Jk mocked the girls for liking girls’ stuff? And divination is a girls subject? Not a hate q i genuinely dont know
Yes, J.K. Rowling does mock girls for liking traditionally "girly" things, and the way Divination is portrayed in the series is a clear example of how she reinforces gendered stereotypes.
First, let’s establish that there are no inherently "girls’ things" or "boys’ things"—those are social constructs reinforced through culture and media. Activities, subjects, and interests are gendered based on historical and cultural biases, not any inherent difference in ability or preference.
Now, in the books, Divination is depicted as a frivolous, unreliable subject, associated primarily with women. Professor Trelawney is portrayed as an eccentric, dramatic, and incompetent woman whom most characters—particularly Harry, Ron, and even McGonagall—mock. Lavender and Parvati, two of the few explicitly feminine-coded girls in the series, are shown to adore Divination, which further cements the idea that it is a "silly" subject. Compare this to more "serious" subjects like Transfiguration, Potions, or Defense Against the Dark Arts, which are taught by men (or McGonagall, who is depicted as strict, rational, and unlike "typical" women). The underlying message is that things associated with femininity are less valuable and worthy of ridicule.
Beyond Divination, there’s a pattern of dismissing and mocking things that are coded as "girly." Ginny, for example, is embarrassed for having a crush on Harry in CoS, as if romantic feelings—often associated with femininity—are something to grow out of. Hermione, despite being a well-developed character, is at her most ridiculed when she shows interest in emotions or beauty (e.g., her relationship with Krum, the Yule Ball, or her emotional reactions to Ron). The books consistently position more "traditionally feminine" behaviors as weaknesses or sources of humor.
This kind of messaging reinforces harmful stereotypes. When a book aimed at children presents "girly" interests as trivial or laughable, it teaches young readers—especially girls—that their passions and identities are less valid if they align with traditionally feminine things. It upholds the idea that to be taken seriously, one must reject femininity, which is a deeply ingrained misogynistic belief.
So yes, Rowling does engage in this kind of gendered mockery. It might not be intentional, but intent doesn’t negate impact.