Mothers Love Best

[sistermagpie]

This came from an exchange in the comments on bookshop's post about women in HP that I'm sort of elaborating on. Rowling has said, looking at the series that it is "a litany of bad fathers" because that's where she thinks "evil" tends to "flourish"--where people didn't get "good fathering."

Comments

[teratologist]

If Rowling were American, I'd assume that this pattern basically reflected the messages about single mothers that Rowling would have absorbed during the Reaga era and then had to confront as a single mother herself in the immediate aftermath of Reaganism - mother love is default but the "male role model" makes or breaks a child, particularly a male child, and lack of same is what puts a kid into a gang, into jail, makes him a menace to society, etc. Ergo, the most vital thing a single mother can do for her kid is get a good man (for values of "good" that prioritizes a lot of other things over whether he treats her and the kid well) by hook or by crook, and not keeping a man is a failure, not just of basic womanhood, but of motherhood as well. And getting that man will magically lift her and her children off the welfare rolls, because only women without good men are poor.

I don't know if that message was as heavily promoted in Britain under Thatcher, though.

[merrymelody]

Take this with a pinch of salt, I don't remember Thatcher myself, but she had the same attitudes as Reagan towards 'family values' from the reading I've done on the subject. One of the more famous quotes is admittedly post-office (1998) on the subject of single mothers: "It is far better to put these children in the hands of a very good religious organisation, and the mother as well, so that they will be brought up with family values."

[sistermagpie]

Yipes!!!

[teratologist]

Wow. That says a bundle, right there.

[ellie_nor]

Great analysis. I also think the portrayal of women in canon who aren't mothers (or simply who aren't married) is indicative of a rather conservative approach to gender - they are either mannish (Rita Skeeter, Prof. Grubbly-Plank, Madam Hooch) or blue stockings (Minerva Macgonagall) or cruel and insane (Bellatrix Lestrange). Way to go on the positive, independent female role models, Jo.

[sistermagpie]

It does tend to be how it works out. I guess on one hand it's somewhat normal that we see a lot of mothers since it's a story about kids, but, well, stereotypes are sort of abounding anyway, so why not have the unmarried women be mannish a lot of the time?

[ellie_nor]

Good point about the stereotypes. I hadn't thought of that.

[zouf]

A lot of the adult unmarried female characters (as with the male characters) are teachers, and thus they are stereotypically teacherly, I think. Their characters depend on their subjects, thus Prof. Grubbly-Plank and Madam Hooch are outdoorsy, in the same way that Prof. Trewlaney's character is built entirely around her subject. Similarly, a lot of characters, regardless of gender, are unpleasant because they need to be for the plot - Rita Skeeter, Bellatrix Lestrange, Dolores Umbridge. It would make no sense whatsoever for them to be positive role models. Tonks and Minerva are both just as positive as any male character in the books, and I do not think either of them are particularly defined by their gender. The only adult male characters I can think of who could be presented as role models are Dumbledore and Lupin.

[sistermagpie]

Of course, she also seems quite fond of the word "shriek." I wouldn't be surprised if even the guys use it sometimes...

And yeah, the male friendships and relationships in general just really dominate. The shorthand for female friendships seem to be talking about cute boys too.

[tulleskirt]

To be fair, though, teenage girls really do mostly talk about cute boys and the like. I know I do. :P

[jodel_from_aol]

Yup. I don't think that it ever got into the essay collection at any place, but for all of Albus's prating along about how "love is the answer" (what was the question?), the only form of love that has ever been shown to mean anything in the series is the love of a mother for her young. And that has culturally ben presented so mush as a biological imperitive that his almost no longer counts

[woman_ironing]

And I don't buy her arguments, either. For the record, her presentation of Merope's death as an illustration of failure to love makes a particularly shitty one.

I don't see Merope's death as being presented as a failure to love, or at least not of Merope's failure to love. Harry asks "She wouldn't even stay alive for her son?" but Dumbledore in his reply says, "Yes, Merope Riddle chose death in spite of a son who needed her, but do not judge her too harshly, Harry. She was greatly weakened by long suffering and she never had your mother's courage." This reply, at the very least, tells us there's more to Merope than Harry's question proposes

[arclevel]

I can't quite agree with you here. I do agree that Merope is presented fairly sympathetically overall, or at least that she's presented as a victim in regards to her family and lack of support. However, as for Merope *as a mother*, I do think it is presented as a personal failure on her part, certainly by Dumbledore if not by the broader narrative

[sistermagpie]

Yes, the mothers tend to do these big things and then withdraw. It's just a different type relationship. Not to get too psychoanalyzing, but I wonder if there's anything to JKR's mother dying there. Or it could be she's just interested in those father/son relationships and isn't quite so interested in dealing with mother/daughter conflicts (since it seems to be the conflicts that make stuff messy).

The giants are such a weird bunch. The ones we hear about have a society, but Grawp seems like a strategically shaved animal who can't ever get beyond the most basic communication. And can be tied up in the forest.

[static_pixie]

Nicely done. A better comment later when I have the time, but I did want to say, cool analysis. Although, I'd be interested on what you had to said about Blaise's mother, if anything.

[sistermagpie]

Thanks--and wow, I can't believe I forgot Blaise's mother. She's very intriguing, and he doesn't seem to have a father. She is hinted to have killed her husbands, but I would guess the maneating tendencies don't apply to her son at all. His behavior kind of seems to reflect it, but differently than it would if he were a daughter.

[arclevel]

I do wonder some about Blaise's upbringing (though I forgot him earlier -- whoops). Does he have no father, or has he had several? Of course, we don't know how many of them were pre-Blaise, but the implication is that she runs through them quickly and is still doing so, so he's presumably had at least two or three stepfathers. Have any of them had a strong impact on them? Did he have to learn an unfortunate lesson (perhaps more than once) about not getting too attached to Dad? As he's older, does he sneer at those stupid enough to marry his mother? Cheerfully support her next conquest and the new inheritence? Secretly hope that one of them actually stays around?

No answers, but interesting questions.

[sistermagpie]

You just reminded me why I love Blaise.