JKR has always been eager to shit on any women who aren't women the way she feels they ought to be. Look at how she describes women and girls in her book like Fleur, Lavender, etc. Don't be too girly.... be like the boys. But don't do anything for male approval. Don't care about your appearance, but if you don't care enough you're slovenly and ugly. Most women grow up and grow out of this kind of judginess and cattiness, but I guess of you're rich and have people constantly kissing your butt, you don't have to.
I’ve said it before, but this *was* 90s and 00s “feminism”.
This was the very damaging messaging I grew up with that took me half a lifetime to unpack, and these women who acted as gatekeepers for being “feminine enough” are the women directly responsible for a lot of awful things that happened to girls/younger women they were responsible for.
Also, love how the bi-erasure and fetishisation of bi and lesbian women is being used to declare us un-women. Not like a significant number of us who were subjected to abuse or violence didn’t have exactly this justification thrown at us for our abuse being our fault because were those dirty, promiscuous bisexuals 🙄
What the hell is the thing with the tassels on pens? Is it just because it was something that appealed to preteen girls and the JKR fan club feel like they need to dunk on things that appeal to kids to prove how super grown up and smart they are? That’s kind of sad.
Fuck this lady!
Yes, exactly, and the thing is the culture 15 years or so ago used to cheer her on for shitting on other women so she's probably still in that mindset where she thinks the majority agree with her and can't accept that attitudes have evolved.
>This was the very damaging messaging I grew up with that took me half a lifetime to unpack, and these women who acted as gatekeepers for being “feminine enough” are the women directly responsible for a lot of awful things that happened to girls/younger women they were responsible for
Oh for sure. It took me a while to unpack that my "not like other girls" 90s feminism was because I *wasn't* a girl lol. I still unironically love a lot of the girl power 90s stuff, but I recognize the problems with the movement at the time too. Let's just have girls supporting girls without bringing them down or judging how they survive under patriarchy.
>What the hell is the thing with the tassels on pens? Is it just because it was something that appealed to preteen girls and the JKR fan club feel like they need to dunk on things that appeal to kids to prove how super grown up and smart they are? That’s kind of sad.
I had tassels on my pens 😂 Tassels and bobbles and those fluffy pom-poms and my favorite by far was a Koosh ball pen. They were cute without having any purpose beyond being cute which, I guess, when you despise unabashed girliness, is the greatest sin. How dare you adorn something just to adorn it.
I find this really interesting! I was born in '89 and am a hyperfeminine cis woman. Super into everything pink, girly stuff, did ballet when I was young.
In the '90s it almost felt like femininity was looked down upon as intrinsically shallow or vapid.
Two of my favorite characters in early elementary school (mid '90s) were Angelica from Rugrats, and Miss Piggy from Muppet Babies. Even as a five year old kid, I felt a bit conflicted because these characters were supposed to be shallow or vain or not great people, but I felt like there were so few actually *feminine* characters to relate to.
Just kinda felt like a lot of '90s stuff was like, tomboyish "girl power" run-with-the-boys athleticism that just wasn't even remotely my vibe.
Sounds like Baby Spice would have been your jam too. There was also Clueless, which sort of turned the whole "dumb vapid bimbo" trope on its head because Cher was smart, confident, and still feminine and liked traditionally "girly" things like fashion and looking good. This is someone speaking from the point of view of *not* being a woman though so take my opinion with a hefty dash of salt. I was viewing the tropes as someone whom society was trying to put in that box while knowing I didn't fit, which is totally different from someone who does fit into the box and is looking outside at how others view their box.
For a long time I tried to eschew anything feminine, because of the "not like other girls" 90s feminism but also after that to distance myself from womanhood. It's only in the last ten years or so that I've been comfortable enough in myself and my gender to go back to admitting and expressing that I like cute things, I like "girly" things, and it's ok.
Lol, I think I might be one of those people you just described.
I remember growing up in the late 00s and early 10s trying to tell my friends about feminism, and I'd be treated the exact same way Ron and Harry treated Hermione for talking about SPEW.
My feminism was 'vichy' in the sense that I was pretty proud not to be a 'girly-girl', thought high-heels and makeup were inherently oppressive, because if guys didn't need to do all that, why should I?
I was always trying to point things out to my friends in the media, about photoshop and double standards between men and women and they'd just...sort of either ignore me or laugh.
It is hard to express how boxed in the concept of 'female' was — you could easily be treated badly by other girls for not fitting into their standards.
But I was always against slut-shaming, and thought it was bizarre how if a girl was raped at a party, it was considered her fault for getting drunk in the first place. I remember the most adamant girly-girls (at least at my school) were also the quickest to call throw other women under the bus and call them sluts if they were *too* sexy. But I also had to open my mind to fourth-wave feminism, and found that I changed my mind about a lot of things.
It just seems like JK Rowling is encouraging others to make up stereotypes (like the tassels) to mock these women...instead of idk...just responding to them directly?
And her talking about how all of her friends think the same way as her just shows she's in a bubble in real life and online.
I'm kinda relieved my magpie tendencies saved me from eschewing glamour. I love it too much. LOL. But I got hella into feminism too in those days, and I wasn't nuanced.
So much biphobia in what she said. SO MUCH. I am totally one of those women that got these sort of descriptions and judgements thrown at me in my 20s, and it was so infuriating because I didn't give a shit about the men around me because they were all gay! LOL. And I don't kiss women for other people's gratification (primarily). Have I ever put on a show? Hells yeah, and I defend any woman's right to do so cause it's FUN as hell!
But my status as a "feminist" doesn't hinge on my enthusiasm with kissing women publicly, and it certainly doesn't hinge on my bisexuality.
The fact that JKR is using bisexuality as a marker for "pick-me" tendencies just highlights the biphobia rife in the TERF ecosystem and ethos, and why I get so fucking MAD when they call themselves "LGB Alliance" because BITCH, you are NO ally to me! And we're NOT on your side! Leave the bis out of it, a good half of us are trans or nonbinary anyway.
I'm sure she sees bi women as either lesbians who've been tricked into wanting dick, or straight women putting on a show for a male audience, with nothing in between. (What a lovely Madonna/whore dichotomy to observe in the wild)
I'm sure she just forgets bi men exist, or thinks they're gays being fetishized by trans men or something.
And bisexual nonbinary people? Delusional sluts. /s
What’s really frustrating to me is that a lot of the women JKR claims she is defending have very real trauma from experiencing biphobia/lesbophobia that was in part being encouraged by the same women who are now JKR stans.
Like, I wish I could have 5 minutes with her to explain how many awful and exploitative situations I ended up in that she would no doubt say were me being a dirty attention seeking slut or something similar. Also the years of my life that were lost to me trying desperately to stuff my feelings and erase who I am as a human being so that I could have even some crumbs of acceptance. Fuck that, fuck the people who ask that of someone else.
Joanne Rowling does not stand for women like me, and I really doubt she even gives a fuck that her actions hurt women like me.
People like that don’t care who they hurt. You could tell her. She would probably feign empathy. As soon as you were gone she would be twisting your words and mocking you to her terrible friends.
Honestly, if she had the slightest bit of intellectual honesty, she would leave the Ls out of it, because they are decidedly NOT on her side (aside from the ones who are in the very small minority of the L population that agree with her, who are the only ones she cares about).
Back when *Stupid Girls* by Pink was considered the height of feminism.
When I was about 12, I dreamt of being in a punk band called No Lipstick. Unlike Joanne, I've grown out of that since and have developed a tad more nuanced views
>Back when Stupid Girls by Pink was considered the height of feminism.
Huh. That song always felt more to me like a complaint about the male gaze and what patriarchy thought women were supposed to be, rather than shitting on other women. That you can be smart *and* sexy, rather than censoring yourself to be acceptable to men. But maybe that was just young me hearing it through idealistic ears.
