I've been wanting to do this post for months. When I arrived on this sub, I already was aware of Joanne's transphobia, but I still read Harry Potter. For now, I'm too disgusted by the wizarding world and Rowling to read it - I don't blame this subreddit by the way, I'm mad at JK Rowling, not at you guys ! Each time I think of Harry Potter, I'm thinking of how its author is a Holocaust denying, transvestigating bigoted colon.

I don't blame people for still reading/watching it by the way. This is just my personal feelings on the matter ! Jojo has behaved so cruelly that I can't read the books anymore.

Personally, I'd tell my past self "Get more interested in Lord of the Rings instead, it's big but it's worth it. Try The Wardstone Chronicles too". (If I told my past self what Joanne would become, he wouldn't believe it)

I just wondered what people think this one says about JK Rowling's toxicity? We talk a lot on this sub about Harry Potter and a fair bit about the Strike books, but this one doesn't come up very much.

The one thing I have seen mentioned a few times is the bit where she describes a man as being 'so fat that most people immediately wonder about his penis upon meeting him' - which I don't think many people do upon meeting an overweight man, but it's good to know how Rowling's mind works!

JK Rowling fucking sucks! Woo woo, thank you.

So I do not want this in my house. My first thought was to throw on the fire but then I don’t like the thought of pointless waste. I was thinking maybe to eBay it and donate the proceeds to trans mental health?

Here we go again 🙄

https://bolanews.co/soccer/womens-football/nwsl-players-association-exco-director-defends-barbra-banda-from-online-abuse/?amp=1

It's no secret that Hermione is a "Not Like The Other Girls" type of character, but I recently realized how she was often against other females. In Goblet of Fire, she becomes Rita Skeeter's target and kidnaps and blackmails her (I notice how a young Tom Riddle stealing things and bullying the other kids at the orphanage is considered negative, but a 14 year-old kidnapping an adult over something relatively petty is A-okay in Joanne's book). In the same book, she also is the only one of the trio who dislikes Fleur, because female friendship is either shallow or inexistent for JK, and Molly Weasley temporarily hates her because she believes Rita Skeeter. Plus, Hermione is often depicted as a foil to these two frivolous girly girls that are Parvati Patil and Lavande Brown.

In Chamber of Secrets, during the duel club scene, Hermione is tasked to fight against a Slytherin girl named Milicent Bulstrode (who is depicted as mannish, interestingly enough). Hermione is also annoyed by Moaning Myrtle's cries (like everyone at Hogwarts), not showing her basic human decency (not even after she wakes up from the petrification and Harry and Ron probably told her that Myrtle is a victim of a hate crime)

In Order of the Phoenix, she puts a curse on the list of the members of Dumbledore's Army. Thing is, she doesn't tell anyone about this, which means the curse isn't a deterrant but revenge. Her curse permanently disfigures a girl who was probably pressured into betraying Dumbledore's Army (said girl being mindwiped shortly after). This post explains it better than I could do : Let's talk about Marietta Edgecombe : r/EnoughJKRowling Half-Blood Prince is where Hermione's toxicity is at it worst. She and Ginny hate on Fleur for being beautiful and feminine, and berate Harry for not hating her. She gets jealous because Ron dates Lavender, and the narrative treats Lavender as a shallow, clingy, emotional girl in contrast to Hermione being intellectual and dignified.

There's a female character in Half-Blood Prince that would definitely have it coming if Hermione hated her though : Romilda Vane. For those who don't know, she's a Gryffindor girl who tried to use a love potion on Harry, but Ron took it instead, and Harry led him to Slughorn to cure Ron, which is how he got poisoned. Everyone would have cheered if Hermione punched the girl who tried to use a magic roofie on Harry and indirectly almost caused Ron's death. But instead, this is played for laughs - and in the book, Hermione says that she heard the girls talking about using love potions on Harry in the girl's bathrooms, but she did nothing because they didn't have the love potions with her. In other words, one of the rare times where Hermione isn't against another girl is when her classmates plan to use magic roofies.

