Good energy was never meant to be wasted on idiocy. @am-i-the-enigma - Tumblr Blog

aresyaminohiita-deactivated2023

Repeat all with me: You would not have a decent life until JK Rowling, the 10th wealtiest person of the world (or so, I wish she have gotten down in that list) who is also a transphobe and a lgbt+phobe, is disenfranchized. She has the power to scapegoat onto everything (now, XIX literature) and make the debate about everything but her, so be careful, while you are looking for another thing, she is funding neo-nazi groups (she has been doing this for decades now). If she still has power, we are all fckd.

joannerowling

You absolute infant, i wish we lived in the world where JKR is the 10th wealthiest person in the world (with a net worth of 1 billion at most). You know who's the wealthiest woman in the world? Françoise Bettencourt Meyers, L'Oréal heiress, worth about 95 billions. And she's not even in the top ten.

lesbianbrained

@aresyaminohiita @joannerowling

What Neo-Nazi organizations is JKR funding, OP? Enlighten us. And cite your sources!

As far as I know, JKR has donated MILLONS of dollars to causes that support women, children, coronavirus patients, victims of sexual assault/domestic violence, the homeless, etc.

Over the span of her career she has dedicated so much of her wealth to charity and creating resources for the less fortunate that she lost her billionaire status.

- She has opened a trust that benefits and supports at risk women and children

- Founded a charity that works to end the harm of institutionalisation & help children worldwide be reunited with their families

- Donated over 18 MILLION DOLLARS to the University of Edinburgh in further support of its research on multiple sclerosis. (The disease that took her mother’s life)

- Made a 6 FIGURE DONATION to Khalsa Aid, an organization that dedicated itself to assisting COVID-19 patients in India

- Donated to the British Asian Trust during COVID-19

- Donated ONE MILLION DOLLARS in support of suffering Ukrainian children after the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine

- Founded and funded Beira's Place, a support service that offers resources to women and girls who have been victims of sexual assault.

If her money has gone to Nazis we’d like to know. C’mon, educate us!

The way trans rights activists throw around Nazi accusations & proclamations of “trans genocide” so freely is disgusting. JKR has done nothing but elegantly express her opinions & acknowlede sex-based oppression, along with expressing her compassion towards the trans community and for homosexuals being threatened by gender politics. (x)

Because she refuses to wholeheartedly bow down to your ideologies, she has been met with hate mail, including RAPE, BOMB AND DEATH THREATS, all of which she has taken with grace.

So what is she, a Humble Humanitarian or an Evil Nazi Witch, because I can’t seem to find any evidence that supports the latter? I’m not seeing any sources that indicate or confirm JKR is guilty of bombarding trans activists with threats of bombing, rape and murder, nor am I able to locate any information that suggests she’s spent time on Twitter calling trans activists cunts or bitches.

It seems to me that many of you are just a fear mongering misogynists, hell bent on spreading misinformation in order to demonize a woman solely based on the fact that she acknowledges the female sex is systemically oppressed and worthy of the protection afforded by single sex spaces.

STOP VILIFYING THIS WOMAN!

(x)

joannerowling

Well said sis! I didn't even react to the Nazi bit lol that's how jaded i am apparently.

It really is worth pointing out that Jo could be significantly richer if she didn't a) pay her taxes in full (unlike many if not most billionaires), b) give so much money to charity, including charity she personally set up to make sure it would do actual good (see above).

lesbianbrained

❗️❗️❗️❗️

searchingforproofsthatimwrong

What is INSANE about this is that, if you want a truly transphobic "one of the richest person in the world" you don't have to reach for JK, Elon Musk is Right There.

But he is a male so whatever right ?

sundazesun

beggars-opera

Kind of hard to believe there was once a time where a legitimate genre of post was "my mom says if this gets 2k notes she'll buy me a doughnut" and everyone would just. go ham

stitch-n-time

I vote we revive this shit.

Y’all, if this post gets 2k notes I’ll buy my own damned self a doughnut.

stitch-n-time

Y’know what? Yes. If this hits 24k by the time I wake up on 21 June 2023, I’ll get myself a dozen. And a big ol’ coffee to go with them.

witchesversuspatriarchy

This quote from the women’s suffrage memorial in Knoxville is as prescient as ever given the current climate.

blackswallowtailbutterfly

This was written when it was still legal for men to rape their wives. This was written when sexual harassment and date rape weren’t crimes. This was written before Roe vs Wade. Before Title IX. Before so, so many things. That’s really something to think about. Because the women who gained the vote didn’t stop there. They didn’t say okay that’s enough, we don’t need to fight anymore. No, they said the fight must continue and all women who come after must continue it.

double-fake-royalty

Pregame Huddle - Euros 2022 Final - England vs Germany - 7.31.22

bespangeled

In the 1960′s Legally a woman couldn’t

Open a bank account or get a credit card without signed permission from her father or hr husband.

