Women's feelings are not the point and a woman's voice is a shitty one - feminism according to Marie Claire

[FFSFFSFFS]

"I’m also a ciswoman, which means my feelings are not the point right now. As significant as the franchise has been for me, if I am actually going to be the ally I fancy myself to be, that means I have to consider the damage Rowling (and potentially the entire series) has done to trans, nonbinary, and gender nonconforming people. Being a white ciswoman gives me a voice—like a magical power, but a shitty one, because it's a power others are denied."

www.marieclaire.com/culture/a32871234/harry-potter-jk-rowling-anti-trans-comments/

I think these young self proclaimed feminists are in for an almighty shock when they get a bit older and realise just exactly how women's voices are responded to.

Sigh.

Yep we are back to a place where men tell women that they can't give their opinions and women wholeheartedly bow down to it. And call it feminism! It would be hilarious if it wasn't such a fucking disaster.

The article is on Twitter under Marie Claire - just left a comment. What a vile rag.

It is, perhaps, a matter of perspective: I suppose if your world is entirely Anglo, that’s how you’ll imagine the students.

The same is true of the complaints about the lack of gay characters. If the reader is operating under the assumption that all characters are heterosexual unless explicitly stated otherwise, then you're going to miss the characters whose sexuality is incidental to the plot.

I heard about the complaints over Cho Chang's name being overly stereotypically east Asian; all I could think was "If you're going to get pissy about this then surely Remus Lupin the werewolf is the place to start?"

As for this "cis woman" thinking she doesn't deserve to speak because she's "cis" - fine, shut up and let trans-identified actual becunted females speak instead then; but if you're letting males of a trans persuasion speak over you then you're complicit in your own oppression.

I'm not a "ciswoman", so I do get to speak. Cisgenders can be silent, if they wish.

As a ‘cis’ woman my priority is safeguarding children and women.

I was just eye-rolling along until I got to the bit about Woody Allen and Michael Jackson and now I'm livid. They committed actual violent sexual crimes, not wrongthink as defined by the woke of Twitter. She suggests that we should consider shutting down the HP theme parks because some poeople disagree with something JK said. The mind just boggles.

Please. Do not give that term credence by using it, even in quotes.

It does not accurately describe anyone, male or female.

Just thinking, in the article JK Rowling is referred to as "an outspoken transphobe" and her tweets as "transphobic comments," I think most mainstream media outlets have always used inverted commas around "transphobia," "transphobic" etc when talking about JK Rowling's tweets and article, presumably to avoid being sued for libel if Rowling can prove that she and her comments are not transphobic. But this article out right states that she is transphobic, no inverted commas, no suggestion that she might have been misinterpreted.

So, do you think JK Rowling would be able to sue Marie Claire or the writer for libel?

What a stupid, stupid young woman.

@Porridgeoat

As a ‘cis’ woman my priority is safeguarding children and women.

Stop using that nonsensical term cis. You’re either a woman, man or a male/female bodied person that identifies as trans. Cis is childish nonsense.

Unreadable drivel.

Thanks to my English Lit degree, I can certainly summon a convincing case the Harry Potter should be appreciated independently of Rowling

Well, thanks to my medical degree I can certainly summon a convincing case for the clear biological differences between men and women.

I'm new to this debate, deciding to read up on it so I can talk to my 13 year old daughter about it all.

I despair of these spoiled young women who are hell bent on giving away our hard won rights.

I despair of these spoiled young women who are hell bent on giving away our hard won rights.

@SecretSpAD

If you want to really despair, then read anything Jameela Jamil writes on social media. I rarely thing anyone is stupid, even if we have polar opposite views, but that woman is definitely getting close to the line.

I'm cynical enough to wonder if the repeated attempts to link Rowling's name with those of child molesters is an attempt at linguistic programming - they know perfectly well it's not true, and that they can't actually call her a pedo without getting sued, but they're hoping that if they do this enough it will create a mental association in the minds of those reading it.

There are names you could use to evoke "stupid person who caused harm to kids by mistake", or even industries you could use to evoke "in the past people thought this was OK but it wasn't" if you were going for the wrong side of history angle, so I think it's interesting that they're going straight for the notorious child molesters instead when reaching for something to compare her too.

I know Squirrels is already angry with me in another thread for saying this but I do think this behavior is malicious, and deliberate. They're trying to destroy Rowling and since she's too rich for the tactics used on other women to work they're upping the ante.

I think you may be correct, Kittens.

I'm not a "ciswoman", so I do get to speak. Cisgenders can be silent, if they wish.

Nah, you'd be breaking rule 14

4w.pub/the-rules-of-misogyny/

So, do you think JK Rowling would be able to sue Marie Claire or the writer for libel

That would be a thought, I expect all her lawyers are poised and ready if its at all possible...and worth doing

Kittens is right, as per usual.

Also, if I can widen this out - they are going for Rowling because she really has amped this all up to the next level in terms of national/international conversation. These are people who have become accustomed to having tantrums be effective - they are used to getting their own way - and Rowling has pushed back on that and they have no way of shutting down what she set off. They obviously can't deal with the actual arguments either, so the only option for them is to play dirty.

As an aside to this, can I please remind everyone who stands up for women using their own name in any capacity to be careful. People who suddenly find tantrums don't work anymore might well be a demographic including some dangerous individuals.

I'm cynical enough to wonder if the repeated attempts to link Rowling's name with those of child molesters is an attempt at linguistic programming - they know perfectly well it's not true, and that they can't actually call her a pedo without getting sued, but they're hoping that if they do this enough it will create a mental association in the minds of those reading it.

I agree with you.

As an aside to this, can I please remind everyone who stands up for women using their own name in any capacity to be careful. People who suddenly find tantrums don't work anymore might well be a demographic including some dangerous individuals.

And yes. Thwarted narcissism (narcissistic injury) isn't a pretty sight.