Marietta Edgecombe I think is one of the most interesting characters to delve into, and one who shows JK Rowling's mentality extremely well.

We should start with the obvious - Marietta is possibly the most lazily-written character in the entire book series. Rowling's lack of interest in making this character three-dimensional extends to failing to give her even one single speaking line, and until her actions drive the plot forward she usually isn't even referred to in the narrative by her name, instead being referred to as 'Cho's curly-haired friend'. She exists purely as a plot device, to get the DA found out and to break Harry and Cho up. She's so insignificant other than that that the film producers couldn't even be bothered to put her in the adaptation of Order of the Phoenix, instead making Cho be the one who betrayed the DA (albeit by force rather than of her own free will, which made Harry's anger with her make even less sense than it did in the book). But, at least Rowling's failure to give Marietta any personality at all leaves the reader free to analyse all her actions and intentions, and by doing this I'm led to agree with Cho, that Marietta is a lovely person who made a mistake.

The one and only thing we learn about Marietta is that her mum works for the Ministry. When Cho tells Harry this and explains how being in the DA was so hard for her, Harry responds by pointing out that Ron's dad works for the Ministry as well. This is not the same at all, and Harry knows it. Arthur runs a very small Ministry department, is loyal to Dumbledore and isn't supportive of many of the Ministry's actions. Marietta's mum was in charge of policing all the school fires, so clearly she was a very senior part of the Ministry's campaign to take over Hogwarts. You absolutely cannot liken Ron's situation to Marietta's, not even slightly.

In Goblet of Fire, Harry struggles for weeks to get Cho on her own and ask her to the Yule Ball, because she's very popular and usually seen with a big group of girls. Although we're never explicitly told, I think we can presume Marietta was amongst them. By Order of the Phoenix, all these girls aside from Marietta seem to have disappeared from Cho's life. To me, the most likely reason for this is that they weren't really Cho's friends at all. They let her hang out with them when she was fun to be with, but the moment she needed some emotional support after her boyfriend died, they abandoned her. This is typical of the toxicity of female friendships in JK Rowling's works. The one person who stayed with Cho, who was there for her consistently and uncompromisingly, was Marietta. Marietta shows here that she was the one person in the group who truly cared about Cho. In fact, she's pretty much the least toxic female character in the entire story, which shows why Rowling didn't like writing about her.

Clearly, Marietta was suspicious of Harry. If she ever had had concerns about the return of Voldemort, her mum will have reassured her that there's absolutely nothing to worry about. Of course, Marietta will trust her mum over that famous boy in the year below who she doesn't really know and has a reputation for being a bit weird and always getting caught up in dodgy things. When Cho asks her to come to the Hog's Head for a meeting, Marietta doesn't really want to go - but she tags along, because Cho's going to go anyway and Marietta wants her to be safe. Then, Umbridge bans all student groups. This puts Marietta in a really hard position. She's worried about getting into trouble if they're caught. She's worried about Cho, her best friend, getting into trouble. She's probably worried about her mum getting into trouble at work as well. She wants absolutely nothing to do with it - but still, she goes. She goes, to make sure her best friend is okay. She goes and does her best to participate in the group activities. Even when Cho accidentally sets her on fire because Harry walks past and she gets distracted, she still continues to come, to be there for Cho when she's vulnerable.

One thing that's never addressed in the book is why, after months and months, Marietta betrays the DA right at that precise moment. If she was going to betray them, why didn't she do it straight away? To me, it's all to do with Cho's relationship with Harry. Cho will almost certainly have told Marietta what a horrible time she had on her date with Harry, how he'd arranged to meet Hermione immediately after, how he wouldn't even let her talk about Cedric or give her any information about how he died or anything. This completely confirms Marietta's suspicions about Harry being dodgy, and like any good friend she's absolutely indignant on Cho's behalf - but I expect there's a small part of her that's glad, because at least if Cho's not talking to Harry now it probably means they won't have to attend those meetings anymore. This will feel like such a weight off Marietta's chest, because she's been anxious about this for months and kept it all to herself. But then, Harry's interview comes out (and it's not even in a reputable publication, The Quibbler is an absolute joke) and Marietta is dismayed to find Cho forgiving Harry straight away.