Serve on a jury - because it might inconvenience the family not to have the woman at home being her husband’s helpmate.

Obtain any form of birth control without her husband’s permission. You had to be married, and your hub and had to agree to postpone having children.

Get an Ivy League education. Ivy League schools were men’s colleges ntil the 70′s and 80′s. When they opened their doors to women it was agree that women went there for their MRS. Degee.

Experience equality in the workplace: Kennedy’s Commission on the Status of Women produced a report in 1963 that revealed, among other things, that women earned 59 cents for every dollar that men earned and were kept out of the more lucrative professional positions.

Keep her job if she was pregnant.Until the Pregnancy Discrimination Act in 1978, women were regularly fired from their workplace for being pregnant.

Refuse to have sex with her husband.The mid 70s saw most states recognize marital rape and in 1993 it became criminalized in all 50 states. Nevertheless, marital rape is still often treated differently to other forms of rape in some states even today.

Get a divorce with some degree of ease.Before the No Fault Divorce law in 1969, spouses had to show the faults of the other party, such as adultery, and could easily be overturned by recrimination.

Have a legal abortion in most states.The Roe v. Wade case in 1973 protected a woman’s right to abortion until viability.

Take legal action against workplace sexual harassment. According to The Week, the first time a court recognized office sexual harassment as grounds for legal action was in 1977.

Play college sports Title IX of the Education Amendments of protects people from discrimination based on sex in education programs or activities that receive Federal financial assistance It was nt until this statute that colleges had teams for women’s sports

Apply for men’s Jobs The EEOC rules that sex-segregated help wanted ads in newspapers are illegal. This ruling is upheld in 1973 by the Supreme Court, opening the way for women to apply for higher-paying jobs hitherto open only to men.

This is why we needed feminism - this is why we know that feminism works

galacticdrift

I just want to reiterate this stuff, because I legit get the feeling there are a lot of younger women for whom it hasn’t really sunk in what it is today’s GOP is actively trying to return to.

Did you go to a good college? Shame on you, you took a college placement that could have gone to a man who deserves and needs it to support or prepare for his wife & children. But if you really must attend college, well, some men like that, you can still get married if you focus on finding the right man.

Got a job? Why? A man could be doing that job. You should be at home caring for a family. You shouldn’t be taking that job away from a man who needs it (see college, above). You definitely don’t have a career – you’ll be pregnant and raising children soon, so no need to worry about promoting you.

This shit was within living memory. I’M A MILLENIAL and my mother was in the second class that allowed women at an Ivy League school. Men who are alive today either personally remember shit like this or have parents/family who have raised them into thinking this was the way America functioned back in the blissful Good Old Days. There are literally dudes in the GOP old enough to remember when it was like this and yearn for those days to return.

When people talk about resisting conservativism and the GOP, we’re not just talking about whether the wage gap is a myth or not. We’re talking about whether women even have the fundamental right to exist as individuals, to run their own households and compete for jobs and be considered on an equal footing with men in any arena at all in the first place.

