speaking from experience, if you're a lesbian and you're attracted to a trans man then two options present themselves to you:
realize that you don't really see him as a man, or :
accept that you can be attracted to a man
a fork in the road like this would be a great place to examine your bioessentialist transphobia, but instead of doing that you can just ascend to a new enlightened plane and reach queer level 100 by deciding "welllll trans men can be lesbians"
3. Realise youâre attracted to female people and acknowledge that sexuality is based on sex, and that basing it on anything else such as the social construct of gender ignores that sexuality is biological, not socialised.
This is so funny bc many lesbians are famously attracted to masculine women. Who are indistinguishable from a âpre transition trans manâ in every way. Somehow lesbians are supposed to sense some male energy coming off of SOME of these masc lesbians (who are âactuallyâ trans) and not be attracted to them. Somehow being exclusively attracted to female people means that youâre bisexual, because you canât know if that masculine lesbian is going to cave and put he/him in her bio because everyone calls her that anyway and she doesnât like her breasts so she might as well be a dude.
Be so for reallllll of COURSE lesbians can be attracted to female people who identify with different genders.
I understand that this is probably an Old Man Yells At Cloud opinion at this point, but I feel strongly that if I hold a t-shirt up to a window on a sunny day I should not be able to see through it clearly enough to make out the outlines of the trees across the street.
What even is an aroace lesbian because I have never encountered one that wasn't obsessed with men. They don't even seem bi. Are these just straight women who are scared of men or traumatized by them or something?
Honestly, I have no clue. Itâs possible that theyâre just lesbians who arenât into hookup culture or feel they experience minimal attraction. From some I do get the vibe that theyâre straight women who donât want relationships with men for a variety of reasons, and want deep friendships with women.
The âsplit attraction modelâ and âaro/ace spectrumâ and really just the concept of âaromanticâ as a sexual orientation have all led people to overthinking their sexuality wayyyy too much. Sorry youâre not on some special spectrum with some special combination of labels, youâre just over complicating something very simple.
More common is lesbians who call themselves aromantic bc while they feel attraction to women they feel disgusted at the thought of being in a relationship with one (due to how impossible a relationship with a woman can feel, and with the knowledge that they donât want it at ALL with a man = I just donât want romance). Or âbiromantic homosexualâ where a lesbian is like âit sounds really nice to be with a man, it would be so much easier and I could introduce him to my family, I can imagine myself in these sexless situations with a man and with a woman I can imagine it too but I would also enjoy kissing her and having sexâ. That one was veryyyy common in the mid 2010âs, mixed with other âbiromantic homosexualsâ who were just bisexual people lol. So very confusing for young lesbians. The split attraction model did so much damage!
I saw in my recommended videos section on YouTube that Alex Meyers did a review for Obsession, but I didnât watch it because firstly I donât want to watch any videos about that movie made by men and secondly I just somehow had this bad feeling that heâd miss the point of the movieâŠ
Yeah turns out I was right not to watch it đŹ
And no Iâm not gonna hate-watch his review to see how bad it is, just reading these descriptions of it made me want to start mauling something
Maybe at the very least Iâll open it in an incognito tag and browse the comments with the video paused because from what Iâve heard a majority of the comments are calling him out
Obsessed with the take that because women enjoy true crime podcasts that examines real life rapists, because they want to understand why a man would do something so horrid, and these podcasts also donât leave out horrific rape and murder bc itâs the entire point of the podcast - because of women enjoying this content, they should be TOTALLY into a video where he glorifies the rapist and skips over key scenes? You arenât actually examining Bear fairly then, are you? Youâre editing his story heavily to view him in a better light, and itâs understandable that women get upset and that?? And also that youâre trying to gaslight people when everyone watched the movie and KNOW that youâre leaving stuff out?? Like maybe donât lie about whatâs happening in the movie that your viewers have all seen??
Merlin BBC Merlin they could never make me form a solid opinion about you !!! Worldâs bravest coward. The most loyal traitor. The most honest liar. The gentlest murderer. Destroys everything trying to avoid destruction. What a guy !!!!!!!
This post seems to think that everyone should be given their fair shake and that people should always have an exception. Unfortunately for them, theyâre wrong. This mindset necessitates compulsory bisexuality, but some people are just plain olâ gay. It is actually okay to not like any penis, or even anyone who once had a penis.
