#james potter is a feminist

[kneecaps-the-marauder]

James: If we had a ship name what would it be

Regulus: Jegulus, obviously

James: not blotter?

Regulus: Why the fuck would it be blotter

James: Our last names! when we get married we have to mix them together

Regulus: James, thats not how lastnames work

James: Well I'm not taking yours, I'm a feminist

Regulus: James what-

James: ROTTER! FINAL ANSWER

Regulus: THAT MAKES EVEN LESS SENSE

[ddaisychaser]

james potter after seeing the barbie movie would 100% see a guy going to open the door for you and immediately rushing to go, ‘excuse me sir, she can get the door for herself.’ because he’s a feminist.

(but, also would be the only one who can open the door for you bc he is a gentleman lol)

[maxdibert]

The nickname “Snivellus” derives from the word “snivel,” which means crybaby. So, Snivellus was basically a way of mocking the fact that Severus might show his emotions—that instead of toughing it out like a stereotypical, macho, strong, hairy-chested man, he cried. I don’t think I need to explain why this nickname is problematic—any nickname used to bully someone is problematic—but a nickname that also references a supposed weakness, stemming from the expectations of a patriarchal society for men to display “unmanly” behavior typical of “weak” men, is not just problematic due to the bullying itself but also because of the misogynistic implications it carries. Because yes, misogyny and hegemonic gender roles also affect men by demanding certain traits from them to validate them socially. And I know the Marauders lived in the 1970s, and that Rowling is one of the worst when it comes to gender issues. But I find it quite ironic how Marauders Stans or Slytherin Skittles, who have built their trash fandom and constant Snape-bashing around the topic of LGBTQ+ themes, have the audacity to mock Snape using a nickname that directly attacks gender nonconformity and justifies a toxic, traditional masculinity that shames men who cry or show emotions, labeling them as less valid.

The Marauders weren’t social justice warriors, and James and Sirius, in particular, embodied the classic values of male success through the performance of stereotypical “macho” characteristics: as leaders, as “alphas” of the pack. Both are violent; both are cocky men who try to stand out and mark their territory. Both exhibit behaviors that have typically been excused in men just because they are men, such as abusive and reckless behavior. Their nickname for Severus stems from the idea that showing emotions—especially crying—if you are a man, is a reason for ridicule and mockery because men don’t cry. Men are supposed to be strong, puff out their chests, and keep going because that’s what men do. It’s a misogynistic and archaic mindset that continues to be perpetuated in social models and relationships to this day. And I find it incredibly hypocritical that certain people who claim to hate J.K. Rowling for being a transphobe then go on to appropriate the horribly sexist nicknames she created for a group of heterosexual men embodying toxic masculinity to bully another man for not performing the traditional masculine model expected of someone like him.

Because Severus wasn’t a “macho”. Severus was a studious introvert with a more passive character who didn’t fit into the masculine vision of the time. Everything about him, including his appearance, demeanor, and interests, is unmasculine from a hegemonic perspective given the historical context. But these people don’t care. They’re so limited, so ignorant, and so cynical that they not only ignore these kinds of nuances but even find it funny to reproduce insults that any real-life James Potter would probably have used against them.

Make no mistake: James Potter and Sirius Black wouldn’t have been your friends. They would have tortured you as much, if not more, than Snape. And that’s the most pathetic part of their fandom, unfortunately.

[redadidassneakers]

James: if I ever meet the menstrual cycle in real life I’m gonna beat the shit out of it

Lily: okay…?

James: because im a feminist

Marlene: thank you for your service Potter!!

[winnienora14]

Stop making/calling Lily a lesbian JUST because she doesn’t want to date James.

Women have the right to not like a man just because they don’t like him.They don’t need to not like men at all for that to happen, just to not like that specific man.

Because yes, in contrary to what you seem to believe, women say no sometimes. We do not need men’s validation or appreciation.

WOMEN SOMETIMES REJECT A MAN, NOT BECAUSE THEY’RE QUEER, BUT BECAUSE THEY DON’T WANT TO GO OUT WITH HIM.