gehayi

I was a child in the 1960s, a teenager in the 1970s, a young adult in the 1980s. This is what it was like: When I was growing up, it was considered unfortunate if a girl was good at sports. Girls were not allowed in Little League. Girls’ teams didn’t exist in high school, except at all-girls’ high schools. Boys played sports, and girls were the cheerleaders. People used to ask me as a child what I wanted to be when I grew up. I said I wanted to be a brain surgeon or the first woman justice on the Supreme Court. Everyone told me it was impossible–those just weren’t realistic goals for a girl–the latter, especially, because you couldn’t trust women to judge fairly and rationally, after all. In the 1960s and 1970s, all women were identified by their marital status, even in arrest reports and obituaries. In elementary school, my science teacher referred to Pierre Curie as DOCTOR Curie and Marie Curie as MRS. Curie…because, as he put it, “she was just his wife.” (Both had doctorates and both were Nobel prize winners, so you would think that both would be accorded respect.) Companies could and did require women to wear dresses and skirts. Failure to do could and did get women fired. And it was legal. It was also legal to fire women for getting married or getting pregnant. The rationale was that a woman who was married or who had a child had no business working; that was what her husband was for. Aetna Insurance, the biggest insurance company in America, fired women for all of the above. A man could rape his wife. Legally. I can remember being twelve years old and reading about legal experts actually debating whether or not a man could actually be said to coerce his wife into having sex. This was a serious debate in 1974. The debate about marital rape came up in my law school, too, in 1984. Could a woman be raped by her husband? The guys all said no–a woman got married, so she was consenting to sex at all times. So I turned it around. I asked them if, since a man had gotten married, that meant that his wife could shove a dildo or a stick or something up his ass any time she wanted to for HER sexual pleasure. (Hey, I thought it was reasonable. If one gender was legally entitled to force sex on the other, then obviously the reverse should also be true.) The male law students didn’t like the idea. Interestingly, they commented that being treated like that would make them feel like a woman. My reaction was, “Thank you for proving my point…” The concept of date rape, when first proposed, was considered laughable. If a woman went out on a date, the argument of legal experts ran, sexual consent was implied. Even more sickening was the fact that in some states–even in the early 1980s–a man could rape his daughter…and it was no worse than a misdemeanor. Women taking self-defense classes in the 1970s and 1980s were frequently described in books and on TV as “cute.” The implication was that it was absurd for a woman to attempt to defend herself, but wasn’t it just adorable for her to try? I was expressly forbidden to take computer classes in junior and senior years of high school–1978-79 and 1979-80–because, as the principal told me, “Only boys have to know that kind of thing. You girls are going to get married, and you won’t use it.” When I was in college–from 1980 to 1984–there were no womens’ studies. The idea hadn’t occurred in many places because the presumption was that there was nothing TO study. My history professor–a man who had a doctorate in history–informed me quite seriously that women had never produced a noted painter, sculptor, composer, architect or scientist because…wait for it…womens’ brains were too small. (He was very surprised when I came up with a list of fifty women gifted in the arts and science, most of whom he had never heard of before.) When Walter Mondale picked Geraldine Ferraro as a running mate in 1984, the press hailed it as a disaster. What would happen, they asked fearfully, if Mondale died and Ferraro became president? What if an international crisis arose and she was menstruating? She could push the nuclear button in a fit of PMS! It would be the end of the WORLD!! …No, they WEREN’T kidding. On the surface, things are very different now than they were when I was a child, a teen and a young adult. But I’m afraid that people now do not realize what it was like then. I’ve read a lot of posts from young women who say that they are not feminists. If the only exposure to feminism they have is the work of extremists, I cannot blame them overmuch. I wish that I could tell them what feminism was like when it was new–when the dream of legal equality was just a dream, and hadn’t even begun to come true. When “woman’s work” was a sneer–and an overt putdown. When people tut-tutted over bright and athletic girls with the words, “Really, it’s a shame she’s not a boy.” That lack of feminism wasn’t all men opening doors and picking up checks. A lot of it was an attitude of patronizing contempt that hasn’t entirely died out, but which has become less publicly acceptable. I wish I could make them feel what it was like…when grown men were called “men” and grown women were “girls.”

drst

Know your history.

hedwig-dordt

So this, too, is what they mean saying “make America great again” and/or the good old days.

shatterpath

REBLOG FOREVER.

toooldforthissh--stuff

I am 70. I remember all those things. I was a student nurse from 64 to 67 and we were not permitted to “finish” a bed bath on a male or insert a catheter in a male. Seeing male genitals might cause us “harm” or upset our delicate sensibilities. Imagine when we graduated and were “thrown” to the wolves. Imagine if you were a male patient who had to be the first to be “practiced” on by a graduate nurse. (Ha!) At the school I attended no student nurse could be married. Only one school in my city (Atlanta) would even admit married women and Male Nurses weren’t even thought of. What man would want to be a nurse when he could be a Doctor. In all my training I only remember 3 or 4 Women who were Doctor’s and a very few, (less than 5 or 6) female interns or residents (and this was a teaching hospital) and most of those were OB/Gyns and one was a pediatrician.

When I graduated and was going to get married I wanted to go on birth control pills. You needed to be on them for a least one cycle before they were effective. I won’t go into what hoops I had to jump through to get a prescription from my Dr. (a man, natch) but when i went to the drug store to get the prescription filled I ended up having to get my future husband to “accompany” me so the pharmacist “interview” him and see if it was okay with him for me to be on the pill.

Even when we went to get a marriage license I had to get my Father’s signature and we had to go before a Judge because I was not yet 21 (I was 20 and 9 months).

I could go on and on, getting a credit card in MY name, etc., but I will tell you that WE MUST RESIST.

casper-the-friendly-being-blog

The number of people I know who romanticize gender inequality is frankly terrifying. A world never existed in which the lives of women were simplified by benevolent men who saw to her every want and need. That was not a thing. A world never existed in which women were all ladies, men were all gentlemen, & everything was some great big cishet fairytale. Feminists aren’t a bunch of upstarts who want to destroy a perfectly wholesome and non-harmful system. Just…look at history. Look at the posts above. We. Must. Resist..

rivergst-deactivated20191102

About 8: The State of New York only added No-Fault Divorce as an option in 2010 (!!!)

systlin

I want to repeat here.

This is what they mean, when they say “Old-fashioned values”

When conservatives start waxing lyrical about the ‘good old days’, this is what they mean. They are fully aware how much things blew for women, and they would like to return to that.

memcjo

This is so important. Young women need to understand the struggle that came before. I am begging everyone who is a US citizen and over 18 to register to VOTE and VOTE!!!

overt-menstruation

I just wanted to add: in the United States (and many other countries) womyn can still be forced by their employers to wear skirts, high heels, makeup, stockings, etc.

keptonice

Did you know, the official colours of the Suffragettes were Green, White and Violet?