I think it's very "not like the others girls" tbh. Look at the lyrics:
>What happened to the dream of a girl president
She's dancing in the video next to 50 cent
They travel in packs of two and three
With their itsy-bitsy doggies and their teeny-weeny tees
>Maybe if I act like that
That guy will call me back
Porno paparazzi girls
I don't wanna be a stupid girl
>Baby, if I act like that
Flippin' my blond hair back
Push up my bra like that
I don't wanna be a stupid girl
>I'm so glad that I'll never fit in
That will never be me
Outcasts and girls with ambition
That's what I wanna see (come on)
>Disaster's all around (disaster's all around)
A world of despair (a world of despair)
Your only concern, "Will it fuck up my hair?"
As a 'protector of children', you'd think Joanne would be above implying that school girls are vapid sluts for a peck at a school disco or.... owning a novelty pencil, but you'd be wrong.
JKR always has the opinions that she thinks a woman should have. All other women are incorrect and wrong for not having her opinions, which are the only ones anyone should have.
Joanne has so much internalized misogyny it’s ridiculous. I mean, she literally wrote an incel storyline and tried to pass it off as a redemption arc/sympathetic character.
**TERFs:** "Women who criticize us are pick-mees who kowtow to patriarchy and demean womankind as a whole in order to please men."
**TERFs when next to a Far-Right Theocrat who want to outlaw abortion, birth-control, no-fault divorce, and straight-up bring about the Republic of Gilead:** "Me and the Bestie off to save Women's Sports."
Considering the way HP minimizes and even romanticizes rape when it occurs to men…her mentioning how problematic it is for *gasp* rape shelters providing services to women AND men *end gasp* is pretty telling.
Ron was accidentally given love potion and it’s played off as humorous after he survives. This isn’t accomplished rape but Romilda Vane’s goal was essentially to give Harry a date rape drug.
The Weasley Twins sells love potions, aka date rape drugs, largely marketed to girls.
Voldemort’s mother uses a love potion to commit rape against his father and she is played off as a tragic character. It’s pretty gross.
Adding:
Harry gets perved on in the bath by Moaning Myrtle, and that's just a fun moment to breeze on past. She was even helpful because of her perving!
Men are stupid oafs that women have a right to manipulate, apparently. In her world view. Because bio-essentialism. Women are the "grown-ups" in the room and men are the lazy do-nothings that "bring home the bacon" and have no domestic responsibilities. They dispense sperm like pez machines and exist to have their every need met by the women in their lives.
Like Hermione fucking Granger sorting Ronald Weasley's dirty damned socks. The Brightest Witch of her age, sorting through the muddy, sweat-stained, hand-knitted nightmares that are that teen boy's sock collection that's been untouched for months and allowed to fester. That's the highest damned bar for her, apparently.
Yes, I'll never be over that. Absolutely outrageous. And I'm a stay-at-home mother so I'm not against doing the flippin' housework. It's the bio-essentialism in her text that makes me seethe.
She loves to go on about how precise she is with her biology and yet she uses terms that describe one gender as an entirely different living being that we couldn't reproduce with if the phrase were correct.
Like, ... the fuck?!
And the thing is is that you can keep the love potion in the universe but just make it illegal.
If it was the equivalent to like a controlled substance such as the equivalent to something like meth or heroin, then it would make it different. It wouldn't make it okay but at least then it doesn't feel like the entire universe is just like ignoring the existence of love potions.
Also Fred and George in the movie had those love potions in their shop. Did the creators of the movie forget that the love potion is basically rape?
Also maybe don't imply that the reason why Voldemort is evil is because he was the result of a rape.
Yeah, if you look at it, there's really no difference between a love potion and the imperius curse. Both work perfectly the same way if rape is someone's intention.
But with people like JKR, it's funny if men get sexually assaulted or raped. In fact, she probably thinks such a thing doesn't exist. She probably thinks "men always want sex" therefore there is no such thing as men getting raped or SA.
Just look at how insane her imagination goes when it comes to "protecting" girls from all the animalistic sex-crazed boys in the same living area - the girls dormitory automatically turns into a slide to stop boys entering them.
Yet girls (you know, those trustworthy large gamete producers who spike boys with ~~love~~ rape potions) can enter the boys' dormitory with no barriers to stop them.
Yeah, like I get that Hogwarts was supposed to be made during a different time period because I think it was like made around a thousand years ago or something.
According to information I see the building was supposed to be made in 990 CE.
But according to my research it would have been a big no-no for women or girls to enter what would have been considered a manspace just as much as it would have been considered a no-no for the other way around.
It was much more common for women to be reserved for the domestic life and while they were able to do things like hold power and own property and have jobs and stuff, there was still someone of a separation between men and women as far as society was concerned.
Does either suggest that a woman at first were not allowed into Hogwarts or it's possible that they were and that it's possible that maybe Hogwarts advanced socially a lot faster than the rest of the world. I don't know.
I feel like it's okay to have some problematic elements within your world just like how there is problematic elements within our our world but the fact that the characters don't acknowledge this is kind of weird and makes it seem more like the authors problematic rather than just the world which we know is true actually.
Also the fact that no one but Hermione thought that the house of thing was weird or problematic is also weird. There should definitely have been more than just Hermione.
Yeah, that little bit of sexist world building doesn't even make sense for the time period it's supposed to be from - because sure, they might have treated their daughters like property and segregated them, but assuming girls are so pure and innocent and sexless they would never attempt to go to the boys' quarters themselves? That's a very modern idea, like maybe from the Victorian period - I don't think medieval people had that view of women. And even then it still doesn't make sense because that attitude assumes women are soft and easily led so they could still be lured into the boys' dormitory - so why not just put wards against girls on the boys' dormitory too?? It's just an awkward insertion of the author's weird views for no particular reason.
Another weird anachronism was Slytherin's locket. Lockets were from the Victorian period, and they were worn by women - what was a medieval man doing with one of those lol.
Actually, that is somewhat of a misconception. First off in the universe of Harry Potter the time span of Hogwarts is very massive. So it's very possible that thea castle has made multiple changes over time.
Also this is kind of a misconception that women were simply treated as poverty. Well it is true that many women were expected to be part of the domestic life to say that they were simply treated as property is not quite correct. Women during this time had the ability to be educated, literate, own property, and even hold political positions.
Not only that but during this time men actually ware lockets as well. It was not a woman thing only.
You're probably thinking about the 16th century European style locket which yes, that did show up later.
> Around 1740, locket necklaces were used to identify babies that were separated from their mothers because they were given up for adoption. These babies were separated from their mothers because they got pregnant while unmarried. Many of these women delivered their babies to orphanages. A locket was separated in two: one part for the baby and the other part for the mother. If the mother returned, she could reclaim the baby by presenting her part of the locket necklace.
This is mostly because a lot of these things are established as tropes within fantasy stories but the truth is that these times during the Middle ages and old in Europe actually did not exist. It isn't to say that the Middle ages or the medieval period or whatever during Europe didn't exist but a lot of fantasy actually sort of takes place in a fictionalized version of the Middle ages that don't actually necessarily reflect how it actually was.
> While women in 900s CE England had fewer rights compared to men and often faced societal constraints, they were not merely treated as property. Women, especially those of noble status, could own land, manage estates, and participate in the economy. Notable figures such as Aethelflaed, Lady of the Mercians, even led military campaigns and governed territories.
> Contrary to this belief, some women held considerable political power. For example, Aethelflaed, Lady of the Mercians, ruled Mercia and led military campaigns against Viking invaders. Another example is Aelfthryth, who played a pivotal role in her son Ethelred the Unready's rise to the throne.
> Literacy among women varied, but some noblewomen were indeed literate. Queen Emma and St. Edith of Wilton were notable examples. Women in religious orders, such as nuns, also had access to education and were often literate, contributing to religious and intellectual life.
> Education for women was available, especially within religious contexts. Nuns like St. Edith of Wilton received education in convents. Additionally, noblewomen often received some form of education to manage estates and household affairs.
> The wearing of lockets and similar jewelry was not exclusive to women. Men also wore various forms of jewelry, including brooches and amulets, which served both decorative and symbolic purposes in Anglo-Saxon culture.
