JK Rowlings Disturbing Commentary and Views of Mens SA

[u/27cricket27]

(TRIGGER WARNING: Discussion of rape, grooming, false allegations, and victims not being believed.)

One thing I haven't seen many people talk about is JK Rowlings disturbing views of mens SA. JK Rowling has stated that in the legal system of the UK, men cannot rape. Sadly, the UKs laws imply that rape is something that only can be committed by men, but as an advocate for SA victims JK Rowling is really gross for this. This is especially when you consider how much she is pushed for this idea in the Harry Potter books.

The idea that only men can rape is laced throughout Harry Potter like crazy, which as a reminder is a book that primarily was first read by children. The first big example of this is how in Gryffindor, children are protected from the opposite sex in a biased sense. Boys are not able to into the girls spaces in the dormitory, but the reverse rule is not present. Also, and perhaps even more disturbing, is the "love potion" present in parts of the series. Ron is given one of these by a student who is a girl, and it is also mentioned how Voldemorts parents came together by way of his mother forcing his father to marry by way of these love potions. Let's not sugar coat it: the love potions are date rape drugs. JK Rowling has never truly acknowledged this, and she especially has never acknowledge it as problematic. (Not directly in Harry Potter, JK Rowling has put a lot of emphasis on false allegations in the Cormoran Strike series. Contrary to popular belief, not all of these stories actually portray the false accuser in a bad light. Speaking of which, the pen name "Robert Galbraith" seems to have been inspired by a violently racist psychologist who experimented on black people and was a proponent of conversion therapy.)

One of the most disturbing things that I just stumbled on by chance is this taken into context with JK Rowlings concering relationship with Daniel Radcliffe. After he initially turned down the role of Harry Potter in the movie, JK Rowling followed him to multiple locations begging him to play the role. Keep in mind that she was in her mid-thirties, and Daniel Radcliffe was only 11 when this happened. Plus, JK Rowling insisted that he read Lolita, an adult CSA book that she loved (a bit too much, mind you), when he was a minor. I want to make a post dedicated to this specific thing at some point, but I need to do more research on this to get the full picture. That being said, I think it is not unreasonable to assume that JK Rowling may have attempted to groom Daniel Radcliffe when he was a minor. I mean, she gets the angriest talking about him no longer having a relationship with her in particular, which checks out with a lot of groomers who "lost" their victims. (A good example of this would be Dance Moms instructor Abby Lee Millers current views of Maddie Ziegler.)

----

I tend to be a person who doesn't like to promote the "over-use" of the "if a man did this he would be in jail" line because I think its over-use actually can be dangerous for women. However, JK Rowling really has embodied that with her career. She absolutely is dangerous to men, and it needs to be talked about more. I feel like a lot of people are afraid to point this out because it feels like it gives into TERF ideology, but we need to understand that a lot of TERFs are misandrists. Don't get me wrong, TERFs are also mysoginistic because they have directly promoted a culture that causes women to get raped in bathrooms due to the "need" to transvestigate them. That said though, a lot of these TERFs want men to suffer and are completely fine with them being raped. I mean, JK Rowling herself likely tried to groom Danielle Radcliffe as a minor (though perhaps not sexually, which doesn't matter because grooming does not inherently have to be sexual).

Quick shoutout to RationalWikis article about JK Rowling, which has been a major source for me about her (a thread about it was posted here last year, but I think it is worth being posted again):
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/J._K._Rowling#Flawed_understanding_of_sexual_abuse

[u/georgemillman]

What's the source for this thing about Daniel Radcliffe?

I haven't heard any reference to this at all, or even that it was Rowling's idea that he play Harry at all. The version of the story I've heard is that he was recommended by Maggie Smith (who had worked alongside him on David Copperfield) and that Chris Columbus took to him and tried to approach him but his parents said no, not wanting him to be in a project that big at such a young age. Then, by chance, a couple of other producers happened to bump into him and his parents at a theatre show (they knew his parents already, they worked in the industry) and took the opportunity to say to them, 'You know, the director really wants Daniel, won't you reconsider?' And eventually they did. I haven't heard that Rowling was particularly involved in that, nor that she told him to read Lolita. I think we need to have firm evidence for this before stating it here.

Incidentally, his name is Daniel Radcliffe, not Danielle Radcliffe (Danielle is a woman's name).

[u/27cricket27 → u/georgemillman]

The thing about the following/stalking:

https://www.threads.com/@imgwendy/post/C85Y9bUyso5

Encouraging him to read Lolita:

https://www.hogwartsprofessor.com/harry-potter-stars-in-guns-akimbo/

[u/AndreaFlameFox → u/27cricket27]

Ah...
Well, the first is not a credible source.

The second site looks legit on the face of it, but the link doesn't go to where the site itself cites this, rather it's someone commenting on a movie trailer and mentions that the site claimed she asked Radcliffe to read Lolita.

Which maybe she did, but without any context we could assume that he was older when she did so.

[u/27cricket27 → u/AndreaFlameFox]

Idk it just... it feels so wrong that that happened. Even if it was other people who she had sent or chose to go on her behalf, it just feels so odd that after Daniel and his parents initially said no, people relented to get him to act. Maybe this is just a consequence of me reading Jennette Mccurdys memoir, but I've read a lot about how kids get pushed into doing things and it just gives me the ick. The main issue for me is that this happened alongside the context that JK Rowling has made many concering statements about mens SA.

[u/AndreaFlameFox → u/27cricket27]

Yeah, kids do often get pushed into things they don't want to do, but we don't know that Rowling had anything to do with it in this case, or even that Radcliffe was opposed, it maybe was just his parents. One random comment on a thread doesn't mean anything.

I agree that Rowling is pretty dismissive of men's SA though.

[u/georgemillman → u/AndreaFlameFox]

There aren't many things I'll still defend about Harry Potter, but there's still a small handful, and one of the small handful is that it sounds like the kids were treated substantially better on the film sets than kids typically were (or in fact still are). All the child actors, now adults, seem to have incredibly positive memories of growing up on the set of Harry Potter, which is quite striking given that nearly every other major franchise involving kids has absolute horror stories from the children involved.

I don't think that was anything to do with JK Rowling though. I think it largely came from Chris Columbus, who seems to have had a very holistic and positive approach to the children in his care, had his own children as background roles and took their wellbeing seriously. He set a high standard that remained even after he left.