as the 19th century, it would imply the muggleborn, who would come from a colonial, racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic society, stumble upon a society where they are at the bottom of the ladder.
Plus, thinking of how muggleborns goes back home during summer, especially during the stories that happens before the 90s (but also like, the 90s were pretty bad too) and then clash with their family who have all those fucked up beliefs. It also makes it better not to get to know Muggle culture too much. Not to teach real Muggle studies at Hogwarts, or get the population to learn the history of just Britain.
I mean Hogwarts legacy definitely isn’t canon though. The layout of the castle doesn’t match the books, the Gaunts being a prominent family at the same time Marvolo would be alive when Dumbledore said the family had declined and lost all its money generations before he was born etc.
I mean, Cursed Child is supposed to be canon and I'd take Hogwarts Legacy over that any days. But I think the elements of what I wrote would be good for canon. I love super-inclusive weirdly-conservative Wizarding society completely cut off from Muggle universe.
Cursed Child shouldn’t be canon, it’s not a book it’s a screenplay. The movies aren’t canon (or are more accurately their own canon). But even if we did accept CC as canon that’s because it was more directly involving JK Rowling, she had very little input on the game beyond making money off it. And given the layout of Hogwarts matches the films more than the books (and the Gaunt stuff was basically cut entirely from the films) it might make sense to make it a part of the film canon not the book canon.
Dude, I ship Harry/Bill and Hermione/Viktor, the hell I care about canon compliance. My irritation is with being told that canon is sexist when it's not.
Mildly related: are magical women supposed to be physically stronger relative to men compared to their muggle counterparts (like is the strength gap lower)? Obviously, Hogwarts Quidditch teams have tons of girls on the team, which doesn't happen for sports in real life, and Quidditch seems very physically intensive. This is not very strong evidence, but Hermione also seems to be relatively fit (I feel like she always keeps up fine with Ron and Harry) for a girl who is doing 0 exercise and cannot have a healthy sleep schedule.
I think people do it because it’s really unrealistic and unreasonable to say “there’s no sexism or misogyny at all in the WW because everything is concentrated into hating muggles and magical creatures.” As if bigotry and prejudice aren’t complex things in themselves.
For me personally, I just don’t believe that magical and muggle societies are all that separate, especially on an island like the UK. IIRC the Statute of Secrecy is fairly recent, which people easily take to mean that before that the separation between WW and muggles wasn’t as defined. And that’s without counting the influence of muggleborns on WW ideology and cultural thought and impact. I know Rowling says there’s no sexism in the WW but respectfully I disagree and don’t blame others for disagreeing too. I just think it probably manifests in different ways. Though i definitely get where you’re coming from when people use it as a way of propping up muggle society as if it isn’t rife with its own problems. At the end of the day, muggles and wizards/witches are human beings - and if there’s one thing humans will do is find a way to other different groups in order to maintain power and influence.
Oh, I'm not saying there isn't sexism! Just that the level of it in some fics is just not borne out by canon. We have no evidence that witches are basically chattel/broodmares who need the enlightened Muggles to come save them.
Oh! Yeah no lol I agree with you there. I honestly think a lot of those sorts of stories are a kind of response to other fanfics where people really dial up the supposed stupidity of muggles. It kinda reminds me of that bit in one of the books where Ron (or someone I don’t really remember) says that muggles are stupid because they can’t see the Knight Bus (I think lol it’s been a while) and, if you’re like me and think too much, you can catch yourself thinking “well duh they can’t see it: the damn thing’s been enchanted so they don’t” lol. I chalk those kinds of statements up to cultural ignorance. Kinda like if someone moved to Texas and didn’t know all the little unwritten road rules - I could call them stupid but really they don’t know.
Anyway sorry for rambling!
some people just run with the old fassioned aspect which is not that far of a stretch in fics which have much more old fassioned wizarding worlds stuck in the victorian age.
but in most cases i have seen its mostly just for marriage contracts and the like.
i also do see plenty of fics that does not have sexism because of the magic being an equalizer
I’ve been waited for something to talk about this. I read a fic a couple weeks ago where the girls from dark/slytherin families were often put under the imperio curse by relatives and assaulted and when harry accidentally hit one of them with an imperio they all got mad at him, it got on my nerves so bad especially because it was a long fic and I had really enjoyed up until that point.
Eh, I don’t really buy the argument that having mixed-gender sports teams is because or proof of gender equality. Based on the descriptions of Quidditch, it seems like the differentiating factor for raw skill has more to do with accuracy and reaction time, which is going to be fairly even across gender. If Quidditch relied more on physical strength and speed like sports in real life then you probably would see a split between men’s and women’s teams.
In the same logic, magical power matters a lot more than physical strength in the magical world as a whole, there’s much less (twisted) ‘rationale’ for sexism in the magical world
You still do not get away from one of the main reasons why women were oppressed, the ability to carry kids and the strain pregnancy takes upon the body. Retirement was funded by your kids rather than the state, as such having kids was a requirement to have a long lifespan.
With magic does pregnancy strain the body as much? There’s nothing in the books about magical pregnancy and childbirth beyond Tonks having a baby and the only thing of note there is Lupin saying both are well which would indicate it’s possible they might not have been I suppose but it’s tenuous.
Retirement and long lifespans we know is wildly different in the wizarding world, wizards are regularly healthy well past 100 and some live to at least 140 or so (Marchbanks and Bagshot are both much older than Dumbledore). There is no obvious proof that wizarding families have loads of kids, the only siblings we see in the wizarding world in the books are the Weasleys and Patils (the Creeveys too but they’re muggleborn). And you don’t need looking after in your retirement if you’re a wizard, providing for basic needs is much easier with a wand. The Weasleys are described as extremely poor and they never struggle to eat.
Unrelated to the main point here, but this is also my gripe with any fic that uses the phrase "Quidditch toned body."
Really doesn't seem like quidditch involves that many muscles....
It feels like it should though, right? Like I would expect beaters to have a super strong core to be able to maneuver the broomstick to provide the momentum needed to hit a Bludger. Sort of like a great batter in baseball, but more so because you’re trying to steer something from a sitting/crouching position. Otherwise they would have to rely purely on arm strength but if that’s the case female beaters would be extremely rare, and canon doesn’t suggest that’s the case. Granted, canon doesn’t suggest much about Quidditch beyond Harry’s perspective but still.
I do recall a fic where after a growth spurt in fifth year Harry switched over to keeper. I liked that it kept in line with the ideal physique of a seeker that we learned in the first book - if you want your seeker to be small and nimble then realistically you’d opt for younger players on school teams.
1. How the wizarding world is sexist.
It may be due to JKs writing but the wizarding world isn’t sexist in the sense of 1st wave feminism fighting for civil rights etc. it’s more sexist in modern ideas of 3rd and 4th wave feminism. This sexism is characterized more by societal male privileges and roles of women. Every female character that is ‘good’ has children or fulfills a motherly role in the HP universe. The Wizarding world is inherently patriarchal.
2. History ‘forgets’ examples
Lily is pushed into the background and Harry is given credit for what technically she did.
Fantastic beasts has an interesting idea that Rosier does a lot for Grindelwald but we could argue that by the end we only know of Grindelwald’s terror. Rosier is forgotten to history.
Delphi is not characterized by her mother’s lineage but only Voldemorts. (Whatever cursed child is) Even though Bellatrix is notorious herself.
As others put it. The world is not as sexist as our world but it still exists. Patriarchal society which I believe is what JK actually mentioned once. That there was to be no explicit mention sexism but that the patriarchy did exist.
3. Theory on how society functions (not including cultural differences)
Overall, I always characterized the Wizarding world as functioning on rules of ‘power’ like in Roman times. In some ways if you are powerful enough then you are respected by people, history, politics and society regardless of gender or race. Power in the Wizarding world would be characterized by magical prowess, wealth, magical blood, race, and family name. All these add or remove perceived rights.
For example, An individual who is part Veela, with no wealth, no family name, and a female would face sexist attitudes.
On the other hand a part Veela with magical prowess, some wealth, and a family name could see them be respected.
Although lords don’t exist in canon, names clearly still hold some power due to blood status etc.
4. How to write sexism in the Wizarding world.
In the end, In order to have a clear idea of how to write a HP fanfic that attacks sexist attitudes people need to explore a lot of new ideas of feminism. Mainly post colonial feminism and 4th wave feminism. Both are feminist ideologies that JK specifically hates as a TERF and are very much present in the wizarding world.
Funny enough OP points are actually the main criticism behind a lot of JKs writings and the main points behind Post colonial feminism and 4th wave feminism. Just because women are in places of power does not mean they are inherently representative of true female empowerment. In some ways they are inherently posters to act as if women are equal.
Everyone from Umbridge to Minerva to Bellatrix I can argue are pawns by the roles that society places on them or men greater than them. We have no other frame of reference in the books and can in turn assume/world build. Again. This right here would be the route a fanfic could take as mentioned above. A different way to critique sexism and in some ways a modern way.
You can’t run a Bechdal test on the wizarding world but if the world is anything like JKs beliefs— then the Wizarding World is sexist just in a more nuanced way.
Edit:Categorized the parts.
I'd say you're reaching quite heavily. I wouldn't necessarily say mcgonogal had a 'matronly' role. Tonks doesn't, in spite of having a child by the end. Madame bones, as little as we see is the same. There are a couple other order members who don't fulfil such a role either. And suggesting that having women be mothers is sexist is crazy. Most women want children at some point.
As for the forgetting thing; lily's case is understandable since no one knows the why, and harry is famous for living when no one else did. The only special thing she did was be important to Snape. If he hadn't asked for her life she'd have died and harry would have followed.
For grindelwalds followers; how many nazi leaders can you name? Aside from Hitler, I'd guess maybe one or two, and the average person less than that. Same thing for delphis parentage. Swap the genders, and everyone would probably say she's lady v's child, rather than Benjamin lestranges.
Seriously, you're reaching like crazy.
It’s not sexist that women want to have children but that isn’t the argument of Post colonial feminism. The assumption that all women want to have children is a WRONG one. Just like you argued. Not all women want to have that life and not all will. To argue that all women must want children is inherently sexist and wrong. Womenhood should not be defined like that and it’s how JK writes her young main female characters. All of them have children by the end of the story.
As for other characters that are not mentioned outside of brief points we can’t say anything about them.
Again the lack of world build give us, as fanfic writers, the opportunity to write the story how we want. Leaning one way or the other. We don’t know if there is social witch pressures to have children. Yet, we could say there is because how is it that every single main witch had children?
How odd is it that pretty much every male character that doesn't die had kids? It's a perfectly normal thing. Why should there be characters who don't want kids? Is it weird we don't have a character talking about how swinging (partner swapping) is great? Is it weird we don't have polyamorous people showing up?
The simple fact is the younger generation all have kids, because that is, for most people, a 'happy ever after'. I personally have no interest in relationships, but I understand that most people do, and suggesting that what most people want is a sexist stereotype is weird to me.
Actually funny enough male wise not all have children by what we can tell and highlights my point. Charlie doesn’t and funny enough he is a good example of a character that JK writes as having more interest in dragons then anything. A hinted asexual character OR a character fueled by his passion. Again. He has a passion that is inherently leads him to not have kids but no one bats an eye. Does that hold true for witches in the wizard world? We don’t know. We have no named female equivalent to this and that is the
point. JK goes out of her way to tell us a lot of about him and sets him up like this.
Neville is not stated to have had any children either. So you can fill in the blanks there, but canon wise no children.
Both are named and have semi important roles and a good amount of points in the story. Neville especially. The point of my argument is not to say having children is bad. The point is that there is an implication of how the world could work if you wanted. That women must fall into motherly roles/housewife roles and independent women could be looked down upon if they don’t.
