Harry Potter and the Strive for Gender Equality... Part 2.

The main thing about this series that makes it strike such a blow for equality is that in Rowling's fantasy world, there IS no gender imbalance. Nobody is ever penalised, pigeon-holed or stigmatised because of their sex, male OR female. Gender is never used as an excuse for someone not being able to do something, or contrarily, for someone being more able to do something. As improbable as that may sound to us in our society that enforces gender divides, within the context of her books, it works. So, take out the magic and the robes and spells … Why shouldn't it work for us too?

Being a male in these books doesn't afford you any more privileges or special powers than being a woman does. There are two important factors in her books that illustrate this, involving two huge parts of her society that are paralleled in our own. Violence, and sport. These are two large elements in our society that are used to illustrate and perpetuate gender 'norms' and stereotypes, and yet conversely don't perform the same function in these books. The method of fighting in Rowling's world using magic involves using wands, and isn't dependent on physical strength, but rather skill and prowess. Men fight women, women fight women, men fight men, and that's just the way it is. There is never a suggestion that a woman would be less capable at this than a man, and as such, there is no visible gender divide. When you compare this with our society, and you see how prevalent violence, or even just the threat of violence, is, it is easy to see how gender stereotypes and therefore inequality have persevered. This is also the case with Quidditch, the sport of the Wizarding world. Mixed gender sports are extremely rare, even in sports where the one advantage that men often have over women due to their body types, upper body strength, is not a factor. It's become commonplace to divide sports by gender under the guise of being 'fairer', yet really all it does is create a bigger inequality gap. In the fictional sport of Quidditch, being male doesn't afford you any advantage over women. All the teams Rowling creates are mixed gender, and this is once again presented as common-place. The issue of a female playing against a male is never even problematised, because really, why should it be? If two players have equal skill levels and competence, why should gender even be an issue? 

A friend of mine correctly pointed out that her society is still patriarchal to the extent that the positions of power are, for the most part, occupied by men. I think it's important to recognise this, as it shows that this series definitely isn't 100% focused on complete gender equality, as mentioned in my previous post. As much as I think it would have been nice to see a woman at the top for once, I think that it matters less in these books than in others because these positions of power are not glamourised, or even explored very deeply. In fact, often the idea of power itself is associated with greed, and therefore the positions of power are not seen as things to aspire to, but rather things to avoid. So I think it's less of an issue than it might have been if they WERE glamourised that they aren't occupied by women. The point of these books is not somebody (our protagonist) trying to ascend to a position of power; it's somebody trying to live a normal life. Although the political backdrop to this is important, I don't feel it's as prevalent as the human issues that are being discussed, especially when we consider that it's a children's book. I think these are the things that will stay with the readers more.

Rowling also does a great job of characterising a male lead character who has to deal with enormous upset and grief in his life. By getting inside his head and verbalising all the thoughts he has about his feelings towards death, being an orphan, being singled out to defeat the Dark Lord (we've all been there, mate), Rowling presents us with a male character that actually identifies with his emotions, even if he is only doing so because she is pulling the strings. But still, by doing this, she makes it 'okay' to verbalise feelings and discuss issues, something that would impact positively on her younger male readership, making them realise that discussing problems or expressing emotions is not a sign of weakness. It defies the male stereotypes that pervade our society of not discussing or dealing with emotions. This is NOT an inherent trait in men, biological and unavoidable; it's the result of self-perpetuated social conditioning and therefore can be prevented fairly easily if children are given the correct information early enough in life to stop themselves forming a pattern in their behaviour.

I work with children aged 5 through to 11, and I have to say that in the younger children, there is no gender divide over which children get more upset and express this through crying or telling the teacher; I would say it's around 50/50. But as the children get older, the gender divide in terms of expressing emotions becomes much more pronounced, so that by the time they are 9 or upwards, it is much MUCH more usual to see a girl crying because something has upset her, and to see a boy, having perhaps suffered a similarly distressing situation, internalise the feeling and become sullen or moody. As you can see, the result isn't the child is NOT upset, it's that he deals with it differently. On the occasions where boys have cried in my older classes, the atmosphere changes to one of palpable astonishment quickly, whereas when girls cry, although attention is drawn to them, it's never for very long, and it's never usually particularly negative. What's perhaps worse, is that sometimes I've seen the same child, after choosing to internalise his feelings rather than discuss them, react in an unnecessarily violent manner in order to express himself somehow, either immediately or shortly afterwards. And furthermore, what's even worse is that I see myself and other teachers subconsciously buying into this; being more surprised when a boy cries, or reacting differently to when a girl does. This is not the way to treat the problem. The impact of this social conditioning on these kids' lives is much more serious than it's recognised to be. We are harming these children by allowing them to believe that because of their gender, they must act in a certain way. They will grow up believing that they have to subscribe to the normative role of the heterosexual man, and if they don't – if they're not physically strong, or show their emotions by crying – then they have failed. Rowling, by contrast, normalises the expressions of feelings without attaching them to a particular gender. It's made even more normal and perhaps easy to relate to when we consider the fact that it isn't presented as the easiest thing in the world to do; Harry finds it a struggle, which leads me to my next point.

