Thanks to Bettina Arndt for ventilating a side of J K Rowling that escaped my attention up to date.
Rowling makes no attempt to hide her blinkered view about women’s vulnerability. A blog two years ago revealed that key to her concern about trans activism was her belief that women’s rights were under siege: “We’re living through the most misogynistic period I’ve experienced. Back in the 80s, I imagined that my future daughters, should I have any, would have it far better than I ever did, but between the backlash against feminism and a porn-saturated online culture, I believe things have got significantly worse for girls. Never have I seen women denigrated and dehumanized to the extent they are now. From the leader of the free world’s long history of sexual assault accusations and his proud boast of ‘grabbing them by the pussy’ to the incel (‘involuntarily celibate’) movement that rages against women who won’t give them sex, to the trans activists who declare that TERFs need punching and re-educating, men across the political spectrum seem to agree: women are asking for trouble. Everywhere, women are being told to shut up and sit down, or else.”
For heaven’s sake. How many of us wish the jabbering women dominating just about every aspect of our society would occasionally be told to shut up? As if that’s allowed to happen.
33 thoughts on “J K Rowling as a #MeToo grifter”
Ms Rowling has always been a lefty, which is why it’s fun that she has been TERFed by the Left. A bit of red-pilling is good for the soul!
Naomi Wolf is quite similar. She was likewise a radical feminist, but who’s been even more red-pilled lately. Here she is this week:
The Crime of “Talking to Tucker Carlson” (Naomi Wolf substack, 29 Apr)
What I want to do now is note, for the record, almost elegiacally, how important Mr Carlson’s voice has been, in the evaluation of at least this dyed-in-the-wool old-school capital “L” Liberal.
Mr Carlson and I spent most of our careers not in alignment on anything; for decades, our places were adversarial on the public chess board. He had assumed that I was the caricature of a shrieking, irrational left-wing feminist —a view for which he has had the good grace publicly to apologize — and I, for my part, was ready to accept that he must be the boorish, sexist, racist, homophobic frat boy that the progressive news outlets I read, relentlessly insisted that he was. I almost never watched his show, so my preconceptions could flourish uncorrected.
That said, I did find it odd that everyone around me in the “liberal elite” media hated him so violently — the way they hated President Trump; but that when I pressed for concrete reasons why, they could not provide them. When my liberal friends and loved ones would roll their eyes and spit out “Tucker Carlson,” as if that name itself was epithet enough, I would often pester: “What? Why? What did he actually say?” I never got a good answer. So even in the depth of the Left’s vilification of him – even as I was still on the Left myself — I was keeping, faintly, an open mind.
My soon-to-be-former friends and colleagues simply reiterated again and again, as if it were self-evident, that I had discredited myself in some nameless but completely understood and permanent and unforgivable way, by talking to Tucker Carlson. [She’d gone on his show – BoN.]
The reaction, though, of horror, from everyone I knew, at my crime of “talking to Tucker Carlson”, horrified me (as I often say, I will talk to anyone about the Constitution). The dismay of the Left in reaction to my “talking to Tucker Carlson” horrified me because talking to people with whom I don’t agree, is one of the main ways I have ever learned anything, or, I believe, that anyone has ever learned anything. And it horrified me also because I would have gladly brought my urgently important, indeed lifesaving information, to CNN and MSNBC, as usual — to all these self-proclaimed “feminists” — but they were having none of it.
And there you go, another radical feminist cast out of the herd for the temerity of actually talking with someone not approved by the herd bosses.
More a sad reflection on a generation of lazy parents unwilling to draw from an existing canon.
Her books were banned from Mum’s house (for grandchildren) because they were occultish – there being no otherworldly realm but God’s.
Germaine is another one, Bruce.
Great piece by Arndt, by the way. Thanks for posting, Rafe.
Politics is addition, maybe culture wars also. Fine if people change their positions and we can agree on some issues – since 100%v agreement exists only in Mao’s china and 2023’s Labor party.
Where female genital mutilation, child brides, honour killings, and the denial of education for girls is ignored, and one screams and demands that women like you (and ONLY like you) be elevated above the unworthy.
Selective, elite, MEfeminism.
Doin’ it for the sistas who never get blisters.