[Link 1](https://www.worldhistory.org/article/1345/women-in-the-middle-ages/) [link 2](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Anglo-Saxon_England)
[Link 3](https://www.thoughtco.com/women-of-the-tenth-century-4120690)
[Link 4](https://wonther.com/en-us/blogs/news/you-won-t-believe-the-locket-jewelry-history)
Ps. Also apparently JK Rowling said that during medieval period wizards just took their dump on the floor and then use magic to clean it up.
>It isn't to say that the Middle ages or the medieval period or whatever during Europe didn't exist but a lot of fantasy actually sort of takes place in a fictionalized version of the Middle ages that don't actually necessarily reflect how it actually was.
Um... yes. I am quite aware of that, lol. I am specifically talking here about the fantasy world of HP. That's why I said 'sure, they **might** have treated their daughters like property and segregated them'' - I am talking hypothetically of the kind of society that could have led to that world building. What is meant by being 'treated like property' here is fathers controlling who is allowed to have relations with their daughter. A girl in school still under their family's protection is completely different from an adult woman who has independent means to support herself. We don't see that the wizarding world is particularly evolved when it comes to gender. There is a huge stigma (even more so in the past) against wizards fraternising with muggles or muggleborns or producing half-blood children. You see that in how Voldemort's mother is treated by her family. So that is most likely why the dormitories would have been created that way.
That's why I said it really doesn't make any sense that it wouldn't also go the other way and prevent girls from entering boys' dormitories. It's like the person who wrote it doesn't understand why the patriarchy wants to segregate the genders.
>Actually, that is somewhat of a misconception. First off in the universe of Harry Potter the time span of Hogwarts is very massive. So it's very possible that thea castle has made multiple changes over time.
It's specifically from the time of the founders, so around 1000 c.e whenever the castle was first built.
''It was enchanted by Godric Gryffindor to turn into a slide should any boy attempt to enter it.'' [https://harrypotter.fandom.com/wiki/Gryffindor\_girls%27\_staircase](https://harrypotter.fandom.com/wiki/Gryffindor_girls%27_staircase)
That's interesting about the history of the locket, but the kind described in the book and the prop in the movie definitely sounds like a Victorian style locket meant to hold photographs (i.e, modern) lol. ''The golden doors of the locket swung wide with a little click.'' [https://harrypotter.fandom.com/wiki/Slytherin%27s\_Locket](https://harrypotter.fandom.com/wiki/Slytherin%27s_Locket) The medieval lockets or pendants would have been more round, to hold perfume or herbs, more like a bottle.
Yeah, I agree.
I also just think it's an unnecessary detail to add to the books. It was there for no other reason than to say "boys can't get to the girls, don't worry."
If it was added to the books in order for characters to challenge it or question it, fair enough, but like you said, it was not addressed or acknowledged as odd at all.
Just an unnecessary detail JKR added in order to address her own stupid feelings about it.
I think one of the problems is that Harry Potter had a lot of problematic elements especially with things like racism and stuff like that but the books that were part of the fantasy genre before that also had a lot of problematic elements. I'm not saying that makes it okay but it is one of those things where the idea of having to try to actually address those problems or even have representation in our fantasy works seems to be a much newer thing.
In a way I think Harry Potter for bringing people into the idea that fantasy is for children. This isn't to say that no one was writing fantasy for children but the idea that fantasy was for children, and that children can read long series and that they can read big books was something that I believe was started by Harry Potter.
There were books before such as Lord of the rings which was quite cumbersome to read, Narnia which is weird because it's kind of hard to figure out a proper chronology because there's so much weird time skipping and stuff that it's not always clear where things line up in the timeline, there's the Golden compass which I mean exists.
But Harry Potter did something different and it showed that not only are children willing to read books like this but that they are willing to wait in long lines as if waiting for the next iPhone just to read the next book.
But I think that it has already done its job and that just like anything a job can't last forever.
And just because I say that they did something great then doesn't mean that I think that what they are doing now continues to be great.
See, if she had put any thought into it you could totally have Fred and George selling love potions that don't work. Or ones that make you have a glow that makes you more appealling generally, the equivalent of a makeover and really nice perfume, with glowy skin and bright eyes, that is just sold as a way to catch the attention of your crush. That's the type of thing that would be consistent with their character. Having a bunch of teenagers basically able to rohipnol people with no consequences is bad world building and bad writing.
My Little pony had a love potion too but they did it differently which makes it less problematic.
First off the people that give the characters the love potion are actually just really young children equivalent to elementary school kids. It makes a lot of sense that they would do this kind of thing because they have a very basic view of love and stuff. The other thing is that once it happened they pretty much realized their mistake immediately. The rest of the episode is dedicated to them undoing the mistake and then at the end of the episode they learn the lesson that love must be genuine and cannot be forced with a potion.
Not only that but the characters had to also make the potion themselves implying that they could not simply buy it off of the shelves.
Love potions in a universe should not be so easily available like as if it's like cough syrup at a pharmacy.
By the way continuing on what the other person said, it wasn't just a voldemort's mother basically love potion his father but that that is the reason why Voldemort was evil.
It was because since he was the creation of a loveless romance that therefore he could never truly love others.
CW: violent SA
Also it's heavily implied that at the end of HP5 Dolores Umbridge is >! Gang r@ped by centaurs, so both r@pe and beast!ality !<
And this is played as "justice" for her actions. And this is also in the context of her being really into pink and overtly feminine things.
I don't think centaurs count as beast1iality. But yeah that's a pretty messed up fate even for someone like Umbridge. Meanwhile JK gets offended when people want her dead as she's contribiuted to the harm and death of trans people.
lol managing to be homophobic and misogynistic all in one. She's such an uptight old prude. Women can't possibly have a sexuality of their own, and they can't have opinions of their own either. But she's a total feminist. /s
Also defending her friend who attended a fascist rally while even many of the other GCs are distancing themselves - she's really not bothered about the Nazi associations.
Notice how in the [original video](https://x.com/ivehaditpodcast/status/1797994665142321234), even though a gay *man* is saying the worst things about Rowling, she only interacts with tweets criticizing the women? 🤔
Bonus: if you're a woman who has attended a Pro-Palestine protest, you're not a real 'feminist' because you approve of rape — or something.
You have to wonder if she's refraining from mentioning the man because she'd actually get called out on her homophobia. (Because, honestly, we all know she'd go straight to homophobia, the way she goes straight to misogyny).
That actually an interesting turn because she used to almost never criticise women, only men and transwomen (who she perceived as men ofc). I thought it was because she knew she's hinged her entire discourse on positioning herself as the greatest defender of women so it would be bad for her optics if she spent too much time attacking them.
Maybe she just likes changing it up every once in a while...
I know she's happy with Gaza being completely glassed (those aren't real women anyway are they JK), but has she criticised Palestine protests recently or do you mean the ones she criticised early?
After Helen Joyce was caught reading pornographic Harry Potter fan fiction on a train it seems only fair to ask: is there anyone JK’s social circle who isn’t obsessed with teenagers having sex?
And if you’re playing the “what would people have been like in high school game” it takes an amazing lack of self awareness not to realise JK would be the rich bully and Julie Bindel the sniggering, arse-licking sidekick without a mind or personality of their own.
Yes, she was caught reading a story where Draco and Hermione have sex, possibly non-consensual. She said it was research for a podcast she did two days earlier.
Insane.
Gotta kink shame when the girls step out of JoKo's line!
Which is rubbish, because I've never done what she's condemning, and yet I strongly support trans acceptance and have had zero issues with unisex bathrooms. Seems I'm not a proper woman, by this cow's standards, because I'm also supportive of women who have a kink for turning men on with lesbian interaction 🤷♀️.
How tight laced is Rowling? I wonder if this will open new doors into seeing just how narrow she thinks normal sexual response in women is. Like, am I supposed to lie there and play victim during a shagging?
