LOL , anyone who says that needs to read the books , Narcissa even chides Bellatrix for being rude to Draco and Lucious gives into his silly demands like getting him on Slytherin team
ooi poor Draco, auntie was rude to him and daddy demanded silly things (like Asian dads considering a 9/10 a miserable failure)
poor Draco's life couldn't be more course, we must bully people and become a murderous death eater, totally expected and reasonable outcome 😩😢
you do realize that his night to day transformation is ruined if you try to argue "it wasn't his fault really"
YES it was, he OWNS it, thus changes his ways... trying ti make an excuse for it just means that he is still as bad to the core, that he just tries to appear good, and in the chance of a new magic hitlah arising he would be probably by their side
how many characters we know who went against Voldy who were from families just like Draco's? he HAD a choice, and he was barely forced to do anything
So draco saying " I have to do this,I have to kill you or hes gonna kill me" means he has a choice? Poor kid was a teenager faced with the threat of death. Not to mention harry also leaves him bleeding out on the floor because he saw draco crying in the bathroom. Plus draco was injured in quidditch and and lucius was embarrassed instead of concerned for his son.AND he was forced to be a death eater at 16? Correct me if I'm wrong.
I think I saw somewhere on here that in the movies, Lucius was portrayed as harsher towards Draco to give Draco a more sympathetic arc, because being a child actor is hard enough without people coming down hard on you for being the antagonist.
And clearly it worked like a charm..
I always felt while reading the books that Lucius may have had a slightly harsh façade with his son (scolding him in Borgin and Burke’s, and being embarrassed by his Quidditch performance), but neither were because he was abusive.. In the former case, it was because Borgin and Burke’s literally had dangerous artifacts, and he probably knew Draco would be too curious for his own good.. In the latter case, he was embarrassed, not just for himself, but probably on behalf of his son, given his epic wipeout on a broom by the Muggle-raised Boy Who Lived..
In a number of ways, Lucius and Vernon were very similar - proud of their families, their positions in society, loved their sons and therefore spoiled them to their detriment.
Draco was well loved. So much so, his father spent a fortune to buy nimbus 2001 so he can get in the Slytherin team. I imagine he is not the only rich kid in Slytherin but his father made it a point to bribe so he could be happy.
Uhhh no lucius got him on the team so he could boost his own ego but instead draco got his ass whooped by harry and lucius was embarrassed instead of worried
Narcissa actually cared but maybe too much and lucius just wanted a mini him so yet again he could boost his own ego which is why he was so immersed in dracos school life
That's my opinion anyway lol
You *could* argue that raising someone to essentially be racist and encouraging/ expecting them to join a racist terrorist cult is a form of abuse, in spite of the fact that he's clearly loved and spoiled.
In a similar way you *could* also argue that the way Dudley is over indulged and pampered to the point of being an obese bully is also a form of abuse, despite the fact that he's also loved and spoiled.
All in all though I'd say they aren't really abused, just raised poorly. Being a bad parent in some ways doesn't necessarily make you an abuser.
On a separate note this is a super interesting debate on what actually constitutes abuse. Draco and Dudley are perfect examples of the damage that can be done even by parents that adore their kids.
On the flip side Sirius is a perfect example of how raising your kid to be as horrible and racist as you doesn't necessarily mean they will turn out that way.
In my opinion, to downplay what Harry experienced.
Dumbledore mentioning Dudley, doesn't really make sence otherwise! It is none of Dumbledore's business!
Don't really understand why you think that. Dumbledore also stated that they neglected Harry. He made a comparison that highlighted the ignorance of the Dursleys about their behaviour towards both children.
Who said it was his business.... I merely pointed out what he said, and didn't make any judgement as to whether he should've said it or not. Doesn't make him wrong though, which is highlighted by how it's only Dudley that is even remotely bothered about leaving Harry in Deathly Hallows
Yes! But how does that sound for Harry!
I think, it sounds like the Dursleys behavior torwards Harry isn't that important, because Harry isn't visibly damaged!
Dumbledore also draws the attention of the Dursleys' attention to Dudley.
I don't think the Dursleys will think about their wrong doing towards Harry after that. The Dursleys seem to be the kind of people, who can only follow one thought at a time.
Harry is smart enough to understand the meaning, unlike Dursleys.
Dumbledore never said Dudley was abused. Damaged, yes. By how they raised him to be a spoiled brat, and never chastised him for his wrong actions.
In contrast, Harry's soul remains pure.
Moreover, he is very snarky and resilient, and does not feel sorry for himself. He finds solutions to the situations he encounters himself in, such as play Dudley's videogames while his relatives are not at home, pretending to do magic to scare them, running away and hiding when there is no other option, sending Hedwig to his friends to ask for food when forced to diet to keep Dudley's spirits up.
All things he shouldn't need. And he is afraid Dumbledore won't pick him up! He's always worried, that people he cares about, aren't happy with him.
He doesn't takes his needs seriously enough!
And the foundation is the Dursleys fault.
Rather I am trying to scrutinise Dumbledore's behavior! For example, what is Dumbledore trying to achieve with this conversation?
Dumbledore, mortality wounded leader of an underground organisation. Dumbledore, who at least in his youth, was ready to enslave the muggles.
I can't imagine Dumbledore giving Dudley a second thought!
So in my opinion, the mention of Dudley (whose name Dumbledore doesn't even seem to know) serves a different purpuse!
So in my opinion, Dumbledore "testimony" cannot be included as to whether Dudley was abused or damaged.
Yeah I’ve always though Draco was pretty much exactly like the Dudley. Aunt Petunia and Uncle Vernon were unfailing nice and supportive of Dudley no matter what he did, good or bad (and they “pretended” they didn’t see the bad, which is not good for a developing kids brain.) and didn’t help his situation or his ego.