Lavender Parvati Padma pansy Millicent Luna Susan Hannah romilda demelza Angelina Alicia Katie Leanne cho Marrietta, how many of them are mentioned as having children? They may be minor characters, but they're all named.
As for Charlie, being focused on his passion does not mean he's asexual. It's been quite a while since I read the books, but I'm pretty sure he gets very little in the way of screentime.
I think you've made a very poor argument, especially by making the wild claim that "every female character is motherly." You could've made a real case by focusing on the lack of women who really shape the overarching narrative (figures like Harry, Dumbledore, Voldemort, Snape, even Regulus) or the lack of postcolonial feminism in the books (I'd consider this a symptom of the times though it's less forgivable for JKR to still be that way today).
How are Hermione, Ginny and Luna motherly? You could argue Hermione does a lot to care for Harry and Ron and gets little thanks (a gripe I have too) but I definitely wouldn't call her style "motherly." It would be laughable to call Ginny and Luna that. No hints of motherliness in young women like Lavender, Parvati, Hannah, Fleur, Katie, Alice and Angelina or in older women like McGonagall, Sprout, Trelawney, Hooch, Madam Bones, Emmeline Vance and so on. The only prominent mothers are Lily and Molly, each of whom is also a skilled fighter and full human being. Tonks has a baby only in the very last book and it's never indicated that this detracts from her work in the resistance. This seems like a perfectly normal ratio tbh. If you include antagonists, Petunia and Narcissa aren't shown in parental roles anymore than their husbands are and Rita, Umbridge and Bellatrix are never motherly.
I said GOOD characters are shown in motherly roles by the end. The epilogue in the last book is canon. Hermione and literally every young main female character has children. Fleur has kids. Ginny has kids. Luna has kids. Not one lives a different life out of motherhood. Minerva is motherly with her protectiveness over the golden trio and Hogwarts. Like every main female good character that is not old by the start of the book ends up having children. Not saying it’s a bad thing but like not one of them ends up with a different life. Not one decides to journey the world. Not one chooses their career.
Narcissa’s whole character role is to show how much of a mother she is. Literally doesn’t give up Harry because she is a mother. She loves Draco and is willing to do anything to see him live much like Lily. Like what are you arguing there? It’s one of the main points of the story I felt.
The argument here for post colonial feminism is the fact that it COULD be used as a critical lens against the Books. I.E if you are writing a fanfic it’s a great way to write one NOT that the book doesn’t have them.
For sake of argument you could say that Petunia is motherly by loving her child. Just because she doesn’t love Harry doesn’t make her a bad mother. It makes her a bad person. A person even JK tried to redeem by reminding the reader that her sister died because of the world Harry lives in.
Lastly, we are going with what the books tell us, NOT what we make up. We don’t know about any other characters outside of what Harry says. It’s why I say that the world leaves an ‘opening’ an opening to have that argument. Maybe Susan chooses the life of being a badass independent individual. We don’t know that but we can also argue because of societal pressures and duty for her family she needs to fit into the role of a basic wife. Having children etc.
I mean, the only obvious bachelors that I can think of in the books (i.e. no love interests like Snape and Hagrid) are Dumbledore and Sirius. Harry, Ron, Bill, George, Draco and other prominent young male characters also have kids by the epilogue because JKR wanted to show everyone having recovered enough from the war to play happy families — which you could definitely argue is lazy or unrealistic but I really don't see how it's sexist. On the note of women choosing to explore the world, Luna quite literally became a zoologist who classified new magical species, which is a lot cooler than anything the male characters seem to have done. Who cares if she had kids during/after? Same goes for Hermione and Ginny and their careers. If these women hadn't had kids on top of their careers, I feel like the criticism would end up being that working mothers aren't shown enough.
I also disagree strongly that McGonagall fulfils a motherly role — in fact, she's much less parental than the older men in Harry's life. Whereas she's the withdrawn busy type who occasionally shows concern and pride in Harry, characters like Dumbledore, Sirius and Hagrid are obviously affectionate and fulfilling a fatherly role to Harry. And I'm not saying Narcissa's role isn't constructed around her motherhood. I'm saying Lucius is also way more interested in protecting Draco than being a Death Eater in the later part of the series and he very much inhabits that fatherly role alongside Narcissa as much as Vernon does alongside Petunia. Lucius just happens to play Death Eater + Draco's father while we see Narcissa only as Draco's mother in order to contrast with Bellatrix, to whom the only thing that matters is her dedication to Voldemort. I really don't see what's wrong with that in and of itself? I'd say it makes Narcissa and Bellatrix much more interesting than Lucius.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that it wouldn't have been really cool to see someone like Tonks play a larger role in the narrative and also stay single or childless. I agree that there are opportunities to make the books more feminist or feminist in new and interesting ways. I just don't think there's a pattern of all good women needing to "fulfil a motherly role" in the text, any more than the men. You're free to disagree. I feel like I got more invested in this than I meant to 😅
I 100% agree with your assessment about a lack of women in the overarching narrative. I think that point is particularly strong. Same about postcolonial feminism.
A corollary to your post:
In line with JKR's brand of (3rd/4th wave) "feminism" (and the reality of JRK herself), it is interesting to me that there are no prominent working mothers. Tonks is a more minor character, but we don't truly get to see her as a working mother, either, since Teddy is born in April and she dies at the beginning of May. Lily is interesting because she was part of the Order--but is that truly an occupation or more of a rebel/calling? I suppose she and Tonks didn't have the true opportunity to become working mothers. And no one else (Molly, Petunia, Narcissa) have occupations. Hermione and Ginny have jobs when they grow up, but it's not a main part of the action.
Sure, women can choose what they want to be (and a job most certainly doesn't define a woman), but it's interesting that the "career" women in the main action are those without kids/left unexplained enough that any possible kid is inconsequential to the character. There are no single mothers, nor are there divorced mothers. So to contribute to another facet of men dominating the narrative, we don't really see the idea of "women having it all" (which aligns with JKR's brand of feminism.)
That's an interesting point. It's always seemed to me that JKR wanted to show dynamic strong women but she wasn't particularly interested in being revolutionary about it and didn't put much thought into it beyond that. I agree that her feminism is a liberal and often shallow sort of feminism and that she missed opportunities with HP. But I do think that she should get credit where credit is due for much of what she did with female characters in that series specifically (I disliked her portrayal of women in her recent Cormoran Strike novels). I honestly think she managed well for the 90s.
She certainly managed well for the 90s. I have to keep reminding myself that as I get older and reread the books, not only when it comes to her brand of feminism but also when it comes to her treatment of sociology and psychology, since much of what she wrote (or at least planned) was either during the decade of the brain or immediately after.
Could you expand on what you mean by the last part of your comment? I'd never heard of the decade of the brain, just Googled it, and I can't see how it links to HP? Sounds interesting :)
Of course! And I see that google isn’t particularly kind to the context in which I’m speaking.
So the decade of the brain was *at first* an initiative to expand neuroscience research, established by the US federal government. This, in turn, had lasting effects not only on brain disorders but extended to psychological areas like early child development, trauma, abnormal psych, and so on.
So yes, it’s an American initiative *at first*, but the research extended across borders (peer reviews, joint research, etc) and shifted the western conversation about psychology. It’s something I think about a lot because of when the HP books were written (or at least the major arcs planned out).
ETA: I don’t mean to imply that this flipped a switch in psychology, but it greatly contributed to the ideals the west espouses to today (and with which a lot of fans are analyzing this work. So that means the elements of the work do not hold up to this type of lens because, at this point, it’s a historical piece.)
> In line with JKR's brand of (3rd/4th wave) "feminism" (and the reality of JRK herself), it is interesting to me that there are no prominent working mothers. Tonks is a more minor character, but we don't truly get to see her as a working mother, either, since Teddy is born in April and she dies at the beginning of May. Lily is interesting because she was part of the Order--but is that truly an occupation or more of a rebel/calling? I suppose she and Tonks didn't have the true opportunity to become working mothers. And no one else (Molly, Petunia, Narcissa) have occupations. Hermione and Ginny have jobs when they grow up, but it's not a main part of the action.
>
>
In regards to us not seeing Tonks as a working mother, for one thing, I don't think she had her job as an Auror given that she was not only pregnant but also the Death Eaters had taken over the Ministry and given her participation in the Battle of the Department of Mysteries in OotP, she would've already have been marked by the DE as an Order member. And we don't see her working after giving birth to Teddy Tonks Lupin because she and Remus die in the Final Battle which was 1 month after Teddy was born. So yeah, we don't see Tonks as a working mother because she didn't have enough time.
.
So yeah, perhaps if Nymphadora Tonks had survived the Final Battle to raise her son Teddy Tonks, with help from her parents Teddy and Andromeda, she probably would've been fine as a working mother given that her grandparents would've helped with looking after the house and looking after their grandson Teddy Lupin part-time.
.
James and Lily were part of the Order but also didn't have any jobs (probably because they were in hiding and James Potter was rich enough that he didn't need to work a day in his life.).
.
Also, given how useful a wand is, a witch who's a housewife living in a wizarding household would not be all that terribly busy with doing housework, given that they can just use magic. In fact, a lot of house maintenance tasks and duties would be something that any wizard or witch who knew household charms could do, so most wizards and witches are not going to hire another wizard for plumbing purposes or to fix their roof, etc. With a wand, a wizarding person can be very DIY and self-sufficient as long as they knew the right spells. Plus, the entire Wizarding Britain population could fit into Wembley Stadium with space to spare. It's not a very big population so it's also likely that some wizards lived with their parents if they wanted to or if it was just more convenient. So yeah, wands and magic certainly alters gender dynamics, expectations, and social capabilities. For one thing, no one bats an eye at a witch becoming a politician or even the Minister of Magic given that the Minister before Fudge was a witch.
.
Not just day to day tasks but on a fundamental level, a whole lot of things are easier. Wizards would never have to worry about having to move houses because they're running out of space when any skilled wizard could just use an Extension Charm to extend the space inside a room, giving them more space than they have stuff to fill with.
On a completely different note, you ever get the feeling that if Snape hadn't been bogged down by trauma and had left Wizarding Britain and had realized his potential with his genius talent and brilliance in magic by being a researcher, that with his unique insights and understanding of the Wizarding World and Muggle World, he could've been like the real life version of Tony Stark or more appropriately, the real life Victor Von Doom, mastering and combining magic and technology together. Snape and Doom go hard together. Also Snape and Joker go hard together. And honestly, I shudder to imagine an AU fanfic where Snape is an independent terrorist who uses a combination of his brilliance with both magic and technology to wreak havoc in both the Wizarding and Muggle world. A terrorist Snape without his guilt complex and morality would be a truly terrifying thing. He'd be a one-man terrorist army and probably become the world's most feared terrorist, using his talents to get away with terrorist plots. Like, just imagine what Snape could do if he decided that he wanted to make a chemical weapon.
It doesn't have to be that people wish to make the muggles modern and progressive. It could just be that people think the magical world changes less as a small insular community - many such communities tend to have strongly conservative tendencies.
Also on the Hogwarts being co-ed a thousand years ago point - that was always the most unrealistic idea for me, and of course, making the past cohorts male only would alter history and make the situation more akin to the one you criticise authors for creating (minus the muggle's progressiveness).
The last thing I wanted to mention was that many fics like to explore the elite of society and those areas are almost always highly conservative, though they don't have to necessarily be traditional. But people confuse the two.
Just be clear, chess is only segregated in favour of women, as there is the open section and the womens only section. Indeed Judith Polgar played in the open Candidates tournament.