Women often wore jewellery in these colours to show support in public areas,

but the coolest part is the message these colours carried in their order.

Green White Violet.

Give Women the Vote

How fucking awesome is that?

lesbianbottommemes

if you insist on pretending that people are oppressed for their "sex", then don't complain when you're rightfully called transphobic

does anyone else remember when women weren’t allowed to vote or is that just me?

yuuri-katsuki-nikiforov-deactiv

Remember when China had a one child policy and almost everyone was aborting female fetuses because men are ‘more valuable’ then women. So now China has 33 million more men then woman. You would think China would be like ‘we should start treating women better’ but no. The men in China have resorted to kidnapping women from neighboring countries and are forced married to the men who kidnapped them.

But since oppression by sex isn’t real….

virago-presenting

Remember the fact that it’s estimated that more than 200 million women and girls world wide have undergone fgm and an estimated 3 million more are at risk of it every year? Or that mother’s feel the need to bind their young daughters breast in order to protect them from having to marry men much older than them in Cameroon?

But this happened to such a large number of women because they identified as women. Not because of their sex or anything. This happened to them because brain sex…

lesbiansaremagic-deactivated202

Remember how women get fired from their jobs for having children? Or how they’re still not allowed to breastfeed their children in public spaces? That can’t possibly have anything to do with vaginas or uteruses.

Remember how women are girls are put into menstration huts during their periods, and aren’t even allowed to touch food or animals because they’re considered dirty and impure on their periods. But that has nothing to do with vaginas and uteruses though right?

Remember how there exists a penis festival and everything literally surrounds penises but the second women talk about their vaginas people go fucking insane?

Do us all a favour and shut the fuck up.

raging-rad-feminist-deactivated

Remember how women have been told, and are still told, that they shouldn’t hold positions of power because their hormone cycle makes them too sensitive and irrational and ‘hormonal’ and have been told things like ‘what happens when she gets PMS and then blows up the country/destroys the company’?

Remember how women are discrimated against since they have the ability to get pregnant and companies don’t want to have to pay for a woman to go on maternity leave for a year? Or how many people refer to this as ‘paying a woman to do nothing’?

But obviously sex-based oppression doesn’t exist since we identified as being the only sex with a uterus, periods, and the ability to get pregnant 🤦🏼‍♀️

lesbian-lizards

femsolid

I guess I was beaten, sexually assaulted and forced to wear dresses because I identified as a girl. Not because I was one.

xenowarriorprincess

Can someone drop the source on the chart for lifetime sexual assault?

antiplondon

A friend believes people divide into sheep and goats. The sheep will never stray too far from their flock’s received wisdom because lone dis

A friend believes people divide into sheep and goats. The sheep will never stray too far from their flock’s received wisdom because lone dissenters are picked off by wolves. Sheep are pleasant, biddable, placid, and panic when cornered. Sheep mainly aspire to a quiet life.

Goats are not nice: they’re cussed, belligerent, solitary. They scrabble and climb, cling to frozen rock faces. It’s not bravery that leads them far from low-hanging fruit and shelter into barren places with precipitous drops, or to ram their heads into hard objects and bigger foes. It’s their nature. They’re goats.

When people, mainly left-wing men, ask why JK Rowling has “ruined her legacy” by tweeting against the gender ideology which is now orthodoxy in liberal politics, trade unions, academia and so-called human rights bodies, I answer: because she’s a goat. A sheep may regard news that Scottish police will register a rapist as female – even though legally rape is only committed with a penis – as absurd, a statistical travesty, a gas-lighting of rape victims. But the sheep, craving its flock, keeps shtum.

How easily Rowling, at 56, could sit in her castle tapping out thrillers, jolly Christmas fables and Potter spin-offs, bathed in global adoration, a fast-tracked national treasure, a bland billionaire,. She could have stuck with her uncontroversial causes, like Romanian orphans and child literacy, into which she has poured many millions, mouthing fashionable mantras to placate the angry, ever-circling mobs of America’s culture wars.

Instead she entered the bitterest battle of all. There was nothing – nothing! – to be gained for her in defending unknown tax consultant Maya Forstater, when two years ago an employment judge decided her belief that biological sex is immutable was “not worthy of respect in a democratic society”. Turn away, Jo; bang out another Fantastic Beasts! Anything but upset your youthful, progressive fan base: your loyal flock. But the stubborn goat refused. A single tweet #IStandWithMaya sent her on to an icy ledge.

How must it feel to have your name airbrushed from the $8 billion film franchise born of your scribbling in a coffee shop, penniless, while your baby napped? Or to watch the trio of child actors you chose and nurtured 20 years ago recall the stories which made them many times richer and more celebrated than their ho-hum talents deserve, yet not once uttering your name? Or have fools who run around with broomsticks up their backsides in college leagues change the name of quidditch, the sport you invented for wizards?

