Joanne Harris gives herself completely away with her oh-so -'genderist'-protecting-biased choice of the word 'democratic'. Calling out death and rapes threats is not 'democratic'? God forbid we should 'alienate' a vile creep. What does Dante say? That quotation so loved by JFK? '“The hottest places in hell are reserved for those who, in times of great moral crisis, maintain their neutrality.” She's not fit for purpose as chair of the "Royal Society of Authors'. Or much else for that matter. Gender ideology presents a great ethical challenge to many, and many are failing badly.
I think a lot of these people would benefit from watching or reading The Crucible, a film about how mass hysteria caused people to turn on each other in order to detract from any sins they might have committed themselves, terf is the new witch.
There was envy and greed at work in Salem; often the people targeted as witches were successful farmers at a time when the weather was not cooperating. The accusers -- who used the children for their own purposes -- wanted to steal the "witches' " property. It always comes down to greed in the U.S.
Ah yes! Yet more than this The Crucible was about how cult phenomena spread like wildfire, and the insidious mechanism of guilt manipulation as the oxygen feeding it. Once it starts everyone in a community knows they can become the next random target, and knows that the way to redemption and proof of the sincerity of their conversion to the right path, is their readiness to rat upon their neighbour or better yet a friend or family member. Arthur Miller's point of course was not so much to comment on the historical events in Salem but to allegorize the despicable communist witch hunts of the then current McCarthy terror reign. In that we see a perfect reflection of the situation today with the way gender ideology makes its ascendance. Virtually a carbon copy.
I wrote about the world behind The Crucible and I totally agree with you about Miller's purpose. One of the things that most people don't know about McCarthyism was the emphasis on confession, the constant pressure to name names, often names that had already been named many times before. The names weren't important, the confession was.
This pattern of puritanism / confession of sins is deeply embedded in American culture; I have an entire book written about it titled Hellfire Nation. It's why when celebrities confess to despicable behavior, do penance in some sort of addiction clinic, they are then redeemed.
If there was any doubt that she was the snide lackey and cheerleader to the bullies in the playground, her sneering tweet minimising the deluge of violent threats which JK Rowling has endured over the last few years - which she has now deleted - absolutely removes that doubt. She is beyond nasty and The Society of Authors is disgraceful to have colluded with her for so long.
I read the first part of her crime mystery about the boy who was in fact a girl .... quite enjoyed it .... seems she was searching and found a stupid cult to elevate her instead of facing the truth?
This case had me looking back over the whole J K Rowling history of her “controversial views” on transgenderism. And Wikipedia – always a reliable barometer of mainstream propaganda – lists the entire matter including the customary gripe about “gender critical” views. To label them thus makes them sound radical and even aberrant. But these are just the common sense views that no-one can change their gender e.g. "men cannot change into women" – which is one actual statement that led to so much trouble! Thus the most mundane and evident truths become unspeakable! Whilst the most outrageous nonsense becomes “self-evident”.
And then Rowling "liked" a 2018 tweet calling transgender women "men in dresses" – a perfectly accurate comment. But this “led to criticism and accusations of transphobia by her fans. Her spokesperson later told PinkNews, "I'm afraid JK Rowling had a clumsy and middle-aged moment. This is not the first time she has favourited by holding her phone incorrectly." (Wiki) What an excruciating passage to read with its admission of the spokesperson getting down and grovelling to these self-appointed manufacturers of a totally artificial offence.
And then,
“Several actors known for portraying Rowling's characters either criticised her views directly or spoke out in support of trans rights, including Daniel Radcliffe, Emma Watson, Rupert Grint, Eddie Redmayne, Evanna Lynch, Bonnie Wright, Miriam Margolyes ....”
All wretched spineless sycophants of this utterly synthetic new demographic. And if (and it’s a big “if”) you can make allowances for the younger ones feeling intimated at the beginning of their career (though they are still ungrateful little shits) then what can you say for Miriam Margolyes? (My wife has met her and says she’s one of those pontificators who contemptuously assumes an air of superiority.)
She has no humanity or decency. These people really must pay for supporting the vilest bullies. She's very far from being fit to hold the position she has. Complete p.o.s
Joanne Harris I saw the threads but don't know who see is!.
I have been surprised about the positive talk on radio 5 for JK Rowling deaths threats even though it is over Salman Rushdie but they had some uni prof talking about free speech and the threats and cancelling people get over trans ideology …which was positive.
I was shocked when I heard she was thought she was a 'they' awhile ago. Seems she has body dysphoria at the 'right time and place'. Time she left the role obvs - so she can concentrate and confine narrative fictions to her books and perhaps a decent psychologist who can help her accept her own female body and sexuality and others - I could be wrong.
