Jk Rowling Controversy

[The Kilted Heathen]

And this is something I think Rowling misses.

Oh, I don't think she misses it at all. I'd wager she knows what she's doing (The Ink Black Heart shows her awareness of it all quite clearly), she's just a sensationalist.

Rowling is a complex person like anyone else.

Reqpecfully, it's not that complex. We all have trauma in our past, and that trauma influences our motivations in many ways. It is never, however, a valid excuse for actively harming other people, which she has done and continues to do. She cannot rightfully slander transpeople on the one hand, then bubble up crocodile tears about people getting angry about that because of her past and her traumas. Doing so is hypocritical, and if I had to sum up Rowling in one word it would be just that - a hypocrite.

Although, having recently re-read the Harry Potter books, there are a lot of problems in that book that should have been clear red flags as to the type of person Rowling is. The goblins, the house elves, S.P.E.W. and that whole sub-plot, to some extent the centaurs... A lot of yikes.

 

[Quintessence]

Men are sperm donors.

Which... is required to make a human baby. That men are kinda useless after spitting themselves doesn't make them any less of a baby maker. But it does mean we can eat them after women become pregnant. They've served their purpose as sperm donors after that.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Segments of the gay community have been extremely hostile towards 'straight passing' gays or bisexuals,

When I was younger I knew a gay guy who was hostile towards effeminate gays.

 

[Augustus]

Hardly emotion driving this, given a large proportion of the major stars in her films - obviously being younger and perhaps more attuned to new thinking - seem to disagree with her and will point this out. It's hardly in their interests to be on another side to her just from emotion.

It's certainly in their financial interests to promote a progressive cause celebre, it would be career suicide not to (that doesn't mean their support wasn't genuine).

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Although, having recently re-read the Harry Potter books, there are a lot of problems in that book that should have been clear red flags as to the type of person Rowling is. The goblins, the house elves, S.P.E.W. and that whole sub-plot, to some extent the centaurs... A lot of yikes.

I'm going to guess it's very likely you're reading that into it after the fact.
And as I pointed out we cannot assume the art matches the artist. Sometimes it does, like Sam Shepard who seems to have put elements of his own life (like a drunken and absent father) into many of his plays. But Brian Adams was 10 years old during the Summer of 69.

 

[Mock Turtle]

It's certainly in their financial interests to promote a progressive cause celebre, it would be career suicide not to (that doesn't mean their support wasn't genuine).

I think perhaps most of those less biased would just see them as being honest in their views and being more open to changing times. Given most of us don't have any particular expertise in this area but also some are less likely to be condemning or sticking to old definitions.

 

[Augustus]

I'm always open to changing my position in light of new arguments and evidence, but I haven't seen a convincing reason not to be highly skeptical of Rowling's positions and see some of them as deeply harmful so far.

From my perspective, I've not seen any criticisms that don't rely on either a bad faith interpretation of what she said (adding a negative spin that is not explicitly stated), or rely on mindreading to join the dots (it's a transphobic dogwhistle!)

She could have perhaps couched her language slightly more on a couple of occasions, but assigning this to malevolence is unfair (and if everyone did this all of the time the world would be a far worse place).

On a complicated issue that involves competing rights between demographics who have suffered discrimination, if what she said is deemed wholly unacceptable then it pretty much says there is nothing to discuss and the 'correct' answer is already known and must be adhered to.

 

[Debater Slayer]

From my perspective, I've not seen any criticisms that don't rely on either a bad faith interpretation of what she said (adding a negative spin that is not explicitly stated), or rely on mindreading to join the dots (it's a transphobic dogwhistle!)

She could have perhaps couched her language slightly more on a couple of occasions, but assigning this to malevolence is unfair (and if everyone did this all of the time the world would be a far worse place).

On a complicated issue that involves competing rights between demographics who have suffered discrimination, if what she said is deemed wholly unacceptable then it pretty much says there is nothing to discuss and the 'correct' answer is already known and must be adhered to.

The main issues that I haven't found any convincing responses to are 1) her public support for Matt Walsh, a far-right extremist who has consistently been a purveyor of hatred and misunderstanding, and 2) her mockery of the phrase "people who menstruate" because she believed it should have been replaced with "women," even though not all women menstruate either. It's simply a more medically accurate wording than using "women" in that context.

I'm also not sure why she hasn't publicly debated or discussed her views with someone who has different views from hers. If she has concerns and wants them addressed, it seems to me that such a debate or discussion could be immensely useful instead of continually tweeting brief comments about such a complicated issue and endorsing someone like Matt Walsh in a social-media comment. She has a wide reach, so I think the former course of action would be far more responsible in her case.