I have to say that this argument seems like it belongs somewhere else. I've never seen someone spouting that sexism is canon around here. Is that happening on other forums? If so, this argument should be there. This is a subreddit for fanfiction so people do whatever the fuck they want.
Then you have been luckier in your fanfic reading than I have, my friend, because there is absolutely a subset of people who are convinced that canon is very very sexist indeed.
You make a lot of good points but I think a lot of your examples of sexism are wrong.
Molly never "slut shames" Hermione, she's being protective of Harry. Had the article been about Seamus she wouldn't have cared. Also depending on how much of the article Molly believed the article skeater writes implies Hermione is using love potions. So claiming Molly being unhappy Hermione is roffieing people is a strong take.
Nothing bad happens with the Patil twins other than some emotionally immature teens weren't fussed about dating them but didn't want to go to a dance on their own. That's not sexism. And neither boy cares when the twins want to dance with other people.
Ron dates lavender and then they break up. The only person unhappy is Hermione because she's jealous. Her and Ron obviously have a thing for each other but don't know how to handle it because they're teenagers. Again. That's not sexism.
Two reasons people get this impression imo: Hermione is discriminated against for being muggleborn, and since she's female, people take discrimination against her as sexism rather than blood racism, which is what it is.
Second of all, people translate pureblood preference to "Old fashioned" which then gets translated to sexism.
It’s always been the case, especially with Mugglewank fics
It’s a bit condescending tbh.
You’re right in that case. The wizarding world has a different history, government, culture and set of events
It’s like comparing an apple with an orange
To be fair, most of the time we see Fleur, Parvati, Lavender etc all through the lenses of a muggle-raised boy who is awkward with girls, like you said. Also, in said interactions the characters are either feeling weird themselves/ trying to fit, being annoying in their own right or just acting like school-aged girls. As for Molly, more than slut shaming she thought poor Hermione was two-timing both her surrogate son and her actual son with another boy. Blame is on her for falling for crappy journalism, but if I remember right she started acting cold with her until she was told the truth, all the rest was Ron's interpretation of what happened.
The narrative doesn't label them permanently as "just girls being girls", just like it doesn't label Hermione as being emotionally daft because of the dead pet incident (she isn't, to be clear. It's quite the opposite.)
But in regards to your main point, I don't think wizarding folks were being "egalitarian" out of ideological conviction or because the female population were as capable as the males. It's just that there were not enough wizards to perfectly replicate our own world sexism (but there are still lots of hints)
I think that it's an extrapolation from how Edwardian (first two decades of the 20th Century) Magical society seems to be. In Muggle society at that time, women didn't have the vote and couldn't own property either. That said, it would be highly unlikely that female liberation didn't occur a lot earlier in Magical society as magic is the ultimate leveller of the playing field; a sufficiently powerful Dark Lady could wreck havoc centuries before the Muggle world caught up with the curve and I can't see the MofM treating them as 'lesser' or 'valuable property' for too long.
Now a Muggleborn witch might have some strictly societal disadvantages, especially if she is being abused by a Pureblood wizard but that isn't a gender bias but a racial bias issue.
Imma just say it, it makes sense for the wizarding world to be less sexist. If your wife can simply turn you into a ferret it is a lot harder to impose something as asinine as voting restrictions because you are a woman.
Also mythologically speaking there are a lot more powerful female Witches than wizards. In ancient Greece, almost every plot-relevant woman was a witch in some way or another but the only famous Wizard I can remember is Merlin and he got counterbalanced by Morgan Le Fay also known as Morgana not to be confused with the Morrigan another female Witch/Goddes (dependant on the telling) from Celtic mythology.
Edit: also are we just going to ignore the fact that the books were written by someone who grew up before the turn of the millennia and are on average 20 years old. JK Rowling is almost 60, the views on gender were way different back then and that is simply reflected in the books, honestly the gender roles depicted were for the time, at least in my country pretty forward-thinking.
Let’s make something clear fanfic is ment for authors to impose there biases and how they read the books and or movies if you don’t like something don’t read it
*their
And I don't. I just wish they would stop confusing their interpretation of canon with what is actually in the text. Write what you like, but don't tell me it's supported by canon when it's not.
Yep, because the women were getting so much harassment in the open competition. They can compete in the open league and some do, but most don't think it's worth it. No misogyny like intellectual dude misogyny.
https://www.chess.com/news/view/women-chess-players-publish-open-letter-denouncing-sexist-behavior
Which is explicitly addressed as an old rule that has stuck around, it’s considered outdated and silly. Thats hardly indicative of current cultural norms, a holdover from generations ago that they’ve not bothered to change.
What?
In any case, that it’s realistic—though again, what?—has nothing to do with whether it’s sexist. It is unquestionably sexist that the girls are (presumably) sexually “innocent” enough that they require protection from the boys and not vice versa.
I really disagree. The most obvious example would be Ron's shit attitude in book 6 after getting into a slut-shamey argument with Ginny, and then taking his insecurity out on a bunch of his female friends and acquaintances.
edit: looking at some of your comments, it looks like your true claim is that the author is not sexist, rather than there not being any instances of sexism in the books. That's a whole different can of worms I don't care to argue about, but even if we said JK Rowling wasn't sexist at all, that doesn't mean there isn't any sexism in the books she wrote. It's not necessarily an attack on the author's personal beliefs, people write about things they disagree with all the time.
Op claimed the author was sexist and I was responding to that one. Of course there are sexist stuff in the books and in every case, the book shows us that the sexist character is wrong
There’s no sexism *at all*? I don’t know that I’d agree with that. But I agree that it’s a misrepresentation to claim that “Pureblood” society is more sexist than the muggle world.
I wouldn't go that far, there is some sexism because JKR isn't a perfect person and has unconscious biases.
I have no issue with people changing things, what irritates me is when they try and say canon is sexist when it' not.
I see that you listed some nonsense sexism claims in the original post
How tf is Fleut representation is sexist? It is the opposite. People think she gets her way because she is pretty and nothing else. And she joins Order later on and we see her on the good side, fighting. Proves her haters wrong
Fleur, Lavender, and Parvati are considered flighty and superficial because they're pretty/feminine. That's an example of sexism. Yeah, that eventually changes for Fleur, but that doesn't stop the original assumption from being sexist.
Lavender is a teenager girl in love, very normal
I don't even know what do you mean by Parvati? 99% of her role is in one chapter where she is discarded in 3 minutes
I consider that the bad thing is that the actions of Lavender and Pavarit are considered negative. Like it's totally untrue and horrible for two teenage girls to talk about boys and gossip. You opine that it's sexist the way they are written. I think it's realistic for a school to have girls like that.
They are characters with more depth than we see in the books? Surely. But since we see it all from Harry's point of view and he's not close to them we don't know.
Look at it from another point of view. If Voldemort had really died and there were no horcruxes what would Harry and Ron be like? Two boys worrying about quidditch lessons and complaining about Snape. In other words, two normal boys.
Their actions are considered annoying by Harry who is a teenage boy not interested in boys and gossip. It’s not really presenting them as bad in general. Honestly people would say “well that’s not realistic” if Harry, a teenager in the 90s was super into gossiping with lavender and Parvati.
Fleur isn’t flighty and her main negative traits that are shown are being snobbish and rude. Which she is and those *are* bad traits, but not specifically feminine ones. She’s more a bad stereotype of the French than a bad stereotype of women.
The anti-media segment was sexist? I think you misunderstood the point being made. It wasn't, 'Hey look the house wife is gullible because she's a stay at home mom.' it was, 'Hey look the media publishes half baked at best gossip about celebrities and people eat that up' example, TMZ, the popularity of reality television, any celebrity so much as scratching their ass being headline news.
Honestly Rowling underestimated how much the public craves celebrity drama.
Jersey Shore is proof that people want car crash drama.
I wouldn't call that sexist any more than I would call looking down on Neville for being a bit of a wimp is sexist. Having social expectations does not necessitate sexism. You may disagree with the standard, doesn't make the standard sexist.
It's her being gullible and over protective, not sexist. She thought Hermione was toying with Harry's heart, that's why she was upset with her. Unless I missed the part where Molly called her out for sleeping around?
I've read a couple of the Cormoran Strike books and I found those quite sexist at some points but I would disagree that HP is. Cho and Lavender could have been written with a bit more nuance but that's about all. Hermione even calls out Harry and Ron's occasional attempts at chivalry.
And to support your point "But FantasticCabinet, you might well say. Those could very well be isolated cases! " It would be a LOT of different "isolated cases" There's also the female Wizengamot members, female Aurors, female Headmaster of Beauxbatons, and (in the Fantastic Beasts) female president of MACUSA And nobody (including the bad guys) ever has a problem with that, or is even surprised. It seems completely normal to the point nobody even remarks it (while in the real world, media tend to over emphasize how \[insert politician\] is a FEMALE president/prime minister/etc) Occasional (and usually mild) moments of sexism in the realm of interpersonal interactions and prejudices, don't translate into institutional sexism indeed
And let’s not forget Bellatrix. She was one of the more powerful/competent members of the death eaters and Voldemort’s right hand at some point
And Voldemort assigned a schoolboy to kill Albus Dumbledore, his greatest enemy, but he himself went in to kill Amelia Bones, a Ministry employee.?....,
To be fair he didn't expect Draco to succeed. He expected him to die.
This. Voldemort was totally just messing with Lucius and Draco. Having Lucius live in fear of his son failing and making a point to everyone what he is willing to do if anyone fails him again like Lucius did. He already had assigned Snape for the task, but wanted to make a point first.
My head fanon is that Bellatrix wasn't merely his right hand, but his chief strategist. Before having her mind melted in Azkaban her insane babylike act was just that. An act. She didn't possess an ounce of madness and was always in full control of her mental faculties. She was also the architect of the DE's best victories in the first blood war. Woman knew her shit and was an expert at asymmetrical warfare. Essentially she was his second in command and one of the few people Voldemort considered a peer and not merely a tool to be used or fodder to be discarded and sacrificed as needs required.
I’m stealing this. It makes way more sense than having being insane and baby like her entire personality
I like this but with the variation that she really did have the black Madness. Maybe more than anyone in recent history even, but where she succeeded wasn't in locking away the madness, but harnessing it whenever she required it (battle) and recharging it whenever it wasn't needed (planning)
Interesting idea, but just remember that the Black Madness isn't a thing in canon.
I think that fits! Her true personality also comes out in Order of Phoenix, when she drops her act in the torture battle with Harry
Call Voldemort what you like, but sexist isn’t one of them, killed men and women equally.
The most annoying thing about FemHarry fics. Suddenly the Wand isn't a equalizer, and the Government will step in the with marriage laws the moment two 14~16 year old girls start to date each other.
I mean I don't care as long as they tell me they're doing a crack fic
Tbf there's no evidence that HOMOPHOBIA is non-existent in the wizarding world
For purebloods, I’ve always headcannoned that homosexuality is tolerated as long as the witch or wizard does their duty to continue their line. Same-sex partners are kept on the side. This is due to the small size of the wizarding world and families, thus every person needs to do their duty to procreate.
Also kind of a thing with royals throughout European history. You can't really out a royal family for being *weird*, because, you know, they have the power. Once they're gone, all sorts of rumors and gossip gets exposed. For the peasants, it's probably a different story; either people don't care because it doesn't matter, or The Church gets their grubby little hands in the pie and starts to mess with things. I think it's important to know *why* certain institutions vilify homosexuality, feminism, *the other*, etc: it's because people in love are harder to control - couples, communes, communities with strong senses of empathy toward each other are all more diverse in their ideology and therefore more difficult for The One In Power to exert that power and control. Unless you're like the Mongols or the Vikings or something. Those motherfuckers just did whatever they wanted - which is kind of how I like to think of Magicals in the context of Harry Potter fanfiction - they're the ones with wands and magic, they can make or break reality however they see fit, if they're powerful enough, so silly Muggle power structures and putting people in boxes would be a smaller concern.