That’s putting aside the threats. Just search for JK Rowling on Twitter and see the stream of invective, the gun memes, the intent to rape and kill, the address of her family home handily displayed for passing stalkers online. For what? I’d bet few of those denouncing her even know and have certainly never read her long, thoughtful, compassionate essay.

But it turns out an author told to publish under gender-neutral initials, since boys won’t read books by girls, was a woman all along. One of the bothersome, old-fashioned types, who won’t jettison all they’ve learnt from motherhood or sexual trauma to assuage bullies or cultural fads.

In Through the Looking-Glass, Alice laughs at the White Queen’s ridiculous pronouncements: “There’s no use trying,” she said. “One can’t believe impossible things.” The Queen replies it just takes practice, half an hour every day: “Why, sometimes I’ve believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast.”

Rowling is incapable of believing impossible things. That human biological sex is not binary; male bodies have no advantage in women’s sports; a male person declaring themselves a woman is instantly, magically – Transformiamus! – eligible for female private spaces; that a global epidemic of teenage girls wanting to medicate themselves with testosterone and surgery is progress rather than a self-harm cult; that there is a special new category of human called “non-binary”, neither male nor female, for whom all existing facilities (mainly those designed to protect women) must be scrapped; that cherished words to describe female experience – girl, mother, woman – must be swapped for terms which reduce us to bodily functions like gestational carrier or menstruator; that it is impossible to identify a woman unless they declare their pronouns.

Just as Galileo refused to bow to the Inquisition and affirm the Earth is the centre of the universe, many women just don’t, won’t, can’t believe gender is real but sex is not.

The sheep, of course, will pretend they do. They bleat their sympathies, or purport to seek some miraculous compromise which will appease their flock. (As if untold reasonable, well-meaning women before them haven’t sought, in vain, a middle path, or that scientific fact can be bargained away.) Or like Caroline Nokes, Tory chair of the women and equalities committee, who voted against same-sex marriage in 2013 but bulldozed women’s concerns about Gender Recognition Act reform in her report last week, they strive to join the flock.

Only the goats stand their ground. And this has been the year of the goat. A succession of women have upended their lives, been cast out and despised just to uphold a fundamental belief. Keira Bell, who took a judicial review against the Tavistock gender service which irreversibly medicated her teenage body rather than healed her troubled mind; Sonia Appleby, who exposed safeguarding failures at that clinic; Jess de Wahls, an embroidery artist, whose work was summarily removed from the Royal Academy shop; Professor Kathleen Stock, hounded out of academia by masked protesters while her colleagues and union stood by; choreographer Rosie Kay who lost her eponymous company because she refused to disavow the intricacies of the female body she inhabits in dance.

I’ve interviewed most of these women and prior to speaking out, all experienced long nights of the soul. Fear (of losing political allies, friends and peers) battled against a burning urge for truth. But in the end, they couldn’t not speak out. It didn’t matter what happened next. They were not prepared to deny material reality, even if they never worked again. They were happy to ascend that rock face, cold and alone. But instead they found themselves alive and free, up among the goats.

ms-hells-bells

today in leftists being hypocrites, they have to state a bajillion "i do not stand with jk rowling's beliefs" PSAs when interacting with anything to do with harry potter, meanwhile they're raving and investing so much time and money into the new five nights at freddy's game, when just a couple months ago the creator was exposed as a pro-life republican that donated a bunch of money to all the republican candidates, including trump. he "retired" after the backlash, but is still completely profiting from the game, it was already complete when the donations were made public and he almost certainly still holds the trademarks and image rights, so he's making massive bank.

a pro life, anti gay trumpist is excusable, but god forbid a WOMAN say that women and men are two different sexes (which the aforementioned trumpist would also absolutely believe as well)

itinabe

You know what? Yeah. God forbid ANYONE from spewing transphobic bullshit. You don’t have to excuse JK’s hatred to point out issues with Scott.

gravitygemjj

also can y’all not assume everyone knew about the FNAF controversy omg. I just found out now bc of this post. U have the right to be angry at people being not treating issues with enough gravity but geez. JKR’s bigotry is more well known BECAUSE she’s a more well known figure. OP didn’t even say the FNAF creator’s name.

Neither JKR or him are excusable. They both suck.

ophelias-revenge

@gravitygemjj you’re operating on some Trump levels trying to both sideism this. How is JKR tweeting or writing about sexism and gender online in any way compared to the actions of donating money to Trump/Republican political candidates?

A woman’s words are being treated as worse evil than men’s actual harmful activism and actions. There is no both sides equally bad. A woman sharing her opinions on sexism and gender isn’t some horrifying bigotry. A man directly financially supporting politics such as banning abortion is harmful and sexists.

gravitygemjj

@opheliasrevenge

Lmao okay. First off, no. Me saying that both are bad is not me trying to appease both sides, it’s morally correct. Both are bad people. Both did bad things. That’s not complicated. If there are two bad people, and one of them is worse, it doesn’t change that both are bad people. It’s like having two rotten apples, but one of them is infested with bugs as well. That bug-infested one is worse, yeah. But that doesn’t make the rotten apple any better.

