Hi, One More Question!

Why do Dramione fans confuse Draco's persona with Blaise's? Blaise is the canonical ice prince, the arrogant, nonchalant, and cold Slytherin who looks like he can't be bothered with anything and treats everyone as beneath him. Draco, on the other hand, is too much of a tryhard, desperately seeking validation at every turn, and it’s painfully obvious. He’s a drama queen, wannabe ice prince, while Blaise does it effortlessly, and Draco resents him for that.

There’s plenty of evidence to suggest that Lily wasn’t a feminist and, at most, had a basic understanding and practice of it, limited to choice feminism and girl-bossing. While that isn’t real feminism, it was probably the norm in the 70s.

But her life choices make it clear that she wasn’t a feminist icon and was perfectly content with following patriarchal traditions and taking part in patriarchal dynamics. It seems far more likely that she wasn’t a feminist than that she was.

So when I see someone saying she was a feminist, I just roll my eyes and scroll, because the idea seems pretty laughable to me.

The post: You can’t say Lily Evans was a feminist because a person with feminist awareness wouldn’t marry a privileged cishet man who abused his power by being a bully right in front of her.

The Snaters: LILY WAS FREE TO CHOOSE JAMES, DID YOU EXPECT HER TO CHOOSE SNAPE?

Me: At what point did I say she had to choose someone? At what point did I say I ship her with Snape? At what point does questioning a character’s political mindset turn into reducing her to an object of desire between two men?

Of course Lily was free to marry whoever she wanted; I have no problem with that. My issue is with people trying to portray her as some kind of feminist icon of the 70s when there is nothing in the canon to suggest that, and when that theory is contradicted by her life choices. A feminist woman from the 70s wouldn’t marry the class’s rich bully, wouldn’t end up with a hyper-toxic white guy who spent his time abusing classmates, wouldn’t end up with a spoiled and obnoxious brat who publicly stripped a working-class classmate against his will. And this has nothing to do with whether Lily should have ended up with someone else. Lily should end up with whoever she wants—no one is debating that. What’s being debated is the attempt to portray her as a feminist icon when she simply wasn’t.

Lily was a white girl from the 70s who was completely alienated from the patriarchal structures of her time, only cared about social issues that directly affected her, and chose a traditional life that was entirely in line with the patriarchal expectations for women of her era. She was not a revolutionary, she was not a feminist—she was a teenage mother who married her high school boyfriend, who happened to be a rich jerk. And saying that does not imply in any way that she should have chosen another man. The fact that Snaters are so obsessed with this just proves that all their so-called progressive rhetoric online is pure performance, because anyone with even a minimal understanding of the subject would never assume that criticizing a female character’s political stance means she has to pick one man over another.

Honestly, what a drag. But what’s even more exhausting is how all these people attack not only by twisting your words and making completely irrelevant statements but also by trying to argue their points with nothing but fan theories and assumptions based on their own biases or whatever fandom content they consume as if it were gospel. And the moment you counter them with canon-based arguments, suddenly, they decide the conversation is over and that they’re going to "leave it at that." Because, of course, the moment canon gets thrown in their faces, it turns out they have no ground to stand on, and their arguments are invalid because they’re built on nothing but the pillars of their imagination—so they have to retreat to avoid embarrassing themselves further.

I’ve said it over and over: I don’t care if people come to throw hate my way, and I don’t care if people come to debate. But if they do, at least have the guts and the dignity not to run away with their tails between their legs when I completely dismantle their cheap hate-filled discourse—because, honestly, it’s as embarrassing as it is disappointing.

I'm sorry, but Voldemort is an incredibly complicated and dark person whose character centers around the fact that he never loved anyone or respected people who highly valued love. Any ship with Voldemort (if it's romantic) will therefore require some tweaking of circumstances to actually make him fall in love with someone. It is possible to keep him in character, but those circumstances didn’t exist in canon.

Voldemort isn’t a normal person, not even someone like Snape. It would be pretty hard for him to fall in love with anyone. He’s been avoiding love his entire life on purpose, so of course his life would have to change in some way for him to fall in love. He can’t be as "comfortable" as he was in canon.