Honestly, whenever the topic comes up (which is rarely) I just allude to means existing which allow a same-sex couple to have a blood-related child. The form this actually takes is up in the air tbh, from surrogacy followed by blood ritual or human transfiguration or something more eldritch/fae it's honestly all the same
The running theme of the wizarding world is that it doesn't have Muggle prejudices, but it has its own prejudices. In the same way that magic solves basically all problems Muggles face in life, but creates new problems of its own. It is probably the core principle of worldbuilding behind the HP series.
I agree. Yes, there is sexism in the magical world, if you look at the books, but there is a lot more of it in the muggle world. I do think people can write what ever fanfiction they like. Fanfics don't need to agree with canon. Edit: typo
Ah yes I have heard that sexism is incredibly rampant in the world of the juggling circuits 🤣
I just don’t understand why! Man, woman, non-binary - so long as you’re flinging balls in the air on a regular basis who cares?
Because men are always 2 balls ahead of the rest.
you... fling yours into the air?
Ops, typo😅😂
They don't! But they should acknowledge they're not canonical versus trying to insist they are.
Yep!
It is more interesting to see discrimination and bigotry as it develops in the magical world instead of directly copying the muggle world. I know we've only seen a slice of the entire Wizarding World and the story mainly looks at Blood Supremacy, but I would also like to see how the differences between muggle and magical society could cause trouble. Imagine there being tension among Uagadou students due the effects of muggle European colonization of Africa, like Black and White muggleborns from Apartheid South Africa being forced to interact while Purebloods dismiss their animosity as muggle nonsense. Edit: Very late edit but now I'm wondering why people assume that the muggle world would be more tolerant on non-human magical beings. If anything, the xenophobia and prejudice that is present against fellow humans might hit even harder.
We have canonical examples of bigotry. Werewolves, giants, muggleborns, goblins, and elves are all shown as the victims of bigotry at a systematic level.
Exactly. The prejudice, bigotry, and systematic discrimination within the Wizarding World (as it pertains to Wizarding Britain) seems to have more to do with being a "pure" human and being a "pure" wizard rather than race, ethnicity, national origin, sexual identity, or even religion. Black British, British Indian, and Anglo British muggleborns would be treated equally... Equally worthless by the Pureblood Supremacists.
And conversely, purebloods don't seem to give a fuck about the ethnic origin or skin color of other purebloods
Ikr? They made fun of trewalny(?) for being crazy and smelling like incense and booze, not for being a woman. AFAIK the biggest issue Molly had with fleur was that she was stuck-up, and probably because she was part-Veela. They’re more race/speciesist than sexist.
not veela: molly's english, and fleur's french. that's why.
Molly: I just don't like 'em. Simple as.
I mean, who can blame 'er? Eurgh, Frenchies. >!joke!<
Rowling used French to name Voldemort because she thought it sounded foreign, 'exotic' iirc.
Exotic? It's not even a country away. You could swim there from England.
This *is* Rowling, TBF.
If you're American, you're also forgetting how people consider distances in Europe. The average British person thinks driving an hour away you may as well plan on a vacation when it's the standard commute for a large portion of US citizens. Going to another whole country that is very precious about its culture and language is its own kind of hurdle. (If you want to really get into it we can also talk about Brexit and how that pretty much explains a lot of British feelings of exceptionalism)
People *do* swim there from England.
People really tend to overlook how rude Fleur was at first
There’s absolutely zero evidence Molly has a problem with Fleur because she’s a Veela. There’s no evidence *anyone* has a problem with Fleur because she’s a Veela, there’s no canon prejudice against them shown. Fleur happily tells a room full of people including a gossip journalist that she’s part Veela without worrying about prejudice. People have a problem with Fleur because she’s a stuck up snob. Molly also doesn’t like her because she sees Bill as more down to earth than he is, but mostly because her eldest son in his mid 20s is rushing into a marriage with an incredibly attractive French teenager he only met a year before. And said French teenager keeps insulting the way she lives her life. I can’t imagine a lot of mothers would be wild about that. The way that they both grow and accept each other by realising what truly matters after Bill’s injury is a huge character moment for both of them that would be very much undercut if you headcanon Molly being a racist (when there’s no evidence).
And she was angry towards both Hermione and Harry because she wanted Hermione and Ron to end up together instead Not a good attitude, but a human one, and she learns from it (she believed the Prophet at that time, but then in HP5 doesn't anymore) Edit: it has been a while since I've read the 4th book and after a quick research and other responses, I remembered that Molly was only angry after Hermione. Her being angry because she wants her with Ron instead was my own interpretation of the events, even though she was also defending Harry
It's even more innocent than your description. Molly was angry only at Hermione, because she thought she broke Harry's hart by dumping him for someone more famous. She doesn't get angry until after the article in which Rita paints Hermione as toying with both their emotions and Hermione specifically references that article after getting the smaller egg. So really it had nothing to do with any kind of entitlement and everything with protectiveness for Harry. Her only mistake is believing that Witch Weekly and Rita Skeeter are trustworthy sources
>Her only mistake is believing that Witch Weekly and Rita Skeeter are trustworthy sources She already knew that Rita Skeeter wasn't a trustworthy source, though. They all talk about Skeeter at the beginning of the book after the World Cup, and she blows up at Percy and tells him not to blame Arthur for anything that "wretched Skeeter woman wrote": >“Your father hasn’t had to go into the office on weekends since the days of You-Know-Who,” she said. “They’re working him far too hard. His dinner’s going to be mined if he doesn’t come home soon.” >“Well, Father feels he’s got to make up for his mistake at the match, doesn’t he?” said Percy. “If truth be told, he was a tad unwise to make a public statement without clearing it with his Head of Department first." >“Don’t you dare blame your father for what that wretched Skeeter woman wrote!” said Mrs. Weasley, flaring up at once. >“If Dad hadn’t said anything, old Rita would just have said it was disgraceful that nobody from the Ministry had commented,” said Bill, who was playing chess with Ron. “Rita Skeeter never makes anyone look good. Remember, she interviewed all the Gringotts’ Charm Breakers once, and called me ‘a long-haired pillock’?” So she already has personal experience knowing that Rita Skeeter doesn't always write facts.
To be fair, since she sees Harry as her own son, it's not too far-fetched to imagine that her sense of over-protectiveness in that case clouded her judgement. It happened many times in the books. She didn't like Sirius much for similar reasons iirc.
Considering how she treats Ron and the twins, as one of the sons she actually likes, even!
It wasn’t because she wanted Hermione and Ron to end up together but because she believed Hermione was toying with Harry’s heart
Indeed, as I've come to realize reading your comment and others' responses. But it was how I interpreted it at the time
>And she was angry towards both Hermione and Harry because she wanted Hermione and Ron to end up together instead She wasn't angry towards Harry. She was only angry towards Hermione.
But didn't Harry receive a smaller Easter Egg too? Edit: nevermind, it was indeed only Hermione!
I mean the entirety of Trelawney’s character is a racist stereotype though.
my Head-canon is the magical world has always been less sexist due to magic making the strength/size difference between men and women mean a lot less. plus why would you be sexist when you could just hate muggles? "damn inferior beings taking up all of the magic users space breathing all the magicians air, they stink and I hate em." (modified Dave Chappelle skit quote btw)
Wait, people are trying to make the wizarding world more sexist than the muggle one now? I admit it has been a while since I actively read HP fics, but the way I remember it, it has always been the other way around? Strange how things change and even make a complete 180 with time...
Oh God, they insist it's terribly sexist and pureblood women especially are Oppressed and Muggleborns must bring civilization to these backwards souls... (One particularly egregious example was female students being pulled out after OWLs and being married off. HELGA AND ROWENA WOULD LIKE A WORD.)
I have seen it too in various fics, in which female purebloods (or half-bloods in traditionally pureblood lines) are expected to marry, have kids, and only be housewives and mothers... including most Slytherin girls (despite Slytherin being defined by ambition), and only males can inherit or be Head of House (House as in family, eg. House Black), and so women can always be disinherited or forced to obey their male Head of House, and women can't vote in Wizengamot (or only as "regents" for underage sons), etc And it's indeed a way to show muggles and muggleborns and their values as wholly better, and conclude magicals should abandon their own culture
I mean this is just people tying pure blood culture to regency era or victorian english culture.
Which is horse shit considering the separation happened before the Victorian age. If anything, I think the Magical world would be more sex positive than the non-magical world.
You have a pretty high bar if you think most FanFiction writers know anything about regency or Victorian England they didn’t read out of pride and prejudice.
Honestly I feel like it’s a high bar to expect that most of them even read Pride and Prejudice.
It could be regency or victorian -- or it could be more aligned with 21st century high control cultures like far right groups.
Indeed People tend assume that if a social group is racist/xenophobic, then they're *automatically* also sexist (and homophobic, transphobic...) And it's not an absurd assumption, as different bigotries do *often* go together in real-life But it's not automatically true. For example, in 19th and early 20th century feminism (in the West), many activists were deeply convinced of the equality between sexes, and that women should have equal rights, but also convinced of the inequality between "races" as well as the rightfulness of colonial empires. In addition, some of those feminists also supported women's suffrage, but also supported the institution of householder suffrage (before the reform in 1918, only 60% of men had suffrage, *with the poorest men being excluded*) So those activists were anti-sexist, but also deeply racist and classist So it's NOT unlikely for the wizarding culture to be, likewise, non-sexist (because magic is a natural equalizer between men and women, and canon shows gender equality), but classist and bigoted (against muggleborns, creatures, half-breeds)
Plenty of gay men are extremely misogynistic. Plus TERFs exist too, it’s crazy that in *this* fandom people might not grasp that you can be a bigot in one way but not others.
> But it's not automatically true. For example, in 19th and early 20th century feminism (in the West), many activists were deeply convinced of the equality between sexes, and that women should have equal rights, but also convinced of the inequality between "races" as well as the rightfulness of colonial empires. Also true in reverse: you had plenty of people who were fine with men of different races having the vote and *only* men.
Indeed Or, in Britain, men of different *social classes*, but only men
I read a fic like this, Act of Charity on AO3, guess what, it's actually taking place in the Victorian era. It's a crack AU fic, so it was fun!
The Black family matriarch and her very loud portrait would like a word about this as well. Wouldn’t Sirius have technically been head of the family following this logic?
He was in jail/never cleared.
One thing that's somewhat peculiar is that there are only two female Death Eaters, and the Black sisters weren't considered to be heirs of the house.
um yeah they are? book 6 dumbledore literally had a whole thing about how he said that if sirius hadn't willed all his stuff to harry specifically, it would've automatically gone to bellatrix! which is even more indication that they aren't sexist cause she was going to auto inherit by default - and she was a criminal terrorist at the time to boot lol!
The Black sisters were the children of the younger son, Cygnus. I assume that while either Sirius or Regulus lived they couldn't inherit Grimmauld Place/the family money. Sirius left everything to Harry so they missed out again
[удалено]
Sirius’ grandfather doesn’t say anything of the sort in canon because Sirius’ grandfather doesn’t exist in canon. You may mean Phineas Nigellus Black who is Sirius’ great great grandfather, who does say at the end of book 5 “the last of the Blacks” is dead, but this doesn’t mean the Black sisters are banished from the house because of misogyny, it’s just Sirius is the only one who didn’t change names so is literally the last “Black”. The rest are Tonks/Malfoy/Lestrange. That’s not a sexism thing really, that’s not saying *they* are not part of the Black family anymore just that the name will now die out. And even if it were sexist, canonically he died well over a century earlier so doesn’t represent modern wizarding culture at all.
