#examples being jkr

[hadesoftheladies]

one of the worst things about growing up is realizing how many grown adult women will believe a man when he just gives an opinion on a woman. do you know how many women uncritically and swiftly accept men’s hearsay? a man will make dubious claims about a woman author, actress, musician, tiktoker, character, etc., and they will hate her the instant he commands it like sleeper agents.

a man will say “wah wah this book is anti-man🥺” and all that happened was someone quoted a basic feminist thought and the female protagonist didn’t marry the first handsome male character she saw but then a horde of women will rush to his defense like “poor wittle baby we’re so sorry about those ugly feminist evil lesbian women they can choke on a gun”

everytime a man hates something i rush to check it out for myself because there’s a high chance it’s gonna be awesome.

men don’t know what’s cool. “cool” to them is whatever sucks their dick. except the women who actually do, of course. except them.

#examples being jkr #Amber heard #brie Larson #korra #and like so many #why women keep groveling at the feet of men like men give even 2% of the fucks women give them has precedence but it is nonetheless enragin #radblr #feminism #pro jkr

[bisexualseraphim]

People who see entire demographics of humanity as “the enemy” are so baffling to me, whether they’re incels/misogynists or racists or radfems or whomever I just look at them and wonder why you’d choose a life of such misery. People of a certain gender, sexuality, race or whatever demographic are not inherently your enemy just because they are part of said demographic. Gender and race essentialism is incredibly dangerous and untrue and it especially confuses me when people who claim to be trans allies abide by the former because that mindset is especially dangerous to trans people.

People are individuals, not a hive mind. Society as a whole has massive issues, and some groups may benefit from them more than others (like how the patriarchy hurts men but they still benefit from it far more than women ever will because it has men in mind, albeit only a certain type of man), but individuals are individuals. And what a depressing life it must be to instead navigate the world believing that millions of people are beneath you before they’ve even spoken a word.

#Like I get women being wary of men. I get that and even I am tbh #I’m very visibly queer and rather short most men could kill me and I’d be powerless #But that’s not what I’m talking about I’m talking about the ‘fuck men they can die’ shit #Or people like my uncle who’s antisemitic because a Jewish person he knew happened to be quite nasty #I’ve been abused by cis women many times but they were dicks because they were dicks. Not because they were women #And don’t even get me started on incels. ‘Women suck because they won’t fuck me’ go to therapy #All misogynists need mandatory therapy before they’re allowed to talk to women again please #I would say I’m CAUTIOUS of women now but I still love them very much and I’m working through my wariness in therapy myself #Me being cautious is my own problem to deal with its not women’s fault as a whole #But yeah. I understand caution due to trauma. I do not understand hatred #And JKR for example very much needs to work through her hatred… #equality #feminism #intersectional feminism #actual feminism #misogyny #racism #transphobia #gender essentialism #race essentialism #antisemitism #anti terf #anti radfem #terfs fuck off #radfems fuck off

[ookaookaooka]

rowling defenders found my post, yuck 😬😬😬 girl she hates trans people and wants us to die, it’s time to stop stanning her it’s 2023

#‘rowling taught me to look beyond the surface to love a person but pratchett did not’ bitch where??? #ways to show me you have zero reading comprehension skills in one sentence #rowling uses ugliness REGULARLY to equal evil/badness/dislikeability #a repeated theme in pratchett’s work is characters not being what they initially appear to be #ESPECIALLY ugly/stupid/weird characters #for example: vimes initially assumes the trolls are stupid but then finds out it’s just a thick accent and a different culture #vimes initially thinks goblins are disgusting animals but then finds out they’re people who are being oppressed #moist initially thinks the golems are basically robots but then learns that they’re just a different type of person #(tbh i think the golems are a better comparison for jkr’s house elves than the goblins but that’s another post) #literally give me ONE example of jkr writing a character who is ugly/strange on the outside but we are meant to empathize with #hagrid and luna lovegood don’t count; the narrative still dismisses them for the most part

[hard--headed--woman]

?? isn’t it a bit dramatic. isn’t it fucking dramatic. like is it really what oppression, discrimination and systemic violence are for you? wow you're lucky.

#to be clear i know that trans people face violence (from men. to be even clearer) and obviously i am against that cause it's disgusting #but i hate when trans activists take as an example of transphobia and transphobic violence very little things like that #that aren't even oppressive and violent #they'll be like omg i am oppressed because many people keep liking harry potter or refuse to put their pronouns in their bio!!!! #come on mate that's not what oppression is? idk maybe i'm wrong #anyway this comment is very dramatic #just because someone likes the story of a group of teenagers with magic wands doesn't mean they're gonna attack you for being trans wtf #calm down #even if you're anti jkr and anti radfems you should know that #stay rational please #radical feminism #radical feminists please touch #radical feminist community #radical feminists do touch #radical feminist safe #radblr #radical feminst #terfblr #radfem safe

[skywitchmaja]

even before the transphobia came to light— jkr’s writing can be sooo cruel towards woman & girls for as much as she used to be celebrated as a ‘feminist’

like ginny is introduced as ron’s kid sister who has this big girlish crush on harry. this is mostly just very embarrassing for both of them. it’s fine, they’re middle schoolers.

then ginny has to be the damsel in distress for the second book finale which means she has to be vulnerable, she has to be manipulated (by voldemort’s diary), she has to do bad things (while possessed), and most of all, she has to be helpless and she has to be saved. this is some harrowing shit for an 11 year old to go through, but we don’t get much about it from her perspective bc it’s mostly there so harry and ron can be heroic and strengthen their friendship. ginny is still in the role of damsel by the end of this book.