So I think all Voldemort ships are fanon, but there’s nothing wrong with that! This is fandom, and we can play with fiction however we like. But people who call tomarry shippers delusional and say tomarry Voldemort is ooc baffle me. Do they think any Voldemort in any ship is ooc too then? Are they against fanfiction? I don't know! 😭

Wow so many interesting points I've never considered 😍

Hi, do you have an analysis for why you prefer bottom Tom? Most fics have him as a top, but I'm very interested in your perspective ma'am.

well, the short answer is because i want to and because i can.

the longer answer is that i just don't find any of the arguments for why voldemort would never bottom under any circumstances to be as convincing and definitive as their proponents claim them to be.

my issue - to be clear - isn't with people having a preference for reading or writing about him being a top. it's with the fact that him only being a top - and not only that, but him being repulsed or humiliated by the idea of bottoming - is typically presented as such an objective fact that preferring to read or write about him being a bottom provokes responses which range from the simply annoying - "this is out of character!" [any fic in which he consensually shags his prophesied child-enemy is out of character, be serious] - to the genuinely troubling - "it's disgusting! voldemort is a real man and real men don't want anything up their arses!".

obviously - let's be real - a lot of the arguments about why bottom!voldemort is impossible are just typical "slash fandom reinvents gender roles" shit - they essentially boil down to "omg no harry would bottom because he's the girl".

but others do come with more weight behind them. and two of these are:

that the gender norms voldemort was raised with would inculcate in him a big lump of internalised homophobia which would make him see bottoming as feminine, and - in seeing it as feminine - see it as weak, humiliating, dependent, and incompatible with his understanding of control and power. that voldemort would be horrified by the idea of being penetrated, because he would see it as something which polluted or profaned the body he considers to be sacred.

i do think it's possible to argue both of these points robustly, using actual readings of the text rather than just vibes. i've just never found any of these readings compelling.

and the reason why all comes down to this:

"I knew I was different," he whispered to his own quivering fingers. "I knew I was special. Always, I knew there was something." [HBP 13]

he's talking about something specific - how he's always known that he's a wizard - here, of course. but we can also take this statement and use it to think more generally about how he views being perceived as deviant, strange, or wrong by the norms of the society in which he lives.

by which i mean... he's somebody who believes that being different makes him special and that people who try to punish or shame him for his difference are idiots who simply haven't yet worked out that he's superior to them in literally everything he does. he's not someone who perceives being different in a self-flagellating way - he doesn't think there's something wrong with him, he doesn't think that his difference makes him a pathetic or unimpressive person. and he's also not somebody who views being criticised or punished for his difference as something which causes him sorrow or anxiety. it causes him rage - because it inconveniences him [it creates obstacles he has to overcome, although he entirely believes he can overcome them] and because it doesn't recognise his self-conception as the protagonist of reality:

Riddle's reaction to this was most surprising. He leapt from the bed and backed away from Dumbledore, looking furious. "You can't kid me! The asylum, that's where you're from, isn't it? 'Professor,' yes, of course - well, I'm not going, see? That old cat's the one who should be in the asylum. I never did anything to little Amy Benson or Dennis Bishop, and you can ask them, they'll tell you!"   "I am not from the asylum," said Dumbledore patiently. "I am a teacher and, if you will sit down calmly, I shall tell you about Hogwarts. Of course, if you would rather not come to the school, nobody will force you -" "I'd like to see them try," sneered Riddle. "Hogwarts," Dumbledore went on, as though he had not heard Riddle's last words, "is a school for people with special abilities -"   "I'm not mad!" [HBP 13]

you can entertain a very dark reading of this scene - in fact, i have - but it's also possible to entertain a liberating one, and see the child voldemort as someone who has always been proud of his difference and prepared to defend that pride in the face of censure, and who is absolutely delighted to be given the language to define and describe his difference and to be given access to a community of people who are similarly - in his words - special.

all of which is to say... the standard interpretation in fandom seems to be that a queer voldemort would fall somewhere on a spectrum from indifferent to his sexuality to actively ashamed of it.

but i think it's much, much more plausible that he'd actually be proud of it, and for his statement - "i knew i was different... i knew i was special" - to be used as the starting point for how we might imagine him realising that he's queer.