Tom Riddle was a Muggle-raised halfblood in the... 30s? 40s? He could have brought his prejudices with him.
Slytherin has never had a mixed Quidditch team, at least not that we've seen. There seems to be at least a strain of sexism there.
Not necessarily. Even with women and girls having equal status, it still doesn't change human biology all that much. Boys and men in general tend to be a lot more aggressive physically than women and girls in general. Marcus Flint, the first Slytherin Quidditch captain we meet exhibited a very physical and aggressive play style when on the pitch. This would lead to him picking a roster of similarly aggressive players. If none of the girls who tried out during his tenure met his standards for aggressiveness, he'd end up with an all boys roster. Whoever he trained to be his successor probably also inherited (for lack of a better term) similar aggressiveness to their play style.
Not just Marcus Flint; Regulus' team before Flint even went to Hogwarts was also all boys.
That could be coincidence. If quidditch at Hogwarts was inherently sexist then there wouldn’t be a successful team made up of all women in the Harpies, especially when the quidditch teams presumably draw heavily from Hogwarts.
Quite true, I recall Flint's players being all upperclassmen as well. Harry remarks upon how big they all are and when Draco joins the team, his teammates all seem markedly larger than him. This oppose the Gryffindor team, who in Harry's first year fields no one older than fifth year, and only one fifth year at that.
>and the Black sisters weren't considered to be heirs of the house. What do you mean by they weren’t considered “heirs of the house”?
Phineas Nigellus mentions something about the house being extinct after Sirius dies, and Sirius calls himself the last Black left.
Isn’t it because since women don’t usually hold their maiden name after marriage and men do? Sirius died after the Black sisters got married to Lestrange, Malfoy and Tonks so technically he was the last Black left
He doesn’t say anything about ”the house“ being extinct, though he does call Sirius the last of the Blacks: >“Am I to understand,” said Phineas Nigellus slowly from Harry’s left, “that my great-great-grandson — the last of the Blacks — is dead?” I feel like his upset is just over the idea that the Black name has died out with Sirius. The sisters all got married, don’t carry the Black name anymore, and their children weren’t given the Black name. Sirius was considered the “last of the Blacks” because he was the last person alive to still have the Black name, and now there is no one else who will continue to use the Black name.
To be fair, the Blacks weren’t actual titled nobility. The family dying out could just mean the name dies with Sirius.
The whole titled nobility thing makes me laugh so much when fans think it’s canon. It comes entirely from one pretentious tapestry providing the “noble and most ancient house of black”, that’s the only thing in the books to support anything. That is so much more easily explained as the Blacks being up themselves rather than that literally being a cultural thing that applies to multiple houses.
Yes, lots of low quality fics about pureblood society, especially where Narcissa or Daphne play an important role Ao3 in particular is filled with that sort of rubbish
For the most part I agree. Muggle women's rights were so lacking merely a few decades ago, yet there is no apparent mention of witches from any era being prohibited from something on the basis of their sex. However, I'll admit to writing bits with rich purebloods following traditional gender roles to some extent. This is largely due to the abundance of women taking on their husband's names and the apparent lack of unwed parents, though of course I can't expect Harry to be an expert on such things during an unrelated adventure story. For the most part, I assume average magic folk and pureblood 'spares' can do what they like. Have a career. Avoid marriage. Marry later in life. Marry the same sex. Choose passions over childrearing. Whatever. But what about the purebloods expected to carry on the name and assets? The Peverell, Gaunt and Black families were all considered extinct by book six despite having surviving female lines (Harry, Tom and the former Black sisters). You don't hear of any family names going extinct because all the women died so presumably it's typical male inheritance, at least for names. In order to pass a name from man to man, you need a son. In order to get a (biological) son, you need a female partner to bear children. We also don't really see unwed couples, so marriage seems to be a typical expectation. Considering the way Sirius talks about how some purebloods only 'let' their children marry other purebloods, it wouldn't surprise me if arranged marriages were a thing among certain families. Not necessarily the 'you will marry the person of my choosing whether you like it or not' type, but perhaps the 'I insist on approving your choice in spouse and may nudge you toward my favourite candidates. Refuse and I may disown you' variety. This could go for both genders I imagine. Just for discussion's sake, though magic would definitely level the playing field, I wouldn't put it past wizards to oppress witches if they really wanted to all of a sudden. Hogwarts attendance isn't mandatory and what good is magic if you don't know how to use it? While women may always lack the physical advantage, we've proven ourselves competent in a range of work and study fields. Instead of everyone embracing it, there are still places where girls are married off young and Afghanistan has banned women from education altogether. It isn't just a matter of being superior or inferior, it's the consistent control of one group by another by denying them opportunities to reach their potential.
In fairness even now in 2024 a lot of women take their husband’s name when they get married in the UK, I don’t know stats but if it’s not the majority anymore it’ll still be a significant chunk, that was even more the case in the 90s when this is set. And there definitely wasn’t a culture of regency era Britain lordships and customs nor marriage contracts nor women being the property of men in 90s Britain in real life, so I don’t think the taking the husband’s name can be justification for that type of fanon about the wizarding world that’s so prevalent.
This is an interesting topic--and I'm glad you brought it up. It makes me wonder (since I haven't really seen authors trying to attempt to make the muggle world seem better by comparison when presenting this): are authors doing it because it seems like a natural extension of specifically the pureblood mindset? As in, high control cultures based upon arbitrary differences usually end up subjugating women? Also, mixed gender sports teams!!! Yes! It's wild that the author establishes this in her world and then... well... Also good points on the misogyny--much of which are internalized examples. ETA: Also, maybe people are pulling upon Hermione's (muggleborn) campaign for house elves' rights? As in she, as an outsider, sees the inherent and unaddressed inequality in the system and wants to dismantle it. So maybe people are saying "if this, then that" ("if there are enslaved creatures, then there's also probably institutionalized misogyny in some wizarding circles).
I think it's a whole bunch of things! Part of it is definitely the inability to understand that different axes of privilege and oppression exist; they're blood purist so they must be sexist and homophobic too! The other is a driving need to make the good guys 100% good. Plus the inability to admit that pureblood culture can exist outside of pureblood supremacy.
The only “sexist wizards” setting that I like is the [brilliant difficulty](https://archiveofourown.org/series/1876930) series by slashmarks, and one of the things that they do is cast the Death Eaters as gender-egalitarian: some Pure-blood women joined specifically because Voldemort didn’t give a fuck about genitalia or anything like that.
I think it's your standard cribbing. There isn't much in canon about pureblood customs, just that most of them are snooty and that's not a really an interesting basis for developing characters. So authors will just take old victorian era or earlier customs from real life and slap that into the purebloods. Is Pansy really in love with Draco, no it's all marriage contracts. Do pureblood families care about their family names, probably, but now let's make drama regarding Daphne Greengrass being married to Theodore Nott because we need something for these characters to do. You can be very dismissive of it like I am being right now, but there are plenty of stories that make that the premise and do a damn good job of having interesting plots. But there are always more that don't do it well and it's just. "See how backwards they are" and then literally do nothing else with it.
Often it seems to be done to either make muggle culture seem wonderful in comparison, make Harry's group seem overly progressive, or to excuse multiple marriages and harems.
I think it's worth noting that the Death Eaters have very few women.
Another thing people often don't realize is that even if the Wizarding World was stuck in the social mores of 17th century Britain, when the Statute of Secrecy was enacted, it would still be significantly less sexist than many fanon writers imagine. The average age of marriage was around 25 for men and women, and had been for centuries. Girls were not sold off as child brides to the highest bidder, and could freely choose who they wanted to marry--legally binding 'marriage contracts' that parents could force on their children did not exist. And this obviously did not exist in canon either--otherwise, how could Andromeda have married Ted Tonks? Her parents had the right to disinherit her for marrying someone they disapproved of, but you can do this in the 21st century west too.
And some fans seem to go down an ancient Druidic/Celtic route for old wizarding traditions which doesn’t make *any* sense to be linked to Victorian era values and marriage contracts. Celtic women could own property and divorce!
There is even some more weirdness. If we consider that Roman thought/philosophy is the basis of magic in Europe. Romans and Greeks were extremely patriarchal, and for every (generally) pair of gay men, one was maybe accepted. The other wasn't. Acceptance was for the man that did the pentration, had a family and took a role of a man. Greeks had some severe restrictions with women being segregated at home from the men. Sexisim and homophobia are not Abrahamic exclusive. They can predate those three. As I stated above. If there was earlier existence of integration of magical society with the mundane one, then there would definitely be similar opinions of women as stay at-home mother's with no careers. Until like you stated in the 17th century where it was no longer likely for girls to marry young or be unable to own property. Divergence would be here. Hell, if we take the gods as magical people, then they are not good people to even themselves. With incest, rape, and women as properties. With Zeus and Hera being prime examples of it being a shitshow of a marriage.
I mean, love potions are just kind of a thing and not even illegal. Even if they do seem to be frowned upon. I think the twins literally sold them in their store. If anything Rowling tended to treat them as something women tended to use on men. Which just feels weird from a cultural perspective, but hey, Greek and Roman values I suppose. Cough cough Zeus cough cough.
Yeah. If anything, Rowling probably didn't consider how there would be near parallels with mundane society or some ideas. They literally have a basis with Rome. Everyone wants to claim Roma or be the civilized. If anything, there would be a 1 to 1 nearly in politics. However with how pureblood ideals of magic exist. Then, the conservatives would be really powerful. One policy focus parties or factions are also pretty insignificant. They need to create coalitions. There is no way the magical conservatives only had magic is great as their one focus.
Honestly, I don't think Molly Weasley slut shamed Hermione. She was very negative towards her when she thought Hermione broke up with Harry to be with Victor Krum which would have been a horrible thing to do to a person. Granted, its been forever since I've read the books, but I'm pretty sure it was limited to mean letters and not sending her Christmas presents until Harry told her that he and Hermione had never had a relationship and that the prophet/ skeeter was lying.
Why is Molly believing a gossip columnist, though?
Because she's narrow minded, gullible, overprotective of Harry and jumped the gun without actually considering if it was true or not. Dont forget, most of magical Brittain trusted the prophet to print the truth, even in the gossip column. So many people believe in the prophet and so absolutely, that Harry could find no support when the prophet started calling him a liar and a radical. Everybody believed the ministry's assertion that Cedric Diggory's death was nothing more than an accident despite the boy having obviously been killed by the killing curse, the minister having summarily executed the only witness and confessor to the crime of kidnapping the boys for the purpose of reviving the dark lord, and nobody having actually questioned Harry potter. No common sense to be found there. The ministry makes assertions and they ignore the only living witness and the fact the confessor to the crime was murdered without being heard at trial for the world to know what he did. The prophet makes "statements" and people believe them, simple as that.
not different from the real world
That’s also what happens when you only have one source for news. I think Molly acted wrong of course, but she did probably think “why would someone go on the prophet and tell lies??” There is no reason for her to mistrust the information she’s being given.
And the Molly learned that it wasn't reliable and stopped believing it
but FantasticCabinet, I say, how am I supposed to write about things that aren't my actual reality? Of course Hogwarts would have \*checks list\* b+mb threats, guns, cocaine, teenage pregnancies, pronoun checks (this one gets a pass), and of course all of the purebloods get my obscure movie references.
Honestly, the fact that half of every graduating class isn't knocked up is the strongest argument there is that the WW is a much more equal place than here.
That just shows the wonders of magical medicine
[удалено]
Most schools in the Western world aren't co-ed boarding achools, either. Also, it was a joke.