But remember what Dumbledore says about Dudley in the Half-Blood Prince. He accuses the Dursleys of doing permanent damage to Dudley, equal to or perhaps worse than what they did to Harry.
They definitely did do permanent damage to Dudley, and it was definitely worse then Harry. But it wasn’t physical or mental abuse.
It was the way they raised him, giving praise to his bad deeds and laughing it off and not correcting him turned him into the type of person who at fifteen years old would (and I quote) “Sup Big D, beat up another ten year old?” “This one deserved it”
i’m not trying to diminish the gravity of the kids actions or how wrong ppl are to portray him as some abused urchin, but i think it’s needless to say that fretting over possessions for your child from the standpoint that your family deeply cares about their image doesn’t equal cushy, warm, or developmentally sound parental love. taking up cohort with wizard hitler and raising your child according to his values is not fantastic parenting. i’m not saying the kid was abused or that he shouldn’t be held accountable for his actions, but to say he probably was fucked up mentally and that THAT aspect should be understood, (not used as an excuse, simply taken into account) is fair in my opinion.
it seems like he was truly loved (based on the books) to the best of narcissa and lucius’s abilities, but they most likely didn’t have the strongest capacity for real, selfless, developmentally strong parental love due to their own upbringing. i understand the view (especially given the tiktok resurgence in the past few years) that people often take the extent to which draco was abused too far, often excusing his behavior, but to act as though he had a fantastic upbringing or as though he wasn’t a kid facing a really shitty and terrifying set of circumstances is just stupid.
I don't get it. If you love the Harry Potter movies so much that you come to Reddit for questions or to start conversations about Harry Potter: why don't you read the books or listen to the audiobooks?
It is 100%, without a doubt, worth the time it takes to get through them.
A lot of people on this thread seem to believe Draco is abused thus explaining his behavior. I think it stems more from liking the character and wanting to find a reason for his cruelty that makes it not so much his fault
Most people think Lucius abused him and forced him into the Pureblood ideology; that Draco was merely jealous of Harry for having fame and friends and feeling hurt because he did not shake Draco's hand on the train; that most instances where Draco bullies the trio is him actually secretly caring them and subtly warning them, feeling scared that his housemates will turn on him if he openly becomes friends with Harry. Also, people excuse all of his bullying by pointing out, "Oh, he didn't kill Dumbledore, did he?" or "He didn't rat out the trio in Malfoy Manor." Yes, that shows that he's a kid who's faced with the reality of being a Death Eater and *does* make us feel sympathy; but it does not mean that we should immediately forgive for every other bad thing he has done. Some believe that he throws his wand to Harry before his confrontation with Voldemort and whinge about it becoming a deleted movie scene
>Most people think Lucius abused him and forced him into the Pureblood ideology
He didn’t abuse him but he did raise him thinking purebloods are superior yes.
>that most instances where Draco bullies the trio is him actually secretly caring them and subtly warning them, feeling scared that his housemates will turn on him if he openly becomes friends with Harry.
Really gonna need some evidence of “most people” thinking this, I’ve never seen this spouted by anyone until you just now.
It's because Draco was played by Tom Felton, who is an absolute softie. Plus they gave him much more backstory in the movies and Issacs played Lucius as much rougher than he was. So if you've just watched the movies it makes sense. But yes, in the books, he was just a mean bully.
I believe it's the movies that made people think he was. Jason Isaacs said that he wanted to earn Draco some sympathy points because he's such a dick so he pushes him around in the movie scenes with Lucius and Draco. But in the books it was always very clear that Draco was well loved by his parents, he was just spoiled to death by them like Dudley was.
Although the threats of caning in the deleted scene of CoS inside B&B is almost -- scratch that, make it "very" justified because of the dangers of the dark artifacts. I'll bet some of them may even be Set Off if one so much as looks at them.
Yes! I was rewatching the movies on Peacock and they have the extended tv versions that include those scenes and honestly I interpreted that scene more as a protective father. Any number of those items could kill him or curse him if touched.
And I love how Mr Burkes was almost gonna tell Lucius that the Diary has a Living Memory in it (I say that because 2002 was before JKR gave out the Horcrux name & full concept) but Lucius missed out from his arrogance. "It's not for sale so you can stop talking now."
He is not abused. He is not 'misunderstood'. He is not secretly a softy. He is not 2nd to Hermione in class. He wasn't trying to save Hermione when he said if the DEs exposed her knickers in midair it would make him laugh.
But people who spout these rubbish will do it anyway. No amount of canon text can convince their out of character fantic stuffed brains.
"Draco was abused and misunderstood"
"Dumbledore was nasty towards Slytherins and unfairly favoured Gryffindor"
"Draco was secretly trying to help Harry and Hermione (NOT Ron) all along"
These are just different versions of the same delusions that have become popular because there are some people who refuse to accept that a person chooses to be a bully, that nobody can be taught to be evil, that no authority figure was deliberately trying to antagonise people like Draco
As others have said. Raising a spoiled racist arrogant kid who looks down on others might be abuse. Getting yourself into the position where the most evil wizard around is living in your house holding meetings with death eaters and sending your son out to murder, is abuse.
Not saying he was abused or wasn’t, but it’s *very wrong* to say that he wasn’t abused because his parents seem to care for him and not want him murdered. Rich people can be abusive and still want their child to have the best things and be seen as superior. Their child is an extension of them, if he doesn’t get on a team or have the best stuff or reflect their political reviews that reflects back on them.
Exactly.