At this point, Marietta thinks, 'This has gone far enough. Harry's just going to lead Cho, and me, into loads of trouble unless I sort it out. Okay, I know it's taking a risk to tell Professor Umbridge. But she's a friend of my mum's - surely she'll understand when I explain that Harry manipulated Cho into joining when she was in a really vulnerable place, and that I only went to make sure she was okay?' I can absolutely understand and respect why, with the information available to her, Marietta did what she did, and thought she was being a good friend.

And how does the narrative treat this poor teenage girl who only ever wanted to be there for her best friend? She ends up with 'SNEAK' written across her face in boils, possibly for the rest of her life - it's suggested that the jinx was permanent. Cho says that this was a really horrible trick of Hermione's and that she should have told them the list was jinxed - and of course Cho is right about this. Not only is what Hermione did profoundly unethical and cruel, but it's also completely ineffective - if they don't know the consequence for telling, it's not a deterrent, just petty revenge. She's probably shunned by a significant number of people, again perhaps for the rest of her life - I expect after the fall of Voldemort the history of the DA became public knowledge, and she'd never be able to shake off being the one who snitched. She also has a Memory Charm cast upon her by Kingsley Shacklebolt - we've seen from other instances when Memory Charms are used that sometimes they cause permanent brain damage, as with Bertha Jorkins. Perhaps for the rest of her life, she was hated for something she couldn't even recollect doing - this would be psychological torture. Arguably, she has one of the worst outcomes out of every character.

The fact that JK Rowling allowed her main protagonists to treat Marietta with this degree of cruelty, never had anyone give them any serious reprimand for it, never allows Marietta to have even the slightest redemption (she could easily have been put in the Battle of Hogwarts to show she is a good person after all) really says an awful lot about her savagery, her misogyny and her lack of respect for a girl trying to be a good friend to another girl.

Hi everyone I’m just looking for the source where she said this. I know her most recent one kinda support this too with her calling people who separate her for idiots and dickheads (LOL) - but I remember there were more where she said stuff like this

And the biggest example is Ginny.

People often cite that the movies ruined Ginny but it's actually Rowling herself who did that. The books just weren't any better. 😑

I find it a bit insulting and lose some of my respect for an author when he or she talks a lot about feminism but ends up writing a female character as a love interest for the protagonist and reduces her to just that role alone--a love interest.

I know people often cite Ginny's role as the DA leader, as a sign that she's more than that. But it's clear that part of her character arc is that people often underestimate her and she was never given a chance to actually do something that would challenge that notion..... because everything she does is done within a group setting or given to another character. Whether it's fighting Bellatrix, or co-leading the DA or stealing the sword of Gryffindor which was eventually passed down to Snape.

Probably the best example of Rowling doing this in the series was when she gave the role of speaking parseltongue to open the chamber to Ron instead of Ginny.

Ginny, WHO WAS POSSESSED BY TOM RIDDLE, is probably the only person in that school (or in the entire series for all we know) other than Harry, who would probably know how to speak the tongue if she channeled her repressed memories and yet.... Rowling gave it to Ron.

I'm not sure if this was just lazy writing because she wanted Ron to do something spectacular (when there are so many other ways she could've done that) or if she actually lost her interest with Ginny's character because of the criticism she faced after HBP's release (I know this because I was quite active in the online forums at that time and remember how much people hated Ginny's personality makeover).

Literally every other character of the sextet (Harry, Ron, Hermione, Neville and Luna) got a chance to shine individually (heck, Luna got it twice! One after being rescued from the manor, she personally comforts Harry during Dobby's death scene and the other was obviously with the Rowena's Diadem).

Ginny is the ONLY character of the sextet group that doesn't get a chance in the limelight and as a result, her character arc feels incomplete.