and this is why the "he'd have so much internalised homophobia he'd never bottom" argument always falls flat for me - it rests on an assumption that queer men having to grow past a childhood/teenage fear that there's something wrong with them is the default position. it overlooks the fact that there are many ways for somebody to come to understand their own sexuality.

and that two of those ways are "defiantly" and "spitefully". aka the lord voldemort special.

something which always stands out to me about the canonical voldemort, both when he's a good-looking teenager/young man and a monstrous, serpentine adult, is that - even with all the phallic symbolism which surrounds him [enormous snakes and ultra-powerful wands and so on] - the text presents him as somebody who comes across as fairly effeminate:

he's typically described - as we can see from this excellent analysis from @said-snape-softly - as speaking "softly" or "quietly". when he isn't, he's often "shrill", "shrieking", "screeching", or "screaming".

he has a hair-trigger temper and he's extremely emotionally volatile.

he's typically described as moving in ways which have similarly feminine connotations - he "drifts" and "glides". while the primary doylist reason for this is clearly so the reader associates him with snakes, ghosts, and dementors, it ends up giving him a quality of movement which is fey, rather than powerful and purposeful. indeed, we only ever see him do one thing which requires physical, as well as magical, prowess - duelling. but, like fencing - which is its real-world equivalent - good duellists aren't people who are physically strong or imposing, they're people who are cunning and nimble [and the other men the text emphasises are good at it are snape, flitwick, and harry - with harry's quick reflexes being explicitly given as a reason why [i.e. GoF 34] ]. his ability to fly is a demonstration of his magical power alone, since it allows him to circumvent the need to use a broom, which does appear to require physical strength [hence why the only main characters who aren't fond of using brooms are either women or fat, cowardly little boys like neville...]

building on this, he's often described in ways which make him sound quite physically fragile - he's very thin, he's very pale, he's always cold, every time his heartbeat is described it seems to be irregular and so on.

his reputation in his teens and young adulthood is as a "polite [and] quiet" goody-two-shoes who "showed no sign of outward arrogance or aggression at all" [HBP 17]. i think that point about aggression is really important - it builds on what mrs cole tells dumbledore about it being "very hard to catch him" bullying other orphans [HBP 13]. he's not dudley - or james and sirius - using his physical talents to subdue and control people. he's sneakier... more insidious... indeed, in chamber of secrets, ron explicitly compares him to percy - somebody else the text presents as fairly effete - in order to complain about him "squealing" - aka, running to tell a teacher, like a girl, instead of settling things like a man - on hagrid [CoS 14].

when he's a young man, living alone for the first time, the text thinks it's very important to tell us that he has "slightly longer hair" than he does at school [HBP 20]. "slightly" is obviously the operative word here - i don't think he's strutting into hepzibah smith's house in a twenty-four inch lace-front - but we can certainly imagine him with the sort of greaser or pompadour haircut which was understood in the 1950s as being a bit counter-cultural...

of the five horcruxes which are objects - rather than harry and nagini [who is, of course, female] - three [cup, diadem, locket] originally belonged to a woman and are acquired from a woman, two [cup, locket] are acquired by killing a woman using a stereotypically female murder method [poison], two are connected to voldemort's rage at his mother being disparaged [locket - he's furious to hear hepzibah say that merope must have stolen it, ring - he attacks morfin immediately after morfin calls his mother a "slut"]. and all five of these horcruxes also depend on women to introduce them into the narrative in a way that facilitates their destruction: the diary is given to ginny; dumbledore puts on the ring in order to speak to his sister; the locket is associated both with walburga's grief [it's literally moved from the cave - voldemort's grave for his mother - to the house which is walburga's own tomb!] and with umbridge's performance of femininity; the cup is given to bellatrix [and the text is very clear that both she and voldemort understand it as having only been given to her, rather than to her and rodolphus] and is then destroyed - albeit off-stage - by hermione; and harry is given the tools to acquire the diadem by cho, luna, and mcgonagall, although he has to overcome the obstacles of alecto carrow and helena ravenclaw to get hold of it. harry - of course - also only becomes a horcrux because of a woman - lily's - sacrifice.