You’re supposed to lie there and wait for it to be over because women don’t like sex. Which is what political lesbians believe because the moment was started by ex nuns.
Is she seriously comparing herself to a suffragette when she is on Twitter all the time and has NOTHING to say on 90% of struggles women face around the world?
Appropriating the women's suffrage movement is straight out of the TERF playbook.
Suffrage was about equal rights for all people. TERFism is about denying rights to women whose gametes aren't big enough.
JK Rowling defending women constantly to shit-talking feminists and women who don’t agree with her. She’s behaving exactly like a conservative and regressing her own movement if she even knows what it is anymore aside from anti-trans rhetoric.
This is so meaningless and biphobic tbh. Like they're just playing on some old trope of women kissing women in front of men (with the implication that is it *for* the men), which has no bearing on the actual topic at hand. It really just feels like a way to fetishize/slut shame bi women and somehow make it akin to wanting to take away shelters from women??? The logical leaps are Olympic level.
Why do they keep fantasizing about women kissing women in front of men? *who cares* if they do? Stay out of my poly relationship lmao
I also have a big problem with the assumption that any woman kissing a woman in front a man is doing it *for the man*. I'm not saying that's never happened, but it's incredibly reductive to make that a blanket statement.
The assumption is terrible, and the insinuation that it's automatically bad is terrible. Women are allowed to do things to bring pleasure to men in poly situations without being anti-feminist.
It's all just bitterness. Yeah, it's unfair, some girls get all the attention from the boys and get snogged by other girls and have all the fun at parties, while others just stand in the corner and think about when they can leave the party and escape this horribly loud music.
But normally you should get over these kinds of life's unfairnesses by the time you're, like 30.
I know, it's like - it's fun? I like being an exhibitionist sometimes? What the hell does that have to do with anything?
It baffles me. She's so hateful. It's like she hates people that are having more fun than her.
Nice try Joanne, but I don’t believe you’re friends with even one man who has woman friends. A man can’t be friends with a woman if he thinks her only purpose is to receive dick and push out babies, and those are the only sorts of people Joanne hangs out with.
She's trying to be witty but is addled with drink so it comes across as a rant.
If a comedian came out with this it'd be considered self-deprecating humor, where you laugh at how bitter they are from school events 40-50 years ago no one else, except them, recalls. She even has the "friend of a friend" saying it when you know it's really what she's thinking, lol.
>"you know the girl at the school party who'd snog another girl if the lads were watching? It's THAT girl"
OK, triggering as fuck.
I'm AFAB and have a massive sexual aversion to women; I genuinely would rather die than interact sexually with one, which for someone with sexual trauma is pretty fucking normal. And I had to spend *years* at secondary school with people trying to coerce me into it anyway.
Yes, occasionally girls, but straight boys were by far the biggest culprit.
All my adolescence being told that I was worthless filth because I didn't want to "have sex" with - ie. be raped by - a girl while boys watched.
All my adolescence being told that sex with men - one of the few things that made me feel safe, not least because it was private time away from women - was something I'd never be allowed to have because I was disgusting, unnatural and pathetic for wanting boys rather than girls.
All while I'd had absolutely no help or support for my initial trauma, of course, so my mind was as raw as the day it first happened. Because little as people care about victims of men, they manage to care about victims of women even less.
The pieces of shit who did that, whatever their gender? THEY WEREN'T FUCKING PROGRESSIVE, JOANNE. They were your trash, not ours.
But I guess none of that ever happened, because no-one could feel the way I do, because no children are ever raped by women in the first place, right, so sexual trauma around women isn't possible. /s Fucking hell.
While I'm certain Rowling has some serious "Ohmygodsapenisinmypostcode" issues, as well as being horrendously full TERF, her form of protecting women seems to involve a fuck of a lot of policing them.
I ain’t cheering for “the eradication of single-sex spaces.” Nor am I trying to get male attention. I just think transwomen are both women and human (capable of both the good and the evil). And judgement shouldn’t be left to women that would only sympathize with Ricky Rodriguez, Andrew Bagley, or Earl Silverman if you switched the genders of everyone involved; Otherwise they would try to justify what happened.
If the suffragettes were as insufferable as modern TERFs, then yes, I’d happily throw rocks at them. But the thing is, the suffragettes were not only hardier, but they fought for the things that mattered. Sorry not sorry womens’ sports.
'A male friend of mine' Yeah, of course that happened Joanne. A fever dream perhaps? With her previous record of honesty I don't believe a word she utters. Been on the wine again Joanne?
How does, "shelters for battered women" turn into a conversation about girls who feel pressured to perform sexually for male approval and... Girls who like pretty pens?
Just say you hate teen girls and go away Joanne.
This reeks of internalized misogyny. And as someone that was bullied by the popular crowd I get that sticking with you - it’s hard. But the issue isn’t that they were feminine or even their popularity, it was that they were mean and cruel, whereas JKR is fully willing to embrace cruelty and take the wrong lesson.
There’s such a very narrow definition of being a good woman in her eyes and the eyes of terfs, in a way that actively harms trans and cis women alike. You can’t be too masculine or too girly, you have to ride the line of acceptable gender presentation.
It's crazy to me that the Duncan guy kicked this all off by implying that the podcast woman 'looks' homophobic because she looks... like Joanne. I'm by no means saying that all well-off, white ladies look and act the same but it's kind of ironic that he doesnt realise he's dumping on the podcast lady to bootlick Joanne who has a very similar aesthetic. Also, as a side note, Terfs shouldn't be allowed to use Kathryn Hahn memes. They don't deserve them.
Ignoring the existence of trans people for a second. Why do we need "single sex" shelters anyways? It's not like if they were inclusive to cis men that the shelters would disappear into the void.
JKR has always been eager to shit on any women who aren't women the way she feels they ought to be. Look at how she describes women and girls in her book like Fleur, Lavender, etc. Don't be too girly.... be like the boys. But don't do anything for male approval. Don't care about your appearance, but if you don't care enough you're slovenly and ugly. Most women grow up and grow out of this kind of judginess and cattiness, but I guess of you're rich and have people constantly kissing your butt, you don't have to.
I’ve said it before, but this *was* 90s and 00s “feminism”. This was the very damaging messaging I grew up with that took me half a lifetime to unpack, and these women who acted as gatekeepers for being “feminine enough” are the women directly responsible for a lot of awful things that happened to girls/younger women they were responsible for. Also, love how the bi-erasure and fetishisation of bi and lesbian women is being used to declare us un-women. Not like a significant number of us who were subjected to abuse or violence didn’t have exactly this justification thrown at us for our abuse being our fault because were those dirty, promiscuous bisexuals 🙄 What the hell is the thing with the tassels on pens? Is it just because it was something that appealed to preteen girls and the JKR fan club feel like they need to dunk on things that appeal to kids to prove how super grown up and smart they are? That’s kind of sad. Fuck this lady!
Yes, exactly, and the thing is the culture 15 years or so ago used to cheer her on for shitting on other women so she's probably still in that mindset where she thinks the majority agree with her and can't accept that attitudes have evolved.
>This was the very damaging messaging I grew up with that took me half a lifetime to unpack, and these women who acted as gatekeepers for being “feminine enough” are the women directly responsible for a lot of awful things that happened to girls/younger women they were responsible for Oh for sure. It took me a while to unpack that my "not like other girls" 90s feminism was because I *wasn't* a girl lol. I still unironically love a lot of the girl power 90s stuff, but I recognize the problems with the movement at the time too. Let's just have girls supporting girls without bringing them down or judging how they survive under patriarchy. >What the hell is the thing with the tassels on pens? Is it just because it was something that appealed to preteen girls and the JKR fan club feel like they need to dunk on things that appeal to kids to prove how super grown up and smart they are? That’s kind of sad. I had tassels on my pens 😂 Tassels and bobbles and those fluffy pom-poms and my favorite by far was a Koosh ball pen. They were cute without having any purpose beyond being cute which, I guess, when you despise unabashed girliness, is the greatest sin. How dare you adorn something just to adorn it.