And JKR is a bigot about more than that. She is a TERF, she is racist, she is homophobic and she is all in all: a shitty person. She has done a bunch of bad things, still does bad things and isn’t planning on stopping. She has bad morals, she preaches bad morals, and she uses her fame and platform to spread it. She’s a powerful figure using her power for prejudice. And it isn’t just doing things online, she’s done a lot more than that.

And yeah, donating money to Republican and Trump stuff is shitty. Nowhere did I deny that. We agree and it has been established that it’s a shitty thing to do.

But that doesn’t make JKR a better person, and it def doesn’t make her someone worth defending. They’re BOTH bigots. Ur making this into a man vs woman thing which it isn’t. They are BOTH using their influence to be terrible people. This isn’t “oh bc she is a woman!! people act like she’s evil!!” No it’s because she’s a bigot!! This isn’t “Bc he’s a man no one is talking about it or giving him consequences!!” It’s bc he doesn’t have the same fame and platform JKR does. And I NEVER said they were EQUALLY bad, u are again making assumptions. I said that they’re BOTH BAD. There’s a difference.

And hey!! A woman sharing her opinions!! Can ABSOLUTELY BE BIGOTRY!! Bc hers ARE. She again and again has used her words to spread prejudice. You need to realize that. Just bc they’re words doesn’t mean they aren’t harmful or powerful. When you have the influence she has, it’s pretty damn powerful. The man is still a bad person. But so is she.

Stop defending a bad person just because you think someone else is worse. They’re both bad. And stop acting as if she isn’t causing damage from her actions.

latenightsinpemberley

When was she homophobic or racist? When she pointed out that when you erase sex you erase same sex attraction or when she spoke out against the racist backlash after a Black woman was cast as the beloved female character she created?

gravitygemjj

@latenightsinpemberley

Often lmao. And I read ur tags, no one is acting like she is the worst person ever and I certainly wasn’t. She, and other celebs regardless of gender are shitty people. I do agree that male celebs tend to get away with it more, but again, that doesn’t take away her bad actions.

Examples of her homophobia are her bad representation. She has barely any LGBT+ representation, and the ones she has are v problematic. Dumbledore is gay! But it’s never shown. She said he was gay but it’s never mentioned in the books. People got excited with Fantastic Beasts when they found out we’d have a gay Dumbledore! Except, no, actually. His sexuality is not seen or discussed—it is at best, subtext. And yes, a gay character does not have to have their story be about them being gay! But to say he’s gay, and choose to not let him actually be gay, is a choice. It’s getting “I’m an ally!!!” Points without actually providing anything. It’s performative. It’s not unlike queer-baiting.

It has also been confirmed (even by JKR herself) that the werewolf metaphor is for gay men. It’s even compared to AIDS/HIV. And what is the werewolf story we are given that focuses on this? A violent adult werewolf attacks child Remus Lupin, and he then has the curse of something he hates about himself. Translation: A gay pedophile attacked a young boy and spread AIDS/HIV to him. And when she found out that the actor was playing Remus Lupin as a gay man, she was upset and discouraged it. Bc queer elements? Oh yeah! Actual queerness? Oh no!

And oh, would u look at that? That’s all the representation. Huh. Unless u want to count Grindelwald, Dumbledore’s complicated toxic ex (not to say that Dumbledore isn’t also complicated and toxic btw). U know the guy, the literal villain who is essentially a prejudiced fascist. And yeah, people can be gay and bad at the same time. Except we have no good gay guys. Or good LGBT+ characters at all.

But anyway! On to the racism. The way she wrote about Indigenous people and wizards was racist. She used and manipulated their traditions, culture and stories to fit into her narrative, and acted as if it was factual. Her depictions of Indian garb for the Patel sisters is lazy in the books and worse in the films. Cho Chang—it’s literally in her NAME. She gave her TWO Korean surnames as her first and last name. All POC characters were side characters and were never shown the same development and patience the others were. They are plot devices more than people. And you can argue ignorance—but if that was the case, looking at her more recent content does no better.

And wow, look at u pointing out TWO things she has done, one of them being positive!! The sex thing u mentioned is her being transphobic. And her defending a black woman doesn’t make her a good person. It just means that she isn’t the biggest bigot in the world.

But that doesn’t make her any less of a bad person.

latenightsinpemberley

“no one is pretending she's the worst person ever” are you sure about that? Because I can hardly come across a Harry Potter post these days that doesn't contain a disclaimer about how much that person hates the bigoted bitch or pretending her books were written by Daniel Radcliffe. Every time she tweets, "progressives" have a public meltdown on twitter about the wicked witch of Great Britain literally killing trans people with her words. The vilification of JKR would be downright comical if it wasn't so deeply misogynistic and disturbing. Because, it absolutely was speaking out for women that landed her in that place. As her attackers like to remind her every time she tweets something ~controversial~ (like, y'know, that women are female!), couldn't she just have kept her mouth shut and remained a beloved children's author?

