#jk rowling misoginy

[maxdibert]

Cho and Lavender were villainized by the narative in favor of Ginny and Hermione

Rowling despises teenage girls with traditionally feminine interests. She only treats those who don’t want to be like “other girls” or the pick-me girls well in the narrative. It’s clear she projects a deeply personal issue onto certain female archetypes, which makes me think she must have a lot of unresolved resentment, probably dating back to her childhood. She portrays Lavender as foolish for being desperate over Ron, when in reality, that’s not foolish at all—it’s completely normal for a teenage girl experiencing her first relationship and not knowing how to handle her emotions. She also mocks Lavender and the Patil twins’ interests, like Divination, girls’ magazines, or gossip, as if those things were inherently frivolous and shallow. It’s as if being a girl and enjoying “girly” things automatically makes you stupid or as if femininity itself is incompatible with having depth and other, more “serious” interests.

Likewise, through Harry’s praise of Ginny for not crying—contrasted with Cho, who does—she implies that sentimentality, emotional expression, or a lack of self-control are negative traits, while repressing emotions (which is traditionally associated with masculinity) is a positive thing that makes you “tougher” or “stronger.” Narratively, Rowling always favors Hermione for “not being like other girls” and turns Ginny into the ultimate pick-me girl. She’s a character who barely matters or has any relevance throughout the series until she suddenly transforms into the perfect cishet teenage boy fantasy: the girl who is super hot and sexually desirable but at the same time doesn’t waste time with “girly stuff” because she’s too busy acting just as aggressive as any macho guy, being hyper-focused on sports, and being “one of the boys,” cracking jokes, being rough, and acting cool. She’s a girl bro, the embodiment of the perfect woman according to male fantasy, not female. It’s as if she were designed by a hormone-driven teenage boy rather than a woman in her thirties.

Ginny is a disaster of a character from a gender analysis perspective—truly atrocious. And then there’s Luna, who doesn’t bother anyone because she’s too weird, yet she’s accepted by the “not-like-other-girls” girls precisely because of that weirdness. She’s the Manic Pixie Dream Girl, completing the trifecta of contemporary misogynistic female stereotypes embodied by Hermione, Ginny, and Luna—the only teenage female characters who are curiously treated positively and praised by the narrative. The rest are torn down at some point, specifically for reasons directly related to their gender.

[slayernina]

The Case of Robin Buckley: how to subvert the Mandatory Hetero Romance Plot (MHRP)

The beginning was clumsy, but the ending was fantastic.

Warning: spoilers/discussions over the ships in Stranger Things, Brokeback Mountain, 50 Shades of Grey, Harry Potter, MCU, Star Wars, Now You See Me, The Mummy, It, The Vampire Diaries, Mad Men, La Casa de Papel (Mind Heist).

My other metas here

La maldición de las cuatro brujas here

Una novela romántica de esas con un macizorro sin camiseta en la portada here

Buy me a ko-fi!

Do you know one of the concepts that angers me most? The “forced gay character” bullshit.

Excuse me? ARE. YOU. FUCKING. KIDDING. ME.

Tell me just one book, movie, show or videogame that DOESN’T show a hetero romance. Problems thinking in one? Of course. Because the MHRP is so pervasive that even in stories when your Main Character is gay, of course there will be a MHRP, sometimes even involving said gay character. Or to attract chicks, because women won’t read/see anything without romance (hahaha, the gender gap in Captain Marvel’s reviews says hello with her female/male friendship, the female/female friendship, and the cat).

Real poster advertising Brokeback Mountain. You know, the movie about two cowboys in love with their wives. 

You know the dynamic: your Male Character sees her, the only Smurfette in the thing and by the end of everything, they are together. Like most horror movies, you endure the forced scenes of the love story, wanting to (finally) be done with it.