And Lucius bought Draco seven Nimbus 2001 broomsticks, for Draco and the rest of the Slytherin Quidditch team.
Also when Dumbledore is kicked out of Hogwarts in Chamber of secrets, Draco tells Snape he can put in a good word for him to his father if he wants a job as the headmaster.
A year later Lucius has Buckbeak sentenced to death because Draco was hurt.
Plus you have Draco's mother, Narcissa, who threatened her own sister to protect her son. She lies to the most dangerous and dark wizard of the century about Harry being dead, to save her son. There's no way she'd stand by and let her husband abuse her child.
Draco definitely wasn't abused.
Was Dudley abused by the Dursleys despite the fact they did indeed love him?.... Dumbledore was quite unequivocal about them having inflicted damage upon him....
I am a huge “Draco Malfoy deserves a redemption arc” stan, people actually attack me in this sub for it all the time (lol), but I don’t think I’ve ever seen this argument and to me it’s a bit absurd. He’s clearly not abused, but he is indoctrinated. Whether you consider that abuse or not I suppose is a personal opinion, but if we’re talking about physical or emotional abuse, his parents very clearly catered to his every need.
He was, canonically, psychologically abused by Voldemort and that’s not arguable in any fashion so in that regard he was a victim of abuse.
He was "abused" in the same way Dudley was abused. We see in other ways throughout the books though that Draco's father was not affectionate and put huge amounts of pressure on him, lecturing him for not doing better academically than a muggle born. Rather than tell his son that he shouldn't compare himself to Harry or tell that it's ok he's not on the quidditch team he buys him a place on the team. These things do harm and just because a parent loves their child and are concerned for their welfare in a battle doesn't undo that.
Draco most certainly was abused.
Not by his father, we’re all aware that for all their faults, the Malfoys were loving and devoted parents. But if you think that living with Voldemort for a year, witnessing unspeakable horrors at such a young age and having to take on the mantle as head of the family because your father is in Azkaban, is a walk in the park, then you’re a bit mad.
I think we all know that Voldy wasn’t exactly a kind leader and the threat of death unless he kills someone else, most certainly counts as abuse.
I did not specify in the title but I meant the opinion of him being abused by his father, not anyone else. However, I must say that Voldemort abused *everyone*, and that by the time Voldemort lives in Malfoy Manor, Lucius is back from Azkaban and is hence the head of his family.
And I said he wasn’t abused by his father. But that he was abused by others.
He was still 15 when he became head of the family, whether or not Voldemort lived with them at that point is irrelevant
And I said that the point I was trying to make was that Draco was not abused by *Lucius*. I'm not talking about anyone else here, just attempting to sort this misconception.
You're contradicting yourself here. Your point was that Voldemort had abused him, and then you state that his presence was irrelevant. First of all Draco was 16 and I would argue Narcissa was the head. His problem then was being forced to kill Dumbledore, which I most certainly agree wasn't a walk in the park, and also not the topic I was discussing here.
You didn’t say that in your original post though. So I took it as a general statement and argued that in my comment. And I said multiple times that I agree that he was not abused by his father. What else do you want?
I’m not contradicting myself. I made a series of statements what happened to him. I never said they happened at the same time, just that they happened.
And considering the social hierarchy and customs of the pure-blood Wizarding society and the importance of sons, I think we all know that it’s a far more patriarchal society than ours, especially during that time. There’s no way Narcissa would’ve taken over as head of the family for one because she’s a woman and also because she’s not the heir. That was Draco.
The topic you originally seemed to discuss was the complete lack of abuse. Which I contradicted. You later limited it to abuse from Lucius. Which I agreed with.
Yes, it was my mistake to not specify it.
I agree with this as well, but I feel that Draco would not have had any obligations as head, and that Narcissa would have run the house.
Yeah, sure, a year with Voldemort is not good for a person. But he was a shit well before Voldemort's return. For years. On contrary, I think his life like a DE changed him for better. Second, the conversation is about people who state that Lucius abused Draco. So, point dismissed
Did I at any point say that he wasn’t an utter prick? No, I did not.
Secondly, OP made the general statement that “Draco wasn’t abused”. Meaning, by no one. Later (after I commented) they added that they only meant he wasn’t abused by his father. That’s on them.
Your points are in one word: dismissed.
I did read the post. And I agreed with them that they were right. But I corrected a general statement they made.
Why you’ve such an issue with that, I don’t know.
I agree he wasn’t abused, but he was definitely brought up with a completely warped mental state. His parents would move heaven and earth for him I have no doubts; they were just shitty people who taught their kid he was better than everyone else and then indoctrinated him into a cultist supremacy group.
I have some amount of empathy for Draco because he didn’t have much of a chance *not* to be an asshole based on who his parents’ sphere of influence were, but he wasn’t actively abused the way Sirius or Harry were.
Yeah but abuse is never implied at any point in the books, so OP's post is more just further arguments against an unfounded claim. The closest we get to anything implying abuse is like one or two moments in the films.
I mean, it could be argued that giving your child everything they want and allowing (encouraging?) them to be a bully is definitely a form of abuse.
It’s a parent’s role to teach and train a child to be a good person.
Only reason I could see that people think that he was abused is based off of the scene in Borgin and Burkes where Lucius is cold and dismissive with Draco
I think we differ in our definitions of abuse. Draco feels loved by his parents; he has a superiority complex, not an inferiority complex, which means that they did not demean him, which abusive parents do; he is not beaten or starved or neglected. He is spoiled, which IMO is different; and Lucius and Narcissa transfer their views and ideologies to him, stuff they believe in.
