by Maya Schioler

Created on: December 07, 2009   Last Updated: December 08, 2009

Many people seem to be extremely uncomfortable at the thought of anything at all political in children's media. I do understand their position, and I agree that children should be allowed to be children; they have the rest of their lives to be aware of everything from the environment to gay rights. As children they should get to be blissfully ignorant.

However, this is simply not possible. No matter how sheltering a parent you are your offspring will still be exposed to the not so nice parts of the world. To avoid that you would have to keep them away from TV, the Internet, school and even people in general.

Childhood isn't an isolated period of time; it is part of the process of growing up. If we are never tried we cannot improve. Who do you think will be the more sensible around fire - the person who has never been near it or the person who has been burnt before?

The same thing goes for media and politics. People are thunderstruck by teenagers turning into racists and rapists, but is it really any wonder? Is it really any wonder, when no one has ever talked to these kids about morals? Maybe if someone had told them about things such as equality they would have been more well rounded now.

Furthermore, children are far from stupid. Contrary to popular belief, they can actually handle a lot, and it is vital that some things are discussed before it's too late. Children should be made aware early on that not everybody is the same, and that this is indeed okay. Such a basic key statement everyone should be able to agree to.

It has been stated in the No-side articles that Dumbledore's being gay changes the genre from children's literature to something completely different. This is simply a bad disguise for the discomfort or dislike towards homosexuals they feel themselves. What they are actually saying is that there is no place for gay characters in children's books. Otherwise there would surely be complaints directed against the Weasleys, for instance. They are married and have children, and therefore obviously sexual beings, and characters in children's literature should apparently be void of sexuality...

Rowling has not dropped a bomb here. She has not released a collection of graphically explicit descriptions of Dumbledore's sex-life, neither has she - as some of the nay-sayers claim - used the Harry Potter series as a political platform. Stating that Dumbledore is a homosexual is much less political than the analogy to racism that the whole purity of blood theme constitutes.

Never minding what children can or can't bear to hear, one might question whether the Harry Potter series really is primarily for children. It may have started out that way, but as the characters grew up so did their readers. Hopefully the teenagers of today can cope with a character being gay (something that, mind you, isn't even mentioned in the Harry Potter canon!).

On another note altogether, J. K. Rowling was merely talking about a tiny part of the background of one of her characters. Authors usually know much more about their own creations than what can be found out from the finished book. Also she was never making a song and dance about it; she was only responding to a question in a fairly casual setting.

We're about to enter into the second decade of the 21st century. If we truly are as progressive and democratic as we like to think, a boy who falls in love with boys shouldn't be a problem, not even in a book meant for toddlers.

Learn more about this author, Maya Schioler.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.