The plot is always the same: they see each other, the female make some acid remarks about the male (because we are in the XXI century and otherwise the male fantasy would be so much blatant) but they got together in the end. The Female Character Version of the MHRP written by a female writer is (slightly) better: at least your female character is pining for someone who is more interesting than the Smurfette (slightly again, and not always, but a jerk is more interesting than Generic White Dude). This is a direct consequence of two reasons: most writers are male (the ones who has good PR, at least), misoginy (against female writers and a ratio of 50% of characters of both sexes), homophobia (because gay is not nooormaaal and perverts our childreeeen), and the check points of “how to create a best-seller” (even those check points are proven to be incorrect and not useful to sell long time ago).

The forced necessity to introduce the MHRP

The MHRP always follow this steps, so it is easy to spot:

1. The Cool Girl Factor

The Smurfette is younger, cooler, hotter and funnier than your male hero. But she falls in love with him because… I really don’t know. Sometimes the guy is not even a nice guy.

Look. I understand why Anastasia Steele wanted to fuck Christian Grey. After all, he’s the better version of Mediocre White Guy Protagonist, and she doesn’t know anything better. But come on. Don’t fucking tell me Ramona Flowers and Knives would want to fuck Michael Cera. And stay with him.

Or a twenty something would want to fuck a grey haired man old enough to be her father, because mature men are the hottesttm. Dear writers, the only who says that are women who are also grey haired, stop trying to project how much you want to bang your daughter’s friends, I assure you as a woman and a former daughter friend, we don’t find you attractive at all.

No example included but this chart.

Or the idea of the younger, cooler, hotter and funnier female character who simply ends attracted to… no one. Seriously. If you don’t pair your younger, cooler, hotter and funnier female character with someone in the end, is not the end of the world.

Remember when JK Rowling said she paired Hermione with Ron because she wanted to subvert the dynamic of pairing the main female character with the male protagonist? This was a baby step in the right direction, but not the right question. The right question was not which whom she should be paired, if Harry, Ron or even Draco, but why she has to be paired at all?

Victor Krum Team btw, bitches. Despite the age gap.

2. The No Homo Message

Your male character has meaningful conversations with his best (male) friend? They spend a lot of screentime together? They have a preestablished relationship before what is happening in the story? The chemistry of both actors is terrific? Ok, let’s going to pair her with the Smurfette who just happens to appear conveniently for the plot.

In the MCU movies they had to stream storylines of thousands of comics in barely 2 hours per movie, so of course details would be deleted. Peggy Carter was The One for Steve Rogers. But time passed, Peggy died and now you have Captain America having a full saga of angst over Bucky Barnes. Okay, you don’t want to pair Cap with the Winter Soldier? Well, you can leave Steve alone and not make him kiss Peggy’s niece, who most of us are not able to remember her name and appeared for like 2 uneventful scenes before having a Big Damn Kiss with our Commited Virgin Hero.

Most blatant was the case with Black Widow. The actress had chemistry with almost everyone in the cast, and meaningful plots with almost everyone. Black Widow was the only Smurfette for a long time and was in a lot of franchises. There are real reasons to ship her with said Captain America, Tony Stark, Hawkeye… and she gets in the end with Hulk. Because reasons.

They broke up in Endgame and no one really cried.

Oscar Isaac was onboard with the StormPilot ship. Finn was meant to be with Rey at first (or at least be the False MHRP in the Reylo ship, depending on your view), but Poe appeared and started to stare Finn. The actor trolled Lucas Arts/Disney/China bootlickers execs so much that they added that ultra side character (the whatever smuggler from whatever planet) to be Poe’s ex. You don’t want to lose your conservative audience? Ok, money is money, but at least don’t pair your blatant queer coded character with extra #174. This is exactly what “forced” means.

She barely has a face, ffs.

3. You can erase the MHRP and the story and characters are the same.

Hell, even if you do that, maybe the story and characters would improve. You will have time to develop better the plot, or at least your audience won’t be scratching their heads asking why those two are together (or even worse, why she deal with his bullshit). The Big Bad kidnapped the Princess? Okay, your Mario will be more heroic if the just rescue the Princess because is a person, not because she is the girl he wants to fuck. Remember: sex<friendship/some random. Your character will be better if he or she improve by themselves, not because they want to impress the Designated Love Interest. I know, love and OTPs are very subjective, but even the most fluffy shippers recognize that context matters.