Whatâs not normal is trying to find an upper limit of what you will endure for the sake of someone else (especially under the pretense of proving that youâre not a bigot). People should want to have the sex theyâre having for their own pleasure. Itâs not a preference to only have sex that you want to haveâit is the default expectation. Ask yourself, why are people so invested in others having sex that they donât want?
Also BRUH the take of âthis is just the reality for a lot of straight womenâ and yet somehow itâs not the reality for a lot of straight men that you can dislike being up close and personal with your gfâs pussy⊠bc men are allowed to have sexual boundaries. Somehow straight women get taken prisoner in this argument of âlesbians need to accept dickâ - and I think itâs a homophobic jibe of âyou should be more like the straight womenâ. Like actually itâs NOT normal and fine to just have to cope with sexual acts to make your partner happy. Sex SHOULD in fact just be fun and joyful and a bonding experience. Whether gay straight or bi you should only have sex that you desire and only with the people who you desire and that desire you back. And yeah, that leaves out some people, and that does not matter at all, actually!
there are corners of this website where the year is still 2013. and sometimes, on beautiful nights when the veil is thin, you can find them . if you know where to look
sometimes where I work, there'll be brief times when it's only women on shift and only women customers inside, and for a couple minutes, I can do a nice little mental exercise where I imagine I'm living in a world with only other women. it's a peaceful happy feeling, but unfortunately you also can't ever really completely let go of the vigilance.
That happened to me on the bus a couple months ago. A woman was trying to get another lady's attention so I got it and it turned out the first woman thought the second lady dropped a bag of potatoes but it wasn't hers. So us and a fourth woman were having a chuckle about it when I realized it was just us and another woman on the bus. There were no men. And I realized a tension I always hold when out and about just wasn't there, as if my body had realized it before I did. lol
By day 2 of my first women's festival (Michfest) I realized that my body had let go of a tension I didn't even realize I had. I felt like a fish noticing the water for the first time. I realized that a lot of my anxiety was related to living in man's land.
Genuinely, when I went to womenâs camp last year it was like letting go of something. Iâm not saying it was perfect, plenty of the women there were annoying as hell but actively being expected to be competent in hauling around heavy things was actually so healing, and likewise for things like being able to be shirtless without fear of any lewd glances, YES, even on a camp ground with MANY lesbians and bisexual women. I NEVER felt uncomfortable around anyone, no one sexualised my breasts, but they were also not completely neutral (I was allowed to look appreciatively at my girlfriendâs breasts without anyone telling me it was gross to be attracted to a womanâs body, for example.) I really felt not only the absence of men but also the PRESENCE of women.
People who hate jk Rowling have gotten so comfortable demonizing her (and also have such poor reading comprehension and critical thinking skills in general) that they will literally backdate their contempt for her and act like her writing was bad just because they donât like it anymore
Theyâll take things from the HP books that were clearly intentional writing choices and act like they were mistakes or things she did wrong
âShe was such a coward for never saying Dumbledore was gay in the booksâ
So true bestie! At a time where books with gay characters would literally be banned from schools and public libraries in the uk (section 28) she just completely coincidentally wrote him as flamboyant, eccentric, mysterious, oddly lonely, intensely private, estranged from his only living family, openly hated by conservatives, criticized for making his school too inclusive, consistently choosing to employ social undesirables at great personal risk, never married or partnered, and suspiciously close with his best friend that he had a tragic falling out with
âShe was so racist for naming the only Asian character Cho Chang / giving the only Indian characters the surname Patil / giving a black character the surname Shackleboltâ
There are so many ways to transliterate names from Asian languages into English, letâs not pretend that a white author in the nineties couldnât have done a lot worse than choosing safe and extremely common names from other cultures rather than risking making something up. Also a huge amount of the names in the book are silly or goofy or specific to peopleâs skills or jobs, and a TON are alliterative. Iâve seen people say jk essentially named her âching-chongâ and quite frankly i think theyâre the racist ones for even suggesting it
Also after centuries of the global slave trade of African people are we really supposed to act like the only acceptable surnames their descendants are allowed are the ones they remember from their homes or the names they married into or the names of their former masters? Is it really impossible that some would choose new names for themselves based on how they escaped or were freed, or that were particularly meaningful to them?