 

[VoidCat]

The goblins, the house elves, S.P.E.W. and that whole sub-plot, to some extent the centaurs... A lot of yikes

Oh dear I saw some folk say they think Hermione should've been black cuz the way her hair is described in the series but can you imagine if Hermione was black and talking about the enslavement of house elves and everyone is just like getting onto her making fun of SPEW?

 

[Guitar's Cry]

Oh, I don't think she misses it at all. I'd wager she knows what she's doing (The Ink Black Heart shows her awareness of it all quite clearly), she's just a sensationalist.

I'm not sure about that. Rowling appears (to me) to be something of a thin-skinned writer when it comes to criticism.

That's not to say I think she isn't anti-transgender, since sometimes we really do have to take things at face value, just that she seemed taken aback by the reaction.

Reqpecfully, it's not that complex. We all have trauma in our past, and that trauma influences our motivations in many ways. It is never, however, a valid excuse for actively harming other people, which she has done and continues to do. She cannot rightfully slander transpeople on the one hand, then bubble up crocodile tears about people getting angry about that because of her past and her traumas. Doing so is hypocritical, and if I had to sum up Rowling in one word it would be just that - a hypocrite.

I agree that trauma is no excuse for hurting others (though it can be a reason--big difference!), but what I mean by complex is that her views are likely more complicated than that she just hates trans folks.

We are all complex. We are all hypocrites at times. To paraphrase Whitman, we contain multitudes and often contradict ourselves.

I could of course be wrong and she is just simply bigoted and is only doubling down because the cat's out of bag.

 

[Augustus]

The main issues that I haven't found any convincing responses to are 1) her public support for Matt Walsh, a far-right extremist who has consistently been a purveyor of hatred and misunderstanding,

I don't think this is accurate.

She didn't endorse him, but made a point about his film while also criticising him (I've not seen the film so can't comment on it)

2) her mockery of the phrase "people who menstruate" because she believed it should have been replaced with "women," even though not all women menstruate either. It's simply a more medically accurate wording than using "women" in that context.

It wouldn't require all women to menstruate to say women menstruate. competing rights issue. Transmen and non-binary people may menstruate, but 99.9% of those who menstruate identify as women, and basically all are assigned female at birth.

For me it's a competing rights issue. I can see why some women might not like phrases such as "People who menstruate", "uterus owners", "birthing people", etc., (other than being linguistically ugly expressions) and see it as somewhat dehumanising. Especially to those of a generation who had to fight to get women's issue treated seriously.

So it comes down to whether it is more important to be respectful to the 99.9%, or to be more inclusive towards the 0.1% and I don't think there is a correct answer to this. It's a value judgement and you can make a legitimate argument for either position without being a bad person.

I'm also not sure why she hasn't publicly debated or discussed her views with someone who has different views from hers. If she has concerns and wants them addressed, it seems to me that such a debate or discussion could be immensely useful instead of continually tweeting brief comments about such a complicated issue and endorsing someone like Matt Walsh in a social-media comment. She has a wide reach, so I think the former course of action would be far more responsible in her case.

You post on RF, you must know this doesn't work

In almost any debate 99% of people cheer for the side they supported before the thread no matter how good the arguments made in it.

They then completely misrepresent their "enemy's" position and get frubals from those who agreed with them before the thread started.

Both sides then retire knowing they destroyed the enemy with their superior facts and reason.

 

[SomeRandom]

I don't think this is accurate.

She didn't endorse him, but made a point about his film while also criticising him (I've not seen the film so can't comment on it)


View attachment 71101




It wouldn't require all women to menstruate to say women menstruate. competing rights issue. Transmen and non-binary people may menstruate, but 99.9% of those who menstruate identify as women, and basically all are assigned female at birth.

For me it's a competing rights issue. I can see why some women might not like phrases such as "People who menstruate", "uterus owners", "birthing people", etc., (other than being linguistically ugly expressions) and see it as somewhat dehumanising. Especially to those of a generation who had to fight to get women's issue treated seriously.

So it comes down to whether it is more important to be respectful to the 99.9%, or to be more inclusive towards the 0.1% and I don't think there is a correct answer to this. It's a value judgement and you can make a legitimate argument for either position without being a bad person.



You post on RF, you must know this doesn't work

.

I honestly kind of don’t get why women would take issue with the phrase “people who menstruate.”
Are women not people now? Like wtf?

Though I will admit that the other phrases are a bit “odd” lol

In almost any debate 99% of people cheer for the side they supported before the thread no matter how good the arguments made in it.