Remember Now You See Me saga? In the second, the girlfriend of the protagonist has to go because reasons (the actress was pregnant) and they added a new Smurfette. Who (at least) ended with the only other character not old enough to be his father.

Sassy redhead old love vs Darkhaired sassy new love. But still unnecessary. We came here for the magic!

The Mummy had Rachel Weisz as Evelyn Carnahan in nº1 and 2, but for the threequel, they recasted the actress. Like. WTF. If you cannot have Evelyn, then kill her. But this is was “disposable” means, because we all ready know Rick cannot be alone. Because reasons.

The Mummy 3 doesn’t exist. Like Batman’s 3rd gf in the Dark Knight saga.

Do you remember the guy from the right in Deadpool? Yep, he did everything in the plot for his fridge dead wife and child. Do you remember the names of said women? Of course not. The writers didn’t even bother to give them a name!

This was the magic of Stelena. In The Vampire Diaries, Elena was the reincarnation (or something) of the lost love of Stefan. Stefan was new, mysterious and charming. They got together before the reveal of “I am a vampire”. Where is the magic then? They admitted they just were horny for each other, like most teens (I have the theory of vampires maintain the maturity of the age in which they were killed), and roll with it. They kissed and all that jazz and later became friends and reliable partners. Like a lot people do in real life. First bang, then partners. But admit you were in for the sexy times like Stelena did, damnit.

4. The time and timing

You can’t have a story that lasts less than a week and have said pairing declaring love forever. Shakespeare already parodied this in Romeo and Juliet that was… you know. A parody. You can’t have a demon possessing your house/zombie apocalypse/mafia war/meteor coming and having your pair invested in bang each other. Is just not the time. If you do that is just ridiculous.

I get why Kylo Ren would be rooting by Rey. After all, she resisted him, her actress is Daisy Riley, and he has abandonment issues. But why she rooted for him? I mean, just more abandonment issues (after all she adopted a robot) is not enough to feel taht much pity and sympathy to the point of “hey, this is The One”. From her POV, the guy tried to kill her (several times) in around seven hours, killed father substitute Han Solo, is a Nazi Emperor, when they meet they fight to death and the only redemption he had was help her to fight Zombie Palpatine. That’s not enough. Even if somehow they manage to survive both, I suppose Kylo would be in some martial court and send to prison forever for all the things he did. And most of us distance (and years) kill a relationship. The writers even invented the resurrection power of the Force to pull off Reylo. I know that “consistency” is not a word in Star Wars world, and both characters are the superpowered versions of their sides, but come on. I don’t even get why Kylo Ren would want Rey as his student. There are more people around... and he has a fucking army, he doesn’t really need her. Seems an unnecessary complicated evil plan to me.

It can happen but not like it finally happened.

The ending would have been better if they did a Rogue One: you saw the MHRP coming, but the movie ended before the protagonists could start something. And these protagonists were young conventional attractive people, who didn’t try to kill each other when they are together. Just for your information.

But hey, the MHRP was so forced in the Star Wars saga that we had Padmé losing her pants for a stalker whose pick up lines were about sand, and two 1st grade siblings kissing each other, so…

It doesn’t matter how hot John Hamm is, I seriously doubt there would those parade of women in the 60s ready to bang Don Draper. Specially during the times with the rampant misogyny and slutshaming, NS the almost inexistent birth control and legal abortion. Also, I doubt the sexually liberated hippies would fuck the Supreme Yuppie.

Of course, you can have a non Stockholm Syndrome love story during a robbery that last less than a week.

5. Actors’ chemistry

Rule number one: if you have actors, make them work with the chemistry as much as they can. Or write the things more smoothly. Just don’t give them the “romantic” interactions to other pairings.