âShe was so evil for creating a race of creatures that are happy to be enslavedâ
Itâs funny how that was your take away - did she actually write house elves as being happy to be enslaved or is that just what all the pureblood students constantly repeated to the concerned outsider who threatened to dismantle that? Itâs not like she constantly makes use of unreliable narrators in her writing or anything.
She gets flak for having written hermione as a good hearted little crusader who didnât ever actually ask the elves what they wanted. She also gets flak for having the elves not want to be freed, even when the text makes it clear that the act of being freed causes them some amount of actual physical suffering.
If we put our critical thinking to good use and actually analyze the literature instead of taking every piece of it at surface value, itâs almost like she was making commentary about how people who get taken advantage of often become trapped in situations they canât escape and try to make the best of it. Wonder why on earth that mightâve resonated with a woman who had an abusive husband she had to run away from. Iâm sure itâs probably not connected.
âShe was so nasty for saying they used to just shit on the floor and vanish itâ
Itâs almost like throughout her book series she established that the British magical world was so contemptuous of muggle technology and innovation that they were literally stuck in the past living like it was still Victorian times, using quills and parchment and candles and carrier birds.
Iâm sure itâs not at all connected that she would suggest that a backwards technology hating population would most likely avoid indoor plumbing for as long as they possibly could
Oh and when theyâre looking for things to be mad about and canât find anything else from the text to misinterpret in bad faith, they shift to straight up pulling stuff out of their asses
âShe was racist for switching from a black to a white actress in the film where Lavender finally got a speaking roleâ
I think we can all agree that it was a racist casting decision, but one that jk rowling had absolutely nothing to do with. The studio treated that character like a background extra until that film, and there had actually already been two different black actresses who had played her. Warner brothersâ excuse was that they recast a more experienced actress, but they also supposedly auditioned a ton of people and if they really needed to replace her than they could easily have chosen another black actress.
Rowling may have had unprecedented creative control over the films but she didnât have total veto power, and there were so much going on in those movies that there had to be tons of decisions made that she was simply never consulted on
âShe was anti-Irish for having Seamus constantly blowing things upâ (i have seen people earnestly argue this)
You mean the behavior the production team invented out of whole cloth for the films? His character caught a single feather on fire once in the books and they ran with it and made him a full blown pyromaniac in the movies. But sure, we can play pretend that she maliciously wrote him that way as insensitive commentary on the violent Irish conflict that was taking place at the time
âShe was antisemitic for writing a jewish character with the last name Goldsteinâ
Again, itâs an actual jewish surname??? And a common one at that. Itâs not a dog whistle or hidden commentary, itâs literally an actual jewish last name. The 2010 US census documented 30,000 living people with the last name Goldstein, making it roughly the 1200th most popular last name in the country
Also staying with the names for a second: JKR has a mix of ordinary, everyday, âcommonâ names and whimsical, goofy names, for everyone. For example, the titular character is LITERALLY âHarry Potterâ. In the very first chapter, Vernon and Petunia talk about what a very COMMON name that is. And it IS. Similarly, we have Smith in Ravenclaw (VERY common name, but I guess not worth noting when itâs a white guy?), Dumbledore being based off âbumblebeeâ from what I recall (because heâs always walking around humming!) Minerva named after the goddess of wisdom, and McGonagall to make it clear sheâs Scottish, POMONA SPROUT being the HERBOLOGY TEACHER??
To claim itâs racist of her to pick common names for characters of colour is crazy bc her white characters have common names too, youâre not frothing at the mouth that an English boy is named Harry, how come itâs so bad that the name Patil/Patel is used? If itâs bad that common names are used, ok, why are you against made up names that show the characterâs role in the story, ie Shacklebolt as an auror who catches (shackles) evil wizards? Youâre acting as though this is all only done to the POC characters when itâs just JKRâs worldbuilding to give characters a mix of normal and made up namesâŠ
Okay, tell me if Iâm overthinking this and/or not the first person who has said this BUT after reading enough Harry Potter fanfiction I kept seeing a name pop up. Herpo the Foul.