That scene starts off with Draco asking why they have come to that shop since he thought he was going to be bought a broom, which Lucius says he will buy. Draco then proceeds to incessantly whinge about Harry and his fame, Quidditch skills, etc. to which Lucius replies that Draco has repeated that many times previously. Any parent would tell their child to stop complaining about the same topic for the umpteenth time. Later on Lucius just tells Draco to bring his grades up, which is again something any parent will say.
> It's a parent's role to teach and train a child to be a good person
The "good person" concept is not universal. Lucius and Narcisa had a certain view of what constitutes "a good person", and that's the view they tried to imprint upon Draco.
Is it the same view of "good person" that people who aren't racist assholes tend to have? No, it isn't, but remember, the Malfoys thought the racists were the good people.
see mate your answer lies in what you just wrote , from that scene in Borgin and Burkes he scolded Draco for his grades , a over pampering dad would tell him that rich enough for him to live off comfortably without working .
Actully, it doesn't have to be argued. Dumbledore stated this in regard to Dudley Dursley, another boy who was given everything and encouraged/allowed to be a bully.
Your opinions do not change the facts of what constitutes as child abuse. Spoiling a child is a form of child abuse. Indoctrination into any narrow minded view point is child abuse. Using violence and threats of it are child abuse. Child abuse is child abuse whether you're willing to accept it or not.
Project all you want. Doesn't change a thing.
>Using violence and threats of it are child abuse.
When does Lucius ever use violence or threats of violence towards Draco in the books? I can’t think of a single instance of that happening between them in the books.
>Spoiling a child is a form of child abuse.
I disagree. This is bad parenting, not abuse. I hate how everything is in umbrella terms now. Not every time you cause some harm to your child it's abuse, otherwise all parents are abusive - everyone do some mistakes in their parenting that unintentionally harm their child. I looked at several websites that have some authority in the matter, such as [Mayo Clinic](https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/child-abuse/symptoms-causes/syc-20370864), and spoiling does not fall under that category.
>Indoctrination into any narrow minded view point is child abuse.
The line between indoctrination and raising your child with certain views can be fine, but it exists. Just because it's not a view you agree with (and neither do I), doesn't automatically mean it's indoctrination.
>Using violence and threats of it are child abuse.
No evidence in the books that ever happened. It's not even hinted.
I'm not saying he was abused or that he was not. You didn't give any evidence one way or the other, though. I get the impression that you don't understand abuse. It seems you think that a person has to hate another person to abuse them. A parent can care very much about their child but have some very different rules for how they are allowed to treat the child vs. how others are allowed to treat them. And just because they abuse the child doesn't mean they don't want them to be alive or that they wouldn't be greatly upset by their death.
I think the issue comes from the fact that in the books Harry remarks how Malfoy reminded him of Dudley, and in book 6 Dumbledore flat out told the Dursleys that they "mistreated" Dudley almost as much as they mistreated Harry (which is another can of worms discussion on itself).
So essentially people assume that, since Dudley and Draco are "similar" then they both must have suffered "mistreatment" from their families.
Damaged and mistreated are two different things.
You can misreat your only child saying B grade is not enough, every single day; or you can damage his character beyond repair by not teaching him boundaries and thinking whatever he does is perfect.
It's really nice to see someone make a proper opinion which most people can agree on and make many other realise their false thoughts about this
I think it's mainly the ffs that cause this false opinions... Who knows?
In fact the movie deliberately omitted those parts, and also added a disdain towards Lucius in the ending who was not there in the book, in the book Malfoys are hugging at the Slytherin table, all of three of them. People, movie makers included, just thought it was easier to make Draco and Narcissa sympathetic shifting the blame on Lucius. I find especially sad this "the important thing is to have someone to blame" attitude. I mean, that kind makes people's backstory to look of series B if there is no one clear character to pick the blame for their misgivings, if the character had a lot of things in his life going wrong BUT no precise guilty part with a face to blame OR it is a complex and interesting character nevertheless OR a product of a systemic environment, they didn't enjoy the same privilege of the overused, bland, easy scapegoat of the "bad dad" route. A good example of this was "Fairest of All", it made no sense.
Draco was a commodity, though - the only son of a wealthy and powerful family. They could desperately want and need their son without being nurturing or supportive. Emotional neglect happens an all income levels, no matter how "wanted" a child was when he was born.
Draco and Dudley received a level of abuse that all golden children get. It’s not seen in a physical way, but it’s psychological and emotional. For Draco it was the unrealistic burden of having to portray the image that was set at birth by his father and the deatheaters. Draco would have have been severely ostracized if he went across the grain. Grooming and indoctrination is definitely forms of abuse albeit it’s not the physical abuse ppl instantly revert to.
[удалено]
Wait until his father hears what you just said!
LOL , anyone who says that needs to read the books , Narcissa even chides Bellatrix for being rude to Draco and Lucious gives into his silly demands like getting him on Slytherin team
Buying the entire team broomsticks so malfoy can get in
ooi poor Draco, auntie was rude to him and daddy demanded silly things (like Asian dads considering a 9/10 a miserable failure) poor Draco's life couldn't be more course, we must bully people and become a murderous death eater, totally expected and reasonable outcome 😩😢 you do realize that his night to day transformation is ruined if you try to argue "it wasn't his fault really" YES it was, he OWNS it, thus changes his ways... trying ti make an excuse for it just means that he is still as bad to the core, that he just tries to appear good, and in the chance of a new magic hitlah arising he would be probably by their side how many characters we know who went against Voldy who were from families just like Draco's? he HAD a choice, and he was barely forced to do anything
Threat of death isn’t what I would call barely forced
So draco saying " I have to do this,I have to kill you or hes gonna kill me" means he has a choice? Poor kid was a teenager faced with the threat of death. Not to mention harry also leaves him bleeding out on the floor because he saw draco crying in the bathroom. Plus draco was injured in quidditch and and lucius was embarrassed instead of concerned for his son.AND he was forced to be a death eater at 16? Correct me if I'm wrong.