[yourlocalbadgerscales]

Marauders & Co Incorrect Quotes

James: …Lily no, you don’t get it, I’m sorry but you can’t say “Man up” to a woman! Lily: But why? Don’t you believe that women can do anything men can do? James: Well yes but- Lily: But what?? James: James: Okay you have a point Lily: Exactly! *shouts across the room* C’mon Mary, you heard him! Man up!

[padfootswhiskers]

it’s so fucking annoying. James was literally a misogynistic(didn’t take no from lil) queerphobic(bullied gnc kid) jock. Just because he could tolerate certain marginalized people who played by his rules(cough cough Remus Lupin) doesn’t negate that

i mean let’s be honest, this was the 70s. i don’t think any of the marauder era students were very particular about supporting queer people

saying james simply tolerated a werewolf is kind of unfair because for all his faults, he illegally became an animagus to keep his friend company. (remember—even progressive families like the weasleys look down on werewolves.)

james had a very black and white view of people; remus was on the Good side, therefore none of his attributes could truly be bad. sirius was his friend, therefore none of his cruelty or recklessness could truly be harmful. meanwhile severus was into the dark arts, so of course it was alright to make fun of his clothes and his hair and his social standing. it’s a more common attitude than you would think, tbh!

it’s this sort of, you know, two-dimensional thinking that probably allowed peter to get away with what he did. (completely paraphrasing here because i cba to pull up the quote but remus even tells harry that james would’ve found it the height of insult to doubt his friends.)

as for lily…i don’t really see how he’s misogynistic? i’m assuming you mean “he asked lily out over and over again” despite her refusal? because that…didn’t really happen, canonically. we see snape tell lily in SWM that “potter fancies her” which is not something he’d be whispering furiously if james was asking her out every other day

[sorin-in-the-sixth-sense]

Someone on tiktok made a slideshow of things in the books that they wish would’ve been included in the films, one of them being the marauders choking and SA’ing snape in SWM, and the comments were a bunch of their stans saying “anyway stan james potter” are y’all hearing yourselves?

[feliphilia]

Ok we have a feminist Sirius black

Feminist regulus black

Feminist james potter

Etc etc

But like what if...

Feminist Lucius malfoy???

Imagine a blond fighting for women rights

Imagine him debating on about equal value of women

Imagine him mentally destroying a misogynist shit because hes too polite to beat up dudes.

Imagine lucius fucking malfoy protesting for end of misogyny

Imagine narcissa being head over heels for him everytime he goes on and on about how cruelly women are treated and wished he could do something about it.

[wolfstarschildreal]

so real. james is a major feminist !!

[gegshshsbsbbsba]

ok i’m laying in bed and i have this thought.

so basically i’m wearing a shirt that has

HER BODY

HER RIGHT

HER CHOICE

in a line like that

i believe that james “feminist, has upmost respect for women” potter would wear this shirt and stuff like this

[maxdibert]

Lily Evans and the Tragedy of Poor Character Writing: How She Could Have Been Interesting but Was Reduced to the Moral Compass for the Men in Her Life

The way Lily is used as a moral instrument for the male characters prevents her from standing on her own as a character with individual depth, aspirations, and personal struggles. While we see hints that she has agency and a personality beyond her relationships, these moments are fleeting and sacrificed in favor of reinforcing the men’s journeys. This lack of consistent development reduces her to what feminist criticism calls the “moral arbiter” or the “redeeming woman” trope, where a female character exists mainly to define or “purify” a male character’s storyline. This phenomenon is particularly evident with Lily, whose interactions serve to validate or critique the men in her orbit but rarely to explore her own motivations, desires, or struggles.

Lily’s relationships with Severus, James, and Sirius reveal moral contradictions that could have added complexity if they were properly addressed. For example, her friendship with Severus is cut off for reasons that appear, on the surface, morally justified—but she doesn’t seem to apply this same standard to James or Sirius, despite their bullying and violence toward others. Her reaction to Mulciber’s behavior is harsh and unforgiving, yet her forgiveness of Sirius’ behavior (he comites attending to murder) as they get older suggests a double standard that’s never examined. These decisions could have made her a compelling, morally gray character; instead, they’re brushed aside to uphold her as a “good person,” an infallible figure who’s somehow always in the right. This sanitizing approach dismisses her potential for growth, change, and inner conflict, flattening her character to fit the role of a flawless moral validator.