The Chair (Joanne) is elected by the Management Committee and the Committee of twelve is elected by members. So if ordinary authors paying their dues aren't happy about this, their only recourse is to challenge candidates to not elect her and then wait a few years to see if white smoke appears above the society.
To use a legal term on the principles of governance, that's pants.
Yes it's hard to argue otherwise. Some women actually get jealous when other women are raped. Let alone speak about it or 'complain'. Some men in the law have spoken about how this is one of those odd things - nowt so queer (the original meaning) as folk kind of realisations that women are often the harshest to other women. Along the lines of, she should be grateful, or grateful she's getting any. It's why I quite often used to spend time with and enjoyed the company of my male friends as it was a different type of interaction. I wasn't expecting the competitive knife in the back and they were often protecting and caring of me (as we were of each other).
It's hard to figure out why but it's a confused mess of a mess. They seem to think it's attention-seeking when attention is given to things that should have attention or focus on them. This same kind of unexpected attitude can appear on juries when it's women being judgmental and fairly cruel blaming women for being young or old, wearing clothes, walking in public, living and breathing or daring to be in the company of men. It's women who are often strongest in declaring 'she was asking for it'. I'm sure there's a large dash of that going on. But I'm also sure Joanne Harris had a 'policy' on that so I must go and read that and all will be settled.
I've always thought that, when women say "she was asking for it", the primary motivation is allaying their own fear of rape. By telling themselves that it's really in women's control. So all you have to do is NOT "ask for it". Don't dress/behave "immodestly"; don't go out alone/at night; etc. Then you'll be 100% safe. Completely untrue, of course, not to mention cruelly-misogynistic; yet speaking (or even thinking) the truth-- that whether you're raped is up to the rapist, and whether to be a rapist is up to each individual man-- has generally been taboo. And violating that taboo makes you a "bad woman"... and "bad women", after all, are the ones who "get" raped.
Joanne Harris gives herself completely away with her oh-so -'genderist'-protecting-biased choice of the word 'democratic'. Calling out death and rapes threats is not 'democratic'? God forbid we should 'alienate' a vile creep. What does Dante say? That quotation so loved by JFK? '“The hottest places in hell are reserved for those who, in times of great moral crisis, maintain their neutrality.” She's not fit for purpose as chair of the "Royal Society of Authors'. Or much else for that matter. Gender ideology presents a great ethical challenge to many, and many are failing badly.
I think a lot of these people would benefit from watching or reading The Crucible, a film about how mass hysteria caused people to turn on each other in order to detract from any sins they might have committed themselves, terf is the new witch.
There was envy and greed at work in Salem; often the people targeted as witches were successful farmers at a time when the weather was not cooperating. The accusers -- who used the children for their own purposes -- wanted to steal the "witches' " property. It always comes down to greed in the U.S.
Ah yes! Yet more than this The Crucible was about how cult phenomena spread like wildfire, and the insidious mechanism of guilt manipulation as the oxygen feeding it. Once it starts everyone in a community knows they can become the next random target, and knows that the way to redemption and proof of the sincerity of their conversion to the right path, is their readiness to rat upon their neighbour or better yet a friend or family member. Arthur Miller's point of course was not so much to comment on the historical events in Salem but to allegorize the despicable communist witch hunts of the then current McCarthy terror reign. In that we see a perfect reflection of the situation today with the way gender ideology makes its ascendance. Virtually a carbon copy.
I wrote about the world behind The Crucible and I totally agree with you about Miller's purpose. One of the things that most people don't know about McCarthyism was the emphasis on confession, the constant pressure to name names, often names that had already been named many times before. The names weren't important, the confession was.
This pattern of puritanism / confession of sins is deeply embedded in American culture; I have an entire book written about it titled Hellfire Nation. It's why when celebrities confess to despicable behavior, do penance in some sort of addiction clinic, they are then redeemed.
Was it this same Royal Society of Authors who recently advertised a competition for authors who “identify as being disabled”?
She’s always batted for the boys arrogant creep that she is.
If there was any doubt that she was the snide lackey and cheerleader to the bullies in the playground, her sneering tweet minimising the deluge of violent threats which JK Rowling has endured over the last few years - which she has now deleted - absolutely removes that doubt. She is beyond nasty and The Society of Authors is disgraceful to have colluded with her for so long.
Also her one claim to fame, ‘Chocolat’ is twee old twaddle.
I read the first part of her crime mystery about the boy who was in fact a girl .... quite enjoyed it .... seems she was searching and found a stupid cult to elevate her instead of facing the truth?
I ❤️ JKR.