Off the top of my head, I wonder why 50% of the posts about the adaptation of His Dark Materials aren't about Pullman's recent inclusion of a predatory professor that pervs on Lyra as a main character (one the reader is supposed to root for) in his new book or his support for Kate Clanchy? Why whenever a Stephen King adaptation comes out aren't there calls for a boycott among outraged fans given his disgusting sexualisation of underage girls, his writing of an actual fucking child orgy or his racist portrayal of Black women in his books? In the recent Lord of the Rings anniversary, why haven't there been hundreds of disclaimers disavowing Tolkien's racism as fans nostalgically look upon his series?

So Rowling's crime of homophobia is not, for example, opposing gay marriage, but *checks notes* not enough LGBT inclusion in a book series written in the ’90s and completed in the 2000s? Well, now I understand where you're coming from, what with so many critically acclaimed fantasy book series–especially kids book series from the ’90s-’00s– having so many gay characters in them! It was certainly not groundbreaking at all to have one of the most groundbreaking, pop culture defining characters be gay nor did it result in more backlash than praise at the time since, y’know, wokeness cookies were not exactly a thing in 2007. After all, she clearly just made it up! It's not like Dumbledore’s relationship with Grindelwald is a pretty damn central plot point in the last book.

And of course, how dare she have gay people have complex characters rather than being one dimensional goodies or baddies? We simply can't have that. It's not like Dumbledore is viewed as a Gandalfesque figure among mainstream readers and viewers. He's toxic, so bad gay rep! But she didn't make it clear Dumbledore was gay, you say. Unlike her delving into McGonagall's raunchy affair with a Muggle or Flitwick’s marital troubles I suppose? “But what about Fantastic Beasts”? Where there are still three movies to go and where Dumbledore and Grindelwald haven't even come face to face? Or did you interpret Dumbledore seeing Grindelwald in the mirror of Erised as platonic?

Now the HIV parallel is what really fucking gets me, given that Rowling created that analogy (of AIDS and blood-borne diseases in general) specifically with the character of Remus Lupin in mind, in order to portray the culture of discrimination people like him face due to superstition and prejudice. She introduced a kindhearted and brave character, who was an excellent teacher, but due to society's prejudice against werewolves lived an impoverished life of unemployment, not for lack of trying but due to systemic discrimination. But alas, I'm sure she secretly had a minor villain she'd introduce three books later in mind, wanting to brainwash little kids about gay men being pedophiles preying on little boys! I have not heard about her discouraging the actor who played Lupin as a gay man but, could it maybe be because she'd written him getting together with Tonks in her sixth book (published a year after the third movie) and intended their deaths to echo those of James and Lily Potter, with their child being an orphan of war like Harry? Authors are not obligated to follow headcanons over their own vision of their characters you know.

How exactly was she racist to Indigenous cultures in her writing? And how could she have pretended her fiction about goddamn wizards is in any way factual? On to the Patil twins. I guess you could say that the description of Indian garb was lazy given that Rowling never wrote wrote anything of the sort in the first place, since she describes both Parvati and Padma donning dress robes (in bright pink and bright turquoise respectively). But let's blame her for one of the dozens of ways in which the movies messed up. And of course, Cho Chang. There are two possible explanations for that one: it could either be a romanisation of 張秋 in Hong Kong, due to its dual Cantonese and British influence or the Chinese, chóu chàng [惆悵] which means "melancholy". Though not a plausible Chinese name (not the full name–the last name “Chang” is common in China), given Rowling's tendency to give names based on semiology (Remus Lupin, Voldemort, Rubeus Hagrid, Minerva McGonagall) I don't think she had a bad intention, nor that she gave her character the first two Asian last names that came to mind, but rather gave Cho that name to fit her arc after the loss of Cedric.

It is true that Rowling never wrote one of her central characters as PoC but she certainly didn't write them as plot devices either. How is Angelina Johnson or Lee Jordan plot devices? How is Kingsley Shacklebolt? How are the Patil twins and Dean plot devices compared to the other white students of Harry's year, like Seamus or Lavender? She wrote a book as white British woman who grew up in Bristol, a place with a predominantly white population. Could she have done better? Yes, of course. But that does not make her racist. Which male author is crucified for lack of representation?! Most of them are fucking worshipped!

Ever since she wrote the hp series, Rowling definitely made efforts to make her fans regardless of race or ethnicity feel included, both by supporting her main character being played by a Black woman in The Cursed Child (my point in mentioning this not being that Rowling “defended a Black woman once”, but that Rowling supported her characters being represented by actors of diverse racial and ethnic backgrounds, so that more people would see themselves in her story) and creating a wider wizarding world outside the UK in Pottermore, which will feature in Fantastic Beasts. And if her support of a Black Hermione Granger is any indication, I doubt she wouldn't be in favour a more diverse main cast in a future adaptation of her books, which will probably happen sooner or later.