his favourite death eaters are a woman and a very feminine-coded man. but - more interestingly - what the text finds unimpressive isn't that he likes bellatrix and snape... it's that he leaves a lot of his dirty work to male minions who are characterised by their brutish strength - people like greyback, hagrid [who he makes carry harry up to hogwarts], rowle, gibbon, amycus carrow and so on. there's the heavy implication in the text that voldemort's preference for leaving the violence to others - as i'm always pointing out, his canonical kill count is really low; most of the murders in the series are done by other death eaters acting on his orders - is something we should see as weak.

the text associates him with this effeminacy - i think it's really important to note, given who jkr is - as a criticism. it's something - much like the text's presentation of him as aromantic, and the fact that the degradation of his looks via the creation of the horcruxes makes him look sexless/eunuch-like - being used to underscore his villainy. he's feminine-coded in a toxic way.

but let's take this in another direction [and let's also return to the actual question you asked me...] and read him as someone who has always had to deal with being perceived as queer by other people, and having that perception be associated with negative assumptions.

he's very easy to imagine as a child/teenager who's the target of ridicule from his fellow orphans/fellow students [for not being sporty, for liking to sit in the library for hours on end coming up with anagrams of his own name, for the way he walks and speaks] which hinges on the idea that his failure to conform to the expected conventions of "proper" masculinity mean that he's not a proper man... and that if he's not a proper man then... he's not straight.

but then we have to come back to the "i knew i was special" point, don't we?

voldemort's belief in his own superiority can - in my view - be used to read him as somebody who would embrace being camp or effeminate or whatever term we want to use, in order both to express his contempt for people who criticise him ["think i'm a messed up little deviant, do you, mrs cole? well, you don't know the half of it!"] and who conform to social norms he thinks are reprehensible ["oh, do purebloods frown upon bottoming, abraxas? well - guess what - so do muggles. do you agree with what muggles think?"] and to humiliate, subjugate, and control them ["you think i'm a faggot, do you...? well, you're right... i'm a faggot who's defeated you in battle and now i'm about to kill you... still feel like a man?"].

while - obviously - appearance/gender presentation has nothing to do with preferred sexual roles - the manliest men on earth can be bottoms! being femme doesn't prevent you topping! - i really do think that voldemort is someone who can be written entirely canon-coherently as thinking that the homophobic perception of bottoming as weak, powerless, or humiliating is complete nonsense, and who would actively flaunt his rejection of this perception as a way to mock people who subscribe to it.

after all, we see him do something similar in canon when it comes to his blood-status and social class. the death eaters - lots of whom are posh pureblood men who conceive of themselves as the most important people in the universe - are made to kneel at the feet of and kiss the robes of and be branded like cattle by and be at the beck and call of someone who's neither pureblood nor posh. there are - as lupin tells us - no wizarding princes... and yet the closest things the wizarding world has to an aristocracy are rolling around on the ground debasing themselves and calling a half-blood orphan "my lord".

voldemort does this to humiliate them. but he also does this to amuse himself - à la logan roy making men who've displeased him play "boar on the floor".

[wormtail being forced to care for him when he's in his half-form at the start of goblet of fire, for example. he's not humiliated in the slightest by his dependence on wormtail... wormtail is humiliated by it, and voldemort finds it hilarious.]

and so i think we can plausibly imagine him also deeply enjoying making his straight, married, "i would die before i let anything near my arse", "i'm not getting changed for quidditch with so-and-so there, he's queer", "i'd disown my son if i found out he let other men fuck him" death eaters grovel for the favour of someone who loves getting railed...

this deeply aligns with how voldemort understands things like power and control - and it's why the argument that he'd only top because he would regard it as the only way of being powerful and controlling never hits for me.

because this also rests on an assumption - that the bottom always understands themselves as the passive partner. i do think the fandom is broadly getting better at recognising that bottoms and submissives are different things [although the bar was on the floor...], but i think there's still a tendency to default to the idea that the two people involved in sex are an active partner and a passive partner, and that the passive partner is - for want of a better term - the receptacle.

the language used around bottoming reinforces this assumption. its voice is passive - the bottom is penetrated, is bred, is fucked, is taken - its verbs are passive too - the top does, the bottom receives.

but the thing is... this is just semantics. and it's a semantic argument directly rooted in misogyny, and the homophobia which stems from and connects to it.

