Well, hello Emma Watson

[crumpet]

www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-15130209/Harry-Potter-Emma-Watson-treasures-J-K-Rowling-trans-rights.html

Good God, don't you think rape survivors have suffered enough?

Yup

being too rich to need to work is unbelievably bad for the mental health of most of the people it happens to

Good point.

If that's the case then this is a spectacular error of judgement. The publishing industry is utterly captured.

Yep, she can apologise for that smug barbed comment for starters (that nasty little "bar one"), feel a tiny slither of what JKR has been put through for years by the TRAs, and then we shall see.

I don't think it's true that she has no career. She's done lots of acting and modelling work in the last few years, while studying. I'm sure she'd be doing more if she didn't also want to study. After the PhD, she'll have lots of options. I'm sure she will get acting parts still, having carried huge movies like Beauty and the Beast. Alternatively, she could continue in academic research, or teach at a university. She'll have lots of options.

As for having no children, that doesn't really mean anything. Currently she's studying full-time, and just living her life the way that millions of people without children do. She's only 35 and might well have frozen her eggs. Maybe she'll have them at 40 or 43.

People always say this about Jennifer Aniston too - ohhhh, her life is so empty. But she's always been busy working, having relationships, seeing friends. She just doesn't have children. No one goes on about how empty a man's life is when he's having a perfectly full life with work, friends, and relationships, but no kids!

She probably needs a chauffeur judging by her speeding tickets and ban.

Hahahahahahaha!

Omg did you seriously type that with a straight face?

Well that won’t qualify her for anything. She would have been better advised to do an apprenticeship in plumbing. 🔧

She hasn't had an acting role since Little Women. I wouldn't call that "lots of acting". She was fucking awful in that, and in Beauty and the Beast. She can't even "carry" roles where she has to play a pretty brunette goody two-shoes, let alone anything more challenging than that.

She's done two modelling jobs for the same brand in three years, that's hardly a lot of work, is it?

I don't see the relevance of Jennifer Aniston. Jennifer Aniston has a successful career.

The silly little twerp was done yet again for speeding having already had 9 points on her licence. She came up with drivel about not really knowing how to drive because she's always been driven aroung.

JKR stuck up for women in a time where it was considered career suicide to even hint at any disagreement with TWAW. Not only career suicide, death threats, horrific online abuse for you and your children, book burnings and doxing.

Now that the tide has started to turn, mealy-mouthed celebs are coming forward to claim that actually, standing up for women may not be a bad thing and they always supported women's rights. A classic example of if you don’t stand for something, then you will fall for anything.

Did she step away from fame or did she stop getting parts?

Presumably she’s backtracking now because the Supreme Court agreed with JKR.

Exactly.

People like Emma Watson will never be able to pretend that they didn't jump enthusiastically onto this bandwagon.

Whereas people like Tom Felton and Evanna Lynch, who have been much more measured in their comments, will not be defined by it.

There's no way of knowing whether those cast members who chose not to stick the knife into JK Rowling did so because they believed she may be right about trans issues or because they felt they owed her a certain loyalty despite her views, but either way they conducted themselves in a much more intelligent and dignified way.

Have they finished all the casting for the new HP series?

Have Pink News opined, yet?

She's a dreadful actress and a so "called" defender of women's rights without knowing what defending women's rights actually mean.

Fortunately, she's such a bad actress, she is not getting the work in the business. Her apparent about face is nothing more than being an actress without work.

I would like to repeat the excellent joke made when the news broke that Emma Watson and Zoe Wannemaker both lost their licences in the same court on the same day: 12 points from Gryffindor!

(assmed it was The Sun, but can't seem to find the origin online)

Seriously, get over yourself. She’s the author of the most successful series of children’s books in the history of publishing, with a very successful line in adult fiction as well. She’s a noted philanthropist who has given away much of her fortune. She’s a singularly attractive and articulate high profile woman, committed to promoting the rights of women and girls.

All these factors make her highly newsworthy.

So all that throwing women under the bus has not even benefited her, has it?

Emma is worth about £80 million. I doubt she is desperately touting for work.

Yes, in what sense is being one of the most successful and high earning self-made women in the world not newsworthy?

She is beautiful and very wealthy. I guess she can't have everything.

She's in her thirties
Really hate how people always infantilise grown women on here.

Being beautiful isn't an achievement, and she is wealthy because of JK Rowling. Because JK Rowling created a fictional character who looked and talked exactly like 10 year old Emma Watson, which meant that 10 year old Emma Watson was given that role in the hope that she would develop some acting skills along the way. Spoiler: she didn't.

She's in her thirties, which means she should stop behaving like a silly little twerp.

If the boot fits...