Phillip Pullman

@transdimensional I used to sometimes read 'The Mary Sue' until they did an attack on JKR based on Twitter accounts she followed in mid 2019. Way back then, I was gobsmacked that people noticed and wanted to police who people followed, let alone that they would be so unselfconscious about their own wankiness that they'd actually want to publish a piece on it in public. Were they expecting her to go oops, sorry, grovel and unfollow?

Sensitivity readers?

Are they kind of like the State Committee for Publishing?

The Pullman incident is covered (although not in the main topic) in a blog post at the website TheMarySue (which identifies as feminist) - www.themarysue.com/philip-pullman-kate-clanchy-racism/

While they certainly criticise Pullman, the overall trend seems to be one of condemning women and drawing attention to their femaleness: "he activated her white women fragility trap card. ... Like 'Central Park Karen', Mary Beard, and infinite white women before them, Clanchy weaponized her tears."

It may be that some of the criticisms of Clanchy are justified (in fact at first sight it appears so) but that doesn't mean that so much emphasis should be placed on her being a woman, as though women are particularly bad in the blogger's eyes.

Perhaps it seems OTT for Clanchy to say she was very frightened (but I don't know, she said she had started to receive threats). But what is even more OTT was this risible comment from the blogger: "Clanchy has indicated that she’ll be editing the text for future editions. The sensitivity readers (plural) that should be hired for this process better be well compensated for the trauma they will be taking on."

Trauma? Well first of all, just over over-sensitive would you need to be to be traumatised by a few misjudged words and phrases? Secondly, if such over-sensitive people do exist, why would you hire them as your editors, and why would they seek that kind of work?

What does that even mean?

I'm sorry, maybe it's just me, but I feel like being talked to that way would not be empowering, but rather embarrassing and annoying.

So he's now deleted his tweet saying
“Writers of colour (including children) and people of colour who are not writers (including children, again), your experiences and imaginations deserve every kind of respect” he added.

Pass the sick bag. Total arrogant hypocrite.

Society of Authors distances itself from Philip Pullman’s tweets

www.theguardian.com/books/2021/aug/11/society-of-authors-philip-pullman-tweets-kate-clanchy

Yes it is a strawman isn't it? The "My body is me" book is not hateful, yet Pullman misrepresented Rachael Rooney as a 'hateful voice' to make it easier to attack her. And I BET hasn't read it!

I think his attitude in this is a close reflection of what he presents in His Dark materials. If we look at those as a kind of response to people like Tolkien and Lewis, or a criticism of Christianity or Catholicism or religion, they are such a straw man that it is difficult to imagine he hasn't done it on purpose. Yes, let's present a complete caricature or twisting of what those people or things actually believe, and then make them look stupid. That'll show them how smart I am. Any complaints, and I'll say that it's not important to accurately represent stupid ideas to show they are stupid, especially in a literary context.

So he said that people should read books before judging them
unless Authors don't have the right opinions, in which case he doesn't read their book and calls them a hateful voice.

There's no way he read the book. what a hypocrite

In response to an author (Clara) calling for Rooney's book to be banned, Pullman said "Clara, I think you're wonderful. You have my full and unceasing support in this matter, as in everything else. It's hard to ignore the hateful voices who scream, but there are other voices that sometimes get drowned in the noise, and here's one."

I find this tweet odd as I thought he'd gone full on in his commitment to the cause just like Gaiman

I don't understand what's going on. It seems he thought the person he was replying to was discussing another author? But they were actually discussing Ayn Rand?

So he said that people should read books before judging them, but he meant to say that about a totally different book from the one that was then under discussion.

I do hope he's read Rachel Rooney's book now, then.

Someone who thinks it's not necessary to read a book before condemning it? What a shameful attitude. It would find a comfortable home in Isis or the Taliban.

I'm confused. Doesn't he normally side with people who think that books they disagree with should be burnt or shredded or not published at all? (And that people should definitely not read them first.)

he's outdoing himself now
twitter.com/chimenesuleyman/status/1424690206159081472

Chimene Suleyman @chimenesuleyman
Ok so you just compared me and two other brown/Muslim women to ISIS and the Taliban? Is this a sick joke?

Quote Tweet
Philip Pullman @PhilipPullman
Replying to @LiseHencken and @NABurkinshaw
Critics of Kate Clanchy: is this the kind of support you welcome? Someone who thinks it's not necessary to read a book before condemning it? What a shameful attitude. It would find a comfortable home in Isis or the Taliban.

'its all just entertainment to to people like him, isn't it?

Women being raped in prison. Children having irreversible medical treatment which they can't consent to.

What sort of person finds all that amusing?'

One who sees that as an appeal to emotion. Distasteful. The approach of the simple minded, the not rigorous or rational, the ones with no decent argument.

Sitting back and watching people with inferior intellect present their pathetic arguments.

Enjoying the wonderful feeling of superiority that comes with it.

Would be my guess.

And of course the unparalleled confidence to wade into complex or sensitive topics that they know sod all about. Safe in the knowledge that they definitely know all about it and are right and anyone who points out they don't. Is challenging their great knowledge and superior intellect and ability to always be right. And that is the worst behaviour of all and again. They can be ignored.

They see themselves as keen to look deeply into issues and use their superior intellect to come to the RIGHT conclusion. They welcome debate and fairly hear all sides.

... But sadly that is not the reality. So many men esp older generally respected etc. Do NOT like being disagreed with. Esp by those they deem to be inferior due to education, age blah etc.
They will deign to discuss if the other person is suitably deferent when they say their piece. Things like. Yes that's a very good point and makes sense but I wonder if you would consider maybe xyz. Straightforward no I don't agree etc is disrespectful and can be ignored.

Women being raped in prison. Children having irreversible medical treatment which they can't consent to.

What sort of person finds all that amusing?

We've got Pullman, Dawkins. Others?

I think it's a combo of things:

They think of themselves as rebels against the mainstream. So clever they can see through societal structures and norms that the average person is blind to. Radical thinkers. Naturally they will be in favour of a thing which feels modern and challenging to the average sheep. They're still relevant, see?!

...In fact bog standard white fellas getting on a bit. With the stereotypical biases that come with that. (NAOWMALT). And who are the most stick in the mud, incapable of any depth of thought group who are always speaking when it's not their place to? Women of course (mummy).

The gender identity ideology is based on fundamental falsehoods, including as lead tenets: people can change sex and they have male souls, female souls, or non-binary souls. Once people have embraced these kinds of things, then it's easy to say anything that promotes the ideology and its factual or fictitious nature is neither here nor there: puberty blockers are wholly reversible, any approach that isn't 100% affirmation leads to large numbers of children committing suicide, detransition is incredibly rare, JKR is a font of hatred against trans people, and on it goes. They will say anything, following the Trump approach that the only criterion is that it makes an impact.

It’s all an attempt to paint GC people as right wing, lovers of gender stereotypes, haters of GNC people - when, in fact, the complete opposite is true. They know that and they hate that so they constantly have to misrepresent the GC position.