That Is Every Single TIM (and Lesser Amounts Of TIFs) That Demands Access To Spaces, All The Way Down

im so tired of being unable to say "no/please stop" because if i do the other person will hurt themself

Ways In Which Harry Potter Is Bigoted Trash

Rowling uses names like Cho Chang and Kingsley Shacklebolt for her Characters of Color.

Werewolves are a metaphor for HIV. Fenrir Greyback is a werewolf who likes to infect young children. Seeing as the Aids Crisis primarily affected gay men and there is a stereotype that gay men are sexual predators, this is pretty damning. Especially seeing as she has no visibly queer characters in her story.

Dumbledore is the only confirmed queer character in her story and she kills him off. I suppose Grindelwald was also confirmed as being gay, but that's not the best representation seeing as he was evil. She never explicitly states either of these characters are queer in the text, though.

Dobby wanting to be free is treated as an anomaly amongst the house elves. The rest are content being slaves.

When Hermione creates S.P.E.W. to try to help free the house elves and gets them rights, Ron and Harry both become annoyed with her and Ron outright mocks S.P.E.W.

The book treats any character who is overweight poorly. Typically, heavier characters are either nasty people or incompetent people whom she makes fun of.

The whole thing where the girls can get into the boys' dormitories but the boys can't get into the girls'. You could probably find something transphobic here, especially since JKR is a TERF, but even so, she ignores that through the use of magic, the girls could be just as dangerous as the boys.

She is oftentimes misogynistic, as seen when Mrs. Weasley believes the rumors spread by Rita Skeeter in Witch Weekly and begins to treat Hermione, a fourteen-year-old girl, poorly for them, but treats Harry just the same.

Even characters we are supposed to like, like Hagrid and Ron, make nasty comments about Muggles. And not just the Dursleys. Ron even makes ignorant comments about Muggle doctors, calling them people who "cut people up" and acting like they aren't as good as wizards. Considering they can't just wave a wand and make everything better, what Muggle doctors do is amazing and we all know it.

The goblins are antisemitic caricatures.

Feel free to add onto this if there's any I missed. It's been a long time since I read the series, so there's probably something in there that I've forgotten about.

every woman thinks she's evil and irredeemable for making a few avoidable mistakes while every man goes about his day thinking he's normal after having emotionally tortured at least 5 different women

you know threating violence against women is still misogyny? right? even when it's against women you hate? you know when you say shit like "i wanna drag terfs out of the bathroom by the hair and curb stomp them" or "i hope republican women get raped and/or have an unwanted pregnancy so they can face the consequences of their actions" you're threating violence against specifically against women? and that's misogyny? you know that right?? right?? right??????

I also hate that criticism of this is supposed hatred of bisexual women who have felt attraction to 99 women, but attraction to only 1 man ever in their entire lives, or like it's hatred of the same-sex attraction side of being bisexual.

It's frustrating because a lot of bisexual women have connected their sexuality to their activism, like falsely announcing that they're attracted to every single woman ever is somehow the same as being feminist.

Everyone with any sense knows those bisexual women are lying. Whether it's a lie to themselves to try and self-soothe over hating that they're bisexual, or whether it's to try and protect themselves from accusations of being male-centric in some way, it doesn't do anything but hurt themselves - and other bisexual women - in the long run.

Bisexual women who say "I'm attracted to all women and one man" are so cringe. It's just virtue signalling. And trying to compensate for the supposed negative of being male-attracted.

Plank, markers, acrylics, plants... And dragon. d:

True. I'm not against venting at all, and I don't think there should be a compromising of principles, but at the same time, if feminists and feminism isn't trying to offer a supportive hand out to ordinary women and meet them halfway to dispel negative myths and go over the basics with them and generally welcome them into the cause, then what's the point?

One of the things that feminism needs to better grapple with is the difference between systemic and interpersonal issues.

The biggest reason that a lot of women push back from feminism with their additions to #NotAllMen is because those women know and love men who aren't rapists and who aren't physically abusive. It's entirely natural to rail against something that you see as attacking someone that you love.

When feminists advocate for single-sex schooling to protect girls, there's an automatic push back and outcry over the very real bullying that goes on in girl-only schools that have had long-lasting impacts on ex-students.

Glossing over the abuse that mothers put their daughters through often gives the impression that anything that counters any women-supporting-women narrative has to be stamped down on and ignored, or at worst, even denied, for the good of feminism.

It's far too easy as feminists to see criticisms like the above from women and then dismiss them, or repeat more statistics and then get frustrated at those women or call them handmaidens, instead of engaging and understanding why they're railing against what's being said.

No, not every single man is a raping woman-beater, but there are a ton more male abusers than female abusers, and a ton more female victims than male victims. That's a systemic issue, and we need to fix it. That doesn't make those loved fathers, brothers, cousins, friends or partners suddenly monsters out of nowhere.

No, female-only schools aren't perfect and there are bullying scandals in all schools, that doesn't excuse the individual abuse that victims have been through, but in general, they're safer for girls, and girls achieve higher grades than in mixed-sex schools, which is important to discuss and improve on.

No, abuse victims shouldn't be silent over what they've been through, and female abusers deserve to face justice. Continued cycles of abuse and female socialisation and mental illess etc might explain some of the abuse, but it doesn't excuse it. The point of feminism is to free all women from patriarchy, so that even the worst of the worst of women don't suffer with misogyny, not coddle the evil and the abusers just because of their sex.

There is so much difficult nuance, and there's too much reliance on the systemic to the point that the interpersonal is completely erased. It stops individual women from seeing anything in feminism that's useful to them. If they have counter-examples to any systemic issue, then they'll use those personal examples to dismiss that there's a systemic issue at all. If they're met halfway and the systemic vs the interpersonal is explained, then there's a much better chance that they'll pay attention or even go away to think about it to eventually become feminists, too.

The fact that you're trying to group abusive men with actual oppressed minorities like that's a gotcha is disgusting.

Why is it that women's rights being protected more hateful to you than a violent man gleefully promoting violence against women?

Don't bother to answer, I know it's your misogyny.

They're going to have to build a statue of JRK when this is all over. The most successful author in history and one of the most impactful British feminists in history being the same person is insane.

You either support "trans rights" and "nonbinary existence" or you support women's rights and the LGB.

If someone supports "trans rights," then they're automatically misogynists and homophobes, at the very least.