Just because I mentioned two random examples to contradict your claims of racism and homophobia doesn't mean she just did two random good things. Rowling has consistently represented progressive politics ever since she came into the spotlight.

But I guess when it comes to women, unless you bring world peace and solve climate change it's simply not enough. Maybe she could take a page out of King's book and write a child orgy?

ms-gay-frogs

also on the whole gay topic, JKR literally COULD NOT include explicitly gay characters during the first few books, since, you know, publishers could literally just refuse to publish it?

womenarehuman

It was literally against the law in the UK to have homosexual characters in books before 2003. She literally COULD NOT HAVE WRITTEN A GAY CHARACTER LEGALLY!!

Hence why she told the public about Dumbledore AFTER the law was repealed.

She has given so much money to LGBT groups and women's shelters, has shown nothing but support for trans people's health and safety, but because she knows there are objective biological differences between women and trans women (obviously), y'all deem her the devil incarnate. Get a grip.

female-malice

I strongly urge all of you to listen to the entire LGB Alliance conference. Even if you're totally removed from UK politics like I am, make your way through it. And especially watch it if you're an LGB person in the US, Canada, or Australia. LGB people in the UK are looking over at us thinking "why are they so behind? Why don't they speak up?"

It's long, but you can watch it in segments. Watch it whether or not you support the LGB Alliance. Watch gay people host panels and speak openly about protecting gay rights. If you're worried it's heavy or depressing to watch, it's not. It's very uplifting. It's not tumblr essays and arguments over tiny minutiae. It's gay humans speaking, defining where we are, how we got here, and where we're going next.

toddstool

radfems do this 🥺 👉👈

Non-commercial use only. If you use it, please do not edit! Here are my links: https://grgikau.com https://twitter.com/grgikau https://www

radical-brownie

communalbong-deactivated2022101

bisexual-slime

rusalkam-deactivated20220410

stanabortion

moosedreadsdrunkfuckery

it-is-the-female-federal

apple-pie-42

gender-critical-analytical

Death Threats, Suicide Baits, and Other Violent Threats

tra-receipts

thatsonemorbidcorvid

casketears

cannot stop thinking about how good the fabrication of consent in squid game was… like yeah, the participants consent! over and over, from agreeing to the slapping game to ringing up the number of their own accord to meeting at the location to signing a separate sheet once more upon arrival… they can even disband the game if the majority decrees it. but this is all performative. because of course they’ll agree - of course they’ll come back.

the second episode is even all about addressing this ‘consent’, and that potential audience superiority: “so why don’t they just leave???? if they can??? why did they even do all this to start with?? it’s so extreme, to do all that just for money, i would never”

because, the show says, look at what they’re returning to. look at the life that’s offered as their alternative. debt up to their ears, money-brokers beating them up, poverty at its worst. do you see? do you see how yeah, joining that game is optional, but it’s optional in the sense of choosing to be stabbed or shot: theres consent, but not actual desire. that theres agreement, but under exploitation. there’s a reason only poor people are chosen to compete and it’s so obvious but i fucking love how the show handles it and addresses any audience superiority anyway

3am-nonsense

When will y'all start having this conversation about prostitution too? Y'all believe these vulnerable women choose to do it? Y'all truly believe that sex by coercion is not rape? Y'all think that consent can be bought?

cecaeliawitch

love how op removed this response from the notes lol

thingstoshowtomygirls

Op is weak hypocrite lmao

wallflowerpetal

“…theres consent, but not actual desire. theres agreement, but under exploitation…”

OP I’ve never read a more concise yet nuanced analysis of prostitution…oh wait..

radfemsafe-deactivated20220201

TRAs: AGP doesn’t exist 😌

Me: Okay. There’s been quite a few transwomen in the news recently for raping women, possession of child pornography, indecent exposure in women’s areas, and raping women in women’s prison.

TRAs: Those are not real transwomen 😌

Me: Okay, so if they’re not transwomen (despite identifying as transwomen) then they are just cis dudes with a fetish for being identified as women and dressing as women?

TRAs: Yes 😌

Me: Okay. So that is what AGP is. Maybe, since we’ve established that cis men will lie about being trans to gain access to women’s spaces for their fetish (never mind that it is now somehow okay to question someone’s gender identity) maybe it makes sense to maintain the integrity of same-sex places, so women are not in danger?

TRAs: No, AGP doesn’t exist, self-identified trans women should have access to wherever they want. 😌

Me:

garden-owler

It’s really that simple :,) it really really really is just that simple.

Trending Blogs

Recently Viewed Blogs

Good energy was never meant to be wasted on idiocy.