Professor Sinistra was talking about the unequal role of women in Muggle society, and brought up her mother as an example. “And that wasn’t the worst of it,” she continues. “Why, just a few centuries earlier—”
The writer cuts off at this point, but it seems entirely plausible that Sinestra went on to talk about how women like her mother were treated a few centuries earlier, and slavery is a pretty major component of that narrative.
If they were discussing “the matter of sex,” then I agree it’s a distraction from the discussion.
OTOH, if they were discussing how Muggle society treats its low-status members, with sex simply being an example of that, then it’s a continuation of the discussion.
This sort of situation arises all the time in real-world conversations, where what one person considers a reasonable continuation of the conversation strikes another person as a confusing change of subject. All I can say is, it seems like a reasonable continuation to me.
I agree that discussing slavery would make perfect sense, given the conversation that preceded it. However, this ignores the conversation that followed it, whose participants seemed to be entirely unaware that they had been discussing any examples of discrimination other than on the basis of sex.
Based on Quirrell’s remarks in particular, I’m pretty sure that they’d been discussing rape, in one context or another. As I said in my last comment, I’ll provisionally accept that they were discussing it in the context of slavery, since I can’t think of any better fit. But it’s still not a very good fit.
Another point that I just thought of: Sinistra’s “several centuries earlier” should have been simply “a century earlier”, for this hypothesis to fit. Several centuries earlier than the early 20th century almost predates modern race-based slavery. (By the way, can we assume that Sinistra’s ancestors were enslaved? Her ancestors may well have come from slave-holding British colonies, but are there any likely alternatives?)
Professor Sinistra was talking about the unequal role of women in Muggle society, and brought up her mother as an example. “And that wasn’t the worst of it,” she continues. “Why, just a few centuries earlier—”
The writer cuts off at this point, but it seems entirely plausible that Sinestra went on to talk about how women like her mother were treated a few centuries earlier, and slavery is a pretty major component of that narrative.
If they were discussing “the matter of sex,” then I agree it’s a distraction from the discussion.
OTOH, if they were discussing how Muggle society treats its low-status members, with sex simply being an example of that, then it’s a continuation of the discussion.
This sort of situation arises all the time in real-world conversations, where what one person considers a reasonable continuation of the conversation strikes another person as a confusing change of subject. All I can say is, it seems like a reasonable continuation to me.
I agree that discussing slavery would make perfect sense, given the conversation that preceded it. However, this ignores the conversation that followed it, whose participants seemed to be entirely unaware that they had been discussing any examples of discrimination other than on the basis of sex.
Based on Quirrell’s remarks in particular, I’m pretty sure that they’d been discussing rape, in one context or another. As I said in my last comment, I’ll provisionally accept that they were discussing it in the context of slavery, since I can’t think of any better fit. But it’s still not a very good fit.
Another point that I just thought of: Sinistra’s “several centuries earlier” should have been simply “a century earlier”, for this hypothesis to fit. Several centuries earlier than the early 20th century almost predates modern race-based slavery. (By the way, can we assume that Sinistra’s ancestors were enslaved? Her ancestors may well have come from slave-holding British colonies, but are there any likely alternatives?)