a couple books later jkr decides to start setting up romances, so harry has a crush on cho chang bc she’s good at sports (which is cute). unfortunately for him, cho is dating harry’s cool seventeen year old crush friend & competitor, cedric digory, so harry is just crushing away, and cho doesn’t have much to do except for politely turn him down. ginny isn’t really important this book, irc i think she goes to magic prom with neville. ron and hermione have their own issues, but this book is mostly set up (both relationship wise & in the greater voldemort plot).

then in the fifth book, their relationship comes to fruition bc cedric died so now cho is single. she’s drawn to harry bc he was friends with cedric & he was there when cedric died , and she hopes that they can process their grief together. unfortunately, harry is having a lot of difficulty processing his grief, so he reacts badly when cho cries or wants to talk about cedric bc it reminds harry of his own feelings he’s trying to avoid. this would be fine on it’s own, except the fandom didn’t recognize harry as an unreliable narrator and began characterizing her as being “whiny” and “weak” and “annoying”. and it would seem like a fandom issue & not jkr’s misogyny, hermione even stands up for cho (although much of that grace is lost when cho/her friend narc to umbridge). meanwhile, ginny is getting cooler and cooler— joining the quidditch team, joining dumbledor’s army, dating boys to let us know she’s moved on from her childhood crush  on harry, and most importantly, joining harry & co at the climactic fight against voldemort, as a hero this time rather than a damsel. why is this a bad thing? it’s not, we love to see a girlboss winning.  but they way jkr writes romance puts these girls in opposition to each other.

in the sixth book, harry realizes he has feelings for ginny, and she is everything cho is not. actually, cho is what ginny used to be, and vice versa. to make sure we know ginny is no longer the vulnerable, emotional, “weak” girl harry saved in the second book, jkr gives these traits to cho instead, as she’s incredibly emotionally vulnerable after losing her first boyfriend, and was hoping that harry would be there for her when he couldn’t.  in dating cho, harry realizes that the reality of being in a relationship with someone is very different from crushing on them from afar, and while cho may be pretty & nice & good at quidditch, she isn’t someone he wants to date (again, mostly because they have incompatible ways of dealing with grief). which is fine, they’re kids, they’re still learning about themselves and other people.  except the fandom/jkr didn’t really delve into that complexity, and it was almost always reduced to saying that cho was “wrong” for harry and ginny is “the right one”.  she does this, proving one love interest is “right” by showing another as “wrong”, in an even shallower way with hermione, ron and lavender brown.  it’s exponentially worse because cho, and lavender in the first five movies, are non-white characters. 

harry starts to catch feelings for ginny, which has significantly more depth than his crush on cho because he’s known her for so long, but he still admires things like her skill at quidditch (lol), and how cool and popular she is, as well as her strong will and sense of humor.  but in order to be valid as a love interest according to jkr, ginny has to shed the traits that characterized her as a damsel in distress in the second book, ironically, a role that is often filled by the love interest.  this is actually kind of subversive, but not necessarily in a good way– rather than rejecting patriarchal lens of reducing women to “damsels”, jkr simply pushes this lens onto cho, (not with a rescue plot, but with character traits), saying that damselization is bad, not because it’s bad to objectify women, but because some women are badass and cool and “don’t need to be saved” and the ones who are weak and emotional and do need to be saved are worthy of derision. this pushes the burden away from the male gaze that sees women as damsels and onto women and girls who must reject “damselish” or “feminine” traits.  harry realizes his feelings when he sees how different ginny is now from the girl who had a huge crush on him, the girl he had to save from an evil snake, the girl who was sensitive and helpless, because she isn’t those things anymore.  but cho, from harry’s perspective, is. harry avoids her like he avoided ginny in the first few books bc their emotionality makes him uncomfortable. to be fair, harry doesn’t hate cho for these traits anymore than he did ginny early in the series, but the fandom certainly did (i use past tense bc the fandom now is… idek) and i believe jkr does too. 

by the end of the series, harry has cool, tough, funny, pretty, quidditch star, ginny weasley, and to be honest he really doesn’t share a lot of vulnerability with her.  even when he’s worried about being possessed by voldemort, he doesn’t think to ask ginny what that was like when it happened to her, because he “forgot”.  in the last book, harry even breaks up with her for several months “to protect her” rather than taking her on a dangerous camping trip with ron and hermione. this is reasonable enough, and i think it’s good that the series ends with the same trio it started with, but it does deny harry and ginny’s relationship opportunity to develop because they only really see each other at the very beginning and the very end of the last book.  so ironically, a lot of people don’t like harry and ginny as a couple (especially in the movies) because jkr was so sparse with vulnerability in their relationship.  both girls, both relationships, suffer from this “sensitive” vs “resilient”, or more shallowly, as it tends to be perceived, “weak” vs “strong” contrast between cho and ginny.  but ultimately, ginny is rewarded for shedding her girlish emotional sensitivity while cho is punished, not just for her own but for ginny’s as well, because she’s taking over ginny’s role as “emotionally sensitive girl” so ginny can rise to the “cool girl” pedestal now that someone else is being looked down upon for having feelings.