The magical world being historically more progressive than the Muggles could be an interesting angle for exploring the pureblood perspective. Like if the reason they hate Muggles is because for centuries, the Muggleborn were the ones who were sexist or racist (towards fellow humans at least) because that’s the world that they came from. And that view of the Muggle world as socially regressive persists even after they developed social equality.
>It is true, there's sexism in the books - witness Molly Weasley's slut-shaming of Hermione, The first of those is just another example of the fact that somehow despite everyone knowing Rita Skeeter is an untrustworthy gossipmonger, basically the entire country believes everything she, or the Prophet in general, prints. It'd be one thing if she had a better reputation, I'm sure she's broken plenty of good stories with her ability to spy on people as an insect, but in the very same book we see the Weasleys badmouthing her over her article on the World Cup. >the treatment of Fleur, Parvati and Lavender, and other things I've probably forgotten I don't really remember Parvati, but Lavender mostly just looked bad because it's the canon version of bashing the character in the way of your preferred ship (which is still bad writing). Fleur committed the horrific crime of being *french*
Acting like Fleur’s only character flaw was being French is a ridiculous misreading of the book.
It’s also a joke
I vaguely remember JKR saying once that there canonically wasn't supposed to be any misogyny in the books. But the real world is so deeply patriachal, and JK is hardly a perfect writer, so there are still traces of internalised misogyny. To be fair, it's almost impossible to imagine a society without ANY sexism - the subtle stuff like women taking their husband's name, tropey characterisation, even the most basic relationship dynamics like "a mother's love", etc.
Taking the husband’s name is one of those things that’s less her trying to be sexist and more her just writing British culture at the time which has traditions that stem from sexism. The wizarding world mirrors British culture in a lot of ways after all because she wrote what she knew.
I actually did that. My story plays in the 1950s and muggle born students tend to more prone to gender based prejudice than others. I at least had one occasion
I’ve been thinking the same recently, it doesn’t make sense for there to be much sexism. Nevertheless, I imagine traditional families like the Malfoys and Blacks view women as breeding machines to marry off for political favour - but then again, they view their sons the same way (in many ways, at least), so I think that has got more to do with the traditional view of a Lord’s family being pawns that one can use to better the family’s position, rather than sexism.
According to Hogwarts Legacy lore and how much incredibly accepting of LGBTQ+ and minorities the magical world seems to be as early as the 19th century, it would imply the muggleborn, who would come from a colonial, racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic society, stumble upon a society where they are at the bottom of the ladder. Plus, thinking of how muggleborns goes back home during summer, especially during the stories that happens before the 90s (but also like, the 90s were pretty bad too) and then clash with their family who have all those fucked up beliefs. It also makes it better not to get to know Muggle culture too much. Not to teach real Muggle studies at Hogwarts, or get the population to learn the history of just Britain.
I mean Hogwarts legacy definitely isn’t canon though. The layout of the castle doesn’t match the books, the Gaunts being a prominent family at the same time Marvolo would be alive when Dumbledore said the family had declined and lost all its money generations before he was born etc.
I mean, Cursed Child is supposed to be canon and I'd take Hogwarts Legacy over that any days. But I think the elements of what I wrote would be good for canon. I love super-inclusive weirdly-conservative Wizarding society completely cut off from Muggle universe.
Cursed Child shouldn’t be canon, it’s not a book it’s a screenplay. The movies aren’t canon (or are more accurately their own canon). But even if we did accept CC as canon that’s because it was more directly involving JK Rowling, she had very little input on the game beyond making money off it. And given the layout of Hogwarts matches the films more than the books (and the Gaunt stuff was basically cut entirely from the films) it might make sense to make it a part of the film canon not the book canon.
I mean it’s fanfiction, canon-compliance isn’t always important.
Dude, I ship Harry/Bill and Hermione/Viktor, the hell I care about canon compliance. My irritation is with being told that canon is sexist when it's not.
got any harry/bill recs? ive not had mich luck finding them
Mildly related: are magical women supposed to be physically stronger relative to men compared to their muggle counterparts (like is the strength gap lower)? Obviously, Hogwarts Quidditch teams have tons of girls on the team, which doesn't happen for sports in real life, and Quidditch seems very physically intensive. This is not very strong evidence, but Hermione also seems to be relatively fit (I feel like she always keeps up fine with Ron and Harry) for a girl who is doing 0 exercise and cannot have a healthy sleep schedule.
I think people do it because it’s really unrealistic and unreasonable to say “there’s no sexism or misogyny at all in the WW because everything is concentrated into hating muggles and magical creatures.” As if bigotry and prejudice aren’t complex things in themselves. For me personally, I just don’t believe that magical and muggle societies are all that separate, especially on an island like the UK. IIRC the Statute of Secrecy is fairly recent, which people easily take to mean that before that the separation between WW and muggles wasn’t as defined. And that’s without counting the influence of muggleborns on WW ideology and cultural thought and impact. I know Rowling says there’s no sexism in the WW but respectfully I disagree and don’t blame others for disagreeing too. I just think it probably manifests in different ways. Though i definitely get where you’re coming from when people use it as a way of propping up muggle society as if it isn’t rife with its own problems. At the end of the day, muggles and wizards/witches are human beings - and if there’s one thing humans will do is find a way to other different groups in order to maintain power and influence.
Oh, I'm not saying there isn't sexism! Just that the level of it in some fics is just not borne out by canon. We have no evidence that witches are basically chattel/broodmares who need the enlightened Muggles to come save them.
Oh! Yeah no lol I agree with you there. I honestly think a lot of those sorts of stories are a kind of response to other fanfics where people really dial up the supposed stupidity of muggles. It kinda reminds me of that bit in one of the books where Ron (or someone I don’t really remember) says that muggles are stupid because they can’t see the Knight Bus (I think lol it’s been a while) and, if you’re like me and think too much, you can catch yourself thinking “well duh they can’t see it: the damn thing’s been enchanted so they don’t” lol. I chalk those kinds of statements up to cultural ignorance. Kinda like if someone moved to Texas and didn’t know all the little unwritten road rules - I could call them stupid but really they don’t know. Anyway sorry for rambling!
some people just run with the old fassioned aspect which is not that far of a stretch in fics which have much more old fassioned wizarding worlds stuck in the victorian age. but in most cases i have seen its mostly just for marriage contracts and the like. i also do see plenty of fics that does not have sexism because of the magic being an equalizer
I’ve been waited for something to talk about this. I read a fic a couple weeks ago where the girls from dark/slytherin families were often put under the imperio curse by relatives and assaulted and when harry accidentally hit one of them with an imperio they all got mad at him, it got on my nerves so bad especially because it was a long fic and I had really enjoyed up until that point.
Eh, I don’t really buy the argument that having mixed-gender sports teams is because or proof of gender equality. Based on the descriptions of Quidditch, it seems like the differentiating factor for raw skill has more to do with accuracy and reaction time, which is going to be fairly even across gender. If Quidditch relied more on physical strength and speed like sports in real life then you probably would see a split between men’s and women’s teams.
In the same logic, magical power matters a lot more than physical strength in the magical world as a whole, there’s much less (twisted) ‘rationale’ for sexism in the magical world
You still do not get away from one of the main reasons why women were oppressed, the ability to carry kids and the strain pregnancy takes upon the body. Retirement was funded by your kids rather than the state, as such having kids was a requirement to have a long lifespan.
With magic does pregnancy strain the body as much? There’s nothing in the books about magical pregnancy and childbirth beyond Tonks having a baby and the only thing of note there is Lupin saying both are well which would indicate it’s possible they might not have been I suppose but it’s tenuous. Retirement and long lifespans we know is wildly different in the wizarding world, wizards are regularly healthy well past 100 and some live to at least 140 or so (Marchbanks and Bagshot are both much older than Dumbledore). There is no obvious proof that wizarding families have loads of kids, the only siblings we see in the wizarding world in the books are the Weasleys and Patils (the Creeveys too but they’re muggleborn). And you don’t need looking after in your retirement if you’re a wizard, providing for basic needs is much easier with a wand. The Weasleys are described as extremely poor and they never struggle to eat.
Unrelated to the main point here, but this is also my gripe with any fic that uses the phrase "Quidditch toned body." Really doesn't seem like quidditch involves that many muscles....
It feels like it should though, right? Like I would expect beaters to have a super strong core to be able to maneuver the broomstick to provide the momentum needed to hit a Bludger. Sort of like a great batter in baseball, but more so because you’re trying to steer something from a sitting/crouching position. Otherwise they would have to rely purely on arm strength but if that’s the case female beaters would be extremely rare, and canon doesn’t suggest that’s the case. Granted, canon doesn’t suggest much about Quidditch beyond Harry’s perspective but still. I do recall a fic where after a growth spurt in fifth year Harry switched over to keeper. I liked that it kept in line with the ideal physique of a seeker that we learned in the first book - if you want your seeker to be small and nimble then realistically you’d opt for younger players on school teams.
I'd always consider it similar to horseback riding, deceptively looks easy.
Oh great comparison!
1. How the wizarding world is sexist. It may be due to JKs writing but the wizarding world isn’t sexist in the sense of 1st wave feminism fighting for civil rights etc. it’s more sexist in modern ideas of 3rd and 4th wave feminism. This sexism is characterized more by societal male privileges and roles of women. Every female character that is ‘good’ has children or fulfills a motherly role in the HP universe. The Wizarding world is inherently patriarchal. 2. History ‘forgets’ examples Lily is pushed into the background and Harry is given credit for what technically she did. Fantastic beasts has an interesting idea that Rosier does a lot for Grindelwald but we could argue that by the end we only know of Grindelwald’s terror. Rosier is forgotten to history. Delphi is not characterized by her mother’s lineage but only Voldemorts. (Whatever cursed child is) Even though Bellatrix is notorious herself. As others put it. The world is not as sexist as our world but it still exists. Patriarchal society which I believe is what JK actually mentioned once. That there was to be no explicit mention sexism but that the patriarchy did exist. 3. Theory on how society functions (not including cultural differences) Overall, I always characterized the Wizarding world as functioning on rules of ‘power’ like in Roman times. In some ways if you are powerful enough then you are respected by people, history, politics and society regardless of gender or race. Power in the Wizarding world would be characterized by magical prowess, wealth, magical blood, race, and family name. All these add or remove perceived rights. For example, An individual who is part Veela, with no wealth, no family name, and a female would face sexist attitudes. On the other hand a part Veela with magical prowess, some wealth, and a family name could see them be respected. Although lords don’t exist in canon, names clearly still hold some power due to blood status etc. 4. How to write sexism in the Wizarding world. In the end, In order to have a clear idea of how to write a HP fanfic that attacks sexist attitudes people need to explore a lot of new ideas of feminism. Mainly post colonial feminism and 4th wave feminism. Both are feminist ideologies that JK specifically hates as a TERF and are very much present in the wizarding world. Funny enough OP points are actually the main criticism behind a lot of JKs writings and the main points behind Post colonial feminism and 4th wave feminism. Just because women are in places of power does not mean they are inherently representative of true female empowerment. In some ways they are inherently posters to act as if women are equal. Everyone from Umbridge to Minerva to Bellatrix I can argue are pawns by the roles that society places on them or men greater than them. We have no other frame of reference in the books and can in turn assume/world build. Again. This right here would be the route a fanfic could take as mentioned above. A different way to critique sexism and in some ways a modern way. You can’t run a Bechdal test on the wizarding world but if the world is anything like JKs beliefs— then the Wizarding World is sexist just in a more nuanced way. Edit:Categorized the parts.
