Hogwarts House Stereotypes

I watched a video by The Carlin Brothers, and in it, one of the brothers stated that he was Sorted into Slytherin, and that he, among other things, gets people to look at him like he's evil or bad or malicious or something, despite him clearly not being so.

The point of that statement is to bring up the point of the stereotypes on the Hogwarts houses. I'll list each house, what it stands for, and what other people think of it, generally:

House	Positive Qualities (Stereotype)	Negative Qualities (Stereotype)
Gryffindor	"Daring, Nerve, and Chivalry"; bravery, strength, will	N/A
Hufflepuff	"Just, Loyal, Patient"; hardworking, kindness	Considered boring, lame, uninteresting, and/or talent-less; the left-overs
Ravenclaw	"Wise, Ready of Mind, Wit"; smart	Considered boring or know-it-all-like, friendless,
Slytherin	"Cunning"	Dark, evil, bullies, mean, unkind, selfish, etc.

This just doesn't seem equal, does it? Gryffindor is considered the "best" house by many, and while most of this is because it is the house of the main character, but also because the only characters who really share any negatives about the house are the characters we disliked for all/most of the series, like Draco or Snape. We tend to avoid negatives about the Gryffindor house, even when the flaws are glaringly obvious.

Every house has good and bad, and remember, not every person in, say, Slytherin acts the same way. Hermione, for example, is very much like a Ravenclaw, or how Neville is very much a Hufflepuff, while Harry was, supposedly, a good Slytherin, at least for a while. Therefore, even if the stereotypes were fully true, there are people who are a mix, which, by the way, would prove the stereotypes wrong by themselves.

Gryffindors are arrogant and impulsive and prideful, as Snape and Draco say. An expanded list of the positive qualities of the house would include loyalty as well, but not only does that seem entirely untrue, as Peter Pettigrew was a Gryffindor and betrayed his friends (while Sirius, a Slytherin raised Gryffindor, did not) and Ron didn't believe Harry hadn't entered himself into the Triwizard Tournament for most of the fourth book, despite having known each other for years by that point.

Stereotypes, by their nature, are often incorrect.

Now, of course, not to say that all stereotypes are always incorrect, obviously,

A better table for the general house qualities would look like this:

House	Positive Qualities	Negative Qualities
Gryffindor	Courage, Willful, Fun, Loyal, Chivalrous, Quick-Thinking	Impulsive, Arrogant, Prideful, Stubborn AND Gullible (Intolerance)
Hufflepuff	Fair, Kind, Friendly, Dedication, Helpful, Honest, Accepting, Forgiving	...Gullible, Easy to Take Advantage Of?
Ravenclaw	Wise, Knowledgeable, Quick-Thinking AND Strategic, Accepting, Curious	Passive, Unfriendly (?), Overly Blunt
Slytherin	Clever, Ambitious, Perceptive, Determined, Focused, Strategic	Manipulative, Dishonest, Arrogant, Prideful, Unfair, Stubborn

It's about as close as I can get. After all, we don't really know any non-Luna (who is just exceptional in all ways, really) Ravenclaws or just, like, any Hufflepuffs at all. Or not-horribly-disliked Slytherins.

For the record, by "Stubborn and Gullible" for Gryffindor, I mean that they easily fall into a set thought or belief and won't budge from that thought no matter how unreasonable it is. By "Quick-Thinking and Strategic" in Ravenclaw, I mean that they are ready to tackle a problem, and can often answer things quickly, but they are far better at planning before-hand, like they will have a battle strategy before they fight, but if it goes wrong, they often won't be able to come up with another plan quick enough, contrary to Gryffindors, who can think far faster and make short-term plans and goals.

Like levitating the troll's club in Harry's first year.

I might be biased. I am Slytherin after all, a Slytherin that is a hair's breath away from a Hat-stall as a Ravenclaw. But believing that all Slytherins are bullies like Draco (and Snape, too, who is far too aggressive a teacher, despite his "good" intentions) and that Gryffindors are all just fun-loving heroes with positive goals is stupid, honestly.

Remember how at some point, someone remarks that there wasn't a Dark Wizard (from Hogwarts) that wasn't in Slytherin? Yeah well, sorry, but uh, Peter Pettigrew was pretty bad. We don't know what House Barty Crouch Jr. was in (although probably Slytherin, judging by his determination to get out of Azkaban and then again to help Voldemort). Lucius, Narcissa, and Draco all defected from the Death Eaters as Slytherins, and Snape himself (I will write a whole debate around him) was very likely a "good guy" in terms of the war, for being a spy. On the reverse side, Dumbledore was originally a believer in Grindelwald's mantra (he still uses the man's phrase "for the greater good"), which although doesn't make him a Dark Wizard, the ideas would have been considered dark.

This is similar to the "Is Voldemort Good?" debate I put up and the one about what makes Dark Magic "Dark". I'm saying as well that a Dark Wizard was likely originally defined by a Gryffindor or a Hufflepuff, perhaps, which already lends that statement (also probably said by a Gryffindor) towards the bias side of the scale.

But, please don't judge so bad, whether Hogwarts houses or ethnicity or whatever, just...don't.

--Shiizumi Valé; WillowEye10329; signing off.