#tldr: jkr doesn’t just put ginny & cho against each other as love interests she uses cho as recepticle for ginny’s ‘flaws’(vulnerability etc #that were present when ginny was just a kid with a crush so ginny can be the perfect ‘strong female character’ love interest #oof #i love how you can tell i thought i was gonna be brief with this bc the first two paragraphs are pretty short but then. lol. #i never know if im being long winded & repetetive or if i'm being rushed & unclear #oh well no one wants to read harry potter criticism in 2022 anyway and i dont wanna go back & edit #also im reasonably confident ginny makes some derisive comments about cho at some point but im not looking that up #hp #jk rowling #character tags? sure i guess #ginny weasley #cho chang #low key this makes me wanna write a ginny & cho character study fic booooooooooooooooooooo 🍅🍅🍅🍅 #uh #hp critical #okay before the 'readmore' this makes it seem like its gonna be a laundry list but really its just a deconstruction of one example

[wild-at-mind]

I think that podcast series 'the witch trials of JK Rowling' is trying to go for an all round approach to the 'transgender issue' (scary scare quotes! I myself do not call it that obvs). That is why I cannot imagine why they decided to title the series something that implies poor JKR is being persecuted for no reason.

#a podcast series i like recommended it apparently not realising how fraught it was..? #a lot of people got in touch saying 'hey wtf' and i think genuinely the podcast host was explaining it was meant to be an example of #all sides of an issue being shown- and looking down the episode synopses it's clear they talked to some trans people #who presumably were framed sympathetically- that's how this kind of podcast series works #but the title? it's highly biased. The host of this podcast i listen to should have realised just by saying it. #i may listen to JKR podcast one day out of curiosity but not yet #i honestly just hate thinking about JKR framed as a focal point of 'trans issues' #i would love to see a decent budget podcast investigative series where gender as a concept is broken down though #that i believe is the core of the issue

[thathomelessartist]

Really wanna make a 'kids these days' post but just. im just very glad im not around teenagers anymore. especially teenagers online.

mfs will call you a creep for posting NSFW content..... On your NSFW kink blog.... very clearly marked as NSFW and MINORS DNI...... Like

What do you MEAN "know your audience" girl YOU AREN'T THE AUDIENCE??? Go do your math homework jesus fuckibg Christ.

#this is just one example but like #i see shit like this all the time #minors going into adult spaces and being shocked when things are adult #or arent framed as black and white #kids should be banned from online discourse like. #they cant understand the difference between a terf and just a guy who doesnt know what jkr did #because not everyone is glued to twitter all the fucking time #yes even influencers #its called having a life outside what you see #its so fucking stupid #fucking hate kids on this fucking app

[neroushalvaus]

Okay I am going to use the Somerton situation to talk about something that is very important to me. Following the discussion I have seen former Somerton fans being disappointed in themselves and questioning how they can ever trust another video essayist again. I have also seen some people being smug because to them Somerton was obviously unreliable from the start. As a person who also saw the "red flags" in Somerton, I would like to skip the smugness and talk a bit about what the red flags were to me.

Someone else has probably posted something similar and Hbomberguy's & Todd in the Shadows's videos touched a few of these points, but they didn't focus on them or how to spot these things. I think it is a good thing: I think it would have reinforced the idea that Somerton's fans were to blame for being lied to, and these youtubers didn't want to pin any blame on the fans. Also, some of the things I'm going to talk about were not by any means proof of him being unreliable, they were common tropes I personally associate with people who are bullshitting on internet. Think of it as something like spotting terfs: If you consider following a tumblr user and find out they have at some point posted "males will always be a danger to females no matter what they say", it is very possible that they are not a terf. Maybe they were having a bad day and were just wording their post badly – But you should probably search "trans" from their blog before following them, just to be sure.

So, the tropes in James Somerton's content that I consider red flags:

Lack of sources. This one may seem obvious and Hbomb talked about this in his video, but the lack of sources in his videos was outrageous. Video essays are called essays for a reason, they are not supposed to be just a guy talking about whatever comes to his mind, they should be well researched essays. Obviously video essays should contain one's own thoughts and interpretations and those do not need citations. But James Somerton didn't come out of the womb knowing everything about LGBT history, Disney and film theory, if he actually knew something about all this stuff, he should have learnt it from somewhere. There should be sources he could point to. It is very common that even when a video essayist doesn't tell you where they got all their information, they open their video by saying stuff like "when I prepared for this video I read the book Also sprach Zarathustra by Friedrich Nietzsche and this one thrilling blog post about lesbian cruising in 1960s Sweden". From what I've seen, James does not really do this. From watching his videos you could arrive to the conclusion that James Somerton does not read any books, he just knows everything. There are situations where people don't feel the need to add sources, like when the information is considered common knowledge or when the topic relates heavily to the essayist's actual academic field or profession. This is okay and very understandable, but can sometimes be dangerous, since if the video essayist markets himself as a marketing specialist, people are more likely to take his word for stuff that has to do with marketing, even without sources. It is understandable that in many situations an essayist may think "why should I cite a source? I know this thing!", but doing your research well is partly about checking if the information you are certain of is actually true. Also, as Hbomb pointed out, if you can cite a source, your audience can go learn more about the subject. It's not about anyone doubting you know your stuff, it's about learning. That's why well-respected video essayists usually cite their sources very clearly.

Lack of pictures and screenshots. This is about different kinds of sources again, many things on this list are kind of about sources. An example: When James Somerton made a video about JKR, he mentioned something about Rowling at one time saying that trans students in 30-50Feralhogs (or whatever the wizard school is called) could use magic to present as their gender. If this was any other video essayist, you'd expect a tweet to pop up, or something else confirming Rowling ever said this. Nothing pops up, obviously because Rowling didn't say this, but you can't see anything fishy in that because things rarely pop up in Somerton's videos. He doesn't show you court documents when speaking about a court case, he doesn't show you the comments apparently mad at him for implying the gay anime is gay when he is complaining about people being mad at him. There is a reason people show screenshots and tweets in video essays. When a good video essayist says JK Rowling has tweeted that all people who menstruate should be referred to as women, the video essayist shows the tweet so people know they are not making it up. If there were hoards of annoying bitc-- I mean, angry white women whining about gay sex in HuffPost articles or Somerton's youtube comments, he should have no trouble showing you those. Remember that you should not trust someone just because they show you pictures or screenshots. Pictures can be photoshopped, screenshots can be doctored. Many youtubers are aware that you listen to their videos while cleaning or while walking your dog and don't actually see the screen all the time, and some may take advantage of that by saying something like "and here she threatened to kill me" while showing a text message where someone said "die mad about it". A screenshot alone isn't much but you should demand to see the screenshot.