and - since it's just semantics - we can change the language we use at any time to completely reconfigure the assumed power dynamic.

the bottom grants access. the bottom consumes. the bottom takes. the bottom absorbs. the bottom uses. the bottom captures. the bottom detains. the bottom grips. the bottom devours. the bottom permits. the bottom destroys.

the top is the person who's passive - who receives permission, who is granted access, who is consumed, who is absorbed, who is captured. the top is the person having their life-force leached from them. they're just a toy, just a piece of meat. they literally don't matter.

and the text already uses this sort of language - the language of consumption and capture and permission to cross thresholds and so on - to talk about voldemort's attitude to power, magic, and the body.

he drains the blood of unicorns; he uses up the life-force of the people and animals he possesses; he grows stronger by consuming ginny's secrets; he is restored to his body by taking from his father, wormtail, and harry; he takes the money dumbledore offers without feeling the need to thank him or regard it as a gift; he offers up gifts to people he wants to use for his own gain; he "doesn't march up to people's houses and bang on their front doors" [OotP 6]; he hoards and conceals precious things; his soul is kept safe by being encased by the horcruxes; his locket is guarded by something which has to be drunk, which destroys anyone who assumes they can simply take it without his permission; he "would be glad to see anything miss hepzibah shows me" [HBP 20] and then seizes her secrets and uses them to bring about her doom; his descent from slytherin is proven by his control of the threshold of the chamber of secrets; he places himself and his talents at dumbledore's disposal, "i am yours to command" [HBP 20]; he controls snakes and they do his bidding; he drains the ministry of its secrets; he controls the dementors, who devour joy; augustus rookwoord "has lord voldemort's gratitude... i shall need all the information you can give me" [OotP 26]; he is the greatest legilimens - that is to say, he is excellent at pulling other people's secrets into his own mind and using them as he wishes - the world has ever seen; he has seen ron's heart and it is his; his followers live to serve him...

his followers are called death eaters, not death fuckers.

and so it's inarguable, really, that he'd have a legion of service tops under his command...

The fact that someone like JK Rowling created a character like Harry Potter completely baffles me

Harry Potter who was outraged when the magical community wouldn't accept a werewolf at Hogwarts

Harry Potter who regularly had tea with the half giant groundskeeper

Harry Potter who at 12 years old freed a house elf from his abusive master and then five years later insisted on giving that same house elf a proper burial

Harry has his flaws, but what always stood out to me about him was how tolerant and accepting he was. There were plenty of people he didn't like, but that was always because of who they were as a person. It's even made a point in the series that he maintained relationships with groups who were not usually friendly with wizards (probably because of past mistreatment) like ghosts and centaurs. So, how such a bigoted and close-minded person created him is beyond me.

They think enemies to lovers is just negative or angry banter with a grudge.

I think term enemies to lovers is so waterdowned and that's why people think harrymort is weird

I hate Alan Rickman's face. He's not Snape! He's too old and, as someone who always saw Snape as oddly attractive, too ugly! (Ironically)

"Snape would be a school shooter" stfu

#agree #fuck fanon #canon Sirius Black #canon Remus Lupin #wolfstar critical

Yeesssss

What is your saltiest take on fanon Sirius?

Sirius being closer to Remus than he is to James.

Look. i get that y’all are wolfstar fans. i get that you love your ship. but. no. just. no. there is not a single fucking shred of evidence for that in the entirety of canon. not. one. frankly, the opposite is overtly implied/stated many times. who did sirius go to when he ran away? james’ place. JAMES. not remus. James. who did McGonagal, Rosmerta, hagrid and flitwick fondly reminisce about and say ‘never saw one without the other’ ’you’d have thought they were brothers... inseparable!' ‘ringleaders of their little gang’ ‘trusted him above all his other friends.’

was it remus? no. it most definitely was not. it was james. was remus even once mentioned in the conversation about james and sirius at hogwarts? nope. nada. zippo. zilch. exactly zero times did it come up. and to be clear. lupin’s not there at the table. they obviously think they’re not gonna be overheard by anyone (lmao, you’d think they’d be more competent than that) otherwise they wouldn’t be discussing any of this out in public but… lupin’s in their minds because he’s back at hogwarts. so. it’s not like they’ve forgotten who he is. it’s just that the person that they automatically associate with sirius black is james potter. even peter gets a shout out ‘that fat little boy who was always tagging around after them’ but Rosmerta literally doesn’t even remember remus as ever being with them. 

