Exactly. His Reason Was 'because Snape Exists', Which Must Mean The Wealthy, Popular Pureblood Couldn't

Nicely written 😊

My problem with Lily and James being seen as a super couple has nothing to do with Severus Snape but rather with the fact that when we look at the relationship between James and Lily through a feminist lens, it’s hard not to notice some pretty glaring issues that go beyond just whether or not they’re an “OTP” couple. Sure, on the surface it might seem like a story of two people finding love amid all the chaos, but scratch beneath the surface and you see a whole lot more about toxic masculinity, objectification, and the erasure of a woman’s agency. James is celebrated as this charming, rebellious “bad boy” with a roguish smile, while Lily gets stuck playing the role of the sacrificial, moral compass woman—someone who exists largely to balance out and even redeem the male narrative. And honestly, that’s a problem.

James is shown as this complex, active character who’s constantly surrounded by friends, enemies, and drama. His life is dynamic and full of choices—even if those choices sometimes involve manipulation and deceit. He’s the kind of guy who can easily slip out of confinement with his Invisibility Cloak, leaving Lily behind in a narrative that, over time, turns her into a background figure. This dynamic isn’t accidental; it’s reflective of how our culture often values male agency over female independence. Lily, on the other hand, is repeatedly reduced to her relationships with the men around her. Instead of being a person with her own dreams, opinions, and friendships, she becomes a symbol—a kind of emotional barometer for how “good” or “bad” a man is. Her character is used to validate the actions of others, which means her individuality gets smothered under the weight of a trope that’s all too common in literature: the idea that a woman’s worth is measured by her ability to tame or save a troubled man.

This isn’t just about a lack of depth in Lily’s character; it’s also about how her portrayal reinforces harmful gender norms. Lily is depicted as this kind of sacrificial mother figure—a person whose primary virtue is her selflessness, her willingness to suffer and sacrifice for the sake of others. While selflessness is often celebrated in women, it’s a double-edged sword when that selflessness is the only thing we see. Instead of having her own narrative, her role is defined by how much she gives up, not by what she contributes or the inner life she leads. And it’s not just a narrative oversight—it’s a reflection of a broader cultural pattern where women are expected to be nurturing, supportive, and ultimately secondary to the male characters who drive the action.

What’s even more frustrating is how Lily’s isolation is used to further the narrative of James’s redemption. Over time, we see Lily’s network of friends and her connections outside of James gradually disappear. It’s almost as if, once she falls in love, her entire world is meant to shrink around that relationship. And here’s where the feminist critique really kicks in: this isn’t a realistic depiction of a balanced, healthy relationship—it’s a story that subtly suggests that a woman’s fulfillment comes from being dependent on one man and his circle, rather than cultivating her own identity. Meanwhile, James continues to be portrayed as this larger-than-life figure who’s got a whole world beyond his romantic entanglement, a world filled with vibrant interactions, rivalries, and a legacy that extends beyond his relationship with Lily.

Another point worth mentioning is the way in which the narrative seems to excuse James’s less-than-stellar behavior. His manipulation, his lying, and his willingness to trick Lily into situations that serve his own interests are brushed off as quirks of a “bad boy” persona—a kind of charm that, in the end, makes him redeemable because Lily’s love is supposed to “tame” him. This kind of storytelling not only normalizes toxic masculinity but also puts an unfair burden on Lily. It’s like saying, “Look how amazing you are, you’re the only one who can fix him!” That’s a dangerous message because it implies that women are responsible for managing or even reforming male behavior, rather than holding men accountable for their own actions.

The imbalance in their character development is glaringly obvious when you compare how much more we learn about James versus how little we know about Lily. James is given room to be flawed, to grow, and to be complicated. His friendships, his rivalries, and even his mistakes are all part of what makes him a rounded character. Lily, however, is often just a name, a face in the background who exists mainly to serve as a counterpoint to James’s narrative. Her inner life, her ambitions, and her struggles are rarely explored in any meaningful way, leaving her as a one-dimensional character whose only real purpose is to highlight the moral journey of the man she loves.

It’s also important to recognize how this kind of narrative plays into broader cultural ideas about gender. When literature consistently portrays women as the quiet, isolated figures who are only valuable in relation to the men around them, it sends a message about what is expected of real-life women. It suggests that a woman’s worth is determined by how much she sacrifices or how well she can support a man, rather than by her own achievements or personality. This isn’t just a harmless trope—it contributes to a societal mindset that limits women’s potential and reinforces gender inequality. The way Lily is written reflects a kind of “tamed” femininity that’s supposed to be passive, supportive, and ultimately secondary to the active, adventurous masculinity that James represents.

At the heart of the issue is the lack of balance in their relationship as depicted in the texts. The idea that Lily “fell for” a man who was clearly not a paragon of virtue is problematic, but what’s even more problematic is how her role in the relationship is so narrowly defined. Rather than being seen as an independent character who makes choices and has her own voice, she is constantly portrayed as someone whose existence is meant to validate the male experience. Even when the texts mention that Lily had her own issues—like hating James at times or suffering because of the way their relationship unfolded—it’s always in a way that underlines her weakness compared to James’s dynamic, active presence.

