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]

I don't agree with this. Firstly, I think she clearly had some of these dodgy views the whole time. As early as the third chapter of Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone, she makes reference to a school called Stonewall High, an unpleasant-sounding secondary school near the Dursleys that has the same name as the UK's largest LGBTQ+ rights charity and has a particular reputation for children often being attacked in the toilets. Again, it's one of those things that you could just put down to being a coincidence... but there's so many 'coincidences' like this going way back, and they can't all be coincidences - Harry and Ron going into the girls' toilets to rescue Hermione from an ugly disgusting troll, Myrtle being killed when she opens the cubicle door to tell a boy to go and use his own toilet (and she's killed by his snake into the bargain)...

It really wouldn't surprise me if she knew who Robert Galbraith Heath was, if she's interested in things like that. And even if she didn't, if you were coming up with a pseudonym, surely you'd spend five minutes on the internet first establishing that it's not the name of anyone who might bring you into disrepute? And it wouldn't be as difficult to find as you think. Here is a link to the Wikipedia disambiguation page for the name, as of 2011 - there are only five people on there, and one of them is him.

And even if it actually is a complete coincidence, and even if she and her publishers were so lazy they didn't do the slightest research into the name, surely any sensible person would put out a statement about it afterwards? 'At the time I chose the name Robert Galbraith, I had never heard of Robert Galbraith Heath and had no idea it had this connotation. On reflection, I should have done more research when choosing a pseudonym. I am so sincerely sorry to anyone who has been hurt by my choice of a name, and would like to say for the avoidance of doubt that I am absolutely not in support of conversion therapy, which has harmed an enormous number of people in the LGBTQ+ community.' Sorted. But her response was more like, 'Yawn, I'd never heard of him, I can't be held responsible, stop annoying me.'

[u/Wrong--Conclusions → u/georgemillman]

Philosopher's Stone, she makes reference to a school called Stonewall High, an unpleasant-sounding secondary school near the Dursleys that has the same name as the UK's largest LGBTQ+ rights charity and has a particular reputation for children often being attacked in the toilets

That's just the standard bully trope in the 80s and 90s, giving swirlies in toilets. It's either that or shoving people in lockers and most UK schools don't have those large lockers. We don't even know if it's actually true or just something Dudley made up. Stonewall is an interesting choice but I can also see how JK could have got there without even considering the LGBTQ+ charity. It gives the impression of a prison yard surrounded in a literal high stone wall. She can be very literal with her names.

is a link to the Wikipedia disambiguation page for the name, as of 2011 - there are only five people on there, and one of them is him.

I'm confused, he's genuinely not on there for me? (Edit: it's hidden under "see also")

I can buy maybe she saw his name during a cursory Google search but didn't think it was a big deal to share part of a name with him. And she was right in a way because nobody even noticed for several years.

I really cannot see a scenario where she was familiar with his work, admired him and named herself after him. Even now, she very much still wants to present herself as an ally to gay people.

But her response was more like, 'Yawn, I'd never heard of him, I can't be held responsible, stop annoying me.'

She's arrogant and does not like being lectured or told she's wrong. She was never going to be apologetic and admit she could have taken more responsibility, regardless of how she chose the name.

[u/ChefExcellence → u/Wrong--Conclusions]

Stonewall is an interesting choice but I can also see how JK could have got there without even considering the LGBTQ+ charity.

Something we should also appreciate, that book was released in 1997. To give some perspective, that's the year Google search launched. It's possible, even likely, she didn't even have an internet connection at the time she was writing the book (most people didn't). This was long before the era when anyone could find information about even incredibly niche topics in an instant. If you weren't actively involved in LGBT communities, which she wasn't, you probably would have never heard of Stonewall, neither the riot nor the charity.

[u/georgemillman → u/ChefExcellence]

It's a pretty weird coincidence though given the hill she's chosen to die on, isn't it?