James Kirkup in the Spectator

[Hoardasurass]

A glorious piece by kirkup on why jk being unkind is great

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/j-k-rowlings-glorious-refusal-to-be-kind/

Yes, it's good to see JK writing about this. But part of me feels that there should be some mention of the many women who risked so much for this.

Excellent!

Well any article on this is good, really but I think she is being 'kind'. Not kind to the idiots trying to mansplain to her on twitter, not kind to their egos as they get skewered by her wit over and over, but she IS being kind to the children who are being swept up in this cult because she's providing an alternative narrative to the 'you have to cut bits of your body off to be happy' they were being told until about 2 minutes ago.

She's being kind to the most vulnerable in society, who don't have a voice on twitter or in the media. The women imprisoned with male rapists in Scotland (and in England too until women as uncompromising as Rowling fought for them to have basic human rights), the children being attacked in mislabeled 'women's' toilets like the child victims of Dolatowksi in Scotland.

She's just not being kind to people who are already powerful. She's being kind to the powerless and voiceless. That's pure class, and sadly lacking from the majority of rich and powerful people.

Shame James Kirkup doesn't understand that. He's looking at it from his point of view, most people do. Rowling doesn't. She has real empathy which involves thinking of those outside her circle and caring for the most vulnerable. .e.g. the women being called 'bigots' for wanting single sex rape crisis centres etc. It would be easy for her not to do this, but she still fights on. She's kinder than most.

I LOVE what you posted here.

I agree with every word and until now could not make that argument. I will trot it out now though.

And you are correct - pure class.

It suits the press to make the narrative about a well-known woman but the great thing about JK is that she acknowledges the work and sacrifices of other women. I do like the fact that she's in this fight for people other than herself and she's happy to lend her fame and money to the fight but not to take all the credit herself.

JKR is really the personification of self sacrificing kindness.

She isn't kind to ranty men, or men wanting to use unconsenting others for validation or other reasons.

She is kind to the most vulnerable who don't have a voice, and she's painted a target on her own back and to a certain extent put her family at risk as a result.

Most people in her position would have selfishly stayed silent and enjoyed their millions. We see plenty of them doing it - who else stands up for the most vulnerable and disenfrachised in society like JKR?

She is the least likely person to be affected by the loss of women's rights. She can live in luxury until the end of her days. She's doing this for others, who can't do that. The women in prisons, the children, the women who've suffered domestic violence or coercive control, the rape survivors.

It's interesting how the definition of 'kindness' has morphed - it now seems to mean acquiescing to the demands of whoever shouts loudest, mostly men, no matter the damage to others.

I can't think of anyone in the public eye who is kinder or more self sacrificing than JKR

Thank you for your two beautifully put posts on this page, dougal.
Completely agree.

It’s interesting how the definition of 'kindness' has morphed - it now seems to mean acquiescing to the demands of whoever shouts loudest, mostly men, no matter the damage to others.

Isn’t this the underlying point of the article? Or am I reading it wrong?

He's missed the point.

She is kind. Obviously, generously, freely.

'Kind' does not mean 'unquestioningly enabling of those who identify as trans regardless of impact on self and others'.

And 'kindness' is expected to be reciprocal. Otherwise, in fact, it's pretty much an attempt at trying to cover up abusive demands on another by covering it with a pretty word that sounds nice.

I came across this article today and thought it relevant to the topic of this thread:

https://thecritic.co.uk/the-problem-with-politeness/

'America has gone through enormous upheaval coming to terms with the racial elements of its troubled past, whilst also making the idea of its cultural “melting pot” as palatable as it can be made. But the US exists upstream of the UK, and now, everywhere you look, activists and chancers are putting pressure on as many facets of British life as they can, safe in the knowledge that the affable people of this country will put up with extraordinary things in the name of appearing polite….

A cohesive society cannot tolerate those who look to subvert its cohesion to the benefit of their special interest. And as much as Brits abhor rudeness, there is nothing ruder than people playing on your good nature to browbeat you into submission. Society can only regress when the majority allow themselves to be taken for fools so as not to appear bolshy. It is high time that Brits recognised that their culture is, in fact, worth fighting for — and that, from time to time, that may involve shelving the politeness to tell the scolds where to put their microaggressions.’

She’s an inspiration. I enjoyed this article - thank you for the link. If only she were standing for PM.