Who is from like Fantastic Beasts I think? Idk I blacklisted any actual Rowling books and products ages ago bc of her personality and statements.
Now like who cares about this random dark lords name right? Except Herpo, if you kinda translate the letters/shapes of the letters to Cyrillic is well⊠the N word. The H in Cyrillic is like an English N. The r shape/г is a g. The p is equivalent to r⊠you get my point.
Iâm not a pro at Cyrillic or Russian or anything despite knowing the alphabet but I saw mentioned once that that word in regards to black folks isnât a slur and is just like how they refer to black people, though please correct me if Iâm wrong.
Is Herpoâs name a coincidence? Probably????? But like of all the million combinations of letters, Rowling landed on that? For a dark lord and the guy who did the first horcrux or smt? And given her history with naming characters (shacklebolt?????? Wtf???????) I really have some suspicions.
Any thoughts and speculations on this are appreciated đ
You people really will try to see evil in JKR absolutely everywhere. It takes SECONDS to google that "Herpo" is an ancient Greek word and that it is NOT spelled like that. It means to crawl, to creep - fitting for a wizard known for his association to snakes.
Also, Shacklebolt's job is PUTTING PEOPLE IN JAIL. You guys need to give it a rest already. JKR is not racist.
This is so funny. âIf we translate this name from English into Cyrillic letters and squint it reads like an English slurâ. Like, not even a slur in Cyrillic, an ENGLISH slur using CYRILLIC LETTERS. Except nowhere was Cyrillic even mentioned, and JKR isnât known for using Cyrillic in her books (she uses spells that are of Latin origin and has lots of references to Greek so it objectively makes more sense to look to Latin or Greek for translations⊠and oh look, itâs inspired by GREEK and not by Cyrillic which basically doesnât have a precedent in HP???
A lesbian couple in their 70s bought this plate from me yesterday, and as I was wrapping it up, one of them remarked that not so long ago they couldnât even say the word âlesbianâ aloud đ Those women have been together for almost 40 years and for the first two decades they couldnât even call it what it was. What a precious reminder of how far weâve come and how much the generations before us have been throughâ Iâm so emotional that this piece find the perfect home
I think the funniest thing is that objectively Lily isnât a tradwife by any definition (even if itâs SILLY to put that label on a character who dies in 1981) bc sure, I guess she stays home with her kid⊠but so does James. We KNOW she was active in the Order? We KNOW she defied Voldemort thrice? Itâs not giving âwoman who stayed barefoot and pregnant in the kitchenâ. A fundamental tragedy of the story is the fact that Harry will never know his mum and that everyone who can tell him about her either is unwilling to (Petunia), or dies before they get the chance to (Sirius and Remus, many other order members), or they didnât know her on a personal level (the teachers other than Snape come to mind - Slughorn is the closest but still was obviously an old man and didnât know her the way Severus or her dorm mates did). But what we do know about her in no way indicates that sheâs a tradwife. Sheâs clearly not in the Order because of James, because sheâs fighting with Severus about the DE long before she EVER gets together with James. She couldâve decided to try to keep her head down but she decided to be on the front lines!
I'll go with two unpopular opinions for this: 1. he isnât disdainful of love, and 2. he doesnât think Merope chose to die/abandon him.
1.0 He isn't disdainful of love
I've talked about how he's capable of love, so elaborating on that he doesn't think himself above love or attachment either/isn't contemptuous of the idea of Love. Like he maybe puts it all under a veneer of "I hate people and am godlike and above everyone", but he acknowledges to himself that he's attached to the few people he's genuinely attached to, esp. given he openly confides his rage about his parents etc to Harry/others and calls his followers his true family. Idk if he explicitly uses the word Love, but tbf plenty of emotionally constipated people who aren't Lord Voldemort also have a hard time using That Word specifically.
Though, possible he very occasionally does, since he casually uses sentimental phrasing for his mother's feelings for his father, that she "fell in love with him" and his father abandoned her, without any disdain at her, and likely having only seen a few memories with minimal info on the relationship (in his uncle and father's head). And he calls Nagini "my dear Nagini" and refers to Hogwarts as his "beloved castle", so likely that acknowledgement extends to people at some point.