Ginny, who was possessed by Tom Riddle for a whole year, doesn't get a SINGLE chance to contribute to the war as an individual.

There were so many ways that Ginny could've contributed to the war without breaking any rules set up by the author for her series. For example, I know that Ginny can't tag along with the trio due to the apparition barrier for underage witches or wizards, but she could've given Harry information, through Sirius's two-way mirror, about the location of the horcruxes based on her repressed memories of whatever information/memories Tom Riddle shared with her.

☝This is just one example out of a 100 different ways that Ginny could've contributed without doing anything drastic. And yet, she never got a chance.

It's obvious that the author failed her character and very intentionally sidelined the character. My only question is why?

Is it truly because of the criticism she faced regarding Ginny's personality makeover in HBP and lost her confidence to explore her character in the series, or is it lazy writing or worse...does she truly believe that women who play love interests to the male protagonist SHOULD be relegated to just that role alone because....that is their biggest contribution???

This isn't just with Ginny's character though. She does this with Lily, Fleur, Tonks...cool female characters with some pretty distinct skills or talents but at the end were reduced to nothing more than mere love interests for the male character.

After all of that buildup about Lily's past, the big reveal about her character is that....she was nothing more than a love interest, in a love triangle (and not a well-written one) , between two male characters.

While James gets a whole ass character background -- he gets to be an animagus because he sympathized with his werewolf friend's plight and wanted to give him company, he gets to create a marauder's map, without which Harry would probably be dead. I'm sure I'm missing a few more details about his background, but this was just off the top of my head.

My point was...he has an actual role outside of being a love interest to someone.

Anyway, either Rowling isn't as big a feminist as she claims to be and sincerely believes that a female character's biggest contribution is being a love interest to the male characters or she really can't write 3 dimensional female characters apart from Hermione (and maybe Luna) or it's a little bit of both.

It's almost like her female characters lose their personalities/identities, the minute they fall in love with someone.

Edit: the reason I felt the need to post this here rather than on the main HP subreddit or Harry Potter books subreddit is because this is a criticism of the author's views on feminism and the direct impact this has had on her female characters. So no. No other subreddit does a better job of breaking down her views than this subreddit does.

Many people mentioned how she never talks about cis abusers or cis women's oppression (Trump, that degenerate at the Olympics, Roe v Wade...). The worse is that JK Rowling is aware of these critics, since she mentioned people asking her why she doesn't say anything about non-trans abusers - reading between the lines, it's clear that she thinks that those who tell her "why don't you care about cis women being hurt ?" are stupid.

The thing is, we know she's an hypocrite and a shit person, but what does she tells herself to uphold her cognitive dissonance ? How come she acknowledge that she never mentions or helps cis women yet she doesn't change her behavior ? Did someone cursed her so that she can never reflect on herself ?

Sorry, can't upload screen from tiny phone, but here's the edited link:

x. com/jk_rowling/status/1860001672082477255

It boggles. The Internet knows NGO is a right-wing grifter. He has a Wikipedia page ffs. Warner Brothers is probably pulling it's hair out. And JK has completely lost the plot.

Yes, she's lost it before, but she was always invested in her left wing, progressive image. She cannot possibly not know who NGO is. He could say water is wet and I still wouldn't retweet him. Because he is the definition of right-wing shill.

I haven't commented on Xitter. Usually you can scroll down and find pushback to add to. Recently it's just been filled with yes people. So there's probably not a point.

EDIT: it's not a retweet. It's a link to NGO article

Here’s a link for a podcast, A Bit Fruity with Matt Bernstein featuring Taylor Lorenz. Libs of TikTok is a right-wing social media page run by Chaya Raichik which has been connected to several b0mb threats directed at schools and hospitals. JK Rowling has now associated with it. Matt Bernstein and Taylor Lorenz discuss both Chaya Raichik and the history of Libs of TikTok.

https://open.spotify.com/episode/57IIIVq7pISHAxHjaNlIyq?si=NkHGYwsYQhqGPnsAyWQU_A