Her relationship with James, too, suffers from this one-dimensional portrayal. The narrative pushes the idea that James becomes a better person because of Lily’s acceptance, implying that he is redeemed not through personal introspection or growth but by “winning” her approval. This reinforcement of the idea that men can be “fixed” or redeemed by a woman’s acceptance or love is problematic because it perpetuates the notion that women exist to reform men, placing responsibility on women to serve as emotional caretakers or moral rehabilitators. This is a trope rooted in misogyny, as it frames female characters as moral tools rather than individuals with their own agency.

Feminist theory critiques this kind of portrayal, arguing that it reduces women’s roles to secondary functions in the narrative. Lily becomes a kind of “reward” for James’s perceived growth, not a fully realized partner with her own arc. This approach reflects Rowling’s broader struggle with female characterization, where women often lack agency beyond their relationships with men and are rarely allowed the depth, autonomy, or moral ambiguity afforded to male characters. By framing Lily as a moral gauge for Severus, James, and even Harry, Rowling removes her complexity and potential flaws, opting instead to present her as an idealized figure who serves primarily to validate the men around her.

The inconsistencies in Lily’s portrayal have led to her being a divisive character for many fans. She’s often disliked not necessarily for her actions but for the incoherent, contradictory ways she’s written, and this is ultimately a failure of Rowling’s character development. Instead of being an empowered, nuanced figure with her own voice and flaws, Lily is molded to fit the needs of the male characters’ narratives, leaving her motivations unclear and her personality inconsistent. This reflects Rowling’s problematic handling of female characters throughout the series, where women are often defined by their relationships and reduced to supporting roles. Lily, as one of the most significant female figures in the story, suffers from this treatment, and it’s a major reason why her character often comes across as both underdeveloped and unrelatable. The narrative’s inconsistent treatment of her is not a flaw of the character but a symptom of Rowling’s broader issues with writing female characters, who frequently lack the autonomy, depth, and agency that would make them compelling and relatable in their own right.

And yes, I’ll admit it—Lily Evans really annoys me, but it’s precisely because of everything I’ve discussed here. She’s been reduced to this saintly figure, this ultimate epitome of “good” motherhood and femininity in the narrative, and it’s frustrating because her complexities and contradictions are glossed over or ignored. Lily isn’t allowed to be fully human; instead, she’s turned into a symbol, an idealized version of what a woman should be, stripped of the depth and nuances that would make her an interesting character.

Instead of exploring her flaws, her contradictions, or the ways she fails to live up to the moral standards she seemingly sets for others, Rowling chose to simplify her into a narrative tool. Lily’s personal contradictions—her selective morality, her double standards, her often unquestioned choices—are brushed aside because they don’t serve the image of “perfect womanhood” the story wants to project. Rather than treating her as a fully realized person with her own journey, she’s treated like an object, a measure of how “good” or “redeemed” the men around her are.

It’s this reduction that bothers me the most. In focusing on Lily’s role as the moral benchmark for others, especially the men she interacts with, Rowling denies her the chance to be anything more than a tool for measuring their worth. She doesn’t get to make mistakes and grow; instead, she’s held up as an unattainable ideal, and that’s not just boring—it’s damaging. It perpetuates the idea that women are there to serve as moral compasses for men, to help shape their actions and destinies, while never being given the chance to explore their own complexities or motivations.

This lack of depth doesn’t just harm Lily as a character; it harms the story as a whole. The other characters’ arcs are all defined by how they relate to her, which only highlights how little she’s allowed to define herself outside of them. Lily could have been so much more than just the woman who inspires James to be better or the woman whose approval validates their actions. She could have been a flawed, messy, deeply human character. But instead, she’s been turned into a one-dimensional ideal, and that’s why I find her so frustrating—not because of who she is, but because of how the narrative chose to treat her.

[alexandriastark76]

Initially, I was very indifferent to Regulus Black, but with all the unnecessary bit of information which is not even canon that gets shoved down my throat every time I’m on Pinterest or Tumblr EVEN WHEN I DONT FOLLOW A MARAUDER TAG OR REGULUS BLACK’S TAG, is making me hate that dude.