Looking at the broader picture, it’s clear that this isn’t just about one fictional couple—it’s a reflection of how gender dynamics have long been skewed in literature. Male characters are given the freedom to be complex, flawed, and full of life, while female characters are often stuck in roles that don’t allow them to be fully realized. This isn’t to say that every story with a sacrificial female character is inherently bad, but it does mean that when a character like Lily is reduced to a mere symbol—a moral compass or a measure of male worth—it’s time to ask why and what that says about the society that produced that narrative.

So, what’s the way forward? For one, we need to start reimagining these relationships in a way that allows both partners to be fully fleshed out. Lily deserves to be more than just a side character or a moral benchmark; she should have her own narrative, her own dreams, and her own agency. And as much as it might be appealing to think of James as this redeemable rebel, it’s equally important to hold him accountable for the ways in which his behavior perpetuates harmful stereotypes about masculinity. A healthier narrative would be one in which both characters grow together, where mutual respect and equal agency are at the core of their relationship.

In the end, the story of James and Lily, as it stands, is a reminder of how deeply ingrained gender norms can shape the stories we tell. It’s a cautionary tale about the dangers of allowing toxic masculinity to go unchecked and of confining women to roles that don’t do justice to their full humanity. For anyone who’s ever felt frustrated by these imbalances, there’s hope in the idea of re-writing these narratives—of pushing for stories where both men and women are seen as complete, complex individuals. And really, that’s what literature should strive for: a reflection of the messy, beautiful, and often complicated reality of human relationships, where no one is just there to serve as a prop in someone else’s story.

Ultimately, if we can start imagining a world where characters like Lily aren’t just defined by their relationships to men, where their voices and stories are given as much weight as those of their male counterparts, then we can begin to chip away at the outdated tropes that have held us back for so long. It’s about time we celebrated the full spectrum of human experience—and that means giving women like Lily the space to shine on their own terms, without being constantly overshadowed by a “bad boy” narrative that has little to say about their true selves.

So much potential

No one can deny that during the Order meetings, while someone was talking, Severus would make weird faces at Sirius, moving his mouth to silently say things like "pathetic drunk" or "mummy's boy"—absolutely childish insults, the kind you'd expect from a 12-year-old. And Sirius, on instinct, would leap over the table to rip his head off, and everyone had to hold him back. Then Dumbledore would arrive and say, "Please, Sirius, control yourself," and Sirius, absolutely livid, would point at Severus and shout, "HE KEEPS SAYING THINGS TO ME ALL THE TIME, HE'S PROVOKING ME!" And Severus, with his expert Occlumens blank expression, would go, "So much time locked up without seeing anyone has made you start hallucinating, Black," like the most skilled gaslighter in history. And Sirius would have to swallow his rage while Severus subtly lowered his head the moment he noticed Dumbledore giving him a skeptical side-eye. Meanwhile, Molly felt the overwhelming urge to rip her hair out because dealing with her own children was one thing, but dealing with grown men who were theoretically supposed to set an example for her kids? She was way too old for this shit.

This happened, and no one can convince me otherwise.

‘She wasn’t a good mother’ great are we evaluating this character trait as one of her many facets or are we just damning her for not being the most maternal womanliest woman who ever womaned

1. Stripping someone to their underwear, while choking them and assaulting them beforehand, in public, is definitely sexual assault.

I compared it to groping because it's essentially mild sexual assault, but both have the same effect on the victim: lack of consent, sexual humiliation, and exposure, in Snape's case. And in real life, forced exposure is considered sexual assault.

2. No, it was James starting the fights, with Sirius. Snape was only fighting back. The Marauders targeted Snape for their own amusement, and he merely retaliated in self-defense. Should he just take it? This is victim blaming.

3. It's because his whole life he never had power and respect. At home, he was abused and neglected. At Hogwarts, he was bullied, assaulted, and gaslighted by both his abusers, his best friend, and the authorities, who failed to intervene plus Dumbledore, who protected his abusers. No authority ever prevented James and Sirius from attacking Snape. He needed power, he needed to feel respected, because he never was, and it's perfectly normal to crave that. His agency was always taken away. Cults target people like Snape because he's insecure, seeks community, acceptance, and a sense of power, and he's useful at that. He also shared a dorm with Slytherins every day, so it's no wonder he got sucked into their camaraderie in some way. He merely sought agency, since everyone around kept stripping it from him. James essentially contributed to Snape's social alienation, disrespect, ostracization, and indirectly was partly responsible for Snape's radicalization, though not completely.

4. I'm not saying what Snape did was good, nor am I justifying his actions. I'm simply saying that James and Sirius were a pretty big contributor to him getting sucked into the Death Eater circle and that they both abused him, and Snape was the victim in their dynamic.