There is a reason why the Jonsa shippers increased exponentially in the 2-3 seasons Jon and Sansa Stark were “together”, even with people who didn’t ship them before fell for them. And people who shipped Jonerys rolled their eyes to the back of their skulls when Jonerys occurred (and some of them jumped the ship). Kindly reminder this people of the gif above are brother/sister (well, cousins).

Hell, I thought Billy in his first scene was going to pull a Love Square with the Unresolved Sexual Tension between Teen Team (StevexNancyxJonathan), or force something on Nancy that will solve the UST finally, or start the dynamic NancyxBad Boy (even if wasn’t canon but you know how viewers are) and instead of that… you have the Sex Walking Machine shirtless and sweating grinding Steve in a basketball practice. Twice. And later in a shower. Writers, I know that shippers will ship what they want, and will take any hint, but try to don’t fuel the ship machine so caressly. I don’t want to know what would have happened if you put them in the coffee shop AU or the “and there was only one bed!” scenes. FFS, the scene above ended in Pornhub in the “Jock obliterating twink” category.

 6. The dark side of the Smurfette: the Love Triangle

This is the usual ratio of male vs female in everything:

1 male, 1 female

2 males, 1 female

3-4 male, 1 female

4-5 male, 2 females (one of them usually is a sibling, but fucking your siblings is allowed since Game of Thrones became mainstream).

And so on. One of the deleted scenes of It was the gang bang (obviously), but yet we have Beverly, launcher of ships. At least here we have some more gay ships, and I’m not talking about the canon Reddie.

This is when we have with the MHRP2, the cancer version of the MHRP. Same everything, but even more forced, because you want the main female character to kill the other 2 males, to bang her best female friend instead, or have the male ones banging each other and dumping the female.

The Stranger Things Case

Stranger Things is not immune to this. We have Mileven. Mike chose her because she is the Smurfette. She chose Mike because reasons, because even in season 1, we can agree Dustin is an awesome scene stealer, Will is gay a cinnamon roll, Lucas is black in the 80s. So basically the writers make her chose the Generic White Guy (his name is fucking Mike even) instead of Anything That Can Subvert Expectations. Nancy had the Teen Love Triangle, and you knew since the beginning Joyce and Hopper will be something.

The MRHP was even more forced in season 2. Max arrived as (another) Love Triangle and to be the 6th ranger of the Party (see the ratio above). Because apparently, you cannot introduce a female character without being a love interest. Even if said character would be getting along with our protagonists anyway, because they share nerdy interests and she is also a misfit. Max could have been the Zoomer without the MRHP2 . The writers even forced Max in another Love Triangle with Mileven (combo, 2 MRHP with one character, where are my points?) with Eleven being jealous of her relationship with Mike. Not the Party, only with Max. Kali didn’t count since she didn’t interact with any main character or plot.

In season 3, we were introduced to Erica (sibling and still too young to have any action) and all the Love Triangles were finally resolved (except for the forced drama of Joyce ignoring Hopper for a second to stay with Mr Clarke).

Enter Robin, the MHRP for Steve. She has been working with Steve, who is at its peak of loser and also, single. She is a loser but a cool, smart, snarky one. She was supposed to exist in Hawkins since some time before, but conveniently was erased from existence by King Steve. She tried to help Steve to get girls, she mocked his Mom Status, and… that’s it. Then, she helped to enroll Erica in Scoops Troop, she resolved the Russian code, they break in, they get tortured, and they set the Mind Flayer on fire. I just listed all their scenes together during 8 hours of screentime, in the 5 days around the season 3 plot happened. And we were supposed to ship them because both are young, hot, white, and they shared 2 snarky scenes and later, a crazy plot about Evil Russianstm.

At least Suzie was a plot device, part of the “growing up” theme of the season, a Chekhov Gun and gave us an iconic scene.

