Okay, in light of the bullshit going on with J.K. Rowling and her weirdly blasting Emma Watson has to be dissected.
Unfortunately, I have to agree with J.K. only on one issue: Emma, as much as I think she tries to be a genuinely nice person, is ridiculously "naive," but not for the reasons J.K. accuses her of bitterly being. HOWEVER:
Emma Watson was a literal child when her face literally became intellectual property representing your intellectual property brand, J.K. Whether you like it or not, and I'm assuming not, because you are spending an inordinate amount of time recasting an entire show to white-wash people who disagree with you, and to use the profits for anti-trans promotion of legal grievance cases, she is part of the brand history.
It shows just what bad faith this woman is operating from. I'm assuming the reason Emma Watson gave her a handwritten note through a friend is because in polite society, handwritten notes are traditionally seen as more personal than a text or a phone call. This is where I think she was naive, because unfortunately I think Emma Watson may operate under the assumption that by "reaching across the aisle" in attempting to "understand people's basic humanity," they can come to some civilized meeting of minds. I, personally, operate under the assumption that as soon as someone negates an entire group's humanity outright, that is not a policy position, that is a human rights issue, but I digress. Emma tried to be the bigger person in an atmosphere of hate, and got smacked down by a woman who has known her since she was probably ten years old.
It shows that even in terms of another privileged, white cisgendered woman, how bitter and angry J.K. Rowling is. Like, half of that is discounting the fact that Emma Watson has any place to speak from because she was and remains extraordinarily privileged. But because J.K. Rowling experienced some level of poverty in a first world country, her position is: ANY OTHER WOMAN'S PERSPECTIVE IS NOT ALLOWED TO SPEAK ON REAL WORLD ISSUES BECAUSE I'VE HAD IT HARDER.
Okay, I didn't realize it was the suffering games, but okay, Joanne.
Her self-hating being directed on other women of all stripes is truly wild.
This also negates the fact that Emma Watson, no matter what your position on her arguably neutral to the point of limp-wristed "white lady feminism" she takes, has not experienced some of the creepiest shit the world has to offer, in situations like weird "countdown clocks" to when she turned eighteen from men, or people trying to take photographs up her skirt on her eighteenth birthday. Say what you want, but that has to create some sort of psychosis as well, and the fact that Joanne can only recognize her own "suffering" and not that of others, speaks volumes about her as a person.
The fact that she talked about having to tighten her own personal security detail while saying Emma has never been to a high street changing room since she was fourteen is wild.
Then this is the kicker: "Emma Watson and her co-stars have every right to embrace gender identity ideology. Such beliefs are legally protected, and I wouldn't want to see any of them threatened with loss of work, or violence, or death, because of them. However, Emma and Dan in particular have both made it clear over the last few years that they think our former professional association gives them a particular right - nay, obligation - to critique me and my views in public. Years after they finished acting in Potter, they continue to assume the role of de facto spokespeople for the world I created."
BABE THEIR FACES ARE LITERALLY ON THE ACTION FIGURES THEY'RE LITERALLY JUST STANDING UP FOR HUMAN RIGHTS UNFORTUNATELY THEY ARE THE "DE FACTO SPOKESPEOPLE" BECAUSE THE INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LICENSE FOR THEIR FACES AT 10-14 EXISTS JESUS FUCKING CHRIST
Which I restate, is 100000 percent another reason why she's doing this stupid fucking remake; so she literally does not have to have their faces or the faces of anyone associated with her on the front of a fucking product she owns that she was previously against consumerist products for in the 90s, and is 10000 percent just using this to fund her stupid anti-trans agenda.
Lastly, I'd also like to highlight the fact that she clearly comes straight after Emma because she clearly has an issue with any sort of women who don't directly correlate to her own life experiences, but note how she also calls out Daniel Radcliffe, but with hardly any of the vitriol she keeps for Emma. This is a woman who I swear hates other women, trans or not, under the guise of "protecting women's rights," which is ironically what she was basically accusing Emma of doing in her "naive" behaviour.
In short, I don't know what the fuck happened to this woman to make herself the world's biggest self-made victim, but for someone condemning a then fourteen year old for being a millionaire, spoken from a BILLIONAIRE that could all do us a favour and just go and live in a fucking castle in England somewhere and leave us all in peace, rather than actively using HER intellectual property to harm other people SHE disagrees with, including someone she has literally known since they were in PRIMARY SCHOOL, is FUCKING WILD.
I just revived my account after probably almost a decade just to reblog this. Thank you.