Passive voice. I am once again bitching about this. Somerton repeatedly says things like "it's been said that" or "it was common knowledge that" or "a legend says that" or "according to most interpretations". He doesn't say who says it, making it very hard to fact check and that seems to be his goal in some cases.

Relying heavily on anecdotes. Writing a dense, analytical video about film theory or history can be exhausting and you may want to pepper in little fun facts. However Somerton seemed to rely on these heavily; he can't just talk about how he has totally bought every lie told by The Pink Swastika, he also needs to tell a cute little anecdote about SS men forcing sexual favours out of men. He can't just tell a story about a court case, he needs to add in ridiculous stuff about the jury booing. This is what I mean by not all the things on this list being necessarily proof of someone being unreliable. Many people use anecdotes and little stories in their storytelling, it makes the videos flow better and it's hard to decide which anecdotes are valid and which are not. A source obviously makes an anecdote a bit more believable, but here are some things that instantly make me fact check an anecdote:

It's a bit too convenient, poetic or ironic. Sometimes real life is weirder than fiction but if an anecdote is "perfect" and has an amazing punchline and you could write twelve poems about it, there is a possibility it was invented by pop science books.

It assumes your political enemies are stupid. Dunking on conservatives, MRAs and transphobes is always fun and after you've seen a lot of this kind of content it's easy to believe anything about these people. You must resist the impulse to believe everything that may make your opponents look stupid.

The person telling the anecdote implies it is an example of a larger, systemic problem. You know what's worse than taking a random happenstance from human history or internet and basing an entire political theory on it? The said random happenstance being made up. You should in general be wary of people telling one story and explaining why it's an example of everything that's wrong in the world. We live in a huge world. You can always find a white woman who loves cute gays but hates the idea of Nick Heartstopper and Charlie Heartstopper getting nasty but that doesn't mean it's an indicator of a larger issue.

Simplifying complex issues. We all know that "only the boring gays survived the AIDS crisis, and that's why gays started to only care about marriage equality and military" is a horrible, insensitive thing to say, but you also have to think about it for like two seconds to realize that it can't be correct. It kind of reminds me of the "roe v wade caused the crime drop of 1990s" claim in Freakonomics. It sounds logical and simple, like a basic math calculation. Societal issues rarely are like that, though. You should never believe anyone who tells you about a huge societal shift and says it happened because of one thing and one thing only.

These were some of the things I noticed in Somerton's content that caused me to distrust him. I hope these were helpful to you and feel free to add your own "red flags" if you feel like it!

#phew. maybe that's enough salt for one day. #james somerton #hbomberguy #todd in the shadows #edit:// embarrassingly many mistakes in the original post. in my defence i have a fever and english isn't my first language. forgive me #edit2:// made the text bigger!

[genderkoolaid]

Am I in the wrong for calling HP fans terfs?

I think it's fair to be critical of people who are supporting JKR or her products, but I wouldn't say that all HP fans are TERFS.

Trans-exclusive radical feminism is a specific ideology, not just synonymous with transphobia. JKR is a TERFS, and many of her fans are as well– including people who support HP just as a fuck you to trans people. But there are also fans of hers who are not actually aligned with radical feminism at all. For example, there are lots of cis people who have been longtime fans of HP and haven't really changed how they engage with the series other than maybe saying "I don't agree with her btw!" & calling those people TERFs is just inaccurate even if they still have their problems.

This is also why I really side-eyed that whole thing about a member of Tumblr staff being a TERFS when the evidence, afaik, was just. they were a Harry Potter fan? We need to be able to be critical of people with being so reliant on snappy, emotionally charged labels that we don't fully understand the history behind.

#m. #ask box

[iamnmbr3]

When Harry witnesses Draco being forced to torture Rowle, he is extremely upset. Much more so than he typically is about these visions. There are a lot of very drarry implications. Let's break it down.

"Malfoy’s gaunt, petrified face seemed branded on the inside of his eyes. Harry felt sickened by what he had seen, by the use to which Draco was now being put by Voldemort.”

Notable points from this passage:

1) Harry understands Draco so well that he immediately takes for granted that he doesn't want to be using the Cruciatus curse. It never even crosses his mind to take this as evidence that Draco is now a willing torturer who enjoys cruelty or that he deserves to be in this situation for having chosen the wrong side and for his role in Dumbledore's death.

Nor does Harry think Draco is just scared and upset because he's afraid Voldemort might lash out at him too - which is what Harry would think if he saw any other Death Eater acting afraid around Voldemort. He clearly sees that Draco is horrified by the acts he is being forced to commit. And he also completely accepts that it is Voldemort forcing Draco to commit these acts, thus absolving Draco of responsibility.

2) Harry is DEEPLY upset by seeing Draco in this position. More upset than he ever is about seeing any other Death Eater being terrorized or hurt by Voldemort (Harry doesn't even spare one thought for Rowle for example!) Not only that. He's also more upset than he is about seeing Ollivander tortured. Or about seeing Voldemort murder a woman and her children later on while searching for information about Gregorovitch. He finds those visions alarming but he shakes them off pretty quickly.