Rafe, I read what Bettina wrote (I’m on Bettina’s mailing list). Okay, nobody’s perfect. However, I like JK Rowling, I like Julie Bindel, I like Germaine Greer, I like Julie Burchill, I like Kathleen Stock, I like Graham Linehan, I like Holly Lawford-Smith, these women (and men) are of the left although I suspect many are now politically homeless because of this transpervert movement.
Rowling speaks truth about transperverts, and it’s good to have her on our side, she’s can’t be cancelled (despite the left trying). However, I do agree that it’s precisely the second and third wave feminism that many of the aforementioned have spruiked that has led us to this situation, and you’d think that they might acknowledge this. Julie Burchill does and so does Kellie-Jay Keen who now longer considers herself a feminist. I will always have a soft spot for Germaine Greer who rightly dismissed the nonsense of the #Metoo movement.
My children and I all read Harry Potter, I didn’t think they were particularly well written but though I may have missed something I didn’t see the witches and wizards in them more hazardous to children’s minds that those to be found in C S Lewis or Wizard of Oz etc.
I couldn’t care less if Rowling isn’t perfect, she’s precisely correct about the misogyny of the trans (women) movement.
And if modern men were all the epitome of my father and his brothers I’d be equally outraged by the evil of ‘jabbering women’.
A good starting point is the rolling back of universal suffrage
We will see how it’s all panning out when fathers start objecting to their children being sucked into the woke corruption of modern education. A lot of them are truly just too busy earning a living but if and when they become enraged perhaps we will see a change. After all women didn’t get their rights until men went to bat for them.
Strangely enough the current wokesters hounding women as TERFs have somehow convinced everyone that they are feminists when in fact they are about to reestablish the new patriarchy. Notice the beards on so-called trans women, they have simply found a vehicle to express their oppression of women, not to become women.
Years ago in looking to study ‘thinking’, process, fallacies and leftist activism I was hanging out at Butterflies and Wheels because of the excellent little book “Why Truth Matters”. a feminist challenge to the narratives of er ?Judith Butler et al who were early to the ‘say anything for the cause’ movement.
Authors Ophelia Benson and Jeremy Stangboom I considered to be doing good work.
These latter years Ophelia seems to have rejoined the flock.
Along with Tolkein and C.S. Lewis I presume, also some of Shakespeare, Dickens, and all mythological tales from all nations?
There’s much to admire about JK Rowling. Her Harry Potter series inspired generations of children, particularly boys, to read big, fat books and that’s a miraculous achievement.
I’m not sure that theory is borne out by evidence- at a guess, I’d say maybe slowed the decline, more likely an unforseen effect of getting girls to engage more with long-form alternative reality fiction.
Tweenage fiction is a stalking horse for gimmie! feminists and groomers though, make no mistake. I’ve intercepted those two titles from primary school library, and waiting on a reply for my offer to inspect the constant flood of glossy comic-form books washing inot the shelves.
Children will always be attracted to the occult, forbidden, subversive. Dahl and Lewis have some serious terror and gore on them. Hidden between the covers of a book is a good spot for some bad players to place some bait.
We’ll have to start with the Greeks, I’m afraid.
She had a lot more children than those men and knew more about raising them. She thought the Harry Potter cult was inappropriate for spiritually impressionable children no longer living in the religious ages of Shakespeare or Tolkien. Mum only had a junior certificate but she knew what she was doing.
Thanks for the link to Bettina’s article.
I like her, and I appreciate the alternate view on Rowling’s first marriage, but I’m not sure we can condemn Rowling on it. Relationships are messy.
The back on forth between Kate Legge and various young femi-activist journo’s is instructive; they’re all young and refuse to listen to the wisdom of Legge’s experience.
I wasn’t really familiar with the Legge story, though I read some of a review of her book in The Australian. I take it that she concedes she wasn’t blameless in the breakdown of her marriage because she wasn’t that interested in sex or intimacy; furthermore, that she ended up taking remedial steps, as it were, by buying nicer knickers and getting a Brazilian. I’ve never understood the creepy alleged sexiness of the latter but anyway…
The interesting thing, historically, is that in both church and old civil law, men and women had “conjugal rights” to one another. Meaning, retiring from intimacy was considered negligent and, possibly, grounds for an annulment. Impotency has always been grounds for annulment in canon law – so it goes both ways. This doesn’t, however, licence a rebuffed husband to have affairs; moreover, some consideration to age is appropriate when grappling with the degree of culpability there may be for withdrawing from sexual availability.
