JK Rowling has sadly opened her mouth again

[DayAndAge]

How the metro can put out this tweet which effectively suggests a woman shouldn't be allowed to speak is beyond me. Shocked but not surprised. Comments are heartening though, as is the ratio.

It's the nice selection of hot beverages and cake which really gives it away that they're Mumsnetters.

Pompous, pompous, pompous. And disingenuous.

aren't they just!

And as there's only six of us with many sock accounts each most of the dinos will have multiple owners!

I just went to check on how the next round of coffee and cake was going.

@IcakethereforeIam is now banned from the kitchen.

😁 sorry

Not sorry!

@windowframer

The existence of Freedom Of Speech doesn't negate the freedom of others to respond to that speech, to express how they feel about it. Not does it mean that everybody has to agree with what is spoken.

I'm a huge supporter of JKR by the way. But have no time for this kind of silly hyperbole imagining attempts to trample of rights of expression where no such attempts exist.

I agree. The sentence alluded more to the content of JKR's tweet - as they can be rather destabilising - rather than the fact she tweeted at all.

It is a general ploy on this board to say 'You are shutting down women's speech!' if anyone disagrees with them, ironically closing out and shutting down that poster's speech.

There's more twisting than the Gordian Knot to excuse the Metro's obvious meaning that she shouldn't be allowed to speak on the matter.

FFS. A discussion about what a person can say or write and how she should say or write it, and whether she should say or write it at all, is generally a discussion that includes silencing that person.

The initial headline can not be parsed in any other way. Saying a woman discussing something is ‘destabilising’ is just trying to obfuscate the resultant outcome. Controlling how that person speaks. So to is trying to pass off such a headline as being about the ‘content’.

It is just another way to say ‘She can speak, no one will stop her, but she deserves to be abused if she speaks about this topic that we don’t think she should speak about. Because we don’t like it when she does, so we will point out how she deserves all that abuse, and we will use phrases abusers use while we do it.’

Metro positions itself as a moral arbiter, and casts judgement. Patronising, sneering, diminishing. Not the tone a newspaper usually uses to report, is it?Petty, personally vindictive, and emotive.

Anyone who can't see the highly unpleasant power dynamic that tweet reveals is curiously tone deaf.

There is no other way to interpret ‘JK Rowling has sadly opened her mouth again’ other than to vilify her for speaking. It is remarkable to see the machinations used to attempt to portray it as anything else.

However, using further emotional manipulation to attempt to shame those pointing it out is a fairly predictable tactic. So, there is that I guess.

That's your opinion. Many others interpret the statement as 'oh dear she's opened her mouth again '... she's off again, or more of her xxxx options which the metro statement writer thinks is a sad thing/unfortunate thing etc.

None of these give positive statements and are meant to deride her/suggest her comments are unwanted hence shut up. Why should she not opine?

it's what happens when you let a blue haired tryhard recent grad have the password to the paper's official twitter account. You end up getting blasted for their shit tweet and getting it deleted pronto, when an adult gets to work.

Twit around and find out, in other words

Do we have a consensus as to what newsfeeds / papers are not misogynistic wankers?

In terms of misogynistic / woman hating news outlets, as far as I know, so far we have:
The Guardian
The BBC
The Metro
The Times
The Sun
The Daily Mail (although this rag does regularly raise the issue of men being called women for no good reason (sadly lacking from most other ‘news’ sources), it still has daily pictures of semi naked women, with due detailed assessment of their appearance).

Apparently you're being pompous here. In fact you're being pompous pompous pompous pompous pompous pompous pompous pompous pompous pompous pompous pompous pompous pompous.

So there.

I agree with your objection. It's a stupid and offensive headline.

I was just pointing out what it does and doesn't say. It doesn't say or even imply that JKR shouldn't be allowed to speak.

Not sure why so many here struggle with the difference between accurately reading what someone has written and the moral position one takes for or against it. Surely arguments for or against any statement work better if those statements can be read for what they are rather than having imaginary meanings that aren't there loaded onto them.

No, that comment was just facile. I wouldn't call it pompous in style.

windowframer · Today 09:26

I agree with your objection. It's a stupid and offensive headline. I was just pointing out what it does and doesn't say. It doesn't say or even imply that JKR shouldn't be allowed to speak.

Would you agree that it's actually saying that she's an awful gobshite, who spouts nasty, bigoted rubbish?

It doesn't say that but that seems pretty much the attitude behind it, yes. What's cheap and nasty about it is that it focuses the writer's attack on her - obviously referencing her history in relation to this topic - rather than on her specific statement.

I think you're being a bit of a nit picker! The words don't say what they don't say, but the implication of them is blindingly obvious.

There is no 'imaginery' meaning in saying 'JK Rowling has sadly opened her mouth again'.

The meaning is that the headline maker is 'sad' that Rowling has spoken again. Your continued insistence that this is somehow more nuanced is not as convincing as it obviously sounds in your head. It seems that YOU are the one who is attempting to give it more meaning and it seems one that doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

Sure. The metro has not said 'JK Rowling should shut the fuck up' but I don't think that would be allowed either.

Let's try this though, window framer has sadly typed words and pressed the post button again.

Mate.

I think that I must have missed the numerous posts and threads where we go through JK Rowlings tweets and discuss their merits. Obviously we have to do that over and over again to make it obvious, sinner.

And quite obviously some posters have missed the multiple threads discussing the very issue that JK Rowling has been attacked for by the Metro.

It is like threads upon threads on the topic have just disappeared. Maybe we need to post the links at the top of each page so some posters will understand better that many posters on this thread have already been discussing the topic in depth.

"maaaate"

@windowframer

Apparently you're being pompous here. In fact you're being pompous pompous pompous pompous pompous pompous pompous pompous pompous pompous pompous pompous pompous pompous.

So there.

Oh, gosh. Should I be ... silenced?

Shush now!

😉