Chauvinism vs. Chivalry: A Harry Dresden Case Study

This post contains some spoilers for Fool Moon by Jim Butcher. You've been warned!

When posting my own review for Fool Moon by Jim Butcher, I came across someone else’s, accusing Harry of not being chivalrous (as he considers himself), but a chauvinist. In all caps. With an exclamation point.

This...irked me. Around these here parts, you might have noticed that I don't delve too much into controversial topics, but considering the amount of time I’ve spent thinking on this and forming mental ripostes, I really can’t let this one slide. I’m about to drop some opinions down.

First off, let's put these definitions up here:

Chauvinist: a person displaying excessive or prejudiced loyalty or support for a particular cause, group, or gender. “what a male chauvinist that man is” (Google Dictionary)

Yes. Buuut. We also know that when someone shouts “CHAUVINIST” they have something a little more specific in mind. I mean, look at the example they added to that definition. Male chauvinist. It’s got it’s very own subset definition! So let’s go a step farther.

Male Chauvinism: the beliefs, attitudes, or behavior of male chauvinists (men who patronize, disparage, or otherwise denigrate females in the belief that they are inferior to males and thus deserving of less than equal treatment or benefit). (Dictionary.com)

And on the other side of the board...

Chivalry: courteous behavior, especially that of a man toward women. (Google Dictionary)
Chivalry: the sum of the ideal qualifications of a knight, including courtesy, generosity, valor, and dexterity in arms. (Dictionary.com)


Now let’s talk about Harry Dresden, as he is in Fool Moon. By his own definition, he’s stubbornly chivalrous. Throughout the story he is preoccupied with keeping the three women in his life safe:

1. Kim Delaney -a female magic practitioner and former apprentice of Harry’s. The book opens with Kim asking Harry for info about a terrifying, dark, complicated kind of magic, info Harry refuses to give her. Despite her promise that she’s only interested in theory, not practice, Harry tells her it’s scary stuff; something she’s not ready for and something she shouldn’t even want to know.

2. Karrin Murphy -a Chicago police lieutenant who heads up the Special Investigations division. She deals with the weird cases, the ones that oftentimes have ties to Harry’s magical community. He works as her consultant on these cases. In an effort to keep her safe from the dark side of said magic community, Harry tends not to ‘consult’ Murphy on these cases so much as run out to try and solve them himself, thus keeping her out of harm’s way.

3. Susan Rodriguez -Harry’s girlfriend? She’s also a journalist determined to prove to the world the existence of the magical community. She likes to bribe or bully info out of Harry, who tries not to tell her anything that could land her into too much trouble.

There’s a trend here. Harry takes it on himself to keep these three women out of danger and, because they’re women and he’s a man, obviously this means he’s a chauvinist -

Oh wait.

What about Tera West? She’s the female shapeshifter who hires Harry to help her fiance. Harry also suspects she’s an amoral and immortal creature of the Nevernever, so he has no worries about keeping her safe and out of harm’s way. He doesn’t particularly trust her, either. But he does trust her to carry out parts of the plan on her own and he does trust her with his own life -and the lives of others- on more than one occasion, because he knows that she is capable and resourceful. Even though she’s female.

That’s not very chauvinistic of him.

But wait. There’s more.

Let us not forget the Alphas. Harry finds himself teaming up with a group of college-aged werewolves -focusing specifically on the MALE werewolf Billy- and he tries to protect them just as much as Murphy, Kim, and Susan. Because they’re young. Because he doesn’t want to get them killed. Because he feels responsible -as a skilled and experienced wizard- for their safety.

Chivalry. Right there. That’s chivalry.

Generally speaking, chivalry is a courteous act while male chauvinism is a patronizing one. I see many people today -in books, TV, movies, and real life- who can’t or won’t recognize that there is a distinction between the two, who will see all attempts from a man to assist a woman as a sign that he believes her weak and incapable, and for many that is a woeful misrepresentation of their actions. Just like poor Harry here.

Just because a man protects a woman doesn’t mean he believes her incapable of protecting herself. Most of the time, it only means he wants to do it for her. It’s a kindness, but it seems to be more often met with a resounding chorus of ‘chauvinist’ rather than a ‘thank you’.

Now, I’m not going to argue that Harry’s reasoning and actions in this book aren’t flawed. They’re totally flawed.

What they aren’t is chauvinistic. If Harry refused to share the information because he believed Kim, Murphy, and Susan -on the basis of their gender- were incapable of handling it -that would be chauvinism. If Harry refused to share the information because he didn’t believe, on the basis of their gender, they deserved to be involved in it -that would also be chauvinism.

As it is, Harry refuses to share the information these ladies want out of a desire to keep them out of harm’s way -that’s chivalry. But it’s more than that, too. Like Murphy, Harry has set himself a dangerous task of protecting innocents from a very dark and specific kind of harm -unfortunately for him, the innocents under his watch are bound and determined to go meddling with it anyway. He might not have a police badge, but Harry possesses skills and knowledge far and above anyone else’s experience, and so it falls to him to protect them from what they don’t understand.

There is, however, a line that Harry is crossing, from protective to misguided over-protectiveness. In Fool Moon it even points out that, by withholding information from Murphy, Harry is actually crippling her ability to protect herself and others -which is her job. In trying to protect people himself, instead of equipping those willing with the means to protect themselves, he’s actually putting them in more danger -and Butcher uses this excellently as a character flaw.

There’s one more thing Fool Moon reveals about Harry, which I think is the root cause of it all -flaws and strengths- and that is someone from his past named Elaine. Someone who Harry cared about. Someone who Harry failed to protect from the darkness within the magic community. Which explains his stubborn chivalry, but explains even better how that chivalry manifests itself into over-protectiveness and trust issues, especially concerning magic.