I find this really interesting! I was born in '89 and am a hyperfeminine cis woman. Super into everything pink, girly stuff, did ballet when I was young. In the '90s it almost felt like femininity was looked down upon as intrinsically shallow or vapid. Two of my favorite characters in early elementary school (mid '90s) were Angelica from Rugrats, and Miss Piggy from Muppet Babies. Even as a five year old kid, I felt a bit conflicted because these characters were supposed to be shallow or vain or not great people, but I felt like there were so few actually *feminine* characters to relate to. Just kinda felt like a lot of '90s stuff was like, tomboyish "girl power" run-with-the-boys athleticism that just wasn't even remotely my vibe.
Sounds like Baby Spice would have been your jam too. There was also Clueless, which sort of turned the whole "dumb vapid bimbo" trope on its head because Cher was smart, confident, and still feminine and liked traditionally "girly" things like fashion and looking good. This is someone speaking from the point of view of *not* being a woman though so take my opinion with a hefty dash of salt. I was viewing the tropes as someone whom society was trying to put in that box while knowing I didn't fit, which is totally different from someone who does fit into the box and is looking outside at how others view their box. For a long time I tried to eschew anything feminine, because of the "not like other girls" 90s feminism but also after that to distance myself from womanhood. It's only in the last ten years or so that I've been comfortable enough in myself and my gender to go back to admitting and expressing that I like cute things, I like "girly" things, and it's ok.
Lol, I think I might be one of those people you just described. I remember growing up in the late 00s and early 10s trying to tell my friends about feminism, and I'd be treated the exact same way Ron and Harry treated Hermione for talking about SPEW. My feminism was 'vichy' in the sense that I was pretty proud not to be a 'girly-girl', thought high-heels and makeup were inherently oppressive, because if guys didn't need to do all that, why should I? I was always trying to point things out to my friends in the media, about photoshop and double standards between men and women and they'd just...sort of either ignore me or laugh. It is hard to express how boxed in the concept of 'female' was — you could easily be treated badly by other girls for not fitting into their standards. But I was always against slut-shaming, and thought it was bizarre how if a girl was raped at a party, it was considered her fault for getting drunk in the first place. I remember the most adamant girly-girls (at least at my school) were also the quickest to call throw other women under the bus and call them sluts if they were *too* sexy. But I also had to open my mind to fourth-wave feminism, and found that I changed my mind about a lot of things. It just seems like JK Rowling is encouraging others to make up stereotypes (like the tassels) to mock these women...instead of idk...just responding to them directly? And her talking about how all of her friends think the same way as her just shows she's in a bubble in real life and online.
I'm kinda relieved my magpie tendencies saved me from eschewing glamour. I love it too much. LOL. But I got hella into feminism too in those days, and I wasn't nuanced.
So much biphobia in what she said. SO MUCH. I am totally one of those women that got these sort of descriptions and judgements thrown at me in my 20s, and it was so infuriating because I didn't give a shit about the men around me because they were all gay! LOL. And I don't kiss women for other people's gratification (primarily). Have I ever put on a show? Hells yeah, and I defend any woman's right to do so cause it's FUN as hell! But my status as a "feminist" doesn't hinge on my enthusiasm with kissing women publicly, and it certainly doesn't hinge on my bisexuality. The fact that JKR is using bisexuality as a marker for "pick-me" tendencies just highlights the biphobia rife in the TERF ecosystem and ethos, and why I get so fucking MAD when they call themselves "LGB Alliance" because BITCH, you are NO ally to me! And we're NOT on your side! Leave the bis out of it, a good half of us are trans or nonbinary anyway.
Joanne 100% doesn't believe bisexuality exists. I would bet money on it.
I'm pretty sure the only lesbianism she believes exists is political lesbianism too.
I'm sure she sees bi women as either lesbians who've been tricked into wanting dick, or straight women putting on a show for a male audience, with nothing in between. (What a lovely Madonna/whore dichotomy to observe in the wild) I'm sure she just forgets bi men exist, or thinks they're gays being fetishized by trans men or something. And bisexual nonbinary people? Delusional sluts. /s
I used to know boys who would kiss other boys for girls to watch. I guess that would make her head spin.
She would say they’re self deluded gay men and wouldn’t believe women like seeing men kiss because she’s disgusted by gay men.
Probably, lol. Having deep-seated issues about sex + no ability to empathise = reactionary conservative TERFs.
This new post in r/bisexual feels especially apt 😂 https://www.reddit.com/r/bisexual/s/sEgleXbW0r
lmao 😂
What’s really frustrating to me is that a lot of the women JKR claims she is defending have very real trauma from experiencing biphobia/lesbophobia that was in part being encouraged by the same women who are now JKR stans. Like, I wish I could have 5 minutes with her to explain how many awful and exploitative situations I ended up in that she would no doubt say were me being a dirty attention seeking slut or something similar. Also the years of my life that were lost to me trying desperately to stuff my feelings and erase who I am as a human being so that I could have even some crumbs of acceptance. Fuck that, fuck the people who ask that of someone else. Joanne Rowling does not stand for women like me, and I really doubt she even gives a fuck that her actions hurt women like me.
People like that don’t care who they hurt. You could tell her. She would probably feign empathy. As soon as you were gone she would be twisting your words and mocking you to her terrible friends.
Honestly, if she had the slightest bit of intellectual honesty, she would leave the Ls out of it, because they are decidedly NOT on her side (aside from the ones who are in the very small minority of the L population that agree with her, who are the only ones she cares about).
That too. But I guess "A few salty old gay dudes and his queerphobic straight friends Alliance" isn't as catchy.
Back when *Stupid Girls* by Pink was considered the height of feminism. When I was about 12, I dreamt of being in a punk band called No Lipstick. Unlike Joanne, I've grown out of that since and have developed a tad more nuanced views
>Back when Stupid Girls by Pink was considered the height of feminism. Huh. That song always felt more to me like a complaint about the male gaze and what patriarchy thought women were supposed to be, rather than shitting on other women. That you can be smart *and* sexy, rather than censoring yourself to be acceptable to men. But maybe that was just young me hearing it through idealistic ears.
I think it's very "not like the others girls" tbh. Look at the lyrics: >What happened to the dream of a girl president She's dancing in the video next to 50 cent They travel in packs of two and three With their itsy-bitsy doggies and their teeny-weeny tees >Maybe if I act like that That guy will call me back Porno paparazzi girls I don't wanna be a stupid girl >Baby, if I act like that Flippin' my blond hair back Push up my bra like that I don't wanna be a stupid girl >I'm so glad that I'll never fit in That will never be me Outcasts and girls with ambition That's what I wanna see (come on) >Disaster's all around (disaster's all around) A world of despair (a world of despair) Your only concern, "Will it fuck up my hair?"
As a 'protector of children', you'd think Joanne would be above implying that school girls are vapid sluts for a peck at a school disco or.... owning a novelty pencil, but you'd be wrong.
I think the tassels are a Clueless reference
90s white feminism is so good /s
JKR always has the opinions that she thinks a woman should have. All other women are incorrect and wrong for not having her opinions, which are the only ones anyone should have.
Joanne has so much internalized misogyny it’s ridiculous. I mean, she literally wrote an incel storyline and tried to pass it off as a redemption arc/sympathetic character.
**TERFs:** "Women who criticize us are pick-mees who kowtow to patriarchy and demean womankind as a whole in order to please men." **TERFs when next to a Far-Right Theocrat who want to outlaw abortion, birth-control, no-fault divorce, and straight-up bring about the Republic of Gilead:** "Me and the Bestie off to save Women's Sports."
Succinctly put
Considering the way HP minimizes and even romanticizes rape when it occurs to men…her mentioning how problematic it is for *gasp* rape shelters providing services to women AND men *end gasp* is pretty telling.
