Why blaming lily is rooted in misogyny

This is reminding me of a very familiar age old idea that has been ingrained in us for generations: a woman should just shutup and listen to what she's told. Lily should have forgiven Snape "I have no doubt that Lily was rightfully upset and maybe also a bit frightened by Snape's calling muggleborns "mudblood".

But she didn't seem the least interested of knowing the reason why he did so. You don't just assume they're "practically a Death Eater" so you might as well not even try. And if you really love someone, and you know they love someone else who needs the above They say she didn't understand the stress he was under when it happened, and that she should have given him another chance.

We know Snape apologizes to Lily after wards. He sits in front of the entrance to Gryffindor common room waiting for Lily to come out. I have no doubt that he feels bad for Lily being upset. But does he mean it? As proven in Part 1, "mudblood" was the last straw for Lily, along with the connotations that come with this word. Even at the portrait hole, Snape doesn't deny wanting to join the DE's. And as proven above, Snape doesn't listen to Lily whenever she did voice her concerns and what she was upset about.

So why should she have forgiven him at this point? How many MORE chances was she supposed to give him? I'd say this is another example of enforcing the idea that women are always caregivers, compassionate, and understanding. Lily should have understood his pain, she should have been concerned over his needs, etc.

It's criticizing her because she is not doing what a woman is expected to do. And here's another thing; What would forgiving Snape have done? Now we can go into how being able to forgive betters one self, but for all we know, Lily could have forgiven Snape years later.

Forgiveness doesn't just mean forgetting everything that happened and getting along with the person again. So we don't know if she always held any resentment toward Snape. Maybe a part of her was always sad for losing her best friend. But as far as we know, Snape was all set for joining the DE's. Snape's actions against Lily as indicated in the text along with his story arc prove that he was not planning on changing.

So why is Lily criticized for not giving him another chance? Unless we actually think that if Lily "had done what she was supposed to," Snape would have changed. Which means Snape becoming a DE was her fault, which then leads us to Tags: fandom is stupid , feminism , harry potter , lily , misogyny. Post a new comment Error Anonymous comments are disabled in this journal. Your reply will be screened Your IP address will be recorded. Post a new comment.

Preview comment. She's condemned for not being understanding enough, and yet her inability to do so is still no excuse. The expectation that women are gentle nurturers, that they are the understanding ones is still highly enforced in many places today. Yet we have no problem making exceptions for men.

I think most people are familiar with the answer when addressing why a man can't be very understanding: "Well, he's a guy. And if you want HP fandom examples, all we have to do is look at what's said about Snape. But why go to one of the worst possible assumption about Lily? If there is indeed no proof as to why and how Lily fell for James, there's no proof this was the reason either. How is it that just because there is lack of information, it only makes sense that Lily married him for superficial reasons?

Is it because James has money? And correct me if I'm wrong , but I don't remember if this theory ever existed until we find out about Snape and Lily's friendship. The only theory that tried to claim their marriage may have been a sham was James giving Lily a love potion taking Harry's initial doubt a little too seriously , which was going around after we see Snape's Worse Memory for the first time in Book 5. Even when we've known how horrible James used to be and we've known this for the 4 years between Book 5 and Book 7 , never was Lily's choice in a husband deemed superficial or shallow until we find out her relationship with Snape.

Change of judgement due to revelations in book 7, or finding excuses to demonize Lily because of Snape? Either way, this theory is not supported in the text. I should also point out the stigma that gets attached to a woman when she marries a wealthy man. When we see no other reason present for why she's with him, we automatically assume she's a "gold digger". But again, if we don't see any textual evidence as to how Lily and James got together, this assumption bears no merit either except from the reader's own judgment of women who've done this.

And the fact that this theory doesn't even come up until after Book 7 is even more telling. It's established in the text that certain members of Slytherin House believed racist ideology and became Deatheaters after they finished school. It may be true that the the books depict Slytherin house and it's students unfairly and go against the sorting hat's urgency for house unity.

But that is a whole other discussion. That's what we have whether we like it or not. That said, the accusation that Lily was too judgmental and self-righteous roots from the same idea as stated above: That Lily didn't want to associate herself with a Slytherin anymore. That she eventually adopts a pompous attitude and thinks that Gryffindors are much better. Regardless of your attitudes towards Gryffindors and Slytherins, the text does not indicate that house difference was Lily's reason for endings things with Snape.