Iirc, there's a handful of other times LV explicitly refers to "Love" as a concept. Briefly while mocking Ginny ("But I was patient. I wrote back. I was sympathetic, I was kind. Ginny simply loved me."), then:
âCertainly,â said Voldemort, and his eyes seemed to burn red. âI have experimented; I have pushed the boundaries of magic further, perhaps, than they have ever been pushed ââ
âOf some kinds of magic,â Dumbledore corrected him quietly. âOf some. Of others, you remain... forgive me... woefully ignorant.â
For the first time, Voldemort smiled. It was a taut leer, an evil thing, more threatening than a look of rage.
âThe old argument,â he said softly. âBut nothing I have seen in the world has supported your famous pronouncements that love is more powerful than my kind of magic, Dumbledore.â (HBP)
Now, LV being annoyed at Dumbledore giving him obnoxious philosophical speeches about Love (apparently dating back to his teen years) in response to Tom practicing Dark Arts doesn't suggest contempt of the concept of Love in general. Undoubtedly, a decent chunk of that magic is horrific and involves life sacrifices and unethical human experimentation, especially by the time of that interview, but The Power Of Love Can Defeat It is not a helpful response to that, and it's clearly a society wide problem and not limited to Tom (and Dumbledore obviously projects shit and has issues with Dark Arts that isn't harmful too, see: his reaction to a harmless "blood ward" in the locket cave, mistrust of Sirius, etc).
The other time is during the final duel in DH, but notable that LV contradicts himself repeatedly (as he does in most scenes) i.e. first praises Dumbledore and Lily to make Harry seem weak (he'd be speaking the same way regardless of his real opinion on Harry, as Harry's the main threat). In fact, Snape appears to have learned this method of insulting Harry from LV:
"But I want there to be no mistake in anybodyâs mind. Harry Potter escaped me by a lucky chance. And I am now going to prove my power by killing him, here and now, in front of you all, when there is no Dumbledore to help him, and no mother to die for him." (The Death Eaters, GoF)
"Of course, it became apparent to me very quickly that he had no extraordinary talent at all. He has fought his way out of a number of tight corners by a simple combination of sheer luck and more talented friends." (Spinnerâs End, HBP)
"You think it will be you, do you, the boy who has survived by accident, and because Dumbledore was pulling the strings?"
"Accident, was it, when my mother died to save me? [...] Accident, when I decided to fight in that graveyard? Accident, that I didnât defend myself tonight, and still survived, and returned to fight again?"
"Accidents!" screamed Voldemort [...] "Accident and chance and the fact that you crouched and sniveled behind the skirts of greater men and women, and permitted me to kill them for you!" (The Flaw in the Plan, DH)
Then LV just as quickly zeroes in on their weaknesses to insult them - Dumbledore's age and proclamations about love, Lily's blood status:
"I know things you donât know, Tom Riddle. I know lots of important things that you donât. Want to hear some, before you make another big mistake?"
[...] "Is it love again?" said Voldemort, his snakeâs face jeering. "Dumbledoreâs favorite solution, love, which he claimed conquered death, though love did not stop him falling from the tower and breaking like an old waxwork? Love, which did not prevent me stamping out your Mudblood mother like a cockroach, Potter â and nobody seems to love you enough to run forward this time and take my curse. So what will stop you dying now when I strike?"
[...] "If it is not love that will save you this time," said Voldemort, "you must believe that you have magic that I do not [...] (The Flaw in the Plan, DH)
(Likewise in Spinner's End, Snape uses Dumbledore's age as a perceived weakness to get DEs to underestimate him. LV uses a similar tactic with himself - "That Potter lives is due more to my errors than to his triumphs." etc. etc.)
Not sure who told LV that Dumbledore was giving Harry similar speeches about (Mother's) Love having saved him and the "power he knows not" being Love - given Harry's claim about understanding things LV doesn't etc, Harry's likely thinking about Dumbledore's afterlife speech, and probably LV's using Legilimency on Harry in that moment since they're staring into each other's eyes, and/or got that info in previous confrontations (or via Snape). But imo both Voldemort and Dumbledore know that it wasn't Love that vanquished him and know it was Lilyâs intentional work (and by then LV's confused and terrified, as this resurrection was either due to Dumbledore leaving Harry the Hallows or Lily's lingering spellwork, but either way LV doesn't entirely get how it happened). In any case, the priority is mocking his enemies here.