The only comparable strong reactions are how he responds to his visions of Arthur Weasley and Sirius in book 5 - i.e. visions of people he knows and cares about in danger and suffering. And it's not even the scene as a whole that upsets him. It's specifically Draco - whose frightened face seems "branded" on the inside of Harry's eyes. Harry can't get the vision out of his head, feels sickened, and fights to keep his voice casual afterward. Even though Draco wasn't even actively being hurt.

So canonically Draco matters to Harry in a way that almost all other people don't. It's not generic nobility that gives Harry sympathy even for an enemy - because he doesn't feel this way about other Death Eaters. And it's not general pity that Harry would feel for any innocent hurt by Voldemort - because he doesn't feel that way about victims like Ollivander or the children Voldemort killed. It's the type of reaction Harry ONLY has to people he deeply cares about suffering or being in danger. Harry may not think of it that way on an intellectual level. But his heart knows it even if his brain doesn't. He cares about Draco Malfoy. A lot. He cares about him more than he cares about almost anyone else.

3) Also notable. Harry starts out referring to him as Malfoy but then switches to thinking of him as Draco as he starts worrying about him. (Yes. The drarry trope of Harry switching from "Malfoy" to "Draco" literally happens. IN CANON.) And he keeps thinking of him as Draco after that point. The next time Draco is referred to is during the whole sequence where the Golden Trio are prisoners at the Manor. Harry refers to Lucius by his full name multiple times, but consistently refers to Draco as "Draco" rather than "Malfoy" in his internal narration.

4) (Also the fact that Draco's face is described as "gaunt" hits me right in the feels. It seems that he's in worse shape even than he was when Harry last saw him at the end of 6th year. Sad but not surprising given the guilt that is probably eating at him over his role in Dumbledore's death, what he is now being forced to do as a Death Eater, and the very tangible dangers and suffering that come with being out of favor with Voldemort while having him in your house.)

Tldr: I don't need my ships to be canon but drarry is. jkr who? ;)

#drarry in canon #drarry #Harry Potter #Harry Potter meta #meta #my meta #drarry meta #Draco Malfoy #hpdm #harry/draco #draco/harry #hp reread #harry potter and the deathly hallows #my post #drarry g

[transsexula]

Hate seeing people say that Transandrophobia isn't real because, in their words, the "androphobia" isn't something people in real life face.

Now. Maybe this is because when I see this opinion, it's attached to someone who is either transfem, AMAB, or who has only ever lived in incredibly liberal areas.

Meaning: They do not have the life experience to speak on that.

It's simple, I can use myself as an easy example: I grew up on the west side of the US. My extended family and parents were very Christian, very conservative. The community I grew up in was in turn the same- very conservative, very Christian, very fundamentalist. Certain Disney movies were banned from the house for featuring witchcraft, or other "morally reprehensible" things. DISNEY MOVIES.

With this background, I'm sure you can tell where this was headed: I can clearly remember being in the pharmacy with my mother. I was small. I saw a lady with what I now know is a pixie cut- incredibly short hair, bright bold pink. Her girlfriend was there, and her own hair was incredibly butch- like they went to a sports clips and asked for what the guy next to them was getting. I was amazed- I'd never seen a woman that looked like that before. I voiced so with awe and wonder to my mother. I was supposed to get a haircut in an hour. "I want that! She looks so pretty and nice"

Who was visibly disgusted. Grabbing me, yanking me away, muttering "no. You don't want to look like that. Let's go."

Fast forward a few years. I'm too young to be drinking a beer, my uncle has stayed up late. We are watching music videos and sharing interests, when we see a rather masc looking woman in a video. He's disgusted. He makes an offhand joke about how she needs to be reminded of her feminine ways. I know what violations he's implying so vividly. He opens up about his fantasy of hatecriming two butch "women" he saw. I'm too afraid to speak.

There's a debate in church. Should women be allowed to wear above the knee shorts? We really didn't like that they can wear pants. Really, the pastor says in his sermon- it's the woman's job to maintain her feminine nature, in opposition to her husband's masculine nature. These blurring lines aren't good for people.

And- I don't want to get into the people I've known who've been hurt, abused, forcefully feminized, beaten for being masculine- the men that feel entitled to their bodies, because they feel entitled to a say in how they present.

The reason you don't see the abuse for being masculine, is because you come from a world where it's widely accepted in ways that not every culture, not every state or country has.

Gnc women, trans men, transmasc nonbinary people- if you're in the wrong place, born to the wrong family, you may never be safe enough to wear pants. You may not be able to cut your hair. Or be anything less than the perfect, ideal woman.

You get punished for not being what you have been assigned. For the act of defiance against others perception, you can be killed.

So, yeah. There's a lot of androphobia. There's a LOT of fear of the masculine. It just comes out in ways you aren't expecting, as someone who hasn't had to experience it. You don't know what to look for. Where to look. It's everywhere but you can be blind to it if you're insulated enough.

Hell- even terfs are falling into severe androphobia. It's their whole motto. What am I, if not a failed woman to them? Mutilating my perfect feminine form? Being a man is the ultimate crime to these people. Are you really telling me JKRs very public campaign hasn't made life hell for ALL of us? We are all losing healthcare due to this.

#transandrophobia #transphobia #AGAIN THIS ISNT TO START SHIT THIS IS TO EXPLAIN WHY THIS IS A THING #the reason i didnt attach this to a post about it is because of that specific reason #im tired of people acting like we are all just safe in big cities

[lurveinn]

I’m so curious about Wizarding fashion. JKR isn’t very physically descriptive- we just know that wizards wear robes, which are outlandish to muggles, and pointy hats, but what does that really mean? What kind of robe? Magical fashion clearly isn’t very gendered, since Harry remarks on a man at the Quidditch World Cup wearing a dress and insisting that it’s unisex (certainly not the case in Britain at the time), but we don’t have any other parameters. Keeping in mind the uniform from the movies, and the fact that in SWM, Snape isn’t wearing any trousers, here’s what I think wizards wear:

1. Flowing silhouettes and cloaks; clearly, wizards love a good statement cloak. Think tassels and frills (not like Ron’s Yule Ball fit!), massive extended sleeves and lots of draping.

