What Rowling encountered was not a rejection of the Iranian people’s struggle, but a rejection of her claim to moral authority. It was a rejection of human rights lectures from those who stayed silent as Gaza suffered.

Critics have described her stance as selective feminism — raising one’s voice when the victims are politically palatable

You can remove this if you find this anti-feminist propaganda. Is JK Rowling really selective to specific geographic entities in her moral comentary?

Rowling’s defenders argued that one injustice does not negate another. In theory, that is true.

But as critics argue, Rowling did not employ empathetic language but rather judgmental language. She did not foster collective solidarity; instead, she established a moral court.

It's not that the billionaire novelist has not been previously grilled over her selective solidarity.

"Why is JK Rowling, who presents herself as a champion of women’s rights, silent on the mass slaughter, maiming, torture, abuse, dispossession, bereavement, sexual assault andremoved of Palestinian women?" asked journalist Owen Jones in a 2025 article.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] Awoo@hexbear.net 22 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Feminism-washing imperialism isn't new but it does seem to have become more and more prominent over the years as they abandoned pinkwashing.

Anyway JK's only claims to being a feminist are her anti-trans work and donations to organisations that are focused solely on women afab. The notion that she is a feminist should be resisted entirely.

I don't even like the phrase "imperial feminism" because that's just patriarchy at the end of the day, the right uses the "we must protect women" position to simultaneously wage war abroad and to control women at home. We must be controlled "for our own protection".