(Given LV refers to "famous pronouncements", it's possible Dumbledore gives similar philosophical speeches as part of his image and actions as a public figure too, esp. if his political power meant he was involved in legislation around Dark Arts etc, so discrediting him via his words about Love may be referring to that too).
Lastly, there's LV's claim that he understands Snape's attachment to Lily as solely sexual:
"He desired her, that was all," sneered Voldemort, "but when she had gone, he agreed that there were other women, and of purer blood, worthier of him â" (DH)
But given that he's being informed that his favored DE who he made Headmaster of Hogwarts betrayed him for the woman who vanquished him - a betrayal he was warned about by other DEs - in a confrontation with the prophesized Chosen One who just came back to life yet again, it is just like, an all around embarrassing situation for him, and he's reacting accordingly (likely referring to something Snape said to prove loyalty to LV).
LV again weaponizes Lily's blood status as her "weakness", contradicting his claims at other points - he evidently understands Harry's attachment to his Muggleborn friend in CoS (per "From everything Ginny had told me about you, I knew you would go to any lengths to solve the mystery â particularly if one of your best friends was attacked" wrt Hermione's petrification) and Harry's attachment to Lily herself as his mother, and doesn't pretend otherwise in those cases, so there's little reason he wouldn't get Snape's (placing Peter in Spinner's End, to get them to spy on each other, and likely to punish Snape with the DE who betrayed Lily, and in their childhood town, also implies LV sees Snape's attachment as lasting).
LV's clearly at least somewhat affected by Snape's betrayal - when Harry first informs him LV has no response but stunned silence ("Voldemort did not answer. They continued to circle each other [...]"), when Harry goes on LV's "nostrils flare" at the words, and he's described as having "followed every word with rapt attention".
Yet in the next breath, LV proceeds to lump Snape in with Dumbledore and Lily and gloat about murdering all three of them anyway - the former the one he has emotional attachment to, and we saw him attempt to justify murdering Snape to both himself and to Snape earlier:
"It matters not whether Snape was mine or Dumbledoreâs, or what petty obstacles they tried to put in my path! I crushed them as I crushed your mother, Snapeâs supposed great love!" (DH)
Contradicting what he said like a line earlier. Tl;dr I wouldn't really trust his words here, given that he changes them every other sentence based on whatever's convenient to assert his own power and manipulate or mock whoever's the immediate threat.
True he calls it a weakness and a flaw - but heâs also fascinated by Harryâs loyalty and immense, desperate craving for family, as we know he sees himself in that. He mocks Lily and James for putting their "trust in friends" instead of weapons - and yet he did the same thing, entrusting two horcruxes to his followers, when he could've built elaborate protections for them instead, and berates himself for trusting them afterward. Etc. Etc.
2.0 He doesn't think his mother chose to die/abandon him
(I've already given the main evidence for this here, but to elaborate) That's a common interpretation, but imo everything in canon indicates the opposite - he sees his mother as someone who loved him and would've raised him had she lived.
For one, it makes no sense. His fear stems from his mother's death in childbirth and knowing the process was slow and painful/being in proximity to other women dying similarly in the orphanage (who I doubt gave the impression they chose it either), he thinks there's nothing worse than death, but he... thinks his mother chose to die? What? (You can say it's not meant to be rational, but tbh it's not like his fear is really irrational in general)
His fear of death is just that - an intense fear. He doesn't really see it as a "shameful weakness", he views his mother as a victim of it.
Even Dumbledore and Harry's conclusions come from knowing Merope was a witch and assumptions re: her home life/affair with Riddle Sr., info Tom didn't have as a kid. When he was first told the story about her death, he may not even have started controlling his powers or controlled only a bit, and didn't know magic is inherited anyway. He says "my mother can't have been magic or she wouldn't have died" having only just learned of the magical world (not knowing about variations in power, etc.) and has abilities that could've helped a homeless woman not starve/etc, if he's assuming that had a role (and he searches for his father first because that's the parent who may be alive, and he only has his maternal grandfather's first name vs. his father's full name).