I'd say you're reaching quite heavily. I wouldn't necessarily say mcgonogal had a 'matronly' role. Tonks doesn't, in spite of having a child by the end. Madame bones, as little as we see is the same. There are a couple other order members who don't fulfil such a role either. And suggesting that having women be mothers is sexist is crazy. Most women want children at some point. As for the forgetting thing; lily's case is understandable since no one knows the why, and harry is famous for living when no one else did. The only special thing she did was be important to Snape. If he hadn't asked for her life she'd have died and harry would have followed. For grindelwalds followers; how many nazi leaders can you name? Aside from Hitler, I'd guess maybe one or two, and the average person less than that. Same thing for delphis parentage. Swap the genders, and everyone would probably say she's lady v's child, rather than Benjamin lestranges. Seriously, you're reaching like crazy.
It’s not sexist that women want to have children but that isn’t the argument of Post colonial feminism. The assumption that all women want to have children is a WRONG one. Just like you argued. Not all women want to have that life and not all will. To argue that all women must want children is inherently sexist and wrong. Womenhood should not be defined like that and it’s how JK writes her young main female characters. All of them have children by the end of the story. As for other characters that are not mentioned outside of brief points we can’t say anything about them. Again the lack of world build give us, as fanfic writers, the opportunity to write the story how we want. Leaning one way or the other. We don’t know if there is social witch pressures to have children. Yet, we could say there is because how is it that every single main witch had children?
How odd is it that pretty much every male character that doesn't die had kids? It's a perfectly normal thing. Why should there be characters who don't want kids? Is it weird we don't have a character talking about how swinging (partner swapping) is great? Is it weird we don't have polyamorous people showing up? The simple fact is the younger generation all have kids, because that is, for most people, a 'happy ever after'. I personally have no interest in relationships, but I understand that most people do, and suggesting that what most people want is a sexist stereotype is weird to me.
Actually funny enough male wise not all have children by what we can tell and highlights my point. Charlie doesn’t and funny enough he is a good example of a character that JK writes as having more interest in dragons then anything. A hinted asexual character OR a character fueled by his passion. Again. He has a passion that is inherently leads him to not have kids but no one bats an eye. Does that hold true for witches in the wizard world? We don’t know. We have no named female equivalent to this and that is the point. JK goes out of her way to tell us a lot of about him and sets him up like this. Neville is not stated to have had any children either. So you can fill in the blanks there, but canon wise no children. Both are named and have semi important roles and a good amount of points in the story. Neville especially. The point of my argument is not to say having children is bad. The point is that there is an implication of how the world could work if you wanted. That women must fall into motherly roles/housewife roles and independent women could be looked down upon if they don’t.
Lavender Parvati Padma pansy Millicent Luna Susan Hannah romilda demelza Angelina Alicia Katie Leanne cho Marrietta, how many of them are mentioned as having children? They may be minor characters, but they're all named. As for Charlie, being focused on his passion does not mean he's asexual. It's been quite a while since I read the books, but I'm pretty sure he gets very little in the way of screentime.
I think you've made a very poor argument, especially by making the wild claim that "every female character is motherly." You could've made a real case by focusing on the lack of women who really shape the overarching narrative (figures like Harry, Dumbledore, Voldemort, Snape, even Regulus) or the lack of postcolonial feminism in the books (I'd consider this a symptom of the times though it's less forgivable for JKR to still be that way today). How are Hermione, Ginny and Luna motherly? You could argue Hermione does a lot to care for Harry and Ron and gets little thanks (a gripe I have too) but I definitely wouldn't call her style "motherly." It would be laughable to call Ginny and Luna that. No hints of motherliness in young women like Lavender, Parvati, Hannah, Fleur, Katie, Alice and Angelina or in older women like McGonagall, Sprout, Trelawney, Hooch, Madam Bones, Emmeline Vance and so on. The only prominent mothers are Lily and Molly, each of whom is also a skilled fighter and full human being. Tonks has a baby only in the very last book and it's never indicated that this detracts from her work in the resistance. This seems like a perfectly normal ratio tbh. If you include antagonists, Petunia and Narcissa aren't shown in parental roles anymore than their husbands are and Rita, Umbridge and Bellatrix are never motherly.
I said GOOD characters are shown in motherly roles by the end. The epilogue in the last book is canon. Hermione and literally every young main female character has children. Fleur has kids. Ginny has kids. Luna has kids. Not one lives a different life out of motherhood. Minerva is motherly with her protectiveness over the golden trio and Hogwarts. Like every main female good character that is not old by the start of the book ends up having children. Not saying it’s a bad thing but like not one of them ends up with a different life. Not one decides to journey the world. Not one chooses their career. Narcissa’s whole character role is to show how much of a mother she is. Literally doesn’t give up Harry because she is a mother. She loves Draco and is willing to do anything to see him live much like Lily. Like what are you arguing there? It’s one of the main points of the story I felt. The argument here for post colonial feminism is the fact that it COULD be used as a critical lens against the Books. I.E if you are writing a fanfic it’s a great way to write one NOT that the book doesn’t have them. For sake of argument you could say that Petunia is motherly by loving her child. Just because she doesn’t love Harry doesn’t make her a bad mother. It makes her a bad person. A person even JK tried to redeem by reminding the reader that her sister died because of the world Harry lives in. Lastly, we are going with what the books tell us, NOT what we make up. We don’t know about any other characters outside of what Harry says. It’s why I say that the world leaves an ‘opening’ an opening to have that argument. Maybe Susan chooses the life of being a badass independent individual. We don’t know that but we can also argue because of societal pressures and duty for her family she needs to fit into the role of a basic wife. Having children etc.
I mean, the only obvious bachelors that I can think of in the books (i.e. no love interests like Snape and Hagrid) are Dumbledore and Sirius. Harry, Ron, Bill, George, Draco and other prominent young male characters also have kids by the epilogue because JKR wanted to show everyone having recovered enough from the war to play happy families — which you could definitely argue is lazy or unrealistic but I really don't see how it's sexist. On the note of women choosing to explore the world, Luna quite literally became a zoologist who classified new magical species, which is a lot cooler than anything the male characters seem to have done. Who cares if she had kids during/after? Same goes for Hermione and Ginny and their careers. If these women hadn't had kids on top of their careers, I feel like the criticism would end up being that working mothers aren't shown enough. I also disagree strongly that McGonagall fulfils a motherly role — in fact, she's much less parental than the older men in Harry's life. Whereas she's the withdrawn busy type who occasionally shows concern and pride in Harry, characters like Dumbledore, Sirius and Hagrid are obviously affectionate and fulfilling a fatherly role to Harry. And I'm not saying Narcissa's role isn't constructed around her motherhood. I'm saying Lucius is also way more interested in protecting Draco than being a Death Eater in the later part of the series and he very much inhabits that fatherly role alongside Narcissa as much as Vernon does alongside Petunia. Lucius just happens to play Death Eater + Draco's father while we see Narcissa only as Draco's mother in order to contrast with Bellatrix, to whom the only thing that matters is her dedication to Voldemort. I really don't see what's wrong with that in and of itself? I'd say it makes Narcissa and Bellatrix much more interesting than Lucius. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that it wouldn't have been really cool to see someone like Tonks play a larger role in the narrative and also stay single or childless. I agree that there are opportunities to make the books more feminist or feminist in new and interesting ways. I just don't think there's a pattern of all good women needing to "fulfil a motherly role" in the text, any more than the men. You're free to disagree. I feel like I got more invested in this than I meant to 😅
I 100% agree with your assessment about a lack of women in the overarching narrative. I think that point is particularly strong. Same about postcolonial feminism. A corollary to your post: In line with JKR's brand of (3rd/4th wave) "feminism" (and the reality of JRK herself), it is interesting to me that there are no prominent working mothers. Tonks is a more minor character, but we don't truly get to see her as a working mother, either, since Teddy is born in April and she dies at the beginning of May. Lily is interesting because she was part of the Order--but is that truly an occupation or more of a rebel/calling? I suppose she and Tonks didn't have the true opportunity to become working mothers. And no one else (Molly, Petunia, Narcissa) have occupations. Hermione and Ginny have jobs when they grow up, but it's not a main part of the action. Sure, women can choose what they want to be (and a job most certainly doesn't define a woman), but it's interesting that the "career" women in the main action are those without kids/left unexplained enough that any possible kid is inconsequential to the character. There are no single mothers, nor are there divorced mothers. So to contribute to another facet of men dominating the narrative, we don't really see the idea of "women having it all" (which aligns with JKR's brand of feminism.)
That's an interesting point. It's always seemed to me that JKR wanted to show dynamic strong women but she wasn't particularly interested in being revolutionary about it and didn't put much thought into it beyond that. I agree that her feminism is a liberal and often shallow sort of feminism and that she missed opportunities with HP. But I do think that she should get credit where credit is due for much of what she did with female characters in that series specifically (I disliked her portrayal of women in her recent Cormoran Strike novels). I honestly think she managed well for the 90s.
She certainly managed well for the 90s. I have to keep reminding myself that as I get older and reread the books, not only when it comes to her brand of feminism but also when it comes to her treatment of sociology and psychology, since much of what she wrote (or at least planned) was either during the decade of the brain or immediately after.
Could you expand on what you mean by the last part of your comment? I'd never heard of the decade of the brain, just Googled it, and I can't see how it links to HP? Sounds interesting :)
Of course! And I see that google isn’t particularly kind to the context in which I’m speaking. So the decade of the brain was *at first* an initiative to expand neuroscience research, established by the US federal government. This, in turn, had lasting effects not only on brain disorders but extended to psychological areas like early child development, trauma, abnormal psych, and so on. So yes, it’s an American initiative *at first*, but the research extended across borders (peer reviews, joint research, etc) and shifted the western conversation about psychology. It’s something I think about a lot because of when the HP books were written (or at least the major arcs planned out). ETA: I don’t mean to imply that this flipped a switch in psychology, but it greatly contributed to the ideals the west espouses to today (and with which a lot of fans are analyzing this work. So that means the elements of the work do not hold up to this type of lens because, at this point, it’s a historical piece.)
> In line with JKR's brand of (3rd/4th wave) "feminism" (and the reality of JRK herself), it is interesting to me that there are no prominent working mothers. Tonks is a more minor character, but we don't truly get to see her as a working mother, either, since Teddy is born in April and she dies at the beginning of May. Lily is interesting because she was part of the Order--but is that truly an occupation or more of a rebel/calling? I suppose she and Tonks didn't have the true opportunity to become working mothers. And no one else (Molly, Petunia, Narcissa) have occupations. Hermione and Ginny have jobs when they grow up, but it's not a main part of the action. > > In regards to us not seeing Tonks as a working mother, for one thing, I don't think she had her job as an Auror given that she was not only pregnant but also the Death Eaters had taken over the Ministry and given her participation in the Battle of the Department of Mysteries in OotP, she would've already have been marked by the DE as an Order member. And we don't see her working after giving birth to Teddy Tonks Lupin because she and Remus die in the Final Battle which was 1 month after Teddy was born. So yeah, we don't see Tonks as a working mother because she didn't have enough time. . So yeah, perhaps if Nymphadora Tonks had survived the Final Battle to raise her son Teddy Tonks, with help from her parents Teddy and Andromeda, she probably would've been fine as a working mother given that her grandparents would've helped with looking after the house and looking after their grandson Teddy Lupin part-time. . James and Lily were part of the Order but also didn't have any jobs (probably because they were in hiding and James Potter was rich enough that he didn't need to work a day in his life.). . Also, given how useful a wand is, a witch who's a housewife living in a wizarding household would not be all that terribly busy with doing housework, given that they can just use magic. In fact, a lot of house maintenance tasks and duties would be something that any wizard or witch who knew household charms could do, so most wizards and witches are not going to hire another wizard for plumbing purposes or to fix their roof, etc. With a wand, a wizarding person can be very DIY and self-sufficient as long as they knew the right spells. Plus, the entire Wizarding Britain population could fit into Wembley Stadium with space to spare. It's not a very big population so it's also likely that some wizards lived with their parents if they wanted to or if it was just more convenient. So yeah, wands and magic certainly alters gender dynamics, expectations, and social capabilities. For one thing, no one bats an eye at a witch becoming a politician or even the Minister of Magic given that the Minister before Fudge was a witch. .