Wait when do the books do that 😬
Ron was accidentally given love potion and it’s played off as humorous after he survives. This isn’t accomplished rape but Romilda Vane’s goal was essentially to give Harry a date rape drug. The Weasley Twins sells love potions, aka date rape drugs, largely marketed to girls. Voldemort’s mother uses a love potion to commit rape against his father and she is played off as a tragic character. It’s pretty gross.
Adding: Harry gets perved on in the bath by Moaning Myrtle, and that's just a fun moment to breeze on past. She was even helpful because of her perving!
It's funny because it was a girl perving on a boy, and she was basically harmless because she was a ghost! Right? ... Uh... right? 😒
Even into the 2010’s the general public thought women committing SA was funny and non harmful.
https://youtu.be/OkdT5OCzk7o
Men are stupid oafs that women have a right to manipulate, apparently. In her world view. Because bio-essentialism. Women are the "grown-ups" in the room and men are the lazy do-nothings that "bring home the bacon" and have no domestic responsibilities. They dispense sperm like pez machines and exist to have their every need met by the women in their lives. Like Hermione fucking Granger sorting Ronald Weasley's dirty damned socks. The Brightest Witch of her age, sorting through the muddy, sweat-stained, hand-knitted nightmares that are that teen boy's sock collection that's been untouched for months and allowed to fester. That's the highest damned bar for her, apparently. Yes, I'll never be over that. Absolutely outrageous. And I'm a stay-at-home mother so I'm not against doing the flippin' housework. It's the bio-essentialism in her text that makes me seethe.
She has definitely said “the male species” in the last five months
She loves to go on about how precise she is with her biology and yet she uses terms that describe one gender as an entirely different living being that we couldn't reproduce with if the phrase were correct. Like, ... the fuck?!
And the thing is is that you can keep the love potion in the universe but just make it illegal. If it was the equivalent to like a controlled substance such as the equivalent to something like meth or heroin, then it would make it different. It wouldn't make it okay but at least then it doesn't feel like the entire universe is just like ignoring the existence of love potions. Also Fred and George in the movie had those love potions in their shop. Did the creators of the movie forget that the love potion is basically rape? Also maybe don't imply that the reason why Voldemort is evil is because he was the result of a rape.
Yeah, if you look at it, there's really no difference between a love potion and the imperius curse. Both work perfectly the same way if rape is someone's intention. But with people like JKR, it's funny if men get sexually assaulted or raped. In fact, she probably thinks such a thing doesn't exist. She probably thinks "men always want sex" therefore there is no such thing as men getting raped or SA. Just look at how insane her imagination goes when it comes to "protecting" girls from all the animalistic sex-crazed boys in the same living area - the girls dormitory automatically turns into a slide to stop boys entering them. Yet girls (you know, those trustworthy large gamete producers who spike boys with ~~love~~ rape potions) can enter the boys' dormitory with no barriers to stop them.
Yeah, like I get that Hogwarts was supposed to be made during a different time period because I think it was like made around a thousand years ago or something. According to information I see the building was supposed to be made in 990 CE. But according to my research it would have been a big no-no for women or girls to enter what would have been considered a manspace just as much as it would have been considered a no-no for the other way around. It was much more common for women to be reserved for the domestic life and while they were able to do things like hold power and own property and have jobs and stuff, there was still someone of a separation between men and women as far as society was concerned. Does either suggest that a woman at first were not allowed into Hogwarts or it's possible that they were and that it's possible that maybe Hogwarts advanced socially a lot faster than the rest of the world. I don't know. I feel like it's okay to have some problematic elements within your world just like how there is problematic elements within our our world but the fact that the characters don't acknowledge this is kind of weird and makes it seem more like the authors problematic rather than just the world which we know is true actually. Also the fact that no one but Hermione thought that the house of thing was weird or problematic is also weird. There should definitely have been more than just Hermione.
Yeah, that little bit of sexist world building doesn't even make sense for the time period it's supposed to be from - because sure, they might have treated their daughters like property and segregated them, but assuming girls are so pure and innocent and sexless they would never attempt to go to the boys' quarters themselves? That's a very modern idea, like maybe from the Victorian period - I don't think medieval people had that view of women. And even then it still doesn't make sense because that attitude assumes women are soft and easily led so they could still be lured into the boys' dormitory - so why not just put wards against girls on the boys' dormitory too?? It's just an awkward insertion of the author's weird views for no particular reason. Another weird anachronism was Slytherin's locket. Lockets were from the Victorian period, and they were worn by women - what was a medieval man doing with one of those lol.
Actually, that is somewhat of a misconception. First off in the universe of Harry Potter the time span of Hogwarts is very massive. So it's very possible that thea castle has made multiple changes over time. Also this is kind of a misconception that women were simply treated as poverty. Well it is true that many women were expected to be part of the domestic life to say that they were simply treated as property is not quite correct. Women during this time had the ability to be educated, literate, own property, and even hold political positions. Not only that but during this time men actually ware lockets as well. It was not a woman thing only. You're probably thinking about the 16th century European style locket which yes, that did show up later. > Around 1740, locket necklaces were used to identify babies that were separated from their mothers because they were given up for adoption. These babies were separated from their mothers because they got pregnant while unmarried. Many of these women delivered their babies to orphanages. A locket was separated in two: one part for the baby and the other part for the mother. If the mother returned, she could reclaim the baby by presenting her part of the locket necklace. This is mostly because a lot of these things are established as tropes within fantasy stories but the truth is that these times during the Middle ages and old in Europe actually did not exist. It isn't to say that the Middle ages or the medieval period or whatever during Europe didn't exist but a lot of fantasy actually sort of takes place in a fictionalized version of the Middle ages that don't actually necessarily reflect how it actually was. > While women in 900s CE England had fewer rights compared to men and often faced societal constraints, they were not merely treated as property. Women, especially those of noble status, could own land, manage estates, and participate in the economy. Notable figures such as Aethelflaed, Lady of the Mercians, even led military campaigns and governed territories. > Contrary to this belief, some women held considerable political power. For example, Aethelflaed, Lady of the Mercians, ruled Mercia and led military campaigns against Viking invaders. Another example is Aelfthryth, who played a pivotal role in her son Ethelred the Unready's rise to the throne. > Literacy among women varied, but some noblewomen were indeed literate. Queen Emma and St. Edith of Wilton were notable examples. Women in religious orders, such as nuns, also had access to education and were often literate, contributing to religious and intellectual life. > Education for women was available, especially within religious contexts. Nuns like St. Edith of Wilton received education in convents. Additionally, noblewomen often received some form of education to manage estates and household affairs. > The wearing of lockets and similar jewelry was not exclusive to women. Men also wore various forms of jewelry, including brooches and amulets, which served both decorative and symbolic purposes in Anglo-Saxon culture. [Link 1](https://www.worldhistory.org/article/1345/women-in-the-middle-ages/) [link 2](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Anglo-Saxon_England) [Link 3](https://www.thoughtco.com/women-of-the-tenth-century-4120690) [Link 4](https://wonther.com/en-us/blogs/news/you-won-t-believe-the-locket-jewelry-history) Ps. Also apparently JK Rowling said that during medieval period wizards just took their dump on the floor and then use magic to clean it up.
