Politics Separating art from the artist, how hard is it for you?

[Face My Fears]

Am I the only one who finds it deeply ironic that she claims to be a hardcore feminist yet chooses pen names that are either masculine or gender neutral?

How is that ironic? I don't think a hardcore feminist would want to be chained to using stereotypically "female" names as a pen name.

 

[BufferAqua]

How is that ironic? I don't think a hardcore feminist would want to be chained to using stereotypically "female" names as a pen name.

It's ironic because she believes she is the epitome of what a woman should be, is a TERF who believe trans women are men in disguise in bathrooms, and yet uses male pen names.

 

[Oracle Spockanort]

How is that ironic? I don't think a hardcore feminist would want to be chained to using stereotypically "female" names as a pen name.

That isn’t a feminist belief at all. In fact, that is misogyny. Feminist theory would posit that the need to use a male’s name or a gender-neutral name shows how women are not treated equal.

Rowling used a gender neutral name back in the HP days because her publisher didn’t believe her novel would appeal to boys without obscuring the fact she was a female writer.

The Robert name was chosen because she wanted to be like Steven King or other modern contemporaries and prove that her writing was so good it would sell novels without the fame of her name. It did not work but she didn’t bother charging the name after people figured out it was her.

All of that is also misogyny from an institutional level and an internalized level.

 

[BufferAqua]

Oh actually, true. I never thought about it that way before.

 

[Face My Fears]

That isn’t a feminist belief at all. In fact, that is misogyny. Feminist theory would posit that the need to use a male’s name or a gender-neutral name shows how women are not treated equal.

Rowling used a gender neutral name back in the HP days because her publisher didn’t believe her novel would appeal to boys without obscuring the fact she was a female writer.

The Robert name was chosen because she wanted to be like Steven King or other modern contemporaries and prove that her writing was so good it would sell novels without the fame of her name. It did not work but she didn’t bother charging the name after people figured out it was her.

All of that is also misogyny from an institutional level and an internalized level.

But isn't it feminist to disregard typically "male" names and allow a female to be named anything? Wouldn't it be misogynistic to deny a female the right to choose whatever name she wanted? This is the same crap of "girls like pink, boys like blue". By trapping JK Rowling in a box and saying that it's offensive that she chose a gender neutral name is just wrong. She can choose whatever name she wants, she should not be forced to use a traditionally female name if she doesn't want to.

 

[BufferAqua]

Didn't Ethy just say that JK Rowling was forced into that role in the beginning? How is it a feminist move if it wasn't her choice? And let's be real, male author names sell more. That's just typical deeply ingrained misogyny in our world.

 

[Oracle Spockanort]

But isn't it feminist to disregard typically "male" names and allow a female to be named anything? Wouldn't it be misogynistic to deny a female the right to choose whatever name she wanted? This is the same crap of "girls like pink, boys like blue". By trapping JK Rowling in a box and saying that it's offensive that she chose a gender neutral name is just wrong. She can choose whatever name she wants, she should not be forced to use a traditionally female name if she doesn't want to.

I literally just said she did not choose the name.

Here's Why J.K. Rowling Didn't Use Her Real Name When "Harry Potter" Was First Published

It has to do with sexism.

www.teenvogue.com

 

[WaltK]

And even if it wasn't her choice in the beginning, there is literally nothing stopping her from reversing it now that everyone and their mother knows who she is.

 

[King Sora X]

My belief on this is simple: if you can stomach that the creator of whatever art you're consuming might not be a good person and they believe this or that, then I don't see any real problems. Of course, you can say in cases like with JK Rowling and her transphobia and other gut-wrenching beliefs taint HP, but you could also say that they don't ruin the magic one bit.

Personally, I can still very much enjoy HP because, much like Butch Hartman's works (if you know you know), it has become bigger than her.

Now there are definitely cases where I just cannot do this. Lostprophets, for one, are forever ruined for me. What the lead singer did just leaves a bad taste in my mouth for very obvious reasons, especially any time I think about listening to any of their songs. I was never much of a Kanye fan, but after what he said as of late, I never will be now.

 

[palizinhas]

My general feelings on HP is that I'd never go to the theaters to see something from the franchise again, much less buy a game. I don't want to financially contribute to the franchise ever again.

Do I think that makes any difference to her? No. JKR could sell not a single HP book again and she'd still be absurdly rich. It's more about ME, personally, not wanting to spend money on a woman that doesn't respect my existence.