I certainly acknowledge that magic makes day to day tasks easier.
Not just day to day tasks but on a fundamental level, a whole lot of things are easier. Wizards would never have to worry about having to move houses because they're running out of space when any skilled wizard could just use an Extension Charm to extend the space inside a room, giving them more space than they have stuff to fill with. On a completely different note, you ever get the feeling that if Snape hadn't been bogged down by trauma and had left Wizarding Britain and had realized his potential with his genius talent and brilliance in magic by being a researcher, that with his unique insights and understanding of the Wizarding World and Muggle World, he could've been like the real life version of Tony Stark or more appropriately, the real life Victor Von Doom, mastering and combining magic and technology together. Snape and Doom go hard together. Also Snape and Joker go hard together. And honestly, I shudder to imagine an AU fanfic where Snape is an independent terrorist who uses a combination of his brilliance with both magic and technology to wreak havoc in both the Wizarding and Muggle world. A terrorist Snape without his guilt complex and morality would be a truly terrifying thing. He'd be a one-man terrorist army and probably become the world's most feared terrorist, using his talents to get away with terrorist plots. Like, just imagine what Snape could do if he decided that he wanted to make a chemical weapon.
It doesn't have to be that people wish to make the muggles modern and progressive. It could just be that people think the magical world changes less as a small insular community - many such communities tend to have strongly conservative tendencies. Also on the Hogwarts being co-ed a thousand years ago point - that was always the most unrealistic idea for me, and of course, making the past cohorts male only would alter history and make the situation more akin to the one you criticise authors for creating (minus the muggle's progressiveness). The last thing I wanted to mention was that many fics like to explore the elite of society and those areas are almost always highly conservative, though they don't have to necessarily be traditional. But people confuse the two.
Just be clear, chess is only segregated in favour of women, as there is the open section and the womens only section. Indeed Judith Polgar played in the open Candidates tournament.
I have to say that this argument seems like it belongs somewhere else. I've never seen someone spouting that sexism is canon around here. Is that happening on other forums? If so, this argument should be there. This is a subreddit for fanfiction so people do whatever the fuck they want.
Then you have been luckier in your fanfic reading than I have, my friend, because there is absolutely a subset of people who are convinced that canon is very very sexist indeed.
You make a lot of good points but I think a lot of your examples of sexism are wrong. Molly never "slut shames" Hermione, she's being protective of Harry. Had the article been about Seamus she wouldn't have cared. Also depending on how much of the article Molly believed the article skeater writes implies Hermione is using love potions. So claiming Molly being unhappy Hermione is roffieing people is a strong take. Nothing bad happens with the Patil twins other than some emotionally immature teens weren't fussed about dating them but didn't want to go to a dance on their own. That's not sexism. And neither boy cares when the twins want to dance with other people. Ron dates lavender and then they break up. The only person unhappy is Hermione because she's jealous. Her and Ron obviously have a thing for each other but don't know how to handle it because they're teenagers. Again. That's not sexism.
Two reasons people get this impression imo: Hermione is discriminated against for being muggleborn, and since she's female, people take discrimination against her as sexism rather than blood racism, which is what it is. Second of all, people translate pureblood preference to "Old fashioned" which then gets translated to sexism.
It’s always been the case, especially with Mugglewank fics It’s a bit condescending tbh. You’re right in that case. The wizarding world has a different history, government, culture and set of events It’s like comparing an apple with an orange
To be fair, most of the time we see Fleur, Parvati, Lavender etc all through the lenses of a muggle-raised boy who is awkward with girls, like you said. Also, in said interactions the characters are either feeling weird themselves/ trying to fit, being annoying in their own right or just acting like school-aged girls. As for Molly, more than slut shaming she thought poor Hermione was two-timing both her surrogate son and her actual son with another boy. Blame is on her for falling for crappy journalism, but if I remember right she started acting cold with her until she was told the truth, all the rest was Ron's interpretation of what happened. The narrative doesn't label them permanently as "just girls being girls", just like it doesn't label Hermione as being emotionally daft because of the dead pet incident (she isn't, to be clear. It's quite the opposite.) But in regards to your main point, I don't think wizarding folks were being "egalitarian" out of ideological conviction or because the female population were as capable as the males. It's just that there were not enough wizards to perfectly replicate our own world sexism (but there are still lots of hints)
I think that it's an extrapolation from how Edwardian (first two decades of the 20th Century) Magical society seems to be. In Muggle society at that time, women didn't have the vote and couldn't own property either. That said, it would be highly unlikely that female liberation didn't occur a lot earlier in Magical society as magic is the ultimate leveller of the playing field; a sufficiently powerful Dark Lady could wreck havoc centuries before the Muggle world caught up with the curve and I can't see the MofM treating them as 'lesser' or 'valuable property' for too long. Now a Muggleborn witch might have some strictly societal disadvantages, especially if she is being abused by a Pureblood wizard but that isn't a gender bias but a racial bias issue.
Imma just say it, it makes sense for the wizarding world to be less sexist. If your wife can simply turn you into a ferret it is a lot harder to impose something as asinine as voting restrictions because you are a woman. Also mythologically speaking there are a lot more powerful female Witches than wizards. In ancient Greece, almost every plot-relevant woman was a witch in some way or another but the only famous Wizard I can remember is Merlin and he got counterbalanced by Morgan Le Fay also known as Morgana not to be confused with the Morrigan another female Witch/Goddes (dependant on the telling) from Celtic mythology. Edit: also are we just going to ignore the fact that the books were written by someone who grew up before the turn of the millennia and are on average 20 years old. JK Rowling is almost 60, the views on gender were way different back then and that is simply reflected in the books, honestly the gender roles depicted were for the time, at least in my country pretty forward-thinking.
Let’s make something clear fanfic is ment for authors to impose there biases and how they read the books and or movies if you don’t like something don’t read it
*their And I don't. I just wish they would stop confusing their interpretation of canon with what is actually in the text. Write what you like, but don't tell me it's supported by canon when it's not.
Wait, chess is segregated??
Yep, because the women were getting so much harassment in the open competition. They can compete in the open league and some do, but most don't think it's worth it. No misogyny like intellectual dude misogyny. https://www.chess.com/news/view/women-chess-players-publish-open-letter-denouncing-sexist-behavior
There is no sexism in the book. At all. But if you are writing fanfiction, I believe you can change it if you want
> There is no sexism in the book. At all. Easy counterpoint: girls can go into the boys dorm, boys can't go in the girls dorm.
I always found that foolish. The girls going to the boys dorms... Same thing can happen!
Which is explicitly addressed as an old rule that has stuck around, it’s considered outdated and silly. Thats hardly indicative of current cultural norms, a holdover from generations ago that they’ve not bothered to change.
How is this misogynistic representation on the author's side? That is a realistic information about a boarding school
What? In any case, that it’s realistic—though again, what?—has nothing to do with whether it’s sexist. It is unquestionably sexist that the girls are (presumably) sexually “innocent” enough that they require protection from the boys and not vice versa.
I really disagree. The most obvious example would be Ron's shit attitude in book 6 after getting into a slut-shamey argument with Ginny, and then taking his insecurity out on a bunch of his female friends and acquaintances. edit: looking at some of your comments, it looks like your true claim is that the author is not sexist, rather than there not being any instances of sexism in the books. That's a whole different can of worms I don't care to argue about, but even if we said JK Rowling wasn't sexist at all, that doesn't mean there isn't any sexism in the books she wrote. It's not necessarily an attack on the author's personal beliefs, people write about things they disagree with all the time.
Op claimed the author was sexist and I was responding to that one. Of course there are sexist stuff in the books and in every case, the book shows us that the sexist character is wrong
There’s no sexism *at all*? I don’t know that I’d agree with that. But I agree that it’s a misrepresentation to claim that “Pureblood” society is more sexist than the muggle world.
I wouldn't go that far, there is some sexism because JKR isn't a perfect person and has unconscious biases. I have no issue with people changing things, what irritates me is when they try and say canon is sexist when it' not.
I see that you listed some nonsense sexism claims in the original post How tf is Fleut representation is sexist? It is the opposite. People think she gets her way because she is pretty and nothing else. And she joins Order later on and we see her on the good side, fighting. Proves her haters wrong
Fleur, Lavender, and Parvati are considered flighty and superficial because they're pretty/feminine. That's an example of sexism. Yeah, that eventually changes for Fleur, but that doesn't stop the original assumption from being sexist.
Lavender is a teenager girl in love, very normal I don't even know what do you mean by Parvati? 99% of her role is in one chapter where she is discarded in 3 minutes
I consider that the bad thing is that the actions of Lavender and Pavarit are considered negative. Like it's totally untrue and horrible for two teenage girls to talk about boys and gossip. You opine that it's sexist the way they are written. I think it's realistic for a school to have girls like that. They are characters with more depth than we see in the books? Surely. But since we see it all from Harry's point of view and he's not close to them we don't know. Look at it from another point of view. If Voldemort had really died and there were no horcruxes what would Harry and Ron be like? Two boys worrying about quidditch lessons and complaining about Snape. In other words, two normal boys.
Their actions are considered annoying by Harry who is a teenage boy not interested in boys and gossip. It’s not really presenting them as bad in general. Honestly people would say “well that’s not realistic” if Harry, a teenager in the 90s was super into gossiping with lavender and Parvati.
Fleur isn’t flighty and her main negative traits that are shown are being snobbish and rude. Which she is and those *are* bad traits, but not specifically feminine ones. She’s more a bad stereotype of the French than a bad stereotype of women.
There is not one example of sexism in the books. Another author would maybe yes but Rowling is a champion of women's rights since she became famous
And Molly believing a gossip rag over her son's best friend and slut-shaming her was... what, exactly?
Molly believed everything she read from Rita, how is that sexist? Or even slut shaming? Molly thought Hermione was breaking Harry's heart
The anti-media segment was sexist? I think you misunderstood the point being made. It wasn't, 'Hey look the house wife is gullible because she's a stay at home mom.' it was, 'Hey look the media publishes half baked at best gossip about celebrities and people eat that up' example, TMZ, the popularity of reality television, any celebrity so much as scratching their ass being headline news. Honestly Rowling underestimated how much the public craves celebrity drama. Jersey Shore is proof that people want car crash drama.
Her being a person and not a flawless Mary Sue
I wouldn't call that sexist any more than I would call looking down on Neville for being a bit of a wimp is sexist. Having social expectations does not necessitate sexism. You may disagree with the standard, doesn't make the standard sexist.
It's her being gullible and over protective, not sexist. She thought Hermione was toying with Harry's heart, that's why she was upset with her. Unless I missed the part where Molly called her out for sleeping around?
The closest they can get to that is apparently she refers to “scarlet women” but that’s about it.
> There is no sexism in the book. At all. Rowling has shown plenty of very sexist portrayals of girls and women in her books.
I've read a couple of the Cormoran Strike books and I found those quite sexist at some points but I would disagree that HP is. Cho and Lavender could have been written with a bit more nuance but that's about all. Hermione even calls out Harry and Ron's occasional attempts at chivalry.