As explained above, Lily communicates what she doesn't like about the people Snape hangs around with, and we're shown how and why Lily breaks away from Snape for good. To say that Lily was being too judgmental toward Snape and Slytherins not only denies what actually happened in the text, it disregards Lily's own needs and wants. Lily communicated to Snape that Mulciber is creepy and how she regards Dark Magic.

She doesn't appreciate being called mublood and will not stay with someone who is going to align himself with people who support Voldy's cause.

All of this is shown in The Prince's Tale chapter. Now, if you want to argue that there's no evidence Snape's friends were following Voldy in their early years, that Gryffindors looked down on Slytherins too much, that calling someone a mudblood is forgivable, okay fine.

But then what about what Lily thinks of Mulciber and his actions? What about how she feels about her best friend calling her mudblood?

Why aren't they taken into consideration when judging Lily's actions and her reasons? Is it really just a disregard for canon, or are Lily's views not deemed as important? And through it all, Snape gets more symphathy points because he lost his best friend. Now, I'm not saying all those who interpret the canon this way to do it just to vilify Lily. But the trend here is very much like what happens in real life: the tendency to put a woman's wants and needs secondary or not even considered at all to a man's.

Or in this case, a woman's actions are vilified in order to make excuses for a man's actions. The film goes out of its way to establish Ariel as an outsider within her own society. Think for a moment about the opening lines of Part of Your World:. Look at this stuff. Look at this trove, Treasures untold How many wonders can one cavern hold? People who criticize Ariel so often mis-characterize her as simply a spoiled teenager.

Ariel may be the daughter of the sea-king, but the sea-king hates and fears humanity. Part of Your World is the most heartbreaking rebuttal to anyone who sees Ariel as a shallow teenager because it shows how alone she truly is. Except for Flounder, she has no one under the sea she can genuinely confide in. She confides in Sebastian, of course, but he was sent by her father to spy on her and he does betray her trust — by mistake, but he does.

Her sisters and the rest of Atlantica presumably do not question the prejudices that cause the human world to be forbidden to the sea folk. Ariel is an outcast, forced to hide who she is from the people who should love her unconditionally.

These artifacts represent a void in her life and, at the same time, are the only means she has of filling that void. She longs to have knowledge, but her society imposes ignorance on her. She longs to see the human world herself, to ask questions and finally be answered — but it is all denied her. The imposed ignorance forces her to live vicariously through the artifacts she collects. Her collection perpetually reminds her that there is a world beyond her reach.

At the same time, it is her central way of interacting with that world. Yes, she can go up to to the surface and talk to Scuttle, but her collection is something so much more personal. These are items she saved from the ruins of ships, sometimes at the risk of her own life… so she could study them, learn from them, and lament the unjust rules of her society that prevent her from learning more….

Her courage, her curiosity, her thirst for knowledge are all bound up in these precious possessions. And yes, they are objects. Yes, she wants more than a collection of objects. But this collection is all she has. And, as far as Ariel knows, it is all she will ever have…. And, I remind you, Ariel cannot even openly enjoy her collection of scraps, the shadows of a world she cannot touch.

She has to hide even them, guard them, keep them secret. I could hardly watch it. I hid my face. I begged my family to skip scene. I was reduced to a sobbing mess. That reason is because, in watching the scene, I felt the pain of a place of refuge being invaded. They are extensions of herself, encapsulating all her feelings of hope and hopelessness.

Because it so blatantly disregards the context of the film. Because it paints Ariel as a shallow teenager. I want to tread carefully here because, like Ariel, Triton is a nuanced and complex character. He has good intentions and cares about his youngest daughter. Yet, even a well-intentioned individual can be in the wrong.

Even an individual who is right about certain things Ariel is indeed impetuous and reckless at times — though I hope my analysis reminds readers that those are not her sole character traits , can be wrong about other things. The enhancement of expression in animation allows the audience to clearly see the fear in her face.

I set certain rules and I expect those rules to be obeyed. On one level, Triton is right to expect his children to respect the rules he sets in place. What I feel Triton misses, however, is that respect is not the same as intimidation. Since Triton wants Ariel to accept his rules based solely on his authority as her father, he makes it impossible for there to be any communication between himself and his daughter. This dynamic means that he will not listen to Ariel even when Ariel is in the right and he is not.