First, there's a paywall so thank you but no thank you to reading this article and shame on you for not providing a synopsis. (Don't worry, I still love you.)
But if we really want to have a discussion about "ethical consumption", maybe start with listing something "ethical" about Hollywood? Isn't it all tainted, in one way or another?
It seems to me that people can consume digital content and still do their best to minimize profit for the creator. Organize a large viewing party, for example, so that instead of 10 people streaming the show, only one person has to. Or watch a pirated version. Etc, etc.
Lastly, it might be too little too late. Has Rowling already been paid for the rights? Does she get residuals? How do we know that boycotting the show will actually affect her finances?
Thank you for posting this!
One the one hand, I'd love to see Rowling drop off the face of the earth. I don't think she's a great writer and, while I love the visuals in the Wizarding World, the story is absolute drivel. In short, I don't think she's a top-tier artist worthy of earning either the admiration or the hard-earned cash of her adoring fans. Her stance on transwomen is especially infuriating, because I came out as trans about the same time that she started her anti-trans campaign.
On the other hand, Rowling's involvement in anti-trans organizations started after her long involvement with other charitable organizations, most of them dedicated to helping women and children.
Lumos: Founded by Rowling in 2005, this charity works to end the systemic institutionalization of children in Europe and elsewhere. She has donated over £63 million to it.
Volant Trust: Established to support projects that help women and children at risk, as well as fighting social deprivation.
Beira's Place: A women's sexual assault support center in Edinburgh funded by Rowling.
Gingerbread: She was an Ambassador (and later President) for seven years for this organization, which supports single-parent families.
Multiple Sclerosis Society Scotland: She was a patron for nine years and heavily funded MS research.
The article stops short of sorting out the funding behind The J.K. Rowling Women's Fund, Rowling's anti-trans lobbyist group. It's difficult to tell without knowing how much cash she's pouring into her anti-trans charity, and how much of that flows to legislators.
In my mind, it comes down to whether she's trying to be a net good for society or a net bad.
I kind of empathize with Rowling, in a twisted way. She reminds me of my mother. Involved in many solid charities, honestly trying to use her wealth for the greater good, but also misguided in a slightly evil way on certain issues. The good doesn't wash out the bad, but we can't ignore her good deeds. She seems to be trying to impact women's lives in a positive way.
It's kind of like a carbon tax - yeah, I hate seeing the super-rich climb into private jets and selfishly burn through resources. But I hate them a little bit less when they purchase carbon offsets or donate to environmental causes. So yeah, I hate Rowling, but there's a lot of anti-trans artists that I hate more.