I wonder about the details of Merope's death, since Tom likely got more info from Mrs. Cole and viewed the memory via Legilimency. Dumbledore asks about the father, so Mrs. Cole's words to him were catered to that and she's likely omitting stuff. I assume Merope said other things since Mrs. Cole says Merope "had the baby within the hour. And she was dead in another hour", but idk how literal that is. I also wonder if Merope held Tom before she died (if he saw that, it may explain things about Nagini lol).
His reaction to Peter vs. Nagini (symbolic father and mother) is revealing - telling Peter "You are regretting that you ever returned to me. I revolt you. I see you flinch when you look at me, feel you shudder when you touch me" vs. wrapping Nagini around his shoulders and constantly touching her (vs. his not giving a shit while that poor basilisk is having his eyes gouged out by Fawkes).
He refuses to blame Merope for quite literally anything, so I'd be surprised if he blamed her for dying i.e. hates his name and yet blames his father "I revenged myself upon him, that fool who gave me his name... Tom Riddle", despite acknowledging they were Merope's last words:
âHalf-blood, sir,â said Riddle. âMuggle father, witch mother.â
âAnd are both your parents â ?â
âMy mother died just after I was born, sir. They told me at the orphanage she lived just long enough to name me â Tom after my father, Marvolo after my grandfather.â (CoS)
Tom sharply responding "What Muggle?" to Morfin saying "You look mighty like that Muggle" also hints at his dwelling on his mother's last words ("I hope he looks like his papa") since he only just got the info that his dad's a Muggle, so the gut reaction might've been to the former and/or having seen his mother's face in Mrs. Cole's head and knowing he doesn't look like her. Later he finds out Merope sold the locket a week before dying, and that in combo with Merope's dying words would be somewhat like how Harry feels about Lily's letter (her warm hand had once moved across this parchment, tracing ink into these letters, these words, words about him, Harry, her son).
Like, maybe there's bits that can be read that way if you really stretch i.e. in the GoF graveyard scene, while pressing Peter's Mark whispering "How many will be brave enough to return when they feel it?" with his "eyes fixed upon the stars", and then "she died giving birth to me, leaving me to be raised in a Muggle orphanage" vs. "my true family returns" but in the context of everything else, imo it's clear he's not blaming her and is blaming his father.
And in the graveyard monologue, the fact that LV first speaks of his father and Lily, phrasing it as "your mother died to defend you as a child... and I killed my father" despite comparing them and him killing Lily too, and below that of his father and Merope as "she died giving birth to me", also may indicate he sees Merope and Lily's affection for their sons as similar, in contrast to the narrative.
Voldemort's enraged at his father for abandoning him, and his pureblood family for disowning him, and just murders them all in one go. If he thought his mother abandoned him too, then like... he wouldn't be talking about her like that lol, and his extreme attachment to her in comparison doesn't make sense.
Tl;dr he's a Mama's Boy, but not because he's just like, intrinsically predisposed to being one, but because he thinks of Merope as the only family who didn't abandon him, and thinks of her as abandoned and unclaimed by both his father and their pureblood family, just like he was.
I hate the "Harry can love because he knows his parents loved him" take JKR intended - and if anything Tom got more concrete info that a parent/his mother loved him even a bit younger than Harry. But of course, knowing your dead mother loved you doesn't exactly do much to help you in a miserable childhood.
Also like⊠Harry DIDNT know his parents loved him. He was told they died in a car crash, that they were layabouts and just offloaded Harry to his hardworking relatives etc. He didnât even know what they looked like until Hagrid told him he looked like his dad with his motherâs eyes, and even after that, he doesnât have confirmed proof of what they looked like until he gets the photo album (a few months before he turns TWELVE!). Harry WASNâT loved. He could IMAGINE that he had been loved, but had no evidence of it. For Tom, growing up loveless was an unfortunate consequence of his motherâs death, NOT the fault of his mother. Tom had a very clear person to imagine himself away to, whereas Harry describes having spent nights in his cupboard imagining some distant family relation who will come take him away. He canât even imagine his parents somehow being alive and finding out heâs here, because he has no proof they would want to have him. Iâm sure Tom spent similar nights imagining if his mother had survived - and once he discovers magic, probably wishes she had been a witch so she couldâve saved herself and him, and is full of rage at his wizard father for abandoning her to die. Upon discovering that she WAS a witch, his rage turns to the rest of his family for not keeping her alive (as OP has discussed in other metas). Harry was actually worse off in believing in parental love for the time before Hogwarts.