not to mention the fact that they didn’t trust each other enough to tell the truth during the first war. oh. and james named SIRIUS Harry’s godfather. he didn’t do the whole dual godfathers thing. he chose sirius. not remus. sorry mates, but it’s the truth. and he made (or at least wanted to make) SIRIUS their secret keeper.. not. remus…

look you can ship whoever you want (lord knows just about every single marauders fan there is is obsessed with wolfstar) but don’t try to erase or manipulate/bend/ignore/disregard canon to suit your desired ship (and then act like it actually is canon and not just what you want)

Yeahhh I wanted to rank him second, but then I realized he only did all that to avoid being possibly tortured. He was under pressure to succeed from two psychos—his aunt and Voldemort—so I have more sympathy for him. He was never a physically violent person before that, he mostly stuck to verbal taunts and petty bullying. That’s why I think the things he did in sixth year weren’t something he actually wanted to do. He had a Dark Lord ordering him, and those who disobeyed the Dark Lord were punished.

Personal ranking of HP characters based on who did the most to least shitty things during their school years:

1. Tom Riddle: murders, student endangerment, using a deadly creature as a weapon, framing an innocent for his crimes, manipulation of others, encouraging delinquency, school rule breaking and creating a horcrux.

2. Sirius Black: attempted murder, frequent harrasment and bullying of a vulnerable student, intimidation, school rule-breaking, illegal animagi transformation, unauthorized surveillance of staff and students, using an illegal spell, risking his friend's future, belittling his friend.

3. James Potter: attempted sexual assault, frequent bullying and harrassment of a socially vulnerable student, hexing of other students, coercion, threatening, school rule-breaking, illegall animagi transformation, unauthorized surveillance of staff and students, using an illegal spell.

4. Draco Malfoy: multiple attempted murders, affiliation with a terrorist group, repeated use of hate speech, abuse of power, use of an unforgivable curse, school rule-breaking, bullying and intimidation of others, assisting malicious prosecution of an innocent animal.

5. Peter Pettigrew: enabling and participation in rule breaking and unethical behavior, bullying, illegal animagi transformation, unauthorized surveillance of staff and students.

6. Severus Snape: school rule-breaking, use of hate speech against his best friend, affiliation with an extremist group that hates his best friend and practices dark magic on students, invention of a dark spell, ignoring Lily's valid concerns about the company he kept.

7. Hermione Granger: kidnapping and blackmailing of Rita Skeeter, assisting identity fraud, illegal brewing of a potion, theft of ingrediences, school rule-breaking, arson, assisting a prison break, disfigurement of another student, physical assault, unlawful entry of the Ministry, emotional neglect in favor of appeasing Dumbledore.

8. Harry Potter: attempted involuntary manslaughter, physical assault, identity fraud, school rule-breaking, international law violations, aiding a fugitive's escape, theft of ingrediences, invasion of privacy, spying and stalking, unauthorized surveillance of staff and students, unlawful entry of the Ministry.

9. Remus Lupin: continuous enabling of rule breaking and unethical activities, avoidance of responsibilities and duties, unauthorized surveillance of staff and students, allowing a student be harrassed.

10. Fred & George: endangering of students through reckless behavior, unethical experimentation on underage students, school rule-breaking, unauthorized surveillance of staff and students.

11. Ron Weasley: international law violation, identity fraud, assisting illegal brewing, theft of ingrediences, school rule-breaking, emotional neglect in favor of appeasing Dumbledore, betrayal of trust, unlawful entry of the Ministry, enabling of reckless behavior.

12. Lily Evans: dismissing her friend’s struggles, classist behavior towards a vulnerable student, close association with individuals known for illegal behavior and immoral actions towards her ex friend.

The reason some individuals who committed more crimes than others are ranked lower is that I took intent and ethical justifications into consideration, as well as my personal feelings about their actions. Hopefully, I haven't missed anything important.