To Legge’s critics, however, she’s some kind of battered wife who has demeaned herself by examining the crisis from her ex-husband’s perspective. First, it’s none of their business. Second, if this is how they intend to manage their own marriages – as ideologically perfect Amazons whose whims are diktats – they will regret it. This kind of casual infallibility is really obvious in the tone and utterances of many 20 t0 40-something women in journalism. They think they’re the first generation of females to tame and control men. Let’s see how that works out for them 10 and 20 years from now.
Charles Dickens had ten children.
Children are mostly very good at distinguishing between reality and magic. Truth is Harry Potter is just another, very long, story where good fights evil and ultimately wins.
Harry and his companions have courage and hope, not quite a Samwise Gamgee or a Frodo Baggins.
I never encouraged the Harry Potter craze at home, and all my children were avid readers anyway. Some of their friends went completely overboard with outfits and endless talk and demands for round glasses, toys and the like.
My main problem was that witchcraft was central to the story and lionised as a “good”. And the cultish nature of the fan clubs. You could say that Lewis and Tolkien skated around the supernatural and you would be right – but both writers were very clear about the dangers of the dark arts.
On Rowling herself – her books got children reading and into the world of the imagination, which is a good thing. The writing isn’t great or polished, the stories derivative and predictable, but so are many other children’s writers’. What isn’t predictable is the lady’s response to the gender rubbish – she should be applauded for this. And it’s encouraging to me that there are Lefties out there with a smattering of principles.
I have no idea why so many conservatives are seeking to break bread with the TERFs. They seem to have overlooked the RF part of the acronym.
Not interested in helping them push their agenda. Not in the slightest. Even in this matter that they and I agree is harmful and dangerous.
However, I think it is strategically sensible to catalyse rather than fight the trans hijacking of gender roles so the social backlash to the craziness comes harder and sooner. If it rolls out gradually, it gives people time to adjust to a new normal and any backlash will be meek and easily overcome, assuming any backlash materialises at all.
“What isn’t predictable is the lady’s response to the gender rubbish – she should be applauded for this. And it’s encouraging to me that there are Lefties out there with a smattering of principles.”
That’s how I feel about her, along with Bindel, Linehan, Stock and others. They are lefties who have some principles. I just can’t be too pure when it comes to choosing my friends to fight this sinister queer cult (and make no mistake, gender ideology is a central tenet of queer theory). At the Let Women Speak rally I attended here in Sydney in March, there were many old time lefties. I had a long conversation with an elderly lesbian who said that she’s politically homeless. Like the women I met at the rally, Rowling is “old Labour”. She also spoke out against Corbyn when he was leader.
This is the rub.
“Good” wins in most Hollywood movies. For the triumph of “good” to be edifying, it must actually be objectively good – and not merely a comparative, narratively contrived device. The representation of things that aren’t good as good is easy to do – in fact, it defines our age – and may constitute (and usually does) evil of varying degrees of seriousness.
Then Prefect of the CDF Cardinal Ratzinger authorised the publication of an opinion on Harry Potter sought from him on the subject (as a private doctor rather than as the Prefect). He concluded the books were inappropriate for children and sacrilegious.
Interestingly (which isn’t to say causatively), when you look at the generation raised on HP – Millennials – you see a striking inability to discern reality from magic and an insistence that their worldview is “good.”
Re “new normal,” it’s important not to be conned by Bruce Jenner and the quasi-luvvie conservatives now raising him up as the “good” and “sensible” face of the ‘trans community.’
It was disappointing to see the Persian Princess fall for this low-hanging fruit last week in her interview with Jenner – about whom she spoke using feminine pronouns.
There is no middle way here, Rita.
Indeed, it looks needy.
The elevation of Katherine Deves by ostensibly conservative Liberals remains puzzling.