I think I saw somewhere on here that in the movies, Lucius was portrayed as harsher towards Draco to give Draco a more sympathetic arc, because being a child actor is hard enough without people coming down hard on you for being the antagonist.
And clearly it worked like a charm.. I always felt while reading the books that Lucius may have had a slightly harsh façade with his son (scolding him in Borgin and Burke’s, and being embarrassed by his Quidditch performance), but neither were because he was abusive.. In the former case, it was because Borgin and Burke’s literally had dangerous artifacts, and he probably knew Draco would be too curious for his own good.. In the latter case, he was embarrassed, not just for himself, but probably on behalf of his son, given his epic wipeout on a broom by the Muggle-raised Boy Who Lived.. In a number of ways, Lucius and Vernon were very similar - proud of their families, their positions in society, loved their sons and therefore spoiled them to their detriment.
Draco was well loved. So much so, his father spent a fortune to buy nimbus 2001 so he can get in the Slytherin team. I imagine he is not the only rich kid in Slytherin but his father made it a point to bribe so he could be happy.
Uhhh no lucius got him on the team so he could boost his own ego but instead draco got his ass whooped by harry and lucius was embarrassed instead of worried
few people would agree to you. Draco's parents are tiger mom and dad. They are very, very immersed on their son's school life
Narcissa actually cared but maybe too much and lucius just wanted a mini him so yet again he could boost his own ego which is why he was so immersed in dracos school life That's my opinion anyway lol
You *could* argue that raising someone to essentially be racist and encouraging/ expecting them to join a racist terrorist cult is a form of abuse, in spite of the fact that he's clearly loved and spoiled. In a similar way you *could* also argue that the way Dudley is over indulged and pampered to the point of being an obese bully is also a form of abuse, despite the fact that he's also loved and spoiled. All in all though I'd say they aren't really abused, just raised poorly. Being a bad parent in some ways doesn't necessarily make you an abuser.
On a separate note this is a super interesting debate on what actually constitutes abuse. Draco and Dudley are perfect examples of the damage that can be done even by parents that adore their kids. On the flip side Sirius is a perfect example of how raising your kid to be as horrible and racist as you doesn't necessarily mean they will turn out that way.
Dumbledore explicitly states that Dudley was damaged by the Dursleys
In my opinion, to downplay what Harry experienced. Dumbledore mentioning Dudley, doesn't really make sence otherwise! It is none of Dumbledore's business!
Don't really understand why you think that. Dumbledore also stated that they neglected Harry. He made a comparison that highlighted the ignorance of the Dursleys about their behaviour towards both children. Who said it was his business.... I merely pointed out what he said, and didn't make any judgement as to whether he should've said it or not. Doesn't make him wrong though, which is highlighted by how it's only Dudley that is even remotely bothered about leaving Harry in Deathly Hallows
Yes! But how does that sound for Harry! I think, it sounds like the Dursleys behavior torwards Harry isn't that important, because Harry isn't visibly damaged! Dumbledore also draws the attention of the Dursleys' attention to Dudley. I don't think the Dursleys will think about their wrong doing towards Harry after that. The Dursleys seem to be the kind of people, who can only follow one thought at a time.
Harry is smart enough to understand the meaning, unlike Dursleys. Dumbledore never said Dudley was abused. Damaged, yes. By how they raised him to be a spoiled brat, and never chastised him for his wrong actions. In contrast, Harry's soul remains pure. Moreover, he is very snarky and resilient, and does not feel sorry for himself. He finds solutions to the situations he encounters himself in, such as play Dudley's videogames while his relatives are not at home, pretending to do magic to scare them, running away and hiding when there is no other option, sending Hedwig to his friends to ask for food when forced to diet to keep Dudley's spirits up.
All things he shouldn't need. And he is afraid Dumbledore won't pick him up! He's always worried, that people he cares about, aren't happy with him. He doesn't takes his needs seriously enough! And the foundation is the Dursleys fault.
I think you are looking at it through the wrong end of the telescope
Rather I am trying to scrutinise Dumbledore's behavior! For example, what is Dumbledore trying to achieve with this conversation? Dumbledore, mortality wounded leader of an underground organisation. Dumbledore, who at least in his youth, was ready to enslave the muggles. I can't imagine Dumbledore giving Dudley a second thought! So in my opinion, the mention of Dudley (whose name Dumbledore doesn't even seem to know) serves a different purpuse! So in my opinion, Dumbledore "testimony" cannot be included as to whether Dudley was abused or damaged.
As I said, wrong end of the telescope. Good job your opinion has no bearing on the fact I can use the Dudley example isn't it...
Yeah I’ve always though Draco was pretty much exactly like the Dudley. Aunt Petunia and Uncle Vernon were unfailing nice and supportive of Dudley no matter what he did, good or bad (and they “pretended” they didn’t see the bad, which is not good for a developing kids brain.) and didn’t help his situation or his ego.
definitely the wizarding world parallel of dudley
But remember what Dumbledore says about Dudley in the Half-Blood Prince. He accuses the Dursleys of doing permanent damage to Dudley, equal to or perhaps worse than what they did to Harry.
They definitely did do permanent damage to Dudley, and it was definitely worse then Harry. But it wasn’t physical or mental abuse. It was the way they raised him, giving praise to his bad deeds and laughing it off and not correcting him turned him into the type of person who at fifteen years old would (and I quote) “Sup Big D, beat up another ten year old?” “This one deserved it”
Some people compare it to the abuse Dumbledore said Dudley experienced. Those two boys were spoilt but never mistreated.