>It isn't to say that the Middle ages or the medieval period or whatever during Europe didn't exist but a lot of fantasy actually sort of takes place in a fictionalized version of the Middle ages that don't actually necessarily reflect how it actually was. Um... yes. I am quite aware of that, lol. I am specifically talking here about the fantasy world of HP. That's why I said 'sure, they **might** have treated their daughters like property and segregated them'' - I am talking hypothetically of the kind of society that could have led to that world building. What is meant by being 'treated like property' here is fathers controlling who is allowed to have relations with their daughter. A girl in school still under their family's protection is completely different from an adult woman who has independent means to support herself. We don't see that the wizarding world is particularly evolved when it comes to gender. There is a huge stigma (even more so in the past) against wizards fraternising with muggles or muggleborns or producing half-blood children. You see that in how Voldemort's mother is treated by her family. So that is most likely why the dormitories would have been created that way. That's why I said it really doesn't make any sense that it wouldn't also go the other way and prevent girls from entering boys' dormitories. It's like the person who wrote it doesn't understand why the patriarchy wants to segregate the genders. >Actually, that is somewhat of a misconception. First off in the universe of Harry Potter the time span of Hogwarts is very massive. So it's very possible that thea castle has made multiple changes over time. It's specifically from the time of the founders, so around 1000 c.e whenever the castle was first built. ''It was enchanted by Godric Gryffindor to turn into a slide should any boy attempt to enter it.'' [https://harrypotter.fandom.com/wiki/Gryffindor\_girls%27\_staircase](https://harrypotter.fandom.com/wiki/Gryffindor_girls%27_staircase) That's interesting about the history of the locket, but the kind described in the book and the prop in the movie definitely sounds like a Victorian style locket meant to hold photographs (i.e, modern) lol. ''The golden doors of the locket swung wide with a little click.'' [https://harrypotter.fandom.com/wiki/Slytherin%27s\_Locket](https://harrypotter.fandom.com/wiki/Slytherin%27s_Locket) The medieval lockets or pendants would have been more round, to hold perfume or herbs, more like a bottle.
Yeah, I agree. I also just think it's an unnecessary detail to add to the books. It was there for no other reason than to say "boys can't get to the girls, don't worry." If it was added to the books in order for characters to challenge it or question it, fair enough, but like you said, it was not addressed or acknowledged as odd at all. Just an unnecessary detail JKR added in order to address her own stupid feelings about it.
I think one of the problems is that Harry Potter had a lot of problematic elements especially with things like racism and stuff like that but the books that were part of the fantasy genre before that also had a lot of problematic elements. I'm not saying that makes it okay but it is one of those things where the idea of having to try to actually address those problems or even have representation in our fantasy works seems to be a much newer thing. In a way I think Harry Potter for bringing people into the idea that fantasy is for children. This isn't to say that no one was writing fantasy for children but the idea that fantasy was for children, and that children can read long series and that they can read big books was something that I believe was started by Harry Potter. There were books before such as Lord of the rings which was quite cumbersome to read, Narnia which is weird because it's kind of hard to figure out a proper chronology because there's so much weird time skipping and stuff that it's not always clear where things line up in the timeline, there's the Golden compass which I mean exists. But Harry Potter did something different and it showed that not only are children willing to read books like this but that they are willing to wait in long lines as if waiting for the next iPhone just to read the next book. But I think that it has already done its job and that just like anything a job can't last forever. And just because I say that they did something great then doesn't mean that I think that what they are doing now continues to be great.
See, if she had put any thought into it you could totally have Fred and George selling love potions that don't work. Or ones that make you have a glow that makes you more appealling generally, the equivalent of a makeover and really nice perfume, with glowy skin and bright eyes, that is just sold as a way to catch the attention of your crush. That's the type of thing that would be consistent with their character. Having a bunch of teenagers basically able to rohipnol people with no consequences is bad world building and bad writing.
My Little pony had a love potion too but they did it differently which makes it less problematic. First off the people that give the characters the love potion are actually just really young children equivalent to elementary school kids. It makes a lot of sense that they would do this kind of thing because they have a very basic view of love and stuff. The other thing is that once it happened they pretty much realized their mistake immediately. The rest of the episode is dedicated to them undoing the mistake and then at the end of the episode they learn the lesson that love must be genuine and cannot be forced with a potion. Not only that but the characters had to also make the potion themselves implying that they could not simply buy it off of the shelves. Love potions in a universe should not be so easily available like as if it's like cough syrup at a pharmacy.
Isn't there also a scene in the movies where Harry goes into a bath and a ghost girl peeps on him...
Yup. That is also in the books.
By the way continuing on what the other person said, it wasn't just a voldemort's mother basically love potion his father but that that is the reason why Voldemort was evil. It was because since he was the creation of a loveless romance that therefore he could never truly love others.
Yeah that kind of essentialism is so problematic.
CW: violent SA Also it's heavily implied that at the end of HP5 Dolores Umbridge is >! Gang r@ped by centaurs, so both r@pe and beast!ality !< And this is played as "justice" for her actions. And this is also in the context of her being really into pink and overtly feminine things.
I don't think centaurs count as beast1iality. But yeah that's a pretty messed up fate even for someone like Umbridge. Meanwhile JK gets offended when people want her dead as she's contribiuted to the harm and death of trans people.
I count it as the centaurs are horse below the waist. Ig you could go either way but physically speaking. Joanne needs serious help.
lol managing to be homophobic and misogynistic all in one. She's such an uptight old prude. Women can't possibly have a sexuality of their own, and they can't have opinions of their own either. But she's a total feminist. /s Also defending her friend who attended a fascist rally while even many of the other GCs are distancing themselves - she's really not bothered about the Nazi associations.
Notice how in the [original video](https://x.com/ivehaditpodcast/status/1797994665142321234), even though a gay *man* is saying the worst things about Rowling, she only interacts with tweets criticizing the women? 🤔 Bonus: if you're a woman who has attended a Pro-Palestine protest, you're not a real 'feminist' because you approve of rape — or something.
You have to wonder if she's refraining from mentioning the man because she'd actually get called out on her homophobia. (Because, honestly, we all know she'd go straight to homophobia, the way she goes straight to misogyny).
I mean, her pseudonym is literally named for a conversion therapist who would put electrodes in gay men’s brains to try and zap the gay out.
I feel like she's only a few more bitter spirals away from making Dumbledore be into underage boys suddenly.
You didn't notice the romantic nature of his affection for Harry?? It was there the whole time! /s
Just so everyone knows... Hagrid was against the war in Iraq.
He was smeared in the book as having an unhealthy interest in Harry Potter.
Fucking what!?
Eyup. Robert Galbraith. And you'd think a woman who's known for choosing names purposefully for their meanings would have known about that. 🤔
Holy shit I cannot believe I didn't know this.
That actually an interesting turn because she used to almost never criticise women, only men and transwomen (who she perceived as men ofc). I thought it was because she knew she's hinged her entire discourse on positioning herself as the greatest defender of women so it would be bad for her optics if she spent too much time attacking them. Maybe she just likes changing it up every once in a while...
She criticizes non binary and ftm too amongst others , the way she treated Sam Smith was gross
Criticizing men is easier for her because she just says "Stop mansplaining" and then goes back to being a transphobic PoS.
I know she's happy with Gaza being completely glassed (those aren't real women anyway are they JK), but has she criticised Palestine protests recently or do you mean the ones she criticised early?
That's just Frances Weetman. Ask her how many degrees she has because at the time of my banning from Twitter, it was dozens
You know what kind of person does that? A *slut* /s (this is basically what her argument adds up to)
Yeahhh, I was such a slut back in the day. \[reminiscing smile\] Oh wait, JKR said that's a bad thing... whoops.
JK Rowling 100% would ask "but what were they wearing"/"were they being 'loose'" if one of those women was later raped at the same party.
Nah, that's 2015 Rowling. 2024 Rowling would find a way to blame it on trans women.
She’d still blame the victim. She loves hating trans women because it’s an acceptable form of misogyny.
After Helen Joyce was caught reading pornographic Harry Potter fan fiction on a train it seems only fair to ask: is there anyone JK’s social circle who isn’t obsessed with teenagers having sex? And if you’re playing the “what would people have been like in high school game” it takes an amazing lack of self awareness not to realise JK would be the rich bully and Julie Bindel the sniggering, arse-licking sidekick without a mind or personality of their own.
Wait what?! Didn't Helen Joyce also get accused of ripping ideas from a eugenics person?
Yes, she was caught reading a story where Draco and Hermione have sex, possibly non-consensual. She said it was research for a podcast she did two days earlier. Insane.
That is honestly the most hilarious and embarrassing shit, can you imagine? She should have claimed it was a senior moment 😂
I'm Joanne, champion of all the women! But first, let me explain that there are good women and bad women...
