|
REGISTER TO REMOVE ADS |
|
I'm not sure. But JK Rowling is transphobic and the series is now getting flak for stereotypical portrayals.
So because JK Rowling was recently declared transphobic, people are calling out stereotypical portrayals in Harry Potter? Wasn't the last book released back in 2007? That's ancient history and they're calling her out for that too?
I think the complaints existed before that, but yes it's increased tenfold because of Rowling's transphobia.
Hogwarts Legacy is coming out in a few months. People accuse it on doubling down on the Jewish stereotypes the books used for the goblins. Here is a funny explanation.
It’s not just in Harry Potter, though. Her more recent crime novels are pretty notorious for it too.
I don't see the problem with Cho Chang as a name. It's a memorable name for a character. Also, if it weren't for the name, I wouldn't have even guessed that Cho was Asian, so I think that shows Cho wasn't made to be a stereotype in behaviour.
She wrote something other than Harry Potter!?
Uh, yeah. You thought she was one and done? She has her crime series under her male pseudonym Robert Homophobe (I don’t remember the name, just that it is the name of a disgusting gay conversion therapist), her Icabog(?) book which is only memorable because it was the source of a highly transphobic tweet she tweeted by mistake to a child fan who had read the children’s book, Casual Vacancy which was poorly received,
Well if I were her and I made millions off of the series and basically never had to work again in life, I would have been one and done. I would take that money and be on permanent vacation.
No, she wanted to prove she was more than Harry Potter. And now she has by proving she’s just an awful person inside and out.
She dumb.
Cho Chang is supposed to be a Chinese character. Cho is a Korean surname and Chang is a Chinese surname. It's a very lazy name for your only Asian character. Also the fact that she needed a lazy name to distinguish that a character is Asian is pretty eh in itself. With this, alongside stereotypes in her other books, makes me not blame people for finding it offensive. Even the actress herself said it was questionable.
HP is much like Lord of the Rings, the property is way too big to get taken down--and thank God. I personally don't have difficulty separating the good from the bad with Rowling. I still have many things in common with Rowling (being a Christian, liberal, feminist, English teacher, etc.) and find her to be an incredible writer despite her comments about trans people being wrong. Just speaking for myself here, I personally don't believe she would donate to conservatives despite her transphobia although she has used her voice for harm, that much is true. I guess I can see how easily an abused woman can fall into the snare of the whole "rapists in women's bathrooms" scaremongering propaganda and not hate her for that. I guess having to deal with people whose religious beliefs about LGBT are a conflict my whole life made that easier for me, but everyone's mileage will vary, lol. I do hope and believe there's a chance her eyes will be opened in time, much like how it took years before gay people became more understood and empathized with in the U.S., but it might be years before that happens if it does at all. I don't mind people hitting back at her though, even if I am glad her writing / properties can continue at the same time.
She quite literally promotes and features right-wing gender critical people on Twitter all of the time. She donates to right-wing entities all of the time. The LGB Alliance is operated by right-wing conservatives.
Trans people are also at a high risk of being SA'd, harassed, and even killed. Rowling has immense privilege. She's white, cis, and a billionaire. She could be using her experiences to help people, but instead uses that to gatekeep her trauma, believing it's something only ""real"" women go through, and deny trans people basic human rights. She's not a feminist but a bully.
Just to add, I’m going to share this with you and the rest of the people who post in this thread. It is better to be educated about JK Rowling rather than assuming:
www.resetera.com
That was not what I was asserting, you must've been confused. What I was saying is the property is too big to be taken down despite all the usual attempts, thankfully.
Again, I didn't say so. I said that's why I can see how she ended up where she is, not as an excuse so much as: "It is what it is." You have a right to find it difficult separating the art from the artist in this case, but I don't. *shrug* I can see how responding positively to and/or promoting certain individuals on Twitter can be seen as a way of "funding" because people following Rowling may then give money to those people / groups that they wouldn't have seen without Rowling, but I personally don't see that the same as Rowling herself sending money to them directly.
"She's publicly befriending these people and boosting their hateful bullshit to her countless followers but at least she’s not giving them money"