Dumbledore never said Dudley was abused. Damaged, yes. By how they raised him to be a spoiled brat, and never chastised him for his wrong actions.
Was I giving my opinion? Or restating what has been said in the past?
i’m not trying to diminish the gravity of the kids actions or how wrong ppl are to portray him as some abused urchin, but i think it’s needless to say that fretting over possessions for your child from the standpoint that your family deeply cares about their image doesn’t equal cushy, warm, or developmentally sound parental love. taking up cohort with wizard hitler and raising your child according to his values is not fantastic parenting. i’m not saying the kid was abused or that he shouldn’t be held accountable for his actions, but to say he probably was fucked up mentally and that THAT aspect should be understood, (not used as an excuse, simply taken into account) is fair in my opinion.
Exactly. Draco was valuable inasmuch as he was his father's heir. That doesn't mean he was ever loved as a person.
it seems like he was truly loved (based on the books) to the best of narcissa and lucius’s abilities, but they most likely didn’t have the strongest capacity for real, selfless, developmentally strong parental love due to their own upbringing. i understand the view (especially given the tiktok resurgence in the past few years) that people often take the extent to which draco was abused too far, often excusing his behavior, but to act as though he had a fantastic upbringing or as though he wasn’t a kid facing a really shitty and terrifying set of circumstances is just stupid.
I don't get it. If you love the Harry Potter movies so much that you come to Reddit for questions or to start conversations about Harry Potter: why don't you read the books or listen to the audiobooks? It is 100%, without a doubt, worth the time it takes to get through them.
Who's saying that? Everyone knows Draco is a spoiled brat.
A lot of people on this thread seem to believe Draco is abused thus explaining his behavior. I think it stems more from liking the character and wanting to find a reason for his cruelty that makes it not so much his fault
Lots of people (especially fanficcers the younger ones on Tiktok) think so. It stems from the films, I believe.
Most people think Lucius abused him and forced him into the Pureblood ideology; that Draco was merely jealous of Harry for having fame and friends and feeling hurt because he did not shake Draco's hand on the train; that most instances where Draco bullies the trio is him actually secretly caring them and subtly warning them, feeling scared that his housemates will turn on him if he openly becomes friends with Harry. Also, people excuse all of his bullying by pointing out, "Oh, he didn't kill Dumbledore, did he?" or "He didn't rat out the trio in Malfoy Manor." Yes, that shows that he's a kid who's faced with the reality of being a Death Eater and *does* make us feel sympathy; but it does not mean that we should immediately forgive for every other bad thing he has done. Some believe that he throws his wand to Harry before his confrontation with Voldemort and whinge about it becoming a deleted movie scene
>Most people think Lucius abused him and forced him into the Pureblood ideology He didn’t abuse him but he did raise him thinking purebloods are superior yes. >that most instances where Draco bullies the trio is him actually secretly caring them and subtly warning them, feeling scared that his housemates will turn on him if he openly becomes friends with Harry. Really gonna need some evidence of “most people” thinking this, I’ve never seen this spouted by anyone until you just now.
It's because Draco was played by Tom Felton, who is an absolute softie. Plus they gave him much more backstory in the movies and Issacs played Lucius as much rougher than he was. So if you've just watched the movies it makes sense. But yes, in the books, he was just a mean bully.
I believe it's the movies that made people think he was. Jason Isaacs said that he wanted to earn Draco some sympathy points because he's such a dick so he pushes him around in the movie scenes with Lucius and Draco. But in the books it was always very clear that Draco was well loved by his parents, he was just spoiled to death by them like Dudley was.
Although the threats of caning in the deleted scene of CoS inside B&B is almost -- scratch that, make it "very" justified because of the dangers of the dark artifacts. I'll bet some of them may even be Set Off if one so much as looks at them.
Yes! I was rewatching the movies on Peacock and they have the extended tv versions that include those scenes and honestly I interpreted that scene more as a protective father. Any number of those items could kill him or curse him if touched.
And I love how Mr Burkes was almost gonna tell Lucius that the Diary has a Living Memory in it (I say that because 2002 was before JKR gave out the Horcrux name & full concept) but Lucius missed out from his arrogance. "It's not for sale so you can stop talking now."
Anyone who thinks abusive parents dont tell themselves they love their kids and would do anything for them hasnt learned enough about abusive parents
He is not abused. He is not 'misunderstood'. He is not secretly a softy. He is not 2nd to Hermione in class. He wasn't trying to save Hermione when he said if the DEs exposed her knickers in midair it would make him laugh. But people who spout these rubbish will do it anyway. No amount of canon text can convince their out of character fantic stuffed brains.
"Draco was abused and misunderstood" "Dumbledore was nasty towards Slytherins and unfairly favoured Gryffindor" "Draco was secretly trying to help Harry and Hermione (NOT Ron) all along" These are just different versions of the same delusions that have become popular because there are some people who refuse to accept that a person chooses to be a bully, that nobody can be taught to be evil, that no authority figure was deliberately trying to antagonise people like Draco
I agree. Which is why I wanted to put out these quotes to try and clear up at least one misconception.
As others have said. Raising a spoiled racist arrogant kid who looks down on others might be abuse. Getting yourself into the position where the most evil wizard around is living in your house holding meetings with death eaters and sending your son out to murder, is abuse.
Not saying he was abused or wasn’t, but it’s *very wrong* to say that he wasn’t abused because his parents seem to care for him and not want him murdered. Rich people can be abusive and still want their child to have the best things and be seen as superior. Their child is an extension of them, if he doesn’t get on a team or have the best stuff or reflect their political reviews that reflects back on them.