One of the strongest undercurrents of the book is the idea, which is consequently problematised, of facing challenges alone. A huge part of Harry's 'personal journey' (if it can be referred to as such in a kid's book) is that he has to face a lot of his hardships alone, as one by one people around him die. However, true to Rowling's theme of friendship, he ends up realising that there are some things he doesn't have to do alone, and that being strong isn't always about going solo. Rowling makes his friends indispensable to him, and fully active in his eventual victory. Cheesy, perhaps, and not that original in the grand context of themes of books, but when you consider that this is a children's book it becomes very important. A character that kids have spent 7 long books relating to embraces the fact that strength can come in more than just the physical form, and that asking for help and even needing people is not a weakness. This is not only something beneficial for kids to learn, it's absolutely paramount. It also, incidentally, goes against many of the existing (untrue) gender stereotypes about men that children are completely surrounded by – that they are alpha males, strong, who don't need help from anyone. Rowling creates a personable, likeable, fallible and physically pretty weak hero (she makes constant allusions to how weedy he is) that ends up victorious in his battle because he embodies the exact opposites of these stereotypes. Rowling inverts these social 'norms' in order to make one of the most popular literary characters of recent years, that could benefit her male readership as much as her female one.

One thing about the world that Rowling has created that might explain the lack of gender inequality is that there are too many divides – Muggle vs Wizard, Half-blood vs Pure-Blood, etc - for gender to factor in as well. But... isn't that the case in real life too? Aren't there far too many obstacles in EVERYONE's way every day without gender, and the social baggage that comes with it, being yet another hurdle you have to throw yourself across?

The only way to dispel illusions and stereotypes about men AND women that are harmful to both sexes is by teaching children when they are young enough that their gender does not have to define who they are, what they can do, and who they can be. And Rowling's series is a definite stepping stone towards encouraging children that gender, theirs or anyone else's, does not have to be a shackle.

Harry Potter and the Strive for Gender Equality... Part 1.

Forgive me the whimsical title, it made me giggle.

So. Harry Potter. I know you may not all be huge fans of the books, but I doubt many of you would disagree with the fact that (for better or worse) they have truly made their mark on both the literary world and the world of children's fiction within the past few years. With countless millions (I can't find the exact figure for some reason, if anyone knows it, please help me out!) of copies of the books being sold world-wide, Harry Potter has been undoubtedly far-reaching and successful, and the fandom craze it has created for the fictional wizarding world is testament to how influential these books have been on kids' lives. The thousands of children queuing up to buy the books on their release days in full wizarding garb is perhaps a key example of that. And maybe this is all for the better too, as Rowling explores important themes of love, loss, strength and friendship in her books, without ever patronising her young readership.

But many books explore these themes, so perhaps Rowling isn't that original in that respect, although her portrayal of them would be justifiably described as such. My argument, however, is that the Harry Potter series is one of the only series of its kind and success that strikes a blow for gender equality. And I mean gender equality, not necessarily just feminism. Men and women could both come off the better from their treatment in her books.

One of the ways she does this is by creating real, solid characters, in a believable 360 degree world. Her writing extends far further than the page it's written on, and as a reader, you rarely feel that there are parts of the world that she's forgotten to colour in. By refusing to revert to stereotypes of gender or otherwise in her writing, rather choosing to favour in-depth characterisation, Rowling makes it easy for you to believe as a reader that there is nothing 'inherent' about male or female traits. Men and women, when they are born, are inherently nothing other than human. All the rest comes afterwards.

