I think your point about her sex being irrelevant is disproved by the ongoing conservathot phenomenon. The endless, flailing, frankly desperate efforts of some conservative men to put women who espouse rightist views on an ivory pedestal; the blind worship of obvious frauds and grifters like Candace Owens, Melonie Mac, Brittany Venti and so-forth, who were all raving leftists until they discovered how much money could be made from lonely internet Stans if they just bat their eyelashes in your direction and tell you they agree with you, is a source of endless frustration for me.
The fact is that women are given much more leeway in right-wing spaces than men are, and are frequently able to garner large followings among supposedly discerning, largely male audiences who would and do absolutely demand higher standards of proof and more comprehensive demonstrations of good faith from any formerly leftist man who professed a similar change of heart before they give him an ear.
As far as Rowling being useful, I will once again link to this tweet, which was posted after the peak of her own cancellation. She will use her influence to defend her freedom to express her views at the same time as she uses it to demand you be silenced. The more power and influence we give her, the more she has to use against us. Enough already.
There’s a lot of “conservative” men who have the cognitive dissonance that women must be protected and equal at the same time, they then let women walk all over them spewing insane feminist rhetoric because they were told it’s their “duty” as a good man to coddle women. It’s this insanity that has browbeaten conservative men with hyper liberal wives and daughters.
the blind worship of obvious frauds and grifters like Candace Owens, Melonie Mac, Brittany Venti and so-forth
I think one major difference here is that these are arguably attractive thots. The kind that would have simps regardless of their politics or opinions. This is one problem.
Rowling is not attractive, she is old and looks incredibly British. She has defenders because of instinctual pro-women reflexes people have. This is a second problem.
These two problems usually are combined and the end result looks similar, but the root cause is different enough that it takes a different argument to get guys out of the mindset and out of supporting them blankly.
I think your point about her sex being irrelevant is disproved by the ongoing conservathot phenomenon.
Except you're the one drawing that connection. I didn't say there aren't any simps on the right (of course there are), I said I don't think that's what this is about. Because conservatives also simp for males they shouldn't. For example the non-conservatives like Peterson, Lindsay, Murray, Kissin, and all those pushing that brand of nonsense. Or, heck, people like Shapiro, or Dave Rubin.
People want to feel validated, by larger voices than their own. That's what they're often simpling for; that a famous person also shares some of their views. So they're more willing to look past their other faults, so they can continue to claim that person are Their Guy.
Again, there are those who simp for females because they're females, but that doesn't mean every instance of simping for a female is because they're female. I still don't think most people simp for Rowling because she's a woman.
The fact is that women are given much more leeway in right-wing spaces than men are...
Are they, though? Again, there are plenty of men and women both who escape the scrutiny they likely deserve, just because they espouse some conservative leaning opinions.
Conservatives were so beaten down by the Mainstream, and always portrayed as the Other, that there are plenty who will support any prominent voice who props them up.
As far as Rowling being useful...
Which I already said she basically isn't.
My point isn't to defend Rowling - something I have not done at any point here - but to say I don't agree with your characterization that there's a large group of people on the right simping for her because she's a woman.
We're in agreement that she's shit, and the right shouldn't support her.
I think your point about her sex being irrelevant is disproved by the ongoing conservathot phenomenon. The endless, flailing, frankly desperate efforts of some conservative men to put women who espouse rightist views on an ivory pedestal; the blind worship of obvious frauds and grifters like Candace Owens, Melonie Mac, Brittany Venti and so-forth, who were all raving leftists until they discovered how much money could be made from lonely internet Stans if they just bat their eyelashes in your direction and tell you they agree with you, is a source of endless frustration for me.
The fact is that women are given much more leeway in right-wing spaces than men are, and are frequently able to garner large followings among supposedly discerning, largely male audiences who would and do absolutely demand higher standards of proof and more comprehensive demonstrations of good faith from any formerly leftist man who professed a similar change of heart before they give him an ear.
As far as Rowling being useful, I will once again link to this tweet, which was posted after the peak of her own cancellation. She will use her influence to defend her freedom to express her views at the same time as she uses it to demand you be silenced. The more power and influence we give her, the more she has to use against us. Enough already.
There’s a lot of “conservative” men who have the cognitive dissonance that women must be protected and equal at the same time, they then let women walk all over them spewing insane feminist rhetoric because they were told it’s their “duty” as a good man to coddle women. It’s this insanity that has browbeaten conservative men with hyper liberal wives and daughters.
I think one major difference here is that these are arguably attractive thots. The kind that would have simps regardless of their politics or opinions. This is one problem.
Rowling is not attractive, she is old and looks incredibly British. She has defenders because of instinctual pro-women reflexes people have. This is a second problem.
These two problems usually are combined and the end result looks similar, but the root cause is different enough that it takes a different argument to get guys out of the mindset and out of supporting them blankly.
Except you're the one drawing that connection. I didn't say there aren't any simps on the right (of course there are), I said I don't think that's what this is about. Because conservatives also simp for males they shouldn't. For example the non-conservatives like Peterson, Lindsay, Murray, Kissin, and all those pushing that brand of nonsense. Or, heck, people like Shapiro, or Dave Rubin.
People want to feel validated, by larger voices than their own. That's what they're often simpling for; that a famous person also shares some of their views. So they're more willing to look past their other faults, so they can continue to claim that person are Their Guy.
Again, there are those who simp for females because they're females, but that doesn't mean every instance of simping for a female is because they're female. I still don't think most people simp for Rowling because she's a woman.
Are they, though? Again, there are plenty of men and women both who escape the scrutiny they likely deserve, just because they espouse some conservative leaning opinions.
Conservatives were so beaten down by the Mainstream, and always portrayed as the Other, that there are plenty who will support any prominent voice who props them up.
Which I already said she basically isn't.
My point isn't to defend Rowling - something I have not done at any point here - but to say I don't agree with your characterization that there's a large group of people on the right simping for her because she's a woman.
We're in agreement that she's shit, and the right shouldn't support her.