People buy too many clothes because they don't want others to remember they repeated their outfit? Time to make them afraid to not repeat an outfit. Helpful phrases:
"You bought a new outfit for this? Why?!"
"Oh why would you buy something that looks sooo cheap when you have that cute [blank] at home?"
"I mean. If you stopped buying garbage that you use once then maybe you could buy an adjustable quality garment that actually looks good. Just saying."
"I have never seen you repeat an outfit for parties. Where do you rent clothes? Oh you bought all of them? Isn't that so wasteful?"
You get the idea, go forth and come up with new ones.
I think the comment on renting clothes is really good, actually! It still allows people to not feel guilty for wanting to look different for a special event, while also encouraging them to not have Special Event clothes just taking up space in their closet. You DONâT need a new dress or suit for every wedding youâre invited to, but I understand why you donât want to just have the one dress you use for all special occasions, like weddings. ESPECIALLY for young people, who even if they want to, often CANâT reuse the fancy clothes because they outgrow them. Much to the frustration of the adults paying for the clothes, because the cost per wear is so high. You donât need to go buy an outfit for the school dance, rent one instead, and then you wonât have it taking up space in your closet. If you as an adult need a few nice suits for your job, obviously donât rent that, youâll be far better off buying something that you own because youâll be wearing it again and again. Consider the cost per wear, and consider if renting/swapping/loaning isnât the cheaper option if youâll only wear it once.
Idk maybe Iâm too pessimistic but sometimes I see âqueer womenâsâ events advertised and I consider going because what ifâŠbut I really just donât want to set myself up for the deep sense of disappointment and alienation that comes with being surrounded by homophobic âqueersâ. Especially if itâs an event you have to pay to get intoâŠIâd rather just go buy myself food or something than spend money to be in a room full of homophobes chomping at the bit to tell me to try dick.
This is going to sound crazy but actually in my experience, the events you pay for are more likely to be less homophobic. For example, a woman in a big city close to me used to organise these lesbian parties (she decided to take a break from it). I once saw a TIM in the Facebook group asking on a post she had put in some different lesbian groups, if trans women were allowed, and she said yes of course! I had already bought my ticket to the party and was a bit bummed at this, but I went. This man didnât show up. He was very recognisably a balding man in his fifties lol, I didnât get fooled by a passing trans woman or smth. Man just didnât show. The only men present were two gay men who served drinks at the bar (she had rented out a bar for this party), who clearly were friends of the lesbian party planner who had arranged it and had stepped up when she needed a couple extra bartenders.
Paying for the ticket is a bit of extra effort that many homophobic fetishists donât actually want to have to do. They might want the message that theyâll be welcome, but wonât bother showing up. Additionally, every time YOU get a ticket, thatâs a ticket taken away from a homophobic fetishist. The actual lesbians and bisexual women present become more likely to come back when they see less homophobes there, and theyâll bring their friends next time. Iâve brought SEVERAL dates to these parties, and every time theyâve been like âwow Iâm coming back to this next time she arranges oneâ.
I understand that spending money is also a financial barrier for YOU, but many womenâs parties are open to selling tickets cheaper or you might have the option to do some volunteer work and get the ticket for half the price or something. Iâm going to a womenâs camp this summer where they do in fact have tickets that are lower price if you do extra volunteer work. Yes the camp is for âwomen and gender minoritiesâ but in practice men donât show up there and itâs just to make trans identified women feel more comfortable and welcome there, and it IS important that they are there because dysphoric women are important voices and are needed in a female community!
All this to say that the paid experiences are often better than the free ones, because it works as a little bit of gatekeeping against men and the most insane homophobic women, and that MANY female organisers will be very willing to have a chat about ways to make it more financially accessible. Especially if you can find it in you to live with women performatively saying that TIMs are allowed so that they donât get cancelled and lose the ability to hold ANY kind of event. Obviously if the events are all primarily TIMs, then itâs a different story (then the space has simply been made too welcoming to men and is homophobic.)
Untitled @grandmanifestoinfinity - Tumblr Blog | Tumgag
