Margaret Atwood

Women are threatened and told to get off Twitter and stay quiet.

Men point a finger at any woman posting innocuous posts whom they think is not the Right Kind of Woman, and the police jump.

The gun pointed at the viewer, addressing Atwood

That's grim littlbrowndog Wish I hadn't read it. Bleurgh.

Sorry katerina. Some people are total well just disgusting.

This is a link to the abuse that Atwood is getting

JKR got same

Imagine sitting at your keyboard and sending these tweets out

Most oppressed ever.
medium.com/@rebeccarc/margaret-atwood-and-the-trans-activists-a-story-in-screenshots-bd61ed7575ce

And yet dare to say anything to the "most oppressed group EVVAH" and that's you suspended.

Twitter will do absolutely nothing to help you if you are a’TERF’ and doxxed. I was doxxed by a lunatic American TRA last year who published my name, city and email address. I and about 50 others reported it asking them to take it down. They replied saying it didn’t contravene their community standards. It’s probably still up there - unbelievable.

This is the extreme hate that Atwood has been receiving

What is wrong with Twitter. To allow this.

I've just posted Robert Lifton's 8 Criteria for Thought Reform. All 8 are interesting but I'm highlighting these as a partial explanation of why Atwood's membership of the community means that she couldn't perhaps cope with the dissonance of reading Joyce or Stock or comparable authors. In a way (and I've edited out this one) it's quite telling that she's now promoting Shon Faye's book both as a pledge of allegiance and as a simulacrum of a sacred text.

Milieu Control. This involves the control of information and communication both within the environment and, ultimately, within the individual, resulting in a significant degree of isolation from society at large.

Demand for Purity. The world is viewed as black and white and the members are constantly exhorted to conform to the ideology of the group and strive for perfection. The induction of guilt and/or shame is a powerful control device used here.

Loading the Language. The group interprets or uses words and phrases in new ways so that often the outside world does not understand. This jargon consists of thought-terminating clichés, which serve to alter members' thought processes to conform to the group's way of thinking.

Doctrine over person. Members' personal experiences are subordinated to the sacred science and any contrary experiences must be denied or reinterpreted to fit the ideology of the group.

Dispensing of existence. The group has the prerogative to decide who has the right to exist and who does not. This is usually not literal but means that those in the outside world are not saved, unenlightened, unconscious, and must be converted to the group's ideology. If they do not join the group or are critical of the group, then they must be rejected by the members. Thus, the outside world loses all credibility. In conjunction, should any member leave the group, he or she must be rejected also.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thought_Reform_and_the_Psychology_of_Totalism

Previously posted criteria here: www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/4382551-Live-not-by-lies-Solzhenitsyn-no-tambourines-involved?msgid=111900052

I hope she has security and support. This is ridiculous.

I think the psychology of Atwood's position is very interesting. She's a highly intelligent woman who has demonstrated in her books that she understands two things: how bullies operate, and how the patriarchy uses women's biology to oppress them.

And yet here she is lining up with an anti-woman ideology that both pretends that biology doesn't matter and bullies women who don't comply.

What's going on? My best guess is that she has the rather old-fashioned view of trans identity that a lot of people have, which is that this is a small group of vulnerable people who believe themselves to have been born in the wrong body. She thinks the feminists who disagree with them are a bunch of meanies ("TERFS").

When she sees signs that these people are behaving in a rather extreme and anti-feminist way, she tries to create a middle ground between the feminist meanies and the extremist ideologues.

What she doesn't understand is that there is no middle ground: that everyone who doesn't fall totally in line with the extremists is regarded as a TERF, regardless of how sympathetic they are to trans people or how moderate they believe their position to be.

She might get there eventually, but if she'd bothered to read what people like JK Rowling and Helen Joyce have written, she'd have got there a lot sooner.

Not to derail, but I must just say that Havel, who supported the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia and also the invasion of Iraq, is not someone well-qualified to pontificate about conscience. He had no qualms about abdicating his own reason in favour of the authority of Western military complex, when push came to shove.

Obviously the greengrocer is indifferent to the semantic content of the slogan on exhibit; he does not put the slogan in his window from any personal desire to acquaint the public with the ideal it expresses. This, of course, does not mean that his action has no motive or significance at all, or that the slogan communicates nothing to anyone. The slogan is really a sign, and as such it contains a subliminal but very definite message. Verbally, it might be expressed this way: "I, the greengrocer XY, live here and I know what I must do. I behave in the manner expected of me. I can be depended upon and am beyond reproach. I am obedient and therefore I have the right to be left in peace." This message, of course, has an addressee: it is directed above, to the greengrocer's superior, and at the same time it is a shield that protects the greengrocer from potential informers. The slogan's real meaning, therefore, is rooted firmly in the greengrocer's existence. It reflects his vital interests. But what are those vital interests?