But luckily for us, Joe Keery and Maya Hawke are millenials so hetero is not granted, they read their chemistry onscreen, Maya is a woman so she has already dealt with being the sexy lamp before disappear from lead roles because she will turn 35, they understand about writing, and how the tumor plot that is MHRP existed and convinced the writers midseason to stop the MHRP to happen (again). And instead of said MHRP, we received a beautiful (and meaningful) friendship in the show about friendship, and an organic and realistic coming out scene.

Thank, actors. We need more Joes and Mayas in the world. Or, at least, less MHRP. And this goes for you too, fellow writers and creators who are reading this.

How to troll your audience by subverting their expectations: Black Sails aka “Welcome to the Bi Island of fuck gender roles”, and also “this guy was dicked so hard and well that declared a war on England because of the death of his boyfriend”.

[nose-bl]

cis straight women need to understand that their experience and struggles with sexism or misoginy (that are valid ofc) can’t be compared to the experiences of wlw/straight trans women, especially because cis straight women too often ARE the enablers of transmisoginy (see: jk rowling’s disgusting ass)

As a lesbian i will always relate more to trans women than cishet women. Made to feel disgusting and predatory in women's spaces? Check. Berated and mocked for our relation to sexuality and womanhood? Check. Hated for our "deviancy from the norm"? Check. Every single essay about womanhood by a trans woman--and especially, especially by trans wlw--has spoken more to me than anything written by a cis straight woman ever could. T*rfs can take that to the bank.

[maxdibert]

I disagree with your take on JKR being misogynistic in her portrayal of woman in HP. If the story doesn’t need the information then she doesn’t have to tell it. She as the author has every right to choose what she puts in it and what she does not.

Everything is seen through Harry’s eyes, and Hermione was the closest. Probably why she is also the most developed.

Rowling’s portrayal of women in HPis deeply rooted in internalized misogyny, and this is not simply a matter of narrative perspective. While it's true that the story is told through Harry’s eyes, the way female characters are written—how they are framed, developed (or not), and the roles they play—reflects a larger pattern of valuing women based on how well they conform to traditional feminine ideals.

Nearly every major female character exists in relation to a male figure or serves to prop up a man’s development. Hermione, for all her brilliance, is ultimately sidelined when it comes to the core emotional arcs of the story. Despite being the most capable and intelligent, she is often reduced to a “nagging” or “bossy” stereotype, and her main function is to assist Harry and Ron. Meanwhile, Ginny, rather than being given an independent personality, is molded into an idealized “strong, cool girl” love interest for Harry without much depth.

Rowling’s writing enforces rigid notions of what makes a woman "worthy." Women who are kind, nurturing, and traditionally feminine (like Molly Weasley) are celebrated, whereas those who challenge norms (Fleur, Tonks, and even Luna) are ridiculed or minimized. Fleur, for example, is treated with disdain until she proves her worth through self-sacrifice and unwavering devotion to a man. Meanwhile, characters like Cho Chang, who dares to show emotional vulnerability, are framed as weak and undesirable.

On the flip side, women who are overtly ambitious or powerful are almost always villainous or unlikable. Bellatrix Lestrange is a caricature of female hysteria and obsession. Umbridge is the ultimate representation of oppressive, suffocating femininity gone “wrong.” Even Rita Skeeter, whose ambition mirrors that of many male characters, is framed as deceitful, invasive, and grotesque. Contrast this with male villains like Voldemort and Snape, who are given layers of complexity and depth.

The way relationships are written further exposes Rowling’s traditionalist approach to gender. Women are expected to be supportive, emotionally available, and devoted, while men are allowed to be flawed, emotionally stunted, and self-centered. Ginny, for example, is essentially Harry’s reward for being the hero—her personality is flattened into a "cool girl" archetype who exists mainly to affirm him.

Meanwhile, Hermione, the most developed female character, is paired with Ron in a relationship dynamic that reinforces the idea that women must “fix” or tolerate emotionally immature men. This is a recurring theme—women endure, support, and sacrifice, while men grow and benefit from their patience.