2. Skirts: let’s be honest, just one singular robe, without any layering, doesn’t give us much to work with. Skirts go with the general silhouette, explain why the World Cup wizard thought muggle men wore dresses, and keep with the no-trousers thing from SWM. I’m South Asian, so I like to have a little fun with it and think of wizards in ghararas (my favourite item of clothing); the Wizarding World is quite insular, travel is relatively unrestricted (hello, they have magic!), everyone has a common enemy in muggles (and other species- goblins, house-elves) etcetera, so race probably doesn’t function the same way and I headcanon a lot of cross-cultural exchange. Plus, wizarding fashion isn’t restricted by weather- they have warming charms- so wearing clothes made for hot climates in England, for example, wouldn’t be a problem.

Plus, I actually think saris are a natural fancy dress option- flowy, drapey, colourful. Speaking of which-

3. If there’s one fanon idea that I hate (aside from fanon!Sirius, of course), it’s this image of wizards (specifically high society wizards) as reserved. Sorry, did we read the same books? Wizards, even posh, rich wizards, like the Malfoys and Blacks, are camp and very outlandish. They do house-elf taxidermy, they keep their wands in canes. Just because Hogwarts uniforms are black doesn’t mean that people dress like they’re in mourning all the time. People can be total snobs and obsessed with their image and still wear bright pink, insane robes, because guess what? They have different social conventions than we do. Men and women dress basically the same, so there is no reason to believe that a man wearing a flowing robe would be against the norm. I say this as someone who believes misogyny and homophobia are well and truly alive in Wizarding society, especially in pureblooded families where the emphasis is on continuing the line; they definitely exist, but they probably look different.

4. My personal obsession and headcanon: rich wizards wearing bones. Look, I might not think of them as racist in the traditional sense, but they are undeniably speciesist, if that’s a word? They think of themselves as superior, and other sentient magical species either work under (goblins) or are enslaved (house-elves) by wizards. We only see Veelas very briefly, but despite them being admired for their beauty, I doubt wizards treat them very well. So- show me blood-purists wearing corsets made of goblin bones and teeth. Show me Veelas being hunted for their blood to stain and dye clothes with. Show me exotic “magical creatures” that are humanoid and capable of reasoning and should have rights, like mermaids and werewolves, being hunted for their scales and pelts while also being ostracised for being ‘non-human’. It’s terrible, but that’s the kind of archaic jewellery and fashion the old families that the fandom likes to fetishise would like to wear.

#harry potter #wizarding fashion #wizarding world #meta #hp

[padfootswhiskers]

With all respect, I think u guys give jkr's writing skill too much credit . Ik she said she planned everything abt hp books from the beginning( I don't believeit tbh), but she wrote some of the weirdest dumb stuff ever for the sake of the plot that don't make any sense ... Remus's life and even his name, for example.The fact that Remus hasn't visited Harry for almost 12yrs is ridiculous . "He thought Harry was safe - he felt worthless. He was a coward. " wtf?! No he didn't do it bc Harry shouldn't know abt his parents and wizarding world the End. srslyWheree were lily's friends? Oh they all passed away...Harry's grandparents THEY ALL PASSED AWAY ...problem solved (jkr is so good at this) and plus imo that also happened simply bc if Remus checked on Harry, he would be a father figure to him 100% (the role given to Sirius), and jkr didn't want Harry to have the same close connection with Remus as he did with Sirius. It would make harry -Sirius's relationship unimportant... Take Sirius's other relationships, for example. When he escaped Azkaban, he had no family, no lover, no one. Initially, I was like, "Yeah, okay," and that seemed fine. But later, it occurred to me that maybe he was written that way because he had to be solely for Harry. Like, he shouldn't care about anyone but Harry. Sirius isn't allowed to prioritize anyone over his godson.

to be fair, anon, i think two things can be true at the same time. a lot of stuff does happen in the hp universe for plot reasons---this doesn't necessarily mean it's always bad writing.

the plot required harry to be unaware of the wizarding world, alright. i don't see how this means remus would've taken, like, custody of harry or something if it hadn't! remus IS a coward. he IS extremely self flagellating. it IS completely plausible that he knew petunia wasn't a great person and left harry there anyway!

(take DH for example. he says tonks will be safe with her parents right after he tells them that her parents have been tortured for information. he isn't a stupid man, he's being deliberately cowardly.)

i understand that you probably really like remus, or at least the good bits of him, but character traits you dislike do not equal bad writing. remus consistently shows himself to be extremely passive-aggressive, conflict avoidant and unable to actually follow through on his conscience. i don't know about you, anon, but i can definitely see a man who convinced himself that withholding information about a wanted murderer was OK, convincing himself that harry is safe and better off without him.

jkr didn't have to use plot reasons to thwart remus and harry's budding relationship so that sirius could step in because...there isn't a scenario that exists wherein canon remus would step in to be an orphaned harry's father figure. i'm genuinely curious as to why you think he might. THAT, if anything, is what seems ooc to me.

as for lily, that seems to be pattern with jkr's 'popular girls'. i can't name five of ginny's friends if my life depended on it. it was also obviously done so that the snape reveal would have a greater effect. but lily isn't an established character the same way remus is.

as for sirius? i don't think it's unrealistic that he didn't have a lover/anyone waiting for him. i think people tend to forget he was only barely 22 when he got locked up; plenty of people haven't begun sorting out their lives at that age. lest we forget, he was also fighting a war pretty much the second he left hogwarts. not great for the dating scene, that. i don't think it's unrealistic at all that he hadn't thought about girls (or boys) or settling down at that time in his life.

but even if he had, i can't fathom a world in which he wouldn't transfer the love and devotion he had for james to james' son.

