#jk it's misogyny

[maxdibert]

recently found ur acc and I agree with a lot of things (lol considering im a marauders fan/usually interact with snaters) i've always considered snape to be a v complex and well fleshed out character (i think alan rickman did wonders to jk's unpolished writing ngl, he was genuinely sm better in the movies because alan brought the depth to him that jk tried) and I only used to hate him when I was like 14-15. but i have to say, what makes you hate on lily sm (i get a hardcore snape fan would hate james, i dont because i recognize his flaws as what they are instead of making excuses for him)

but lily hate I genuinely dont get, like if we can praise snape for being a complex character why shame lily for being one as well? if you're gonna say its because lily is portrayed as a saint, I could argue that's what happens once one dies, people don't like to speak ill of the dead. that's what happened to severus as well, harry hated him all his life then he died and suddenly he was "the bravest man he ever knew."

i get that lily getting together with james is sad for sev but sev also basically bullied her by using a racial-slur equivalent for her? and we're told constantly james changed and grew anyways.

also i dont understand why a mother's sacrifice is downplayed because "shes supposed to do so"? it is equally heroic for a person to sacrifice themselves for someone else as it is for a mother to sacrifice herself for her child.

mothers are always put on this pedestal to be absolutely perfect but they ARE human beings and idk why we need to be told this in 2025 that it is extremely misogynistic to put women's and mother's efforts because "its their role"

anyways, my point is; when we can recognize severus as a grey character, what's wrong with recognizing lily as one (when shes honestly mostly good, was there for sev when no one was, only stopped after he verbally abused her infront of the whole school)

The root of the problem is not that Lily has flaws—every complex character should have them—but rather how the narrative presents her. It’s not about "Snape fans hating Lily because she chose James," but rather that the story forces us to see her as a saint, even when her actions are inconsistent with that image.

From a feminist perspective, the main issue with Lily’s portrayal is not just her lack of development but how her character is used to reinforce the myth of motherhood as the pinnacle of female virtue. Lily is not written as a complex person who makes decisions with nuanced consequences, but as an ideal: the "perfect woman" who is pure, good, just, and whose greatest achievement in life is being a mother and sacrificing herself for her child.

If we were allowed to see Lily with the same depth that male characters like Severus or even James are given, there would be no issue in recognizing that she had both virtues and flaws. But Rowling's narrative does not allow this. We are told that she was perfect—a loyal friend, a just person, incapable of doing anything wrong. However, in practice:

She is the most important person in Snape’s life for years, yet she abandons him without even attempting to understand his perspective after the "Mudblood" incident. It’s not that she wasn’t right to be hurt, but the break is drastic and absolute. She essentially demands that Severus put himself in her shoes, but she doesn’t even try to put herself in his. When he expresses his doubts about the Marauders, she implies that he is obsessive, tells him he should be grateful to his bully, and laughs at the state of his underwear. She knows Severus comes from a poor and abusive background, yet she engages in gaslighting and class shaming. Does this make her a bad person? No, but it does make us question whether she was truly the epitome of morality that the story sells us. And it would be great if the narrative highlighted these inconsistencies, but it doesn’t. Instead, it tells us that Lily is right in her judgments and that she has the right to be highly moralistic, even though she herself exhibits overwhelming double standards.

We are told that James changed, but we are never shown how and why Lily accepted him. We go from seeing her hate him to marrying him with no real transition, and the only explanation is "well, he matured." If a male character had such an abrupt arc, people would call it inconsistent, but in Lily’s case, we are supposed to accept it as normal—because women have traditionally been seen as maternal figures who exist to nurture and fix men. Because a woman’s task is to change and "fix" men. The narrative does not question what this great change in James actually was because simply having Lily choose him is considered enough. And it’s not. If you’ve spent years watching someone be abusive and violent, you don’t just wake up one day and decide that they’ve changed without any real reason. And besides, why should the burden of "fixing" a man or deciding whether he is good or bad fall on a woman? Why objectify women as moral compasses? If a woman chooses you, does that mean you’re good and have changed? Can women not have flaws and be morally questionable themselves—overlooking certain behaviors simply because they don’t care about them as much as they should from an ethical standpoint? Lily is not treated as a person; she is treated as an idol, an idea, a supreme entity. She is dehumanized.

Her sacrifice is presented as the ultimate demonstration of maternal love, but the story reinforces the idea that a mother must sacrifice herself as if that is her only form of heroism. It’s not just that any functional parent would be willing to die for their child because, on a purely biological level, there is an instinct to protect offspring for the survival of the species—it’s also that the narrative reinforces the idea that mothers, specifically, are the most elevated beings because their identity and individuality disappear once they have children. Tonks was Tonks—a character in her own right—but as soon as she gets with Lupin, she becomes an extension of him, and later, she is only defined by being a mother. Narcissa is "evil, evil, evil" until her role as a mother comes to the forefront, and then she is redeemed by the narrative. Molly Weasley is an obnoxious woman, but because she is a devoted mother to her seven children and nothing else, she is seen as the ultimate maternal figure in the saga. Lily is almost treated like a goddess for sacrificing herself for her child. And I ask—what exactly is exceptional about any of this? Isn’t the bare minimum we expect from a reasonably functional adult who chooses to bring life into the world actually taking care of that life? No, it’s not that women are obligated to be good mothers—it’s that J.K. Rowling is obsessed with motherhood and constantly implies that only through it can a woman attain absolute goodness. And I question that. I question whether being a mother is something extraordinary. I say that being a mother is a very normal, common thing, and that any mother or father would do the same as Lily—and if they didn’t, they’d be incredibly selfish people and terrible parents.

The fact that the story glorifies Lily’s death but barely mentions James’s in terms of sacrifice is a clear example of gender bias. James died fighting, but Lily died "as a mother," and that is why she is seen as more noble. Why? Is a father’s love any less valuable? No, but the narrative sells us the idea that a woman must sacrifice herself to be worthy of admiration.

This is a recurring problem in literature and film: mothers are "good" if they are self-sacrificing and devoted. They cannot be selfish, they cannot be ambiguous, they cannot make mistakes without being punished. If Lily had survived and raised Harry, would she have been just as revered? Probably not, because living mothers are judged, while dead mothers are turned into saints.

When the fandom (or even the canon) downplays the sacrifices of others but elevates Lily’s because "she was a mother," what is really being said is that women have no choice: they are no longer women—they are mothers, and the kind of mother they are determines whether they are worthy or not. That is why I like to demystify the idea that what she did was extraordinary—because it wasn’t. It was something any halfway decent mother would do, even if in her daily life she was a terrible person to everyone else. And I don’t like being sold the idea that Lily’s sacrifice excuses everything and makes her a moral and ethical reference point—because being a mother who loved her child does not mean she couldn’t have been an asshole. Women are three-dimensional and complete beings, not one-dimensional.

Recognizing Lily’s flaws is not hating her—it is giving her the same respect we give complex male characters. The problem is that Rowling does not treat her that way: she places Lily on a pedestal of unquestionable perfection and reduces her to just her motherhood. The fact that the story forces her to be a saint makes her actual character fade into the background, and that is both a narrative flaw and a reflection of how society treats women and mothers.

It’s not about "hating Lily" or saying that "her sacrifice was worthless"—it’s about questioning why the story tells us that this sacrifice is the only thing that defines her. If the narrative gave her the same depth as the other characters, this discussion wouldn’t even be necessary.

[klapollo]

IM LIKE ONE CHAPTER AWAY FROM MEETING SANJIIIIII YAY FRENCH MISOGYNY LET'S GO <33333