Gender Roles in Harry Potter: Breaking Stereotypes or Sticking to Tradition?
Vložit
- čas přidán 2. 07. 2024
- In this video, I'm looking into the gender roles and power structures in J.K. Rowling's Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone. I'm going to talk about how characters like Hermione Granger and Professor McGonagall are portrayed, and whether the book truly subverts or reinforces traditional gender stereotypes. This analysis stems from a paper I wrote during my master's program, and I'm excited to share the outcome with you all. Plus, a special appearance from my cat Oliver, who loves to check in on the action! 🐱 Let me know what you think.
Happy reading!
🌻
Eden
* in case you want to read the full article, here's a link: www.edenayash.com/blog/gender...
****************************************************
🦋 Let's be friends 🦋
Reach out to me through my Instagram or my website:
Instagram: / edenayash
Website: edenayash.com
See you there!
****************************************************
You might be interested in the following videos:
Frankenstein⚡️An Intro to the Background and Context that Influenced Mary Shelley's Masterpiece -
• Frankenstein⚡️An Intro...
Alice's Adventures in Wonderland 💫 Deep Dive into Alice's Character -
• Alice's Adventures in ...
How to Read a Book in One Day | 10 Research-Backed Tips for Reading Faster & Boosting Productivity -
• How to Read a Book in ...
#harrypotter #jkrowling #genderroles #literaryanalysis #hermionegranger #professormcgonagall #bookanalysis #booktube
Really interesting discussion.
I think it's pretty fair to say that Harry Potter doesn't challenge stereotypes much. For critics to argue that it radically challenges them is pretty much wishful thinking.
I think what a lot of people forget is that the book is nearly thirty years old now and it's a product of its time. The reason Harry the protagonist is male is a purely commercial one, to make the story more universal. Rightly or wrongly girls are much more likely to read books with a male protagonist than boys are to read a bok with a female protagonist. When that initial decision is made, especially in a story that fits so closely to archetypes, then it will start to dictate what the make up of the rest of the cast of characters will be. Male hero = male antagonists (Snape, Malfoy and Voldemort), male best friend, male mentor. Honestly the fact that there are any female characters at all, let alone strong, memorable ones, in something this generic is a minor miracle.
Because it's so formative for many people, there's a bit of a tendency to heap expectation on this book. Truth is, it's not a radical upheaval of literature, it's just a really good kids book that managed to capture cross-demographic appeal in a way that few other books have.
BTW when I say 'generic', I mean that it adheres to the genre, not that it's mediocre. I love this book as well.
Thank you for this! So many insightful points here, and I totally agree with you. During our seminar discussions, I remember saying just that-having strong and memorable female characters in a school story is already a bit subversive. Like you mentioned, making Harry a male protagonist for commercial appeal was a smart move, especially considering the time it was published. Rowling did create a phenomenon that set the stage for other books. While it's true that it doesn't radically challenge stereotypes, it also doesn't completely conform to conventionality. If Rowling had written a utopian, radically subversive text far removed from contemporary reality, it might not have been as popular or influential. In the end, ideas need audiences to catch on and grow, and this book strikes a balance-appealing to the masses and subtly challenging norms. Thanks to her, we're 9 and 3/4 of the way there! 😆
Unfortunately, one of the things I've noticed in academia is a tendency to analyze texts based on current popular opinions and to favor certain viewpoints. For that paper, I had to alter my view on this and stick to one side, and although, as you said, the book is not radical and that’s all there is to it, you are still asked to emphasize the lack of radicalism and its perceived shortcomings. Anyway, I love this comment, your points are spot on! Thank you for this!
Great video. Enjoyed the analysis. Thought-provoking.