You take a man with like one phrase in the books, give him a bunch of traits which are stolen atp from Severus Snape and Sirius Black, romanticise it, wrap it in a shiny package as James Potter’s boytoy and present him as a feminist queer people’s ally who hated Voldemort, when the dude literally had a shrine dedicated to Voldemort and joined him willingly until his house elf’s life was on the line.

Y’all are making OCs at this rate and calling him “SlYthERiN’S hErO” “HaRrY sHouLD’vE nAMeD hIS sOn aFtER hIM” bro stfu Harry didn’t know about Regulus’s existence until Sirius told him that he had a brother, and didn’t think of him after the first horcrux was destroyed.

Bro consorted with all ardent death eaters and you lot go “HE WOULD AVENGE HIS BOYFRIEND’S DEATH” BABE JAMES POTTER HATED REGULUS BLACK. JUST SAY THAT YOU MADE A WHOLE NEW UNIVERSE WHICH HAS NO RELATION TO THE OG HARRY POTTER MARAUDERS WHATSOEVER

[here-am-i-sitting-in-a-tin-can]

Does James Fleamont Potter respect women?

Yes. Effie raised him a feminist.

Would James Fleamont Potter rail you on his kitchen counter and call you degrading names?

Also yes.

(Would I let him?

Absolutely.)

[yourlocalbadgerscales]

My OFFICIAL intro post, since I never actually made one!

Hi!! I’m yourlocalbadgerscales ^^ My name is a reference to me being a Slytherpuff 💚💛

Yes, I’m a diehard Harry Potter fan and a Slytherpuff for life!

A little something about me then. I go by she/her pronouns and I am currently questioning my sexuality, but I’m pretty sure I am at least panromantic. And I feel like that’s all you need to know about my sexuality to know that this profile is a safe place for all you fellow queers (:

I feel like it’s also important to know that I am a teenager and therefore a minor, so any predators, please leave my profile immediately (I have already encountered one, sadly, and I’m new here! I made an account on Tumblr last week or so)!

But I do not mind making friends or just chatting with adults ^^

My interests:

• Music! I love singing and I want to learn playing the piano. I also love listening to music and I do it 24/7. My favourite artists right now are Conan Gray and Taylor Swift, but I also love a little bit of Eminem ^^ • Books! I read a lot, lately I have mostly read fanfiction but I want to change that, hehe. I also enjoy writing books myself (and fanfics).

• Harry Potter! I read the books when I was just a little kid, but I never really discovered the charm of Potterverse until last summer (when I btw realised that I was queer). I have strong opinions on many things in Harry Potter but there’s room for discussion! Feel free to comment on my posts and reblog, or just write to me privately so we can discuss!

• Marauders Era! I love the Marauders so much guys you don’t understand 😭 My favourite ships are Jegulus and Wolfstar! My favourite marauders era characters are James and Regulus!

•LGBTQIA+!

These are topics I will post a lot of stuff about on here!

Things I don’t like and won’t accept on my profile:

• Homophobes, transphobes etc.

• Racists

• People against feminism

• Bullies

• Snape apologists (unless you just want to have a polite, nice chat about your reasons and opinions, I love learning new things and trying to see stuff from a different POV!)

• Predators, pedophiles

• Trump supporters

• No picking sides between Israel and Hamas on here ‼️‼️‼️

• Nazis

• People who deny climate change

• People why deny that kids can have depression, anxiety etc.

• People who look down on other people with disorders or diagnoses

• Genuinely just people who look down on other, hate people for things they can’t control or are bullies. Yeah, you get it.

Other things to know about me:

• Don’t assume stuff about me

• I’m from Europe. Wtf is 5’6 and all that shi /j

• I don’t plan on showing my face on here. Ever. But I might reconsider.

• If you want to follow me elsewhere I am also on Pinterest and Spotify. Write to me and I’ll give you the links :)

• I am not diagnosed yet, however I am pretty damn sure I’m autistic and have ADD (ADHD), based on a lot of research and what professionals have said about me. So I am not self-diagnosed :)

• No slander of any kind on here. If you disagree with me or others here, be polite about it. I am kind of sensitive when it comes to destructive critism… learnt that the hard way.

• UNLESS I accidentally say something really hurtful! Don’t be scared to point that out! I can assure you I never meant to hurt anyone, if that’s the case.