Our hero is male. One might have thought that to really make a statement about gender equality, the lead character would need to be female, or otherwise perhaps characterised negatively? But we've already said that Rowling isn't consciously writing feminist fiction, and there are ways other than the obvious to make a point. For instance, despite the fact that the main character is male (or perhaps because of this), some of the strongest characters in the books are female – for example, Hermione, Professor McGonagall and Ginny, to name but a few – and their specific characterisation challenges stereotypes about women that have come to be accepted as truth. Hermione, for instance, is portrayed as competent, logical, brave, strong, perceptive and incredibly intelligent, and her role in the story is such that as a reader, you feel that there is no way Harry would be able to survive without her. She embodies a range of traits that are seen as male-oriented (such as extreme logic) and female-oriented (emotionally perceptive). By choosing to throw all these qualities in together, Rowling creates a REAL character – one who is undeniably female, but is never constrained by her sex. There is no sense of her striving to be more masculine in order to be of use, and equally, her looks (which women are taught from a young age to be one of their most valuable assets, or conversely, their biggest curse – more on that another time) rarely come into the equation. They are referred to occasionally, but never in conjunction with her value as a person, and certainly never as a measure of it. She is a character based solely on her merit as a human being, not as a girl.

This may all sound a little heavy, but think about the images young girls are bombarded with consistently by the Hollywood media, for example. Pretty girl is pretty, gets boyfriend. Ugly girl is ugly, has no boyfriend or social life, but then miraculously GETS pretty, so gets boyfriend. Her life is complete. Something to aspire to girls! Girl is career-focused, but never realised that all that she REALLY wanted was a boyfriend. Her life is complete. Ugly girl is intelligent – her saving grace! Thank god, THAT might get her a boyfriend. Pretty, intelligent, career-focused girl – labelled a bitch, because apparently women actually can't have it all. Any diversion from this barrage of stereotypes, in my book, counts as a blessing.

Similarly, Ginny is portrayed as a fiery red-head; kind, impetuous, as brave as all of her brothers, and just as competent. These qualities are only reinforced as positive in the eyes of the reader when she ends up with Harry towards the end of the series (oh so inevitable) – the hero of the books chooses a strong woman, who can fight as well as he can, yet again, never tries to assume a masculine persona. He's not threatened by confident women. Good for him. And good for Rowling.

Professor McGonagall, meanwhile, remains a strong, constant presence throughout the books; fearless, kind and incredibly intelligent. And apparently pretty old. She definitely serves as a reminder that a woman's uses are by no means attached to her youthful beauty. Her looks are never really referred to, but her age is, and yet the impression you're given is not of an aging woman past her prime, but of a woman whose intelligence and knowledge has only deepened with age.

What's more, Rowling doesn't highlight these characters the way one might if you were trying to show how gender-equal you are being. There is no sense of 'LOOK! She's a girl AND she can fight! Who'd have thought?!' She normalises their traits and their contexts, and portrays these things as standard, which of course, in real life, they are, even if they aren't recognised as such. In some ways, there's more of a sense of reality in this elaborately created fantasy world than there is in many 'real-life' novels. How ironic. In terms of gender balance, I mean, I'm not just slightly delusional.

For young girls to read this and realise, even subconsciously, that there are no differences between the sexes in terms of competence, and that their gender does not have to shackle them to being any particular way, no matter what society is telling them, is incredibly important. And in the same way, for boys to read this and to see the exact same thing is equally as important. I may be naïve, but while we lament the phenomenons that spring up around us from these sorts of books, I personally will be hoping that children (and even maybe adults...?) will be taking more away from these books than simply learning a few words of Latin and memorising the hand-movements for Wingardium Leviosa.

I never did that, by the way. Just to clarify.

Part 2 coming soon.

Rowling, writing and gender equality

Firstly, on a personal note, I have been make-up-free (I sound like I should be at some sort of meeting) for about 3 and a half weeks, and I am proud to say I haven't relapsed. Oh, there have been many times when I have hugely regretted the self-important decision to be make-up-free, particularly on a weekend jaunt to London to see some friends after 5 hours sleep and a 2 hour early morning plane-ride. And some days I think, weeeell surely a little lip gloss doesn't count...? Then I stop myself. Or I look in the mirror and shriek a little, scaring my poor flatmate (I'm only semi-joking). But just because something's difficult doesn't mean it isn't worth doing, and I've become much more used to being bare-faced now. I actually think it's making me more relaxed in general about my appearance and what people think of me, which is definitely a nice change. So, on Easter Sunday, will the first thing I do be to slap on some make-up? Who knows...