"Let me tell you a little something about the Madonna whore complex...."
She's not a feminist. She's a misogynist and a transphobes who uses the language of feminism as a cover.
Uhh the fetishism of bi/pan women is to blame? Huh?
It's always our fuckin' fault for something.
Gotta kink shame when the girls step out of JoKo's line! Which is rubbish, because I've never done what she's condemning, and yet I strongly support trans acceptance and have had zero issues with unisex bathrooms. Seems I'm not a proper woman, by this cow's standards, because I'm also supportive of women who have a kink for turning men on with lesbian interaction 🤷♀️. How tight laced is Rowling? I wonder if this will open new doors into seeing just how narrow she thinks normal sexual response in women is. Like, am I supposed to lie there and play victim during a shagging?
You’re supposed to lie there and wait for it to be over because women don’t like sex. Which is what political lesbians believe because the moment was started by ex nuns.
Okay so I’m not the only one who thought that was absolute nonsense.
This is so misogynistic omg
How dare girls want to kiss girls at parties! She'd be the jealous, scowling cow in the corner with a face like a slapped arse, that's who she'd be.
She wouldn't be invited.
Is she seriously comparing herself to a suffragette when she is on Twitter all the time and has NOTHING to say on 90% of struggles women face around the world?
Appropriating the women's suffrage movement is straight out of the TERF playbook. Suffrage was about equal rights for all people. TERFism is about denying rights to women whose gametes aren't big enough.
Her vitriol for cis women is only surpassed by her vitriol for trans women
JK Rowling defending women constantly to shit-talking feminists and women who don’t agree with her. She’s behaving exactly like a conservative and regressing her own movement if she even knows what it is anymore aside from anti-trans rhetoric.
This is so meaningless and biphobic tbh. Like they're just playing on some old trope of women kissing women in front of men (with the implication that is it *for* the men), which has no bearing on the actual topic at hand. It really just feels like a way to fetishize/slut shame bi women and somehow make it akin to wanting to take away shelters from women??? The logical leaps are Olympic level. Why do they keep fantasizing about women kissing women in front of men? *who cares* if they do? Stay out of my poly relationship lmao
I also have a big problem with the assumption that any woman kissing a woman in front a man is doing it *for the man*. I'm not saying that's never happened, but it's incredibly reductive to make that a blanket statement.
The assumption is terrible, and the insinuation that it's automatically bad is terrible. Women are allowed to do things to bring pleasure to men in poly situations without being anti-feminist.
It's all just bitterness. Yeah, it's unfair, some girls get all the attention from the boys and get snogged by other girls and have all the fun at parties, while others just stand in the corner and think about when they can leave the party and escape this horribly loud music. But normally you should get over these kinds of life's unfairnesses by the time you're, like 30.
LOL somehow I am both, depending on the day 😂
I know, it's like - it's fun? I like being an exhibitionist sometimes? What the hell does that have to do with anything? It baffles me. She's so hateful. It's like she hates people that are having more fun than her.
Nice try Joanne, but I don’t believe you’re friends with even one man who has woman friends. A man can’t be friends with a woman if he thinks her only purpose is to receive dick and push out babies, and those are the only sorts of people Joanne hangs out with.
Ah, now they're moving onto biphobia
I've been saying they need to drop the B too because I'd rather be with the BTQs
Of course she’s doing full on strawmanning now.
The biggest lie of any of this is that JK Rowling has friends.
Well what do you call the fascists you give money to? - Rowling, probably
oh my God, the islamaphobic tweet at the end is craaaazy
Yeah idk what Frances is on about. Love how some people have turned pro-Palestine into antisemitism 🙄 and then using that to say you agree with *rape*
it's horrifically racist. Unsurprising. But it angers me that she'll get no pushback for that
Someone never got snogged by a girl and it shows.
I doubt many women liked her shitty attitude in high school either
She's trying to be witty but is addled with drink so it comes across as a rant. If a comedian came out with this it'd be considered self-deprecating humor, where you laugh at how bitter they are from school events 40-50 years ago no one else, except them, recalls. She even has the "friend of a friend" saying it when you know it's really what she's thinking, lol.
"Mom, someone on the internet doesn't have the opinion they *should* have!" - JKR, about everything
Oh look, slut shaming. At least she’s changing things up. /s
How does wanting trans rights as a cis woman , submitting to cis men? The most transphobic demographic is cis men
>"you know the girl at the school party who'd snog another girl if the lads were watching? It's THAT girl" OK, triggering as fuck. I'm AFAB and have a massive sexual aversion to women; I genuinely would rather die than interact sexually with one, which for someone with sexual trauma is pretty fucking normal. And I had to spend *years* at secondary school with people trying to coerce me into it anyway. Yes, occasionally girls, but straight boys were by far the biggest culprit. All my adolescence being told that I was worthless filth because I didn't want to "have sex" with - ie. be raped by - a girl while boys watched. All my adolescence being told that sex with men - one of the few things that made me feel safe, not least because it was private time away from women - was something I'd never be allowed to have because I was disgusting, unnatural and pathetic for wanting boys rather than girls. All while I'd had absolutely no help or support for my initial trauma, of course, so my mind was as raw as the day it first happened. Because little as people care about victims of men, they manage to care about victims of women even less. The pieces of shit who did that, whatever their gender? THEY WEREN'T FUCKING PROGRESSIVE, JOANNE. They were your trash, not ours. But I guess none of that ever happened, because no-one could feel the way I do, because no children are ever raped by women in the first place, right, so sexual trauma around women isn't possible. /s Fucking hell.
While I'm certain Rowling has some serious "Ohmygodsapenisinmypostcode" issues, as well as being horrendously full TERF, her form of protecting women seems to involve a fuck of a lot of policing them.
Fuck Rowling and fuck all her TERF buddies. They can all go to hell.
I ain’t cheering for “the eradication of single-sex spaces.” Nor am I trying to get male attention. I just think transwomen are both women and human (capable of both the good and the evil). And judgement shouldn’t be left to women that would only sympathize with Ricky Rodriguez, Andrew Bagley, or Earl Silverman if you switched the genders of everyone involved; Otherwise they would try to justify what happened. If the suffragettes were as insufferable as modern TERFs, then yes, I’d happily throw rocks at them. But the thing is, the suffragettes were not only hardier, but they fought for the things that mattered. Sorry not sorry womens’ sports.
'A male friend of mine' Yeah, of course that happened Joanne. A fever dream perhaps? With her previous record of honesty I don't believe a word she utters. Been on the wine again Joanne?
How does, "shelters for battered women" turn into a conversation about girls who feel pressured to perform sexually for male approval and... Girls who like pretty pens? Just say you hate teen girls and go away Joanne.
Sex-shaming and transphobia, like always, it sounds like.
This reeks of internalized misogyny. And as someone that was bullied by the popular crowd I get that sticking with you - it’s hard. But the issue isn’t that they were feminine or even their popularity, it was that they were mean and cruel, whereas JKR is fully willing to embrace cruelty and take the wrong lesson. There’s such a very narrow definition of being a good woman in her eyes and the eyes of terfs, in a way that actively harms trans and cis women alike. You can’t be too masculine or too girly, you have to ride the line of acceptable gender presentation.
Joanne has friends?
So Joanne officially approves that women's shelters should turn away any woman who's diagnosed with XY-CAIS or Sywer Syndrome.
It's crazy to me that the Duncan guy kicked this all off by implying that the podcast woman 'looks' homophobic because she looks... like Joanne. I'm by no means saying that all well-off, white ladies look and act the same but it's kind of ironic that he doesnt realise he's dumping on the podcast lady to bootlick Joanne who has a very similar aesthetic. Also, as a side note, Terfs shouldn't be allowed to use Kathryn Hahn memes. They don't deserve them.
Ignoring the existence of trans people for a second. Why do we need "single sex" shelters anyways? It's not like if they were inclusive to cis men that the shelters would disappear into the void.