But HP is definitely still a part of my life to some extent - I read fic of it to this day, and I still discuss the books with my friends and all that.

It's pop culture enough it's never going to go away, and trying to force people to never talk about it again wouldn't work.

 

[Face My Fears]

After all of this, I have to ask, if the person that cures cancer turns out to be a homophobic racist - will people refuse the cure?

 

[BufferAqua]

After all of this, I have to ask, if the person that cures cancer turns out to be a homophobic racist - will people refuse the cure?

What a horrible analogy. Not wanting to support a franchise because someone denies human rights is nothing compared to the treatment of a terminal illness.

You also seem very defensive of Rowling. I have not seen you comment once on the horrible things she's done, yet defend the insignificant things we criticize her for.

 

[Sonofjafar]

As a guy who considers Walt Disney his childhood hero, I can say that separating art from the artist is difficult at first but gets easier the more you do it.

 

[palizinhas]

After all of this, I have to ask, if the person that cures cancer turns out to be a homophobic racist - will people refuse the cure?

You think a SINGLE PERSON is going to cure cancer?

And even if one did - he wouldn't be getting money every single time a person got cured. It was a recipe? He sold it. A machine? He sold it.

A single person wouldn't be able to make enough of the demand of the freaking Cancer Cure.

At the end of the day, Corporations are obviously all terrible and the farmacy industry in particular is a MESS, but wanting to buy magic school books is very different from literally needing medicine to survive.

 

[Face My Fears]

What a horrible analogy. Not wanting to support a franchise because someone denies human rights is nothing compared to the treatment of a terminal illness.

You also seem very defensive of Rowling. I have not seen you comment once on the horrible things she's done, yet defend the insignificant things we criticize her for.

It's not an analogy, I'm just curious how people will react.

People are furious at JK Rowling for her statements/beliefs, and are questioning whether to support her franchise.

So I'm just curious how far does "holding someone accountable" go? If a homophobic, racist murderer made some tremendous contribution to the world - like curing a disease or solving environmental issues - would people refuse that contribution because that horrible person can benefit from it?

 

[BufferAqua]

What is *wrong* with not wanting to support a radical transphobe? You are acting like there's something wrong with not wanting to support her.

As for the cancer comment, palizinhas has answered that perfectly so I'll redirect you to that.

 

[Face My Fears]

You think a SINGLE PERSON is going to cure cancer?

And even if one did - he wouldn't be getting money every single time a person got cured. It was a recipe? He sold it. A machine? He sold it.

A single person wouldn't be able to make enough of the demand of the freaking Cancer Cure.

At the end of the day, Corporations are obviously all terrible and the farmacy industry in particular is a MESS, but wanting to buy magic school books is very different from literally needing medicine to survive.

OK, so then it's fine if a horrible person sells the beneficial product to a corporation that then goes on to mass produce the product?

I'm trying to see how far people will go to holding a "trash person" accountable. Is it convenient to do that for someone that writes books, but when it comes to people's lives or society as a whole - then people backtrack and are willing to give them a pass for their betterment?

 

[BufferAqua]

OK, so then it's fine if a horrible person sells the beneficial product to a corporation that then goes on to mass produce the product?

I'm trying to see how far people will go to holding a "trash person" accountable. Is it convenient to do that for someone that writes books, but when it comes to people's lives or society as a whole - then people backtrack and are willing to give them a pass for their betterment?

Except it was just stated that one person isn't going to cure cancer lol. It's a way more complicated subject than you think.

But refusing to buy merchandise that supports a harmful transphobe? That's simple. Also, no need to put quotation marks on trash person, she objectively is one.

 

[Face My Fears]

Except it was just stated that one person isn't going to cure cancer lol. It's a way more complicated subject than you think.

But refusing to buy merchandise that supports a harmful transphobe? That's simple. Also, no need to put quotation marks on trash person, she objectively is one.

I wasn't talking about JK Rowling when I said "trash person".

My question is a hypothetical with no real specifics (cancer was an example to make the hypothetical question clearer): If someone that is deemed a "trash person" by current standards (homophobic, racist etc) creates something that is beneficial for mankind, will their creation be shunned because of who created it?

The JK Rowling situation made me think of this situation and I'm curious how people would react to that. Brushing away the question by simply answering "no one person will cure cancer" isn't answering the question at all. It's dodging the question.

 

[BufferAqua]

It is an answer to your question. Curing cancer is a complex issue and one person *alone* cannot solve it. We can, however, be certain that Rowling is a bad person because that is reality.