Women sometimes use such means because they're denied direct power. So does he, even though he's denied it for different reasons. Doesn't make him female coded. You think everyone with marginalized traits is female coded as if only women can be oppressed. I'm sorry but it feels like gender essentialism.
Well, I think it’s important to clarify what we mean by feminine-coded because is a term that comes not from gender essentialism, but from gender as performance and representation, particularly within fiction and cultural narratives.
Firstly, no one is saying that only women are oppressed, or that all marginalized traits = femininity. What we are discussing is how certain behaviours and strategies, when portrayed in fiction, are often read and constructed as “feminine” within a cultural framework regardless of the character’s biological sex or even real-world justification for their actions.
When we say Tom Riddle (or any male character in general btw) is feminine-coded, we’re not saying he’s “like a woman” or that manipulation = womanhood. We’re identifying a pattern of narrative coding that aligns his social strategies with qualities historically and culturally associated with femininity in literature and media: emotional manipulation, performative charm, social seduction, and use of indirect power rather than force. These traits have long been feminized in storytelling not because only women use them, but because patriarchal societies assign them to women and associate them with the female gender role.
Feminine coding is not about essentialism, it’s about perception. It’s about how certain behaviours are read, not why they occur. A male character can be feminine-coded if the narrative uses tropes, mechanisms, or aesthetics culturally aligned with femininity. This is a tool in gender analysis that helps us see how fiction reproduces or challenges gender norms.
Now, regarding your point about women using indirect power because they’re denied access to direct power, and Tom doing so for different reasons, this is precisely why coding exists: it allows us to trace parallels in how characters are represented. Tom isn’t coded feminine because he’s oppressed like a woman, he’s coded feminine because he uses tools culturally linked to femininity to achieve dominance, and the narrative presents these tools in recognizably “feminine” ways.
From a sociological and media studies standpoint, this opens up space to discuss how narratives construct power, control, and identity through gendered lenses. So no, calling Tom Riddle feminine-coded is not about denying other forms of marginalization or conflating womanhood with powerlessness. It’s about identifying a mode of character construction that engages with narrative femininity, a different and valuable layer of gendered meaning in fiction.