#answered #anonymous #remus lupin #sirius black #sirius and remus are FUNDAMENTALLY different so i genuinely cannot imagine a plot #that would have remus being the father figure to harry #whilst sirius was discarded on the side #like that's just...not them!

[hollowed-theory-hall]

Can you talk about your thoughts on hinny? I have no problem with people shipping it but to me personally it just doesn't work. It feels like Rowling tried too hard or maybe just wasn't good at writing romance and messed it up. Maybe it was too rushed? The ship doesn't work for me but I'd love to hear your views.

Okay, sorry it took a while to answer this, I actually have a lot of thoughts and I have posts on some of them that I hope to get out soon-ish. I also wanted to go back to the books to make sure I'm not talking out of my ass. But I don't like Hinny, never did. And my reasons are kinda divided into three categories.

Disclaimer: I don't have anything against anyone who ships hinny, it's just really not my thing and I don't see it working with the way I see their characters.

And that's like the core of it. I just don't see Harry and Ginny as compatible on a character level. That and their relationship never really read as believable to me in the books.

The 3 categories I mentioned are:

Harry's character

Firstly, I think Harry is gay. Not bi, but gay. I think he was never actually attracted to a woman and I have a whole post to prove it. So, because that's how I read his character, I just can't really see him with any girl.

(Now, I don't think JKR intended for Harry to come off as gay, but he did)

Secondly, he never thought about Ginny, like, up until book 6, and even during large portions of book 6, he just isn't thinking about Ginny as a potential romantic interest. And when he does think about Ginny in the final two books it never reads like he really likes her. It reads like they decided they are dating, but I don't think Harry knows why he supposedly likes her. He just decided he does, but doesn't know why. It was kind of the same with Cho, where he said he had a crush on her and was nervous around her, but if you asked Harry what he likes about her, his answer would be: "Ehh...."

Like, Harry doesn't really seem to know why he's dating Ginny, and neither do I. It's just how it's written.

2. Ginny's character

So, this is again my opinion, but I don't like Ginny. I just don't like her character. I wish her off the page whenever she talks.

And, when it comes to shipping, for me, I need to find both the characters involved interesting and fun for me to explore to ship them together and care about the pairing. As I don't like Ginny and don't really care for her, I can't really ship her with anyone, not really. It's not even like I hate her (not the way I hate Dumbledore), I just find a lot of her actions and behavior iffy and she annoys me more often than not.

I'm not going to list everything I don't like about Ginny (some of it appears in the rest of this post). But her treatment of Fluer, for example, really soured her character to me. Like, sure, Ginny's young, but, she's 15, and by that point, I think she should take responsibility for being awful to Fluer who was nothing but nice to all of them. Envy is not a good look for Ginny.

3. How they are portrayed together

Like I mentioned in the Harry section, their romance just never really felt there to me. The descriptions were off and left me feeling annoyed at their scenes together more than anything else.

Again, I'm writing a more comprehensive post about it, but the gist of it is that Harry's thoughts about Ginny in books 6 and 7 are weirdly detached for a supposed crush at best or outright uncomfortable for me to read at worst.

Now, we know Harry can describe characters he finds attractive in greater detail. There is none of that detail with Ginny. He only mentioned her hair color and that her hair is long and smells nice. Like, he doesn't talk about her eye color, her facial structure, eye shape (like he does sometimes with characters he does find attractive) — nothing. He doesn't even call her pretty once! At least he referred to Cho Chang as pretty twice in the series.

In the books there is never a scene (not even one) that convinces me they should be together. Like, they have no chemistry. They kinda remind me of Ron and Lavender tbh. They make out and are present in the same space often, but they never talk. Not really. I don't think Ginny actually knows Harry all that well because he never honestly talks to her about anything real. They don't really have chemistry or a relationship, they're just together. At least, that's how I always saw them.

And yes, Harry has his jealousy moments (that are portrayed so weirdly I always narrow my eyes at them to make sure they were actually there, but that's a whole other post about Harry's chest monster of jealousy), but he still doesn't really explain what he finds in Ginny. He doesn't mention she's attractive or pretty at any point, nor does he mention anything he particularly likes about her personality (except that she doesn't weep like Cho and is good at Quidditch. Neither of which are particularly good basis for a relationship).

Like, Ginny mentions why she likes Harry and that she does multiple times. Harry by contrast, just feels so incredibly uninvolved in his own relationship, to me.

Also, personally, I just find the setup of their relationship iffy. Like Ginny outright says she never gave up on Hary and always knew they'd end up together. It means, that since she was 11 (or earlier), she was crushing on Harry, never gave up on her crush, and considered them ending up together fate. She dated other guys to make Harry jealous and pay attention to her, and that's just really gross. I don't like her long obsessive crush on Harry or her treatment of the other guys she dated on her way to get Harry.

Proof of that, for those wondering:

“I never really gave up on you,” she [Ginny] said. “Not really. I always hoped. . . . Hermione told me to get on with life, maybe go out with some other people, relax a bit around you, because I never used to be able to talk if you were in the room, remember? And she thought you might take a bit more notice if I was a bit more — myself.”

(Half-Blood Prince, page 647)

She literally said she dated other guys so Harry would take notice of her. That just grosses me out.

