J.K. Rowling’s Iran tweet shows how selective feminism really works

Notorious bigot and transphobe J.K. Rowling has accused her critics of failing to support women in Iran and framed the issue as a moral test. In a classic liberal move, Rowling said:

If you claim to support human rights yet can’t bring yourself to show solidarity with those fighting for their liberty in Iran, you’ve revealed yourself. You don’t give a damn about people being oppressed and brutalised so long as it’s being done by the enemies of your enemies.

Fortunately, journalist Sangita Myska pushed back on that framing. She called Rowling out for peddling a kind of neo-colonial zombie feminism, one that picks up on some women’s suffering while ignoring others, including Palestinian women and girls in Gaza.

Myska said:

Yes, we should support the women of Iran who are deprived of universal human rights – however, your brand of selective feminism is not feminism. It’s cynical posturing to cover for the fact that you (and others) have abandoned the women and girls of Palestine/Gaza during an ongoing genocide; their universal human rights have been trampled on for decades.

And, Myska had little time for Rowling’s brand of white feminism:

It’s a facet of privileged-white feminism that you choose to highlight the plight of women of colour when it won’t cost you a thing by way of book deals, adulation or status. Until you educate yourself about intersectionality – and walk the talk – you’re in no position to preach about “revealing yourself”.

Rowling’s ‘Iran’ image does the talking

If you claim to support human rights yet can’t bring yourself to show solidarity with those fighting for their liberty in Iran, you’ve revealed yourself. You don’t give a damn about people being oppressed and brutalised so long as it’s being done by the enemies of your enemies. pic.twitter.com/eK3jjh3pD6

— J.K. Rowling (@jk_rowling) January 11, 2026

It is a computer-generated meme of a woman lighting a cigarette from the image of Iran’s supreme leader. A crowd cheers below. The word “freedom” sits above the crowd. It has not been confirmed that the image shows a real event in Iran, or that the woman is Iranian. There are unconfirmed reports that it may have been created or photographed in Canada.

That matters.

The image does not show life as it is. It stages a scene. When symbols take the place of facts, they slide easily into virtue signalling and emotional manipulation. This is propaganda, even if it is dressed up as solidarity.

Why the cigarette matters

The cigarette is not decoration. For decades, smoking has been sold to women as a sign of freedom and strength. That link was built on purpose.

In the early twentieth century, the publicist Edward Bernays openly spoke about the “engineering of consent”. He helped sell women’s smoking as “torches of freedom” and had previously used the same methods to drum up domestic support in the US for the First World War. The idea was simple: tie strong feelings to a clear image and people will follow.

Smoking reads as defiance because people have been taught to see it that way. Here, freedom becomes a look. It is being sold to the viewer, but it is not real.

What gets left out

The image wipes away the history of outside interference. Power is reduced to one face that can be mocked and burned. There is no reference to earlier UK or US intervention, or to the chain of events that led here.

This is why you rarely see the same style used for Gaza and the West Bank. Images that make Palestinian resistance look bold or stylish would point back to Western involvement and raise awkward questions.

So instead, Palestinian suffering is shown as sad, complex, or distant, but rarely as justified anger. Iran is an easy country for Western celebrities to call out. Its leaders are routinely treated as pariahs. Speaking up on this carries little risk and doesn’t threaten anyone’s standing. Backing Iranian women in this way fits neatly with how power already works.

Backing Palestinian women and girls is different. Journalists, artists, and academics who speak out often lose work, face smears, or find doors quietly closed. This point is often waved away as whataboutery. It is not. It is about double standards and vested interests.

What this really showed

Indeed, Myska’s argument is not that Iranian women matter less. It is that some causes are pushed forward precisely because they do not upset the powerful. Rowling claimed her critics had shown their true colours.

What this exchange actually showed is how celebrity outrage often works. It is loud, eye-catching, and carefully aimed. This kind of solidarity is built on guilt trips, pressure, and virtue signalling. It feels good, costs little, and often asks nothing of the person performing it.

Genuine solidarity is harder.

Being able to tell the difference is where real compassion starts.

Featured image via the Canary