Harry Potter and the Ongoing Spat

[JsmeLegie]

I see she is now claiming that she was never actually friends with Fry.

Link here: https://www.standard.co.uk/showbiz/jk-rowling-stephen-fry-friends-b1234360.html

In support of Fry, barrister Jo Maugham stated “Really creditable this, from Stephen Fry. I've spoken to so many of JKR's once friends who now despair at her privately but won't do so publicly, which is very much the British way and why nothing ever changes for the better. So well done Stephen.”

Now Casey Bloys, CEO of the network working on a new HP series, has felt the need to clarify on a podcast that the forthcoming series won't be infused with her controversial views, insisting that her views are entirely separate to the show they're making.

And, as one of the latest celebrities to decide to speak out, Boy George weighed in at the beginning of the month with a few observations of his own (see attached image).

So the question here, really, is just how long are certain people going to blindly insist that JKR is an infallible saint when the (increasing) evidence from multiple sources is to the contrary?

Yes, she has funded a lot of good and charitable works for women, that is not in question, but at what point do we as a society finally agree that a human being is not absolved of horrendous behaviour in one part of their life simply because they compensate for it by doing a few good works in another?

Or perhaps you disagree entirely with all her detractors and feel she is unfairly treated / misunderstood / misquoted?
I'd like to hear your views. They are guaranteed to create an interesting dialogue.

Wait, Winston Churchill was trans? Well stone the crows, everyday is a school day on mumsnet.

do you have an example of the “horrendous behaviour” committed by JK Rowling?

Boy George who chained a male escort to a radiator and beat him? That’s pretty “horrendous behaviour”

I've spoken to so many of JKR's once friends who now despair at her privately.

What a nasty little jab from a nasty little man. DARVO of course. JKR knows there are plenty of people who agree with her views and have not felt able to say so publicly for fear of losing jobs they need to support their families. Nobody's made any secret of disagreeing with her, they've been queuing up to disown her views.

"This is your obsession and it's pretty relentless and for no reason"

Both Boy George and Fry start out with this premise. The fact is that its provably wrong. Rowling has explained, ad nauseam, what the reasons are for her 'obsession'. It's not hard to articulate or understand! Gender ideology blows up the definition of 'woman' and makes it impossible to protect women's rights in law and for them to speak for themselves about their experiences. That is to say, if you accept the dictates of gender ideology, women's rights and feminism is impossible by definition. Obviously that's not 'no reason'. It's a paramount reason!

Her logic or facts might be faulty. Fine. If Fry and Boy George disagree with them, then it's their obligation to address them and show why her arguments are invalid. Instead they pretend as though she hasn't even made them. It's gaslighting! If you won't even concede that Rowling has made a case for her beliefs and the vehemence of her statements (however much you may disagree), everything that follows is simply drivel. It's relentless. We've had five years of this, and public personalities still can't be shamed for making such ridiculous attacks.

What do you think then? You seem to have posted a question without your own answer.

What "horrendous behaviour"? Be specific.

Thank you Moggly.

I read this OP and thought, that is not how I read that tweet at all. Has JK Rowling tweeted again to say it was aimed at Fry? But no. She hasn’t tweeted that she referred to Fry. She could have been but I read it more that she was referring to Maugham saying he was speaking to her ‘once friends’ meaning just what she said. That those people that Maugham is hearing from say they were once her friends, they might have been lying or it could have been a one sided relationship and she didn’t consider them friends.

That might include Fry but it very easily may not. I suspect that OP is taking a particular interpretation to support their own bias (that they claim not to have yet don’t use neutral language).

Fry also has a history that seems to indicate that he doesn’t recognise sexual boundaries around children, starting with calling some children ‘prostitutes’.

So again we have some posters making a point that JK Rowling is being unpleasant reacting towards male people who are abusive. Either towards her specifically or abusive to other women.

In making comment on her interactions with abusive male people, some posters inadvertently support abusive males without considering that.

I have been reflecting on how to tell if you are on "the right side of history". No-one wants to be remembered in history like the woman screaming at the black students on the famous photo at Little Rock.

