I got "don't hit a guy with glasses" as part of my early ethical training, but the rationale was that the glasses might break and cut their eyes or face.

Do you have any independent evidence that this was Rowling's objection? Say, as opposed to him relying on glasses to see, which he originally couldn't get properly fixed (until magic fixed them)?

Not being able to see without glasses is a handicap (and is pretty rare among children) and making your "hero/chosen one" not perfect makes him more relatable. Also, I'm pretty sure it made a lot of children with glasses feel better about themselves to grow with a hero wearing glasse so it's weird to try to turn this against JKR and calling out "old fashioned views", while a lot of people out there are calling about representation of minorities. (And yeah, children wearing glasses are a minority and are often suffering from it during their school years)

The first Harry Potter book was published 25 years ago, during the late 1990s - and definitely before glasses really took off as a fashion thing in their own right (I know, I had glasses growing up and they were very much viewed negatively). Harry would have had access to NHS funding for his glasses during that period, which meant that his glasses were very much functional with little thought to looking good - and I cant see Vernon or Petunia spending any money at all to get anything but the basic NHS frames. When the book was released, JKRs views of glasses were spot on IMHO.

@Echox The point is that the stigma of wearing glasses has lessened since the 90s and that explains why she made a point of it that may not be clear to the modern reader

Though this looks like a plausible answer, it's pure assumption (a good one).

@CristobolPolychronopolis Ever since watching Wreck-It Ralph, I can't hear that phrase without thinking about their wordplay regarding the word "with" being able to indicative both instrumental and locative prepositional phrases: youtube.com/watch?v=W8I1BRCcD6g

@CristobolPolychronopolis For modern glasses, they are very difficult to shatter like that. You'll have to clamp one down and hit it with a hammer. Glasses failure modes are designed to have the lenses pop off and not shatter into shards. If you punched someone with glasses, the lenses would just pop off.

@Nelson Agreed they're much better now than when I was a kid 60 years ago, and even then there wasn't so much concern about the lenses shattering as smaller pieces coming off or arm hinges breaking into sharp pieces. My main point, though, is that "they're weaker by nature" isn't the only rationale for not hitting someone with glasses. You could also go with "they're probably smarter than you and will eventually seek revenge" but that doesn't really inspire the same feeling of altruism. :-)

This has nothing to do with anybody's age (and, really, you might want to check some of your own assumptions about how people older than you think, the tone of this answer is a bit icky). If you have glasses you are, by definition, not a perfect physical specimen because you need a device to correct your eyesight. How is this controversial? Harry is a regular, every day kid, not a super human, and not a muscle-bound jock or great athlete. Just regular, therefore as vulnerable as you or I.

People with glasses are vulnerable to having their glasses taken or falling off, and their sight being impaired. People without glasses do not have this vulnerability.

@Moo Thank you very much for making that point, which up till now entirely escaped this American reader. I'd often been puzzled by what I perceived as an inconsistency: Vernon and Petunia didn't care a lick for Harry, and yet somehow they cared about him enough to make sure he could enjoy good vision. Your explanation makes perfect sense: Harry's glasses came from a government program that didn't cost Vernon and Petunia a penny directly out of pocket.

This isn't an answer, because it actually make any claims; any information imparted is implication. If we look at each sentence, this is the information/argument they make: "JKR is old and has bad beliefs. 'Glasses = weakness' is one of them. Clark Kent wears glasses and there's a folk saying about them. TvTropes talks about hitting someone with glasses." Not only that, but it doesn't cite any sources other than intuition (and TvTropes, but for a point that hasn't been shown to be applicable), and beyond that, it takes an unnecessarily-negative tone.

I also object to the idea that glasses aren't a flaw or vulnerability. There's nothing wrong with needing glasses, but they're a visible indicator that one's body has a flaw or dysfunction: their eyes don't work as well as they should. If the character had a prosthetic leg or a cochlear implant or an insulin pump, it would be the same thing: a flaw/weakness. We should celebrate that they can overcome that weakness with modern science and personal effort, not pretend that it never was an issue in the first place. If anything, that diminishes the efforts of those who overcome such difficulties.

@Kyralessa you are most welcome. In fact, Vernon and Petunia would have basically been forced to do something about Harrys eyesight, as he would have been tested at some point in school - they periodically did healthcare checks, including weight, height (ie for developmental tracking purposes), eyesight and hearing. This was how my own shortsightedness was discovered. The school would then have expected to see it resolved, so the Dursleys would have had to do something or get into trouble - the fact that Harrys glasses were broken shows no unnecessary trips tho!

@AosSidhe, you know, sometimes a trope is just a trope, it doesn't have to be anything more. Orphan boy finds he has magic and goes off to wizard school is a pretty major trope to start with, but tropes exist because they work, it doesn't make them bad.

@user1908704 And it's also worth pointing out that the NHS glasses are very much not what Harry appears to be wearing in any depiction. He always seems to wear those round John Lennon frames, from the original book covers all the way up to the films.

@Sep I'm confused as to what you mean. I have no problem with the trope; my issue with your answer was the lack of a clear argument, providing no evidence other than the fact that a trope exists about hitting people with glasses, and the implications that A) it is wrong to consider needing glasses to be a weakness/flaw, and B) JKR believes this and is morally wrong for it. I dislike many of her beliefs but making assumptions about her other beliefs and judging her for them seems unreasonable. If it's the basis for an answer, it must be backed up by evidence, not intuition or speculation.