A Twitter search
Now why would we ever think even for a second that there’s any misogyny involved…
That’s just a small sample; it seems to go on forever.
Tip Jar
Now why would we ever think even for a second that there’s any misogyny involved…
That’s just a small sample; it seems to go on forever.
Oh, an implication of knocking someone’s teeth out. I can’t help but notice a pattern… when describing their own experience of harm, they expand harm to include being called a man. Yet when they want to imply or overtly threaten harm, they never seem to be content with that form of harm; they never go on a spree of calling GC women men despite that supposedly being an easy way to harm people. Instead, it’s knocking teeth out and barbed wire wrapped baseball bats.
It’s almost as if – and forgive me for being a cynic as usual – it’s almost as if they don’t really believe misgendering is particularly harmful.
7
J. K. Rowling = cunt
J. K. Rowling = cunt
J. K. Rowling = cunt
J. K. Rowling = cunt
J. K. Rowling = cunt
J. K. Rowling = cunt
J. K. Rowling = cunt
I am sure Amnesty will be all over this, as they sure do give a fig about the wimmenz.
Maybe I should have been really, really clear: this was a call-back to Ms. Benson’s recent post titled “6”, about Amnesty’s tweet that was challenged, said challenge never being answered (natch).
Rachel Horwitz, your insults would be more credible if you could spell syphilitic. Well, maybe not.
Why is anybody surprised that J K Rowling can tell fact from fantasy?
Has anyone else noticed that the insulting word used for Rowling is actually slang for a very female anatomical feature? Why is that?