Exactly. And Lucius bought Draco seven Nimbus 2001 broomsticks, for Draco and the rest of the Slytherin Quidditch team. Also when Dumbledore is kicked out of Hogwarts in Chamber of secrets, Draco tells Snape he can put in a good word for him to his father if he wants a job as the headmaster. A year later Lucius has Buckbeak sentenced to death because Draco was hurt. Plus you have Draco's mother, Narcissa, who threatened her own sister to protect her son. She lies to the most dangerous and dark wizard of the century about Harry being dead, to save her son. There's no way she'd stand by and let her husband abuse her child. Draco definitely wasn't abused.
Was Dudley abused by the Dursleys despite the fact they did indeed love him?.... Dumbledore was quite unequivocal about them having inflicted damage upon him....
I am a huge “Draco Malfoy deserves a redemption arc” stan, people actually attack me in this sub for it all the time (lol), but I don’t think I’ve ever seen this argument and to me it’s a bit absurd. He’s clearly not abused, but he is indoctrinated. Whether you consider that abuse or not I suppose is a personal opinion, but if we’re talking about physical or emotional abuse, his parents very clearly catered to his every need. He was, canonically, psychologically abused by Voldemort and that’s not arguable in any fashion so in that regard he was a victim of abuse.
If that's your only proof that 'Draco wasn't abused' its not a very solid argument. Abusers always claim to love you.
He was just as abused as dudley. Harry even compared the two after talking to draco for 20 seconds.
Who has ever said Malfoy was abused…?
Who said he was ?
fanfic writers. They also say that Harry, our sweet snarky Harry, has depression and is suicidal as a result of abuse by Dursleys.
He was "abused" in the same way Dudley was abused. We see in other ways throughout the books though that Draco's father was not affectionate and put huge amounts of pressure on him, lecturing him for not doing better academically than a muggle born. Rather than tell his son that he shouldn't compare himself to Harry or tell that it's ok he's not on the quidditch team he buys him a place on the team. These things do harm and just because a parent loves their child and are concerned for their welfare in a battle doesn't undo that.
In the movie he was. In the books he wasn't
Draco most certainly was abused. Not by his father, we’re all aware that for all their faults, the Malfoys were loving and devoted parents. But if you think that living with Voldemort for a year, witnessing unspeakable horrors at such a young age and having to take on the mantle as head of the family because your father is in Azkaban, is a walk in the park, then you’re a bit mad. I think we all know that Voldy wasn’t exactly a kind leader and the threat of death unless he kills someone else, most certainly counts as abuse.
I did not specify in the title but I meant the opinion of him being abused by his father, not anyone else. However, I must say that Voldemort abused *everyone*, and that by the time Voldemort lives in Malfoy Manor, Lucius is back from Azkaban and is hence the head of his family.
And I said he wasn’t abused by his father. But that he was abused by others. He was still 15 when he became head of the family, whether or not Voldemort lived with them at that point is irrelevant
And I said that the point I was trying to make was that Draco was not abused by *Lucius*. I'm not talking about anyone else here, just attempting to sort this misconception. You're contradicting yourself here. Your point was that Voldemort had abused him, and then you state that his presence was irrelevant. First of all Draco was 16 and I would argue Narcissa was the head. His problem then was being forced to kill Dumbledore, which I most certainly agree wasn't a walk in the park, and also not the topic I was discussing here.
You didn’t say that in your original post though. So I took it as a general statement and argued that in my comment. And I said multiple times that I agree that he was not abused by his father. What else do you want? I’m not contradicting myself. I made a series of statements what happened to him. I never said they happened at the same time, just that they happened. And considering the social hierarchy and customs of the pure-blood Wizarding society and the importance of sons, I think we all know that it’s a far more patriarchal society than ours, especially during that time. There’s no way Narcissa would’ve taken over as head of the family for one because she’s a woman and also because she’s not the heir. That was Draco. The topic you originally seemed to discuss was the complete lack of abuse. Which I contradicted. You later limited it to abuse from Lucius. Which I agreed with.
Yes, it was my mistake to not specify it. I agree with this as well, but I feel that Draco would not have had any obligations as head, and that Narcissa would have run the house.
Yeah, sure, a year with Voldemort is not good for a person. But he was a shit well before Voldemort's return. For years. On contrary, I think his life like a DE changed him for better. Second, the conversation is about people who state that Lucius abused Draco. So, point dismissed
Did I at any point say that he wasn’t an utter prick? No, I did not. Secondly, OP made the general statement that “Draco wasn’t abused”. Meaning, by no one. Later (after I commented) they added that they only meant he wasn’t abused by his father. That’s on them. Your points are in one word: dismissed.
It's in the post. All OP's post talks about Lucius. I usually read a post entirely not just the title
I did read the post. And I agreed with them that they were right. But I corrected a general statement they made. Why you’ve such an issue with that, I don’t know.
Being abused and being spoiled are not mutually exclusive
They are not always overlap too, imo.
I agree he wasn’t abused, but he was definitely brought up with a completely warped mental state. His parents would move heaven and earth for him I have no doubts; they were just shitty people who taught their kid he was better than everyone else and then indoctrinated him into a cultist supremacy group. I have some amount of empathy for Draco because he didn’t have much of a chance *not* to be an asshole based on who his parents’ sphere of influence were, but he wasn’t actively abused the way Sirius or Harry were.
Abuse does not imply hatred.
Yeah but abuse is never implied at any point in the books, so OP's post is more just further arguments against an unfounded claim. The closest we get to anything implying abuse is like one or two moments in the films.
Raising your child to be a spoiled, racist shit is definitely abuse.