Now you know a little more about me! I may have forgotten something so I might add stuff later!

I often follow back, BUT I would love if all my followers are just people who genuinely enjoy my content and not following me only to get more followers themselves.

Have a nice day and drink some water! ;) Your favourite badger xx ❤️

[chic-beyond-the-wall-oc-acct]

So, project 2025 has been deleting their PDFs but a few lovely people have posted the list of books they want to ban and other than the fact that the entire list is stupid, here's some that stuck out to me + the reasons listed next to them. Most of the books on the list are lgbtq+ books which one would expect to find there, so I just did ones I didn't expect.

The Holy Bible - Challenged for religious beliefs and graphic content.

A Game of Thrones by George R.R. Martin - Sexual violence, political intrigue.

Bridge to Terabithia by Katherine Paterson - Death and religious content.

Captain Underpants series by Dav Pilkey - Toilet humor and "disobedience."

Doctor Zhivago by Boris Pasternak - Critique of the Russian Revolution.

Deadly Deceits by Ralph McGehee - Former CIA agent's critiques of the agency.

Emma by Jane Austen - Complex gender themes, social critique.

Fahrenheit 451 by Ray Bradbury - Censorship and media manipulation by the government.

Harry Potter series by J.K. Rowling - Accusations of promoting witchcraft.

Howl by Allen Ginsberg - Explicit sexual content, anti-establishment themes

Hop on Pop by Dr. Seuss - Concerns over violence against parents.

I Am Not Your Perfect Mexican Daughter by Erika L. Sánchez - Mental health, sexual content.

It's Perfectly Normal by Robie H. Harris - Sex education content.

It's So Amazing! by Robie H. Harris - Sex education content.

None Dare Call It Conspiracy by Gary Allen - Discusses alleged hidden global power structure.

None Dare Call It Treason by John A. Stormer - Anti-communist and conspiracy-focused.

One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn - Critique of Soviet labor camps.

Operation Paperclip by Annie Jacobsen - Exposes secret U.S. program involving former Nazis.

My Brother Sam Is Dead by James Lincoln Collier - Violence, anti-war themes.

Slaughterhouse-Five by Kurt vonnegut- Anti-war themes.

Spycatcher by Peter Wright - Ex-MI5 agent's account of intelligence operations.

The Art of Happiness by the Dalai Lama - Criticism of religion, perceived political messages.

The Awakening by Kate Chopin - Female independence, sexuality.

The Book of Night Women by Marlon James - Slavery, graphic violence.

The Enchanted Forest Chronicles by Patricia C. Wrede - Magic, feminism.

The Giving Tree by Shel Silverstein - Themes of selfishness, parenting.

The God of Small Things by Arundhati Roy - Examines class and caste issues in India.

The Handmaid's Tale by Margaret Atwood - Critique of religious extremism and patriarchy.

The Hate U Give by Angie Thomas - Examines police violence and racial injustice

The Hunger Games Series by Suzanne Collins - Depicts oppressive government and rebellion.

The Phantom Tollbooth by Norton Juster - Political subtext, wordplay.

The Poisonwood Bible by Barbara Kingsolver - Critique of colonialism and missionary work.

The Power and the Glory by Graham Greene - Critique of religion and political oppression

The Power of Now by Eckhart Tolle - Religious critique.

The Prince by Niccolò Machiavelli - Seen as a critique of political ethics.

The Taming of the Shrew by William Shakespeare - Often challenged for themes of submission of women in marriage.

Twilight series by Stephenie Meyer - Themes of violence, supernatural elements.

V for Vendetta by Alan Moore - Political rebellion, violence.

War is a Racket by Smedley D. Butler - Critique of war profiteering.

Where the Sidewalk Ends by Shel Silverstein - Dark humor, "rebellious" themes.

Where the Wild Things Are by Maurice Sendak - Themes of rebellion, dark imagery.

Where's Waldo? by Martin Handford - Alleged inappropriate illustrations.

White Noise by Don DeLillo - Critique of consumerism and modern society.

Women Who Run with the Wolves by Clarissa Pinkola Estes - Feminist themes.

Yertle the Turtle by Dr. Seuss - Seen as political allegory.

Zorba the Greek by Nikos Kazantzakis - Critique of authority and societal norms.