This case had me looking back over the whole J K Rowling history of her “controversial views” on transgenderism. And Wikipedia – always a reliable barometer of mainstream propaganda – lists the entire matter including the customary gripe about “gender critical” views. To label them thus makes them sound radical and even aberrant. But these are just the common sense views that no-one can change their gender e.g. "men cannot change into women" – which is one actual statement that led to so much trouble! Thus the most mundane and evident truths become unspeakable! Whilst the most outrageous nonsense becomes “self-evident”.
And then Rowling "liked" a 2018 tweet calling transgender women "men in dresses" – a perfectly accurate comment. But this “led to criticism and accusations of transphobia by her fans. Her spokesperson later told PinkNews, "I'm afraid JK Rowling had a clumsy and middle-aged moment. This is not the first time she has favourited by holding her phone incorrectly." (Wiki) What an excruciating passage to read with its admission of the spokesperson getting down and grovelling to these self-appointed manufacturers of a totally artificial offence.
And then,
“Several actors known for portraying Rowling's characters either criticised her views directly or spoke out in support of trans rights, including Daniel Radcliffe, Emma Watson, Rupert Grint, Eddie Redmayne, Evanna Lynch, Bonnie Wright, Miriam Margolyes ....”
All wretched spineless sycophants of this utterly synthetic new demographic. And if (and it’s a big “if”) you can make allowances for the younger ones feeling intimated at the beginning of their career (though they are still ungrateful little shits) then what can you say for Miriam Margolyes? (My wife has met her and says she’s one of those pontificators who contemptuously assumes an air of superiority.)
Margolyes has somewhat backed down on her disloyal statements this year — too little, too late, imho.
Very disappointed to see this - I didn’t realise MM had got involved 😥
She has no humanity or decency. These people really must pay for supporting the vilest bullies. She's very far from being fit to hold the position she has. Complete p.o.s
Just a note to you: I did not believe for one second that you were supporting pedophilia in any way whatsoever.
Thanks a lot, I appreciate your kind thoughts x
'gender-giddy fashionistas' -- love it.
What a fucking cop out
I honestly wish twatter would be wiped out
Joanne Harris I saw the threads but don't know who see is!.
I have been surprised about the positive talk on radio 5 for JK Rowling deaths threats even though it is over Salman Rushdie but they had some uni prof talking about free speech and the threats and cancelling people get over trans ideology …which was positive.
I was shocked when I heard she was thought she was a 'they' awhile ago. Seems she has body dysphoria at the 'right time and place'. Time she left the role obvs - so she can concentrate and confine narrative fictions to her books and perhaps a decent psychologist who can help her accept her own female body and sexuality and others - I could be wrong.
Do I understand their constitution correctly?
The Chair (Joanne) is elected by the Management Committee and the Committee of twelve is elected by members. So if ordinary authors paying their dues aren't happy about this, their only recourse is to challenge candidates to not elect her and then wait a few years to see if white smoke appears above the society.
To use a legal term on the principles of governance, that's pants.
I'm sure that if these threats were directed at her she'd soon change her stance. She's obviously jealous of JKR's success.
Is Joanne Harris suffering from sour grapes here.
Envious that her success as an author hasn't been as big as JKRs?
Yes it's hard to argue otherwise. Some women actually get jealous when other women are raped. Let alone speak about it or 'complain'. Some men in the law have spoken about how this is one of those odd things - nowt so queer (the original meaning) as folk kind of realisations that women are often the harshest to other women. Along the lines of, she should be grateful, or grateful she's getting any. It's why I quite often used to spend time with and enjoyed the company of my male friends as it was a different type of interaction. I wasn't expecting the competitive knife in the back and they were often protecting and caring of me (as we were of each other).
It's hard to figure out why but it's a confused mess of a mess. They seem to think it's attention-seeking when attention is given to things that should have attention or focus on them. This same kind of unexpected attitude can appear on juries when it's women being judgmental and fairly cruel blaming women for being young or old, wearing clothes, walking in public, living and breathing or daring to be in the company of men. It's women who are often strongest in declaring 'she was asking for it'. I'm sure there's a large dash of that going on. But I'm also sure Joanne Harris had a 'policy' on that so I must go and read that and all will be settled.
I've always thought that, when women say "she was asking for it", the primary motivation is allaying their own fear of rape. By telling themselves that it's really in women's control. So all you have to do is NOT "ask for it". Don't dress/behave "immodestly"; don't go out alone/at night; etc. Then you'll be 100% safe. Completely untrue, of course, not to mention cruelly-misogynistic; yet speaking (or even thinking) the truth-- that whether you're raped is up to the rapist, and whether to be a rapist is up to each individual man-- has generally been taboo. And violating that taboo makes you a "bad woman"... and "bad women", after all, are the ones who "get" raped.
Yes. I have messaged Ms Harris on Twitter.
She is captured by Trans ideology, it gives her a standing, despite being a mediocre writer.
I am always dumbfounded by Women throwing other Women under the bus.
X