I have no experience in literary criticism, I am also white, male, and older so let that paint whatever picture you prefer. That said, I know you have limited yourself to an analysis of only the first book so I find it difficult to reconcile some of your conclusions with the knowledge of the wider story. I also tend to think of things ‘in universe’ rather than as a choice of an author. Professor MgGonagall is subservient to Dumbledore due to their working roles and at the time of the first chapter their relative positions within the Order of the Phoenix. She acted on her own initiative to stake out the Dursleys house and tried to persuade Dumbledore against his bonkers decision to dump Harry there. She performed the duty of good executive officer and proposed alternative plans but once the decision was made she backed it. Regardless of gender this is just good staff work. I agree that she suppressed her personality to do her job as evident by her reactions in unguarded moments during among the staff and during quidditch (and in later books). I’ve always thought this was for the benefit of the students rather than a product of her workplace. Admittedly the need to appear strict to project authority probably speaks volumes about the home life of the students and gender roles within the home.
Hermione I have always thought, massively over corrected before even setting foot in the wizarding world and arrived as a hyped up version of her primary school self where I imagine she was a bit of a teachers pet. Having found this level of academic zealotry didn’t help her fit in with anyone, let alone Ron and Harry specifically, so modified her attitude and relaxed a bit. I’ve always thought she was a character scared by freedom and the unexpected. She had been so certain of herself academically and then for all that to lead to nothing but loneliness and isolation and worse still, that her academic excellence would not outweigh her fear in a number of situations she sometimes needed reminding how good she was before she acted. In the bathroom she was without her wand in hand and so couldn’t really help herself with magic but as soon as Ron was on the scene she reminded him of the spell that she would have chosen in that situation. She then chose to take the blame for the situation, without outside influence, and made a couple of friends along the way. I don’t think she gave up anything of herself beyond the pretence of infallibility she had been using to that point. Possibly as a result of a day of thinking by herself rather than a spur of the moment transformation.
I’m sure that my own biases were the sole cause of every ‘nah’ moment I experienced during one of your conclusions but overall I was entertaining and enlightened by your video and look forward to seeing more.
JK Rowling wrote the perfect first chapter and named it so well. 'The boy who lived'--so compelling, so simple, so masterful. Ursula Le Guin was always associated with Rowling and also received the same criticism.
Heyyy Emily! I couldn't agree more! 'The Boy Who Lived' is indeed a captivating and powerful start to the series. Rowling knows how to draw readers in from the very first page. I've seen Ursula Le Guin mentioned in many articles, but I haven't read any of her books yet. Are you referring to her Earthsea series? I really want to read it and see more about the connection!
@@eden_ayash Hey sweetie, yes I am talking about the Earthsea series. To be honest with you, I love both of them too much.
But I understand that they missed an opportunity to be heroines and break societal norm
That's interesting to hear about the Earthsea series. Your love for it makes me really want to read it! If it’s anything like Rowling’s work, even if they missed some opportunities to break societal norms entirely, I'm sure it's still an amazing read. I’m definitely looking forward to exploring it, thank you! 💛🤗
Wrong. Say "Rowling associated with Ursula Le Guin" instead. She's before Rowling.
What you are doing here is important work.
Most of the patriarchal messages we receive from movies or books, are transmitted in a way that is unconscious.
You are making us notice details that will pull these unconscious elements into the light, so that we become more aware.
I appreciate your video very much!!❤
Can you examine some of Tolkiens work? I'm very interested in hearing your opinion
Great 😊 You build your website by yourself ? l want to start my website but l do not know how much it will cost to develop it
Thank you!😊🤗 Yes, I built my website myself using templates. My site is on the Squarespace platform, which offers a variety of templates to suit different needs. There are other platforms you can consider, like Wix or GoDaddy, so check them out to see which one works best for you. As for costs, it really depends on what you need, but for my website, I pay around 100 euros a year for the platform, domain, and other essentials. I hope this helps, and feel free to reach out if you have any more questions!
@@eden_ayash Yes l start learning web dev and it seems to me that your website was built using one of the site builders on the internet because the websites that were built using programming languages have a Header and Footer with many sections and even the video gallery different about this in site builders but your website after l visited nice and the UI is great and you can develop it to more nicer shape if you want 🙂
In "The Lord of the Rings" one important antagonist is The Witch-King of Angmar. KING. A male character. Nobody had/has an issue with that then nor now. This novel concern with gender is stupid and pointless.