So, no, I don't like Hinny (or Ginny).

#anti hinny #harry potter #harry potter thoughts #hp thoughts #hp #that being said I don't particularly like drarry either #or most harry parings really #like there are parings with him I don't mind in fic #but I'm not truly passionate about any of them #there is 1 harry pairing I actively like #but I got into it on accident and its with a very minor character #harry is my precious boy and deserves only the best #that's why I'm so picky about who I ship him with #ginny weasley critical #anti ginny weasley

[daughter-of-sapph0]

why the fuck do gentiles get to decide what is and isn't antisemitic? like, when we tell you something is antisemitic, you don't listen. but then you saying that something you don't like is antisemitic just to shut us up? like, here's just two recent examples, recent as in this past week.

how come jkr can sue people into oblivion until they're forced to apologize and say "actually jkr didn't do any holocaust denial. my bad" on twitter? like, it's not defamation because it's quite literally a fact. jkr said quite clearly on twitter that trans people not only weren't targeted by the nazis, but didn't even exist at the time. both of which are untrue statements. the Institut für Sexualwissenschaft headed by Jewish German sexologist Magnus Hirschfeld was burned by the nazis in 1933. this is a very obvious fact and you can easily find it with a simple google search. jkr is quite literally denying that this part of history ever even happened, which is holocaust denial.

why is it that the us government can ban a phrase that's a cry for the end of genocide and just label it antisemitic? "from the river to the sea" is not antisemitic. it never has been. it's a phrase that represents freedom for Palestine. and in case you need a reminder, the Palestinian genocide is not a "war" or "conflict", and it certainly isn't because of religion. being against zionism does not mean you're antisemitic. in fact, the belief that all Jews are zionists is itself antisemitic. because whether you're saying it to attack Jews under the guise of supporting Palestine, or you're trying to say that antizionist Jews aren't "real" Jews, you're still saying the same thing: that you have the idea in your head that all Jews are or at least should be committing genocide against a people who have had their country and homes and families and lives stolen from them.

y'all make me want to rip my hair out

#dostxt

[forestdeath1]

I see many Snape Stans (I dislike Snape but I see why he turned out the way he did) saying James sexually assaulted him, especially on TikTok, when it’s not the truth at all, we don’t know if he ever actually took off his pants because and it wasn’t his fault that Snape wasn’t wearing any trousers. While he did bully him he never sexually assaulted him, and so many people are now saying this and I’m just flabbergasted, why did no one read the books? Why does everyone get their informations off TikTok and Twitter?

I don't really like this topic, to be honest. But here's how I perceive it.

1. In the canon, as far as I remember, it wasn't even implied that wizards wore trousers under their robes. They all just wore their underwear. And Lupin says:

"Oh, that one had a great vogue during my time at Hogwarts," said Lupin reminiscently. "There were a few months in my fifth year when you couldn’t move for being hoisted into the air by your ankle."

"Yes," he said, "but he wasn't the only one. As I say, it was very popular. . . . You know how these spells come and go. . . ."

So Snape not only created this spell himself, but it also became popular at school. So many students were hanging upside down, showing off their underwear.

From this, we can infer that wizards perceived it slightly differently than we do now, and even than Harry. It was "fun" bullying, but nothing more. Even Lupin himself sounds like he's justifying it, although he probably got hung upside down too ("There were a few months in my fifth year when you couldn’t move for being hoisted into the air by your ankle.").

2. We don't know for sure if James ended up taking Snape's pants off. Logically speaking, JKR simply didn't describe it, assuming that he did. Given the time the book was written, she probably didn't intend to invest it with such a horrible meaning. This all happens in the 70s in the WW. For our time, of course, it's SA. And that's awful. But the perception of that time could leave its mark. For example, when I was in school, many things that are now considered "awful" were seen as "not so bad". Those who did those awful things back then didn't even really understand how awful their actions truly were. Society evolves and we increasingly respect people's personal psychological and physical boundaries. What we didn't perceive as SA back then is considered SA today. A simple example you've probably seen in movies, spanking children was considered normal and right. That's how society raised those people. Surely today those same people wouldn't spank their children, because they would understand it's bad.

So it's likely that nobody at school perceived this action as SA. Moreover, James always played to the crowd. And if he really, according to the author's intention, took Snape's pants off, and the whole school saw it as normal, and didn't start looking at James with disgust... it raises big questions for the school students, doesn't it? If my friend did this today, he wouldn't be my friend anymore. Most people would look at such a person with disgust. But James's popularity didn't diminish at all.

This brings us back to the fact that nobody back then saw it as worse than bullying. So the society of that time hadn't yet formed enough understanding of what SA was and how bad it was to expose someone else's genitals. So James didn't fully understand either how awful it was, much more awful than pink bubbles out of your mouth or doubling someone's head in size. So for them it was all on the same level — taking someone's pants off or making them hang upside down or doubling their head in size.

I'm not justifying it, but the wizarding world is pretty harsh. Neville was thrown out of a window, Harry almost killed Draco, Fred and George literally made a kid disappear for a week, and Hermione kept Rita Skeeter captive in a jar for over a month. All of this is awful, but the wizarding world operates by different moral standards.

If judged in terms of our morality, there are almost no morally pure characters in these books.

I especially don't understand Snape stans (I mean I like Snape, but I don’t understand their logic). In terms of our morality, both Snape and James deserve to be punished. Snape would have got a much bigger sentence for joining and helping a terrorist organisation. What are Snape stans trying to prove? That Snape was better? No, he wasn't. They're all arseholes in terms of the muggle world of 2024.

#james potter #severus snape #james potter meta #hp meta #severus snape meta