Then, one of the most glaring issues is the absence of strong, meaningful female friendships. Hermione, despite being surrounded by other young women, never forms deep bonds with any of them—her closest relationships are with male characters. The older female figures in the story, rather than serving as mentors, are either maternal figures (Molly Weasley, McGonagall) or antagonists (Umbridge, Bellatrix). There is little space for women to exist in solidarity or support one another outside of their roles in relation to men.

The argument that these portrayals are a result of Harry’s limited perspective ignores the fact that Rowling, as the omnipotent author, chose what to emphasize, develop, or ignore. A well-written story with a male protagonist does not inherently exclude well-developed female characters. If perspective were the issue, then why do male characters—Dumbledore, Sirius, Snape, even Neville—get emotional complexity, depth, and agency, while most women are relegated to roles that serve others?

Ultimately, the series reflects Rowling’s own biases about gender. Her female characters are not simply underdeveloped because the story is told through a boy’s eyes—they are underdeveloped because Rowling’s writing operates within the framework of traditional, patriarchal gender norms, where women are defined by how well they serve the male narrative rather than existing as fully realized individuals in their own right.

[maxdibert]

Fleur es mujerón. Odio como la tratan los libros y el torneo de los tres magos.

Es que Fleur es una tía chulísima y guapísima y sabemos que Rowling y su misoginia internalizada no pueden soportar a las chicas chulísimas y guapísimas porque le da un colapso de hígado cuando una se le planta delante sin pedir perdón por existir y prometer que será una gran esposa y madre para redimirse por haber osado tener belleza y carisma. Es algo que básicamente pasa con todas las mujeres de su saga que no son unas pick me o unas incubadoras con patas y dice mucho de lo resentida que está con su propio género, honestamente.

[maxdibert]

JK Rowling doesn’t advocate for women’s rights; she advocates for the rights of women who are compliant with male desires and who embody patriarchal fantasies of femininity. Any woman who doesn’t fit those standards (whether cis or trans) is “bad” in her eyes. And she has an entire 7-book series repeatedly demonstrating her brand of misogyny.

[maxdibert]

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.

[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.

[maxdibert]

cho and dean thomas are overhated because hinny is endgame

viktor and lavender are overhated because romione is endgame

tonks is overhated because wolfstar is more popular

snape is overhated because jily is endgame

and that shows a lot about the fandom. let people have their ships :( i ship some of these hated ships and it’s basically a crime; most of their arguments are “cho was a crybaby!” she was mourning her dead boyfriend who was so nice and literally did nothing to deserve that?? “lavender was obsessed” she was in love?? “18 and 14-15 is literally pedophilia!!!!1!!! i hope somebody grooms you!” WHAT?

basically, my rant was all about the fact you can’t like pairings of characters most don’t like.

Imagine validating an idea as horrible and problematic as a 15/16 year old girl who just lost her boyfriend being annoying because she cries in the midst of a terrible grieving process and post-traumatic stress. Imagine narratively complimenting another girl because that girl doesn't cry. Imagine you're JK Rowling and you say you're a feminist but all the teenage girls who behave like teenage girls in your books get a ton of criticism and bashing and you only treat positively those who fit within feminine standards or conform to men's fantasies. It's just fucking disgusting. I mean Lavender is a gossipy and normal teenage girl who likes basic teenage things and clearly she has to be an annoying creep because she likes Ron, because of course Ron is for Hermione who has more important things to do with her life like reading books and being the best in class. Because clearly, you can't be intelligent and hardworking and at the same time frivolous and feminine if you're a woman in Rowling's eyes; you have to be one or the other.

You also can't be a vulnerable teenager with emotions you can't control, or be in mourning, or be unable to know what you want after a traumatic event, or prefer to cover up for your best friend over whatever political shit you're stirring up, you have to be a tough chick who only has guy friends and who doesn't cry because big girls don't cry and who instead of solving things civilly casts spells violently and who has outbursts of a real rude bitch like Ginny, because that's what a real girl is, that's a cool girl that boys like, a girl who's not like the others, a warrior girl. In Rowling's world you can't have ovaries and feelings at the same time, it's impossible, it doesn't happen.