I thought a red flag about an ideology being problematic is that they have an extreme reaction to moderate views.

JK view was that it is wrong to sack someone from their job for stating that sex is real. I think this is a very moderate view. She was met with death threats, condecension etc.. with this view.

My personal view of Stephen Fry is that he hugely reminds me of Humbert Humbert. Can use words in a beautiful way, but there will be a point were we all realise what he is actually talking about.

I can't wait for the sequel.of this. In which Harvey Weinstein denounes JKR as a smelly meanie from his prison cell.

I just read the OP as “At what point can we get JKR to shut up as whatever bullying and abuse we throw at her, it’s not working” stamps feet.

I would ask, at what point are the TRA and luvvies going to accept that women have rights, and will never pipe down as long as they are treated as though they come second to men in this world.

Bad men cannot accept women as equals so continue to behave this way.

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, men like ODowd and Fry hate women with more money, greater success and a bigger platform than them, they hate those that are also philanthropists and wittier even more.

they hate JKR because she can’t be cancelled whatever they try. And damn right she shouldn’t be.

There are no controversies. Just men outraged that a woman says no to their fetish. All women should say no.

Can we all take a moment to marvel at the appalling misogyny in describing a woman expressing her entirely lawful views as "misbehaving with impunity"?

She's not a naughty child. She's an adult with a voice, a vote, and roughly a billion pounds in her bank account.

Jolyon Maugham is supposed to be a grown man and a lawyer. This, ‘Really creditable this, from Stephen Fry. I've spoken to so many of JKR's once friends who now despair at her privately but won't do so publicly’ reeks of school yard bullying crap - ‘My friend says that her friends don’t like her anymore’ dribble.

I saw Fry at an event yesterday. Never was a man so far up his own arse. Just because he says something it doesn’t mean it’s true. Rowling puts women first and acknowledges the reality of biological sex.

And as for quoting Boy George to support your argument? What next? Quoting Gary Glitter’s support for furries in schools? Because that’s about as credible.

My in-laws were in politics and (very minor) socialites. When I met DH some years ago I was astounded to hear them refer to X or Y "who is a pal" all the time, apparently quite sincerely. Turns out they weren't pals at all in the sense the vulgar understands, but they rubbed along in social circles and could (did)!ask each other for reciprocal favours (too often imho implying public money). Once my FIL was out of politics they stopped running into each other and never bothered to make contact. Maybe Fry and JKR were "pals" in that sense, only he would describe it as "friends", and she wouldn't. And I'd agree with her.

Can someone tell me why SF is considered intelligent? Honest question. As a none-British person I only really paid any attention to him since I live here and might have missed something. I know he's written some books (read one, was ok but didn't stick in my memory) and I assume QI is scripted as are his acting roles. So why is he considered to be so smart? Or smarter than your average actor with an Oxbridge degree?

It’s actually amusing watching these dreadful men whine and hate on JKR. She is in an entirely different league to them. Off the planet. Op you are embarrassing yourself!

At worst JKR could be described as ‘a bit mean to people who a clearly totally delusional’ by pointing out they aren’t women, that’s if you were being really really critical, however the way I see it is she started all this really bloody calmly, has received death threats and all such shite, so the gloves came off and she started using the same sort of language those attacking her use. She’s giving as good as she gets except what she’s stating is, you know, actual biological facts.

Too many men weighing in telling us what we should and shouldn’t think or feel about this whole TWAW shite.

I’ve no idea either but I found this article on point

What a smug, sly, goady post. 🙄 What ‘horrendous’ behaviour is JK guilty of?

It’s clear what side you’re on.

Bit of a stretch calling Boy George a celeb; I prefer ‘violent criminal’.

That’s weird, I tried twice to add the article and it wouldn’t load

https://thefeministgadabout.com/2019/09/05/why-i-find-stephen-fry-disappointing/

This.

I got there, thanks.
I think this kind of sums up my impression too, he has the appearance or affectations of an Oxford don and I'm sure a lot of facts stashed away in his brain but you couldn't imagine him (or I couldn't) to actually do some original thinking and research that moves an academic field forward.