Throughout the story, Harry is continually faced with hurdles of his own making because of these misguided acts of over-protectiveness -but he comes to recognize it. He knows his refusal to help Kim contributed to her death; he realizes that Murphy doesn’t trust him because he doesn’t update her on magical dangers and threats, instead trying to handle them on his own.

Harry hasn’t acted yet on this revelation to improve his relationships with Susan and Murphy, but I’m looking forward to see how it develops him in book three.

Conclusion:

Harry’s FLAW is being OVERPROTECTIVE, not chauvinistic.

His STRENGTH is his DESIRE TO PROTECT OTHERS, aka gallantry, aka chivalry.

In Full Moon, Harry’s flaw and his strength continually butt heads, and that is a great way to force Harry to recognize them as such and to give him an opportunity to overcome the flaw and hone the strength. It’s a great way to make Harry feel like an actual human being.

And for that I say bravo, Mr. Butcher; bravo.

What are your thoughts on the matter?
Please join in the discussion!

DISCUSSION: Writing in Books -Yea or Nay?

If someone had asked me a year ago whether I mark up my own books, I would have replied something like: "There is a special hell reserved for those who DEFACE books and DOGEAR pages. So, no."

However, two things have occurred within the last year that may change my stance on this. Maybe. You have to understand, I have always considered books almost sacred; I hate finger smudges on covers and curled edges and sticker residue that won't come off and those fat black marker lines discount book stores slash over the top of the pages. Monsters.

I've been debating this question of 'yea or nay' for a while and finally had the genius idea to write a discussion post about it. So bring me your biases! Bring me your book-marking habits and your philosophical rants! Let's talk about this and after a good discussion maybe I can make up my mind as to whether book-marking is a sin to the literary gods or an irreplaceable gift to the readers who will come after.

The first event that set me asking this question was a visit from my sister and her family. She is a voracious reader and, though they're just younglings, all her kids are well on their way to becoming so as well.

So what does the best aunt ever hand over for the trip home? That's right. A stack of books.

I slid them over to my sister one by one, making little piles of which books I bought for which kid, and she slid them right back to me. "Write their names in," she said; "They love it."

As a library clerk, writing in books bleeding ink, ruined pages, and library fines. It's been instilled in me from my earliest days that you DO NOT WRITE IN BOOKS.

My sister reminded me of a picture book I'd sent as a birthday gift to one of her boys, Don't Let The Pigeon Drive the Bus by Mo Willems. In the front of the book, I'd written a happy birthday message and a little note. "That's part of the book for my kids. They don't realize it's not part of the story. Every time I read it to them, they make me start with that, and every time they read it to each other they read that first. Whatever you write in the book becomes part of the book. It's part of the gift you're giving. It's going to be with them forever."

This blew me away. I'd never thought of it like that before. So I grabbed the nearest pen and wrote notes in every. single. book. I told them how much I loved them, why these books were special to me, why I wanted to give them a copy, and how much I hoped they'd enjoy it. Then I went a little crazy with the copies of Austenland and The Guernsey Literary and Potato Peel Pie Society I gave my sister, underlining some of my favorite sections, because I realized that if I did -even if I was hundreds of miles away- it would sort of be like we were reading it together. I love that idea.

Now I love the idea of writing notes on the blank pages in books I'm gifting. But I still can't bring myself to write in my own books. Outside of maybe a self-help guide, adding to a book feels sacrilegious. My books are pristine. To the point that, any time I'm browsing through secondhand books, I seriously reconsider purchasing if there are any highlighted sections or chicken scratches.

Which brings us to even number two, which was my reading of 84, Charing Cross Road by Helene Hanff (which I reviewed earlier this week). Her philosophy of reading and books and book ownership and book loving has kind of blown my mind.

I wish you hadn't been so over-courteous about putting the inscription on a card instead of on the flyleaf. It's the bookseller coming out in you all, you were afraid you'd decrease it's value. You would have increased it for the present owner. (And possibly for the future owner. I love inscriptions on flyleaves and notes in margins, I like the comradely sense of turning pages someone else turned, and reading passages some one long gone has called my attention to.) (pg 27)

I'll have mine til the day I die -and die happy in the knowledge that I'm leaving it behind for someone else to love. I shall sprinkle pale pencil marks through it pointing out the best passages to some booklover yet unborn. (pg 56)

I want to be this person. I want to be this person so bad. This is such a romantic notion and I adore everything about it. Expect the reality of writing in a book.

I've found a way around this for awhile, at least. The last few books I've loaned out, I've gone through them and stuck Post-It notes at random intervals, like this one in Sanderson's Firefight when I made my Dad read it. Sure, he thought I was crazy, but I thought it was hilarious. (I call them Ninja Notes in my head. Part of me wants to get an entire set of my favorite books just to litter with these Post-Its and then redistribute you them through thrift stores and book sales.) When these books are returned to me, I keep the Post-Its in there, because now it's a memory. But how long will those sticky notes really last in there? There going to start falling out at some point or -worse- mess up the pages with residue. >_<

Past the Post-It idea, I've got a friend who buys two copies of her favorite books, one for marking up and one for reading. This nicely skirts around that dilemma -expect the issue of space. Do I really have enough room for multiple copies of the same book? Is it just silly?

While I debate what I want to do, I'm dying to know how other Book Dragons feel. Do you write in books? Do you think it's a sin? Do you have a system or -like Helene- do you think it adds to the flavor and history of a book?