@@sawanna508 I'll explain it again, In case you didn't get it the first time : "Witch" is a genderless noun. Males and females can be witches.
Sorry, I misunderstood you and deleted my command.
@@sawanna508 Don't worry. Actually you made an interesting point there.
Thanks for being honest.
I don't know if you read the whole series, so I will try to not give spoilers on the other books but give my opinion of the whole series
As someone who read the books growing up and reread them as an adult more than one time (I'm in my 30's now) I can say that despite my nostalgia and enjoyment of the whole "idea" of the Harry Potter series and Wizard world being positive, at each reading I get diminishing returns and the last thing the series does is challenge any kind of traditional role in Society, gender roles being just one of them, on the contrary as the story progresses it actually reinforces many of the traditional patriarcal roles of Society (relatioships, goverment, etc)
I really feel like I'am being gaslighted by the main text while reading it nowadays. Yes, in its core the series is intented to be about good people overcoming evil people, black and White, very simple. I mean, how can you not like a children/teen story about a kid that is literally living with horrible (even criminal) people and suddenly discovers that he's the most important child in a world where magic exists and everyone wants to be his friend?
Does this mean you should not read or enjoy the whole series? Of course not, you will probably enjoy and find many quirky and fun things about the whole series but if you apply this critical view while doing the reading you will probably see that under the surface of even the "critical commentary" the books try to do on some "real world topics" it will not present any challenge to the norm or try to change the status quo of that world as a means to comment of "real world topics".
I think that it's a very common realization for many millenials like me that grew up reading the series and tried to read it again after years. At least the fan Community and contente creators (here on youtube) of Harry Potter related content are good people that really try to resignify many of the Canon Content that really does not sit well.
Have fun! (and sorry for the wall text)
This subject feels incomplete without mentioning her choice to call them wizards and witches, with no gender-neutral word for those who can use magic. It's as if men and women had no word for "people." So we're left with the cultural stereotypes of witches vs wizards colouring these characters, if only subconsciously. Historically, there were male witches, both falsely accused and practicing. How would all the English-speaking male magic-users, even kids, get to be called "wizard," while their mothers, sisters, and daughters were being relegated to "witches?" Of course, the real-world reason is that it would sound weird to Rowling to talk about a female wizard, or vice versa, but she isn't afraid to make up words. She could have come up with a gender-neutral name. It wouldn't even necessarily have shown an awareness that not everyone falls within the gender binary, just an awareness that it sounds clunky. I felt for the actors who had to try to make "witches and wizards" sound natural in dialogue again and again.
true. especially since "witch" has a far more negative connotation than "wizard"
You raise an excellent point! As you mentioned, Rowling could’ve come up with a term that didn't conform to the traditional gender binary. I appreciate that you brought up the historical context of male witches, highlighting that men have also been associated with the term ‘witch.' Over time, in popular culture, 'witch' became more closely associated with women. As @callnight1441 pointed out in this thread, these associations often have negative implications.
While I agree with you, and I hope it was clear in my video, it’s also important to consider the context in which the books were written and the audience they were intended for. The series started in the 90s when discussions about gender inclusivity and gender-inclusive language were not as widespread in mainstream discourse as they are today, particularly during the publication of the first book.
But then again, we should always seek to acknowledge both the positive aspects and limitations of the books we read. This is essential if we want to move forward towards growth and inclusivity in future works. Again, thank you for bringing up this thought-provoking point, and I hope to read more of your thoughts in future discussions too 📖🫶🏻🌻
Thank you @callnight1441 for highlighting this aspect and contributing to the conversation! It adds an essential perspective 😊🌻
My initial reaction to the question: I would call the representation of women in the series as "neo-traditional". We're stripped of explicit "women are inferior" rhetoric, but it is still baked into the characters and their treatment by the narrative.
You're all spewing forth about "binary norms" and the "patriarchy". I don't like Rowling's writing for a much more straightforward reason: the overt racism.