Let us take note: if the greengrocer had been instructed to display the slogan "I am afraid and therefore unquestioningly obedient;' he would not be nearly as indifferent to its semantics, even though the statement would reflect the truth.

I was thinking of this when an article writer claimed to have contacted Kathleen Stock's 4 colleagues and reported that 3 of them agreed with her but were too frightened to say so in public. If that's accurate, just think how much we've done the work of implementing this system of editing and restriction ourselves with scarcely much maintenance needed beyond a public shaming from time to time.

Thanks @EmbarrassingHadrosaurus - hadn't heard of that before - really interesting (and bloody depressingly accurate!) stuff.

TWEET

@glosswitch
Entering into a debate in which another woman got a slew of death and rape threats and assuming you won't is a bit like starting a relationship with someone you know beat up his ex and assuming he won't attack you. The same "but I'm not crazy like her"

Embarrassing, you could be right. the early adopters calling out the issues are the untouchables and the early majority less so and they have the advantage of seeing what happened. Along will come the late majority to take the credit...

Humanity can't cope with some dissonance, it seems. So it comes to accepting the outcome that recent commenters like Helen Joyce outlined, there is no valour or retrospective validation here, it's 'eyes on the prize' for the outcomes that we do want.

Vaclav Havel, 1978 has some prescient observations about mantras and the unthinking adoption of an ideology and the true cost of the absolution that it confers.

In an era when metaphysical and existential certainties are in a state of crisis, when people are being uprooted and alienated and are losing their sense of what this world means, this ideology inevitably has a certain hypnotic charm. To wandering humankind it offers an immediately available home: all one has to do is accept it, and suddenly everything becomes clear once more, life takes on new meaning, and all mysteries, unanswered questions, anxiety, and loneliness vanish. Of course, one pays dearly for this low-rent home: the price is abdication of one’ s own reason, conscience, and responsibility, for an essential aspect of this ideology is the consignment of reason and conscience to a higher authority.

hac.bard.edu/amor-mundi/the-power-of-the-powerless-vaclav-havel-2011-12-23

I wonder how many people in Atwood's communities are currently having flickers of discomfort that they'll suppress but may eventually result in a similar realisation.

Last night, she was claiming not to know what GC stood for, so not sure how much time she actually spends online.

Lots of men support trans rights without being misogynist. (Now I will have to look up GC.)

twitter.com/MargaretAtwood/status/1452099586781335555?t=5lDeVTBX9NDZokYpLW4h7Q&s=19

So long as she keeps asking questions or disagreeing she will never be accepted as part of team trans.

Even if she recants (motherfucker) she will never be accepted again. She is now impure. There is no redemption.

I've followed a few of these struggle sessions in the past, and in my experience the TRAS are never bright enough to know when to just let it go. They are strikingly binary in this regard. You either agree 100%, or stay silent about disagreement, and are on team trans or you disagree about even the tiniest thing and that puts you on team TERF. Atwood seems to have genuine questions and points of disagreement, but thinks this is still compatible with her being on team trans. So long as she keeps asking questions or disagreeing she will never be accepted as part of team trans. Which is nuts, of course, but that's the way it is.

Ah, got you. Yes, it will be interesting. She's trying VERY hard to appease at the moment, including by promoting Shon Faye's book.
It will be interesting.

[quote ThumbWitchesAbroad]@EmbarrassingHadrosaurus - that's just one example. If you go on her Twitter thread, you will see numerous other appeasements, including her promoting Shon Faye's book.
She is not standing for women.[/quote]
I know she isn't. That's the value of a cooler, they're in different communities.

She won't become GC (certainly not in the short to medium term). Nonetheless, seeing what has happened to her may well be instructive for people in her communities.

Talking of poetry, Martin Niemoller wrote a certain poem she might be about to feel the weight of.

She should quit trying to appease them. She's tarnished with the taint of TERFdom now in their eyes.

You know what Stalin did with those whom he considered ideologically suspect, including Red Army soldiers who had been POWs and therefore possibly exposed to enemy propaganda? Straight to the GULAG to die.

She is about to enjoy her very own denouncement and Siberian exile.

If she's not using an online blocker she's relying on a mental one. It helps keep the cognitive dissonance at bay.

The address is still up there. I feel a bit sick that someone thought this was a good idea and that Twitter are doing nothing about it.