They then completely misrepresent their "enemy's" position and get frubals from those who agreed with them before the thread started.

Both sides then retire knowing they destroyed the enemy with their superior facts and reason.

For a few years in online spaces debates seemingly did work to sway people’s minds. So much so that an entire sub genre appeared. Known as “debatebros.” The American right (or alt right?) touted itself as being logical and full of facts and logic. That reputation hasn’t really aged the best, let’s just put it that way

I guess the audiences skewing younger might have something to do with that phenomenon. But I remember watching a televised debate years ago. “Is the Catholic Church a force for good.” It was on BBC I believe.
Before the debate the vast majority of the audience polled answered that they believed it was a force for good. Afterwards that number plummeted. So it is possible to sway some people in such a setting.
Maybe not on RF though lol

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

I'm going to guess it's very likely you're reading that into it after the fact.

With the goblins, perhaps. Given the history of goblins as an antisemitic caricature, I would not be surprised if it was intentional that she made them bankers.

But with the elves.... No, it's in there. I noticed it more as I've grown up, but it's blatant.

Firstly, there's how the elves speak. This is a direct quote: "But at these words, Winky clapped her hands over the holes in her hat, flattening her ears so that she couldn't hear a word, and screeched "'You is not insulting my master, miss! You is not insulting Mr. Crouch! Mr. Crouch is a good wizard, miss! Mr. Crouch is right to sack bad Winky!' " Like, it is full on minstrel show how they speak, and the fact that they're slaves who love being slaves does not help it at all.

And then the whole thing with S.P.E.W. In the first book the narration is just downright spiteful toward Hermione, and that resurfaces with S.P.E.W. Everyone treats her as insufferable and annoying with wanting to free the elves - even Harry, who lived in squalor. Harry, who has never know the Wizarding World, is a-okay with slavery. "Don't be so annoying Hermione, look they like being treated like dirt!". There was absolutely zero reason for Harry to not be fully behind Hermione with S.P.E.W., especially considering his upbringing.

 

[VoidCat]

With the goblins, perhaps. Given the history of goblins as an antisemitic caricature, I would not be surprised if it was intentional that she made them bankers.

But with the elves.... No, it's in there. I noticed it more as I've grown up, but it's blatant.

Firstly, there's how the elves speak. This is a direct quote: "But at these words, Winky clapped her hands over the holes in her hat, flattening her ears so that she couldn't hear a word, and screeched "'You is not insulting my master, miss! You is not insulting Mr. Crouch! Mr. Crouch is a good wizard, miss! Mr. Crouch is right to sack bad Winky!' " Like, it is full on minstrel show how they speak, and the fact that they're slaves who love being slaves does not help it at all.

And then the whole thing with S.P.E.W. In the first book the narration is just downright spiteful toward Hermione, and that resurfaces with S.P.E.W. Everyone treats her as insufferable and annoying with wanting to free the elves - even Harry, who lived in squalor. Harry, who has never know the Wizarding World, is a-okay with slavery. "Don't be so annoying Hermione, look they like being treated like dirt!". There was absolutely zero reason for Harry to not be fully behind Hermione with S.P.E.W., especially considering his upbringing.

The whole elves thing reminds me of the disorder that was made up during slave times here in the US. I can't remember the name of it but the disorder basically was applied to runaway slaves who did not want to be slaves.

Edit: Drapetomania
Drapetomania - Wikipedia

That fake *** disorder that was made up by a racist

 

[VoidCat]

There's also the fact she named the only black character Kinsley Shacklebolt and the only asian character Cho Chang which a few asian folk told me just seems like JK Rowling chose something similar to Ching chong and thought Hmmm seems like an asian sounding name to a nonasian audience. Of course naming your character two different asian last names (i believe Mandarin and Vietnamese) might be been accidental. And it may be plausible uncommon name in other dialects like Cantonese which I dont know much about.

 

[RestlessSoul]

I think perhaps most of those less biased would just see them as being honest in their views and being more open to changing times. Given most of us don't have any particular expertise in this area but also some are less likely to be condemning or sticking to old definitions.

Plenty of condemning going on in this thread. Condemning of Rowling, I mean. Some of it might be justified, I genuinely don’t know, but there’s a lot of heat around this issue and I’m not sure it’s all coming from her.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Plenty of condemning going on in this thread. Condemning of Rowling, I mean. Some of it might be justified, I genuinely don’t know, but there’s a lot of heat around this issue and I’m not sure it’s all coming from her.

Like a lot of issues and where celebrities are involved, perhaps she just needs to keep her views to herself, given these kind of things rarely lead to more information being available but more often just lead to faction making.