Y sí me encanta cómo olvidan convenientemente que Hermione es un año mayor que Ron y Harry, con lo que en el 4to libro tiene 15/16, no 14/15. Y cómo el hecho de que se lleve con Krum 2/3 años les parece fatal pero luego Fleur y Bill que se llevan 8 años y ella apenas tiene 18 cuando se conocen y Remus y Tonks que se llevan 13 y ella tiene como 22 o 23 cuando se conocen está todo bien o sea???

En fin que me da igual y que paso muchísimo, la misoginia que hay en esa saga y el tratamiento tan pobre de los personajes femeninos y cómo Rowling reduce a todas las mujeres que no se adaptan a las fantasías del male gaze o a la idea de las madres santas ultra sacrificadas a mujeres malas, inválidas o menos aceptables es para vomitar. En serio es que se podría hacer toda una tésis de lo mucho que esa señora odia a las mujeres en general y solo soporta a los estereotipos creados para que los hombres se hagan pajas en particular.

[maxdibert]

Its not a slur, it is a Nickname. And how can it be mysoginistic if he is not a woman? Misoginy is hatred towards women

Hope it Was popular in the entire school and drawn on lockers

I gave a pretty thorough explanation in the link I sent you. You could do yourself a favor and read it, because honestly, it’s a bit exhausting to hear you say nonsense when you haven’t even bothered to learn a little about the topic. You’re literally more interested in remaining a complete ignoramus.

And well i'm gonna teach you something because you're a ignorant fool and i hate ignorant fools and i don't have to educate you but well, it's my free day so why not doing something good for the society by teaching you a little bit?

Misogyny fundamentally devalues anything associated with femininity. While it directly targets women, it also polices men by punishing them if they show traits considered “feminine.” When society mocks or belittles a man for crying, expressing vulnerability, or engaging in activities stereotypically labeled as feminine, it’s enforcing a narrow view of masculinity. This isn’t just about hating women; it’s about keeping everyone locked into rigid, outdated gender roles.

Patriarchy is a system built on power imbalances that elevate traditional, aggressive forms of masculinity while demeaning anything that deviates from it. This framework:

Limits emotional expression: Men are pressured to be stoic and dominant, which stifles their emotional lives and mental health.

Creates harmful stereotypes: Both men and women suffer because these stereotypes restrict personal growth. Women face devaluation and marginalization, while men are forced to conform to a narrow, often toxic, definition of what it means to be “manly.”

Reinforces power dynamics: The system benefits those who already hold power (typically white, cisgender men) and perpetuates cycles of abuse and exclusion that affect everyone—even those who seem to benefit on the surface.

Because these expectations are so tightly woven into our social fabric, they create an environment where:

Women are oppressed: They are denied opportunities, respect, and the freedom to express themselves beyond limiting stereotypes.

Men are trapped: They must hide their true selves, often leading to emotional distress, and are at risk of both internalizing harmful behaviors and perpetuating them onto others.

In essence, the patriarchal and misogynistic vision isn’t just a “women’s issue”—it’s a societal disease that rots the potential of every human being by enforcing strict roles and punishing deviations. If you can’t see that the same system that devalues femininity also crushes men’s ability to be fully human, then you’re missing the point entirely.

Next time you try to lecture me on feminism, gender issues, or power dynamics, make sure you’ve at least read a basic guide for kids under 12. Because without the most fundamental knowledge, not only can I not take you seriously, but I also feel a deep, almost moral obligation to publicly expose your astounding and frankly embarrassing ignorance for all of the internet to see.

I mean, imagine being this idiotic, this illiterate, this utterly clueless in theoretical discussions—to the point where you actually have the audacity to claim that misogyny and patriarchy only affect women. My god, who even are you? JK Rowling?