Peak cynical opportunism
An arts company based in Edinburgh is launching a new show about JK Rowling and her part in the transgender debate called TERF CUNT.
Civil Disobedience, which has its roots in the Edinburgh Fringe and was launched by Barry and Josef Church-Woods in May 2016, described it as a “vital think-piece on Joanne, exploring just what could motivate a person with such privilege to take such a divisive stance on issues that affect her fans”.
Ah yes, two men do civil disobedience by calling a woman a cunt as publicly and showily as they can. And while they’re at it they patronizingly call her “Joanne” as if she were four years old and they were her nanny. And they whine about her “privilege” when it arises entirely from the fact that she writes exceedingly popular books. And they call it “divisive” to defend women’s rights while they don’t call it “divisive” to trample all over women’s rights. A pair of privileged male idiots and no mistake.
It has been written by Joshua Kaplan, a “queer screenwriter and playwright”, and will be performed at The Actors Studio in New York City on Thursday, February 8. The plot involves Daniel Radcliffe, Rupert Grint and Emma Watson staging an “intervention” with Rowling.
Oh get a grip. Three talentless movie actors who owe their fame entirely to Rowling. They’re not seers, they’re not thinkers, they’re not very bright. Why not get Donald Duck and Goofy and Bugs Bunny to stage an intervention with “Lia” Thomas instead?
The synopsis for the show continues: “Joanne led a blessed life – for a woman. Billionaire. Literary phenomenon. Natural ginger. And most importantly, beloved. Completely beloved. Until she blew it all to hell.”
Stupid little piggies. They carefully leave out the pre-Potter part of her “blessed life” – the part where she was a single mother who’d escaped a violent husband.
I hope the first performance on February 8 is also the last.
Didactic art doesn’t always stink, but it’s the way to bet and this play is definitely already a stinker.
Plus, even didactic art isn’t generally about raging at one female civilian. A tyrant or mob boss or genocider, yes, but one woman with opinions, no. It’s just a TINY bit out of proportion.
Absolute balloooooons as they say in Scaw’land.
“vital think-piece on Joanne, exploring just what could motivate a person with such privilege to take such a divisive stance on issues that affect her fans”.
Vital? How is it “vital”? It’s not a defibrillator. More like a carbon monoxide cloud.
Think piece? I can’t see much thinking going on there.
“Joanne led a blessed life – for a woman. Billionaire. Literary phenomenon. Natural ginger. And most importantly, beloved. Completely beloved. Until she blew it all to hell.”
I understand that she is no longer a billionaire, having given away quite a lot of her fortune. As for “beloved” – she is more beloved than ever from the stance she has taken against these self-righteous idiots. Far more Scots are on Team Jo than Team Anti-Jo.
Some good lines from the article, anyway:
It’s almost like there’s dissension in the newsroom:
The TRAs are no doubt going to give Ben Borland a stern talking-to. No, wait, he’s a man. Never mind.
I don’t understand the problem. Many online dudes have assured me that “cunt” is a term of endearment in Scotland, just a nice friendly thing you say to your mates. Surely this means that this play is an affectionate tribute to Rowling?
She hasn’t blown anything to hell. She stopped being a billionaire by choice, before she spoke up about genderism. She’s still a multimillionaire, her books still sell, the franchises based on her books are still going strong, and she’s still beloved by many.
She’s lost the admiration of some lackwits, but I recall her saying their opinion means about as much as the dust under her fridge.
I think calling the trio ‘talentless movie actors” is unfair. Watson has at least a modicum of talent, and Radcliffe is quite good. (I don’t know much about Grint.) Now, if you’d called them ‘ungrateful’, then I’d totally be on board with you. And of course, even the two I find to have some talent owe the opportunity to develop that talent to JKR.
Freemage: I agree with your assessment of Radcliffe. “Kill Your Darlings”, “What If”, “The Woman In Black”, the TV series “A Young Doctor’s Notebook”….he gave excellent performances in all of them.
I may strongly disagree with Radcliffe’s politics (as I do with the politics of say, Kelsey Grammer) but it doesn’t stop me respecting both men as actors.
The turnaround in Rowling’s fortunes wasn’t so instant once Potter reached the heights of success either, she still had an abusive ex and had her address made public. There were details in the podcast by Megan Phelps-Roper.
I wonder if this is actionable in UK law. Even for a public figure, this seems a bit on the nose.
#5 Screechy
Context of this one is decidedly leaning towards insult.
The use of that word between male friends is the topic for an academic treatise, not a blog comment. While it might be common in certain societal sub-groups, its use in general would be akin to taking a shit on the middle of the table during dinner. Even within those sub-groups, that use is edgy. It will more commonly be used from males higher in the social hierarchy to those lower. It’s a brave lower status male that will use it against higher status, because these sub-groups tend to have an underlying level of potential physical aggression, even if seldom manifested.
Hm, let’s just say we had different social environments and leave it there.