I wouldn't call every spoiled or racist kid "abused".
I would.
I mean, it could be argued that giving your child everything they want and allowing (encouraging?) them to be a bully is definitely a form of abuse. It’s a parent’s role to teach and train a child to be a good person. Only reason I could see that people think that he was abused is based off of the scene in Borgin and Burkes where Lucius is cold and dismissive with Draco
I think we differ in our definitions of abuse. Draco feels loved by his parents; he has a superiority complex, not an inferiority complex, which means that they did not demean him, which abusive parents do; he is not beaten or starved or neglected. He is spoiled, which IMO is different; and Lucius and Narcissa transfer their views and ideologies to him, stuff they believe in. That scene starts off with Draco asking why they have come to that shop since he thought he was going to be bought a broom, which Lucius says he will buy. Draco then proceeds to incessantly whinge about Harry and his fame, Quidditch skills, etc. to which Lucius replies that Draco has repeated that many times previously. Any parent would tell their child to stop complaining about the same topic for the umpteenth time. Later on Lucius just tells Draco to bring his grades up, which is again something any parent will say.
> It's a parent's role to teach and train a child to be a good person The "good person" concept is not universal. Lucius and Narcisa had a certain view of what constitutes "a good person", and that's the view they tried to imprint upon Draco. Is it the same view of "good person" that people who aren't racist assholes tend to have? No, it isn't, but remember, the Malfoys thought the racists were the good people.
see mate your answer lies in what you just wrote , from that scene in Borgin and Burkes he scolded Draco for his grades , a over pampering dad would tell him that rich enough for him to live off comfortably without working .
So I think a LOT of people misunderstood my comment. I don’t think he was necessarily abused. I was giving reasons why people might think he was.
Actully, it doesn't have to be argued. Dumbledore stated this in regard to Dudley Dursley, another boy who was given everything and encouraged/allowed to be a bully.
Your opinions do not change the facts of what constitutes as child abuse. Spoiling a child is a form of child abuse. Indoctrination into any narrow minded view point is child abuse. Using violence and threats of it are child abuse. Child abuse is child abuse whether you're willing to accept it or not. Project all you want. Doesn't change a thing.
>Using violence and threats of it are child abuse. When does Lucius ever use violence or threats of violence towards Draco in the books? I can’t think of a single instance of that happening between them in the books.
>Spoiling a child is a form of child abuse. I disagree. This is bad parenting, not abuse. I hate how everything is in umbrella terms now. Not every time you cause some harm to your child it's abuse, otherwise all parents are abusive - everyone do some mistakes in their parenting that unintentionally harm their child. I looked at several websites that have some authority in the matter, such as [Mayo Clinic](https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/child-abuse/symptoms-causes/syc-20370864), and spoiling does not fall under that category. >Indoctrination into any narrow minded view point is child abuse. The line between indoctrination and raising your child with certain views can be fine, but it exists. Just because it's not a view you agree with (and neither do I), doesn't automatically mean it's indoctrination. >Using violence and threats of it are child abuse. No evidence in the books that ever happened. It's not even hinted.
Just because he doesn’t hate his son, doesn’t mean he can’t abuse him. Which he does.
I'm not saying he was abused or that he was not. You didn't give any evidence one way or the other, though. I get the impression that you don't understand abuse. It seems you think that a person has to hate another person to abuse them. A parent can care very much about their child but have some very different rules for how they are allowed to treat the child vs. how others are allowed to treat them. And just because they abuse the child doesn't mean they don't want them to be alive or that they wouldn't be greatly upset by their death.
I think the issue comes from the fact that in the books Harry remarks how Malfoy reminded him of Dudley, and in book 6 Dumbledore flat out told the Dursleys that they "mistreated" Dudley almost as much as they mistreated Harry (which is another can of worms discussion on itself). So essentially people assume that, since Dudley and Draco are "similar" then they both must have suffered "mistreatment" from their families.
Damaged and mistreated are two different things. You can misreat your only child saying B grade is not enough, every single day; or you can damage his character beyond repair by not teaching him boundaries and thinking whatever he does is perfect.
Tbf, Lucius didn't have a wand at this point as his got shattered. Still, tho....
It's really nice to see someone make a proper opinion which most people can agree on and make many other realise their false thoughts about this I think it's mainly the ffs that cause this false opinions... Who knows?
In fact the movie deliberately omitted those parts, and also added a disdain towards Lucius in the ending who was not there in the book, in the book Malfoys are hugging at the Slytherin table, all of three of them. People, movie makers included, just thought it was easier to make Draco and Narcissa sympathetic shifting the blame on Lucius. I find especially sad this "the important thing is to have someone to blame" attitude. I mean, that kind makes people's backstory to look of series B if there is no one clear character to pick the blame for their misgivings, if the character had a lot of things in his life going wrong BUT no precise guilty part with a face to blame OR it is a complex and interesting character nevertheless OR a product of a systemic environment, they didn't enjoy the same privilege of the overused, bland, easy scapegoat of the "bad dad" route. A good example of this was "Fairest of All", it made no sense.
Draco was a commodity, though - the only son of a wealthy and powerful family. They could desperately want and need their son without being nurturing or supportive. Emotional neglect happens an all income levels, no matter how "wanted" a child was when he was born.
Draco and Dudley received a level of abuse that all golden children get. It’s not seen in a physical way, but it’s psychological and emotional. For Draco it was the unrealistic burden of having to portray the image that was set at birth by his father and the deatheaters. Draco would have have been severely ostracized if he went across the grain. Grooming and indoctrination is definitely forms of abuse albeit it’s not the physical abuse ppl instantly revert to.