I'm talking about social power and those who were constantly neglected of it - of course, people want to reclaim their power. James was a socially popular, accepted, wealthy, powerful pureblood who had a stable home, whereas Snape was often ostracized, humiliated, a poor, ugly half-blood in Slytherin where status is everything. He was also neglected and abused by his family at home and abused at Hogwarts, literally everywhere. His pursuit of power was about protection, belonging, and self-worth, which he didn’t get anywhere else. And teenagers need those things.

All of your arguments ignore context, as well as how oppressive systems work and affect the oppressed.

can snape stans for the love of god please shut the fuck up

here are some things i’ve GENUINELY seen snape stan’s say today and i have receipts:

1. that lily only fell in love with james because he gave her a love potion. i…i don’t even know what to say other than that this is obscene.

2. that james’ actions could be compared to what death eaters do. i’m sorry, has james ever killed or tortured anybody purely due to their race/ethnicity? does james think that all minorities deserve to die or be controlled? and do i need to remind people that snape literally WAS an avid blood supremacist and death eater?? jesus fucking christ…

3. like 3000 people saying over and over that james sexually assaulted snape. first of all, comparing pantsing to sexual assault is extremely disrespectful to anybody who’s been s/a’d, myself included. second of all, that only happened in the movies, dipshits. clearly you didn’t read the books if you obsess over that argument.

4. that lily, sirius, remus, james, and peter are all worse people than snape. i’m sorry, did any of them grow up to torment innocent children? did any of them grow up to find pleasure in the pain and suffering and fear of little kids, using their position as a TEACHER to express prejudice? did any of them grow up to use a child’s DEAD DAD’s actions from DECADES AGO to justify cruelty? peter grows up to be awful, but the other four make childhood mistakes that they learn and grow from in adulthood. snape never learns and grows. he just gets worse, and that’s nobody’s fault but his own.

5. that minerva and hagrid are just as bad as snape. first of all, hagrid never discriminated against students for their race or identity and neither does minerva. hagrid and minerva are tough but fair. they don’t enact cruelty. when they see bullies or cruel students get what’s coming to them, then they turn away because they’re witnessing natural consequences. i won’t deny that minerva and hagrid have favorites but they aren’t blatantly cruel to people who aren’t favorites and their only acts of cruelty are ones in which the students ACTUALLY INSTIGATE something worth punishing. snape punishes neville for existing. he punishes hermione for daring to participate in class. and malfoy goes off scott free because he’s a pure blood.

moral of the story, snape stans are delusional. if y’all weren’t so INSANE, then maybe i’d actually like snape. but you are. so i don’t, and i doubt i ever will!

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.

Men are just incapable of creating meaningful friendships that would fullfill their emotional needs and that is not women's fault.

If I have to see one more goddamn mention of the “male loneliness epidemic” i’m going to shoot myself. Yknow women have been lonely. For centuries. For millennia women have been lonely, isolated in marriages they didn’t want, forced into domestic labour they never asked for, at home with children they never dreamed of having, having their rights, their dreams, their aspirations, their hopes and dreams stripped away from them. For millennia! But sure some men can’t make friends and mean women won't fuck them. Let’s call it an epidemic and have all of the world’s professionals turn an eye to it, let’s have a shit ton of articles and papers written about why men can’t make friends or get girlfriends and how that’s just not fair you guys! It’s not as though men have been having the world spoon fed to them, carried to them on a golden platter for millennia either. It’s not as though every woman in a man’s life is forced constantly to do emotional labour for him because he has the mentality of a fucking six year old and is effectively useless on his own. It is the de facto position for a wife or a girlfriend to “fix” a useless man, to make him a real man, to make him empathetic and kind and patient, to temper and mature him and just hope to god he doesn’t fucking kill her on the way there. Men are lonely? Fucking good. Maybe, for the first time in civilisation, they fucking should be.

"Then write it yourself." I hate writing… If I enjoyed it and didn’t dread the process, I would’ve already written it into existence. But there’s nothing that feels more excruciating than that.

I recommend that you read some Andrea Dworkin, Laura Bates, Kate Manne, Angela Davis, or Soraya Chemaly to help expand your horizons, because the authors you mentioned clearly failed to engage your brain in any critical way that would make you realize that, yes, a word created to degrade an oppressed group of people, in this case women, is a slur.

Perhaps you'll also encounter a new term of the week: 'internalized misogyny.'

I love it when Marauders stans try to portray Lily as the ultimate feminist icon when any woman with half a brain and even the most basic understanding of gender studies knows that you’d be safer locked in a cage with a hungry lion than with a rich brat who publicly strips people and blackmails you into dating him in exchange for not committing sexual assault. Like, what world do you even live in? Seriously?

Why are Molly haters always so rude? 😮‍💨

No way 🤣

them in 1980 (albus thought he was a demon and sev was in the market for a father figure)