I mentioned in one of my earlier posts that I wanted this blog to be as much, or more, about recognising the support that there is for the gender equality movement as it is about highlighting the inequalities that exist in our society. I also said that this support can come in many ways, some that don't even superficially appear to be about gender equality. But they're still playing a significant role.

If somebody says 'feminist writer', there are of course key names that spring to mind. Simone de Beauvoir, Germaine Greer, Judith Butler. But of course, one does not have to write overtly about feminism to be a feminist writer – in fact, there are definite advantages to having a more covert feminist agenda when writing, as you can perhaps get your point across without setting off any 'feminist' alarm bells in any nay-sayers' heads. You can avoid any 'negative' labels and still say what you want to say, perhaps even more successfully.

So... J. K. Rowling. Probably not a name you'd find written on a list of all-time great feminist writers, as to my knowledge, she hasn't written any feminist discourse. For those of you who have been living under rocks for the past 10 years, she is the author of the famed Harry Potter series, and progressed from being extremely poor to having a mult-millionaire status within about 5 years. In addition to her wealth, she's received various accolades, including being named 'Most Influential Woman of the Year' by magazine editors in October 2010, and gave the Harvard commencement speech to Harvard graduates last year. Rowling is open about the fact that she had to depend on the welfare state for survival after the breakdown of her first marriage, and says that one of the reasons she chooses to still live in England rather than running off to another country like many wealthy tax-dodgers have done is because she is, as she says, 'indebted to the British Welfare State' (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article7096786.ece?token=null&offset=12&page=2 ). She is a guest columnist for the Times, and a notable philanthropist, being the president of the charity One Parent Families. And a mother. Basically, she's pretty bloody awesome, and a pertinent example of the many women out there who have undergone huge hardships and risen to success – even if the difference is perhaps more markedly extreme in her case than in many others.

However, it's not only for the fact that she's a strong, confident, independent, successful, humanitarian woman that I consider her such a good role-model for women (and indeed people) everywhere. It's for her writing too. I know few people would consider the Harry Potter series a work of feminist fiction, and perhaps they're not. But that doesn't mean they can't have influential undertones for young readers, as I want to discuss in my following post. Writing has often been thought of as holding up a mirror to society, and also something that can truly effect change. Thousands of writers have written about social or political situations, allegorically or otherwise, both to inform and to inspire change. To Kill a Mockingbird by Harper Lee, for example, was published in 1960 and deals with the extremely prevalent situations of the epoque of racial injustice in America.  

This view of writing is particularly pertinent when we consider children's books, and the fact that Rowling is a children's author. The books that children read when they are young have the potential to be incredibly influential on their lives. Children aren't born with preconceived ideas about anything – about race, about gender, about the world in general. They're like small, excited, talking sponges, who soak up the views of those closest to them, particularly if they're someone they really look up to. I work in a primary school in Madrid, and I've constantly heard children parroting what I can only assume to be the views of their parents or other family members, or perhaps something they've heard on television. In any case, these opinions aren't their own, they have simply adopted them as their own as they've heard them come out of the mouth of someone they respect, and therefore believe them to be true. And as they get older, they may not question these opinions, and assume that the reason that they believe them is because they ARE true. And then they have children. And so it continues. Someone recently patronisingly told me that 'gender roles just are what they are. There are just some things that men are better at than women and vice versa. I've never met a woman who wants to do yard work, for example'. As much as this annoyed me, I had to bite my tongue and remember that this (uninformed) opinion was probably just something he heard when he was growing up, and has never thought to question. That doesn't make it right though. And I had to look up exactly what yard work was. But I digress.

However, it cuts both ways, because as much as children can adopt bigoted and harmful viewpoints when they are young, they are also just as willing to adopt more liberal, accepting ones, and writing is something that can truly help to do that. Even if a child is hearing from their parents that the world is a certain way, we can hope that if they read a book that gives them a different opinion that some of that information may worm its way into their head and stay there, even if they don't realise it at the time. This is why educating children properly is so important for the future of equality of ANY type in our society. It is the only way we will ever truly combat racism, sexism or any other form of prejudice. Education (in a literary form too) is the best tool we have for social reform, so it's important that we use it properly.

To be continued.