As for the matter of accepting support from TERFs, look to Churchill’s comment:
Churchill believed that Nazi Germany posed the greater threat to liberty. He famously remarked, “If Hitler invaded Hell I would make at least a favourable reference to the Devil in the House of Commons.”
Which is the greater threat, TERFs or the transgender lobby?
feminism is as illusionary as McCain.
Feminism is pushed by females who still bang on about it and have no real jobs, no social improvement and just idiot behaviour.
Women journo’s are the worst – aggressive with the lip and space – if it’s a bloke they would had been clocked.
Fem “jobs” are shit like dole.
Women gravitate to comminication jobs and health empathy jobs like nursing, medicine, law, teaching.
Women , lesbians in teaching should be out. Know of a few guys wlhoha,d lezzo teachers and were on the outer.
Feminist are rewarding women to look ugly – emasculate their looks – but have a look at the femmanists on tv – the best clothing lippie hair make up.
Destruction of energy, engineering, agriculture, construction.
If you femmes want to have at Christianity, who is the most referred person next to Christ, Mary his mum.
If you want great female examples look at the saints.
Femmes also shit on each other by rootin married men. Yep ya looking after the sis.terhood.
Know quite a few women who bang on about feminism – their male partners sta,y at home – do nothing – they try to write.
Those males rely on the femmes income – personally I find it embarrassing – like Dustin Hoffman in the fickers.
As for sex even in the meeja they are now saying you should have sex only with maleS you would have children with – well that’s at 360.
As for children murder of the child is a badge of honour – really how low can you go.
I am looking forward to Cohenite and Rabz input.
I am not buying into this debate except to note that a classically feminine looking woman on Twitter enunciated the truth when she said, however unpopular it might be to modern feminists, that feminine empowerment is about being brave enough to assert our difference. Wanting men to be men and wanting to be empowered ourselves as women is the same thing, with different sexes involved. So we can move on from being raised fist you-go-girls and settle back to appreciate who we really are and shape our context to give both men and women a fair go.
Being against trans women is a brave act in today’s context. I give plenty of women there a tick from me for they are recognising that basic truth – that we have a difference, and that difference is us and that we are worthwhile in ourselves. It takes two to make and raise a baby. Neither sex is dispensable.
I said this when heavily pregnant in a strongly feminist meeting, led by feminist men, in 1972 and got howled down for saying that men and women were fundamentally different. I think my viewpoint of sexual difference is now one that many women are turning towards.
No, it’s not TERFs supporting conservatives. It’s conservatives supporting TERFs. They’re so desperate and clingy. Sad.
And we don’t need to choose between TERFs and gender-warped freaks. Let them go to town on each other and grab the popcorn.
No, it isn’t a benign case of grabbing popcorn and enjoying the match. Whilst I understand men’s anger towards feminism, particularly second and third wave feminism, this current fad of transpeversion isn’t just some bar room brawl between people some might hate. It is a deeply dark and sinister movement, with clear roots in queer theory that aim to completely confuse and destroy male and female biology, and to completely deconstruct sexual taboos and norms, and that includes deconstructing pedophilia. I agree with you, and I wrote this in an earlier comment here that feminism and feminists must shoulder some blame for this current maelstrom of transperversion, but to see it as simply point scoring between ideological enemies is both naive and dangerous.
I attended the Let Women Speak rally here in Sydney, and many husbands came along with their wives. I was very grateful for their presence. This isn’t a feminist issue, it’s a safety issue, it’s a moral issue but most importantly, it’s a reality issue.
Good for Cassie.
Let women speak indeed. The one’s doing the leg work such as confronting school administrations ect deserve the podium not the one’s tryng to grift and claiming to be victims because someone said something mean online.
Bespoke, do you have anyone in particular in mind here? Some noted feminists, for instance? Leftist female politicians?
For my part, for very real safety reasons Cassie didn’t want her mother to attend that meeting. I’ll just point out that I am only two years younger than Cassie’s mother. Nevertheless, I would have attended with Cassie and others had I been well at the time, but I was seriously ill with diverticulitis. I have done my bit against rabid feminism in the past and still do. I have also objected in person to school administrators concerning leftist gender nonsense in my grandson’s classroom. Many women of all ages and political beliefs are gathering forces today to resist transperversion. I applaud that.
Sigh! It’s not all about you.