To think Margaret Atwood is amazing

[Bibijayne]

Just that really.

@Highperbolay has it exactly.
As for Atwood, I bet you she’s researching for a book. At least, I fucking hope so.

Highperbolay
With bells on

Yes, Dione I suppose you can have an opinion about whether gravity exists or whether the earth is flat. The idea that you would tweet about it smugly as a well known accomplished writer is quite amusing though. Such are These Interesting Times.

@Highperbolay

It's funny isn't it, that these discussions about sex not being binary and about how it's just oh so hard to define what a woman is, are coming about right now.

Throughout human history there has never been any fucking doubt about who the men are and who the women are. No one has ever had a problem with there being only two sexes and have always been able to tell who is who.

But now, just as women are finally making some gains towards equality, particularly in our society... Suddenly its just all so complicated? Suddenly sex isn't binary, and it is in fact oh so tricky to define what a woman is? And therefore sex based rights for women are now a grey area because well, what even is a woman anyway?

It's so fucking obvious what is going on here and it makes me sick to be honest.

I'm not sure this is mainly a way to bring women down.

I think the fact that women's lives are now far more like men's than they ever have been has caused a lot of people to come to believe that the only differences are minor and cosmetic.

Particularly the ability to avoid or limit pregnancy. A heck of a lot of the gains or changes in women's lives are down to that. No one in the thousands of years of human history could have made such a mistake because it was perfectly evident to one and all that women's lives were quite different from men's lives, as they were pregnant or had small babies for much of their adult life. That, or they made a deliberate decision to remain celibate, but again, that's a very obvious and significant whole-life commitment.

I think the word “science” is doing some heavy lifting here. Ok, technically humans being a sexually dimorphic species is a scientific fact but it’s more generally knowledge, common sense or bleeding obvious that science. It’s no more science than “humans eat food” or “humans can’t breathe underwater”.

I think the fact that women's lives are now far more like men's than they ever have been has caused a lot of people to come to believe that the only differences are minor and cosmetic.

Particularly the ability to avoid or limit pregnancy. A heck of a lot of the gains or changes in women's lives are down to that. No one in the thousands of years of human history could have made such a mistake because it was perfectly evident to one and all that women's lives were quite different from men's lives, as they were pregnant or had small babies for much of their adult life. That, or they made a deliberate decision to remain celibate, but again, that's a very obvious and significant whole-life commitment.

Is it this kind of thinking which leads to ridiculous assertions such as that a woman who doesn't get pregnant because she is on hormonal contraception, has been through menopause, is having chemotherapy, has PCOS or just isn't ovulating at that particular time of the month is the same as a male who doesn't get pregnant?

Also one sex class is responsible for 98% of sexual crime. Now how do we identify who those people are? It's a headscratcher for sure, oh so complex...

Aren't most Tweets smug Ereshkigalangcleg? Or provocative? Or bullshit? Or self promoting?

Twitter is not academia. It's not an encyclopaedia. It's not a scientific journal. It's a SM platform for anybody who signs up. But it has become more than that for those who love a pile on and believe that because a person thinks differently from them, they must be stupid, misogynist, transphobics, who condone child abuse and are involved in a mass conspiracy.

Yes, Twitter is awful. No argument there.

But Atwood's ignorant grandstanding is still quite something.

I love The Handmaid's Tale. It's one of the books that stayed with me for weeks after I read it, and really was an eye opener that made me understand how women are oppressed even more.

I love it too. I don’t think its meaning changes because of the author’s views now - once good fiction is written its interpretation will vary from reader to reader, depending on their own experiences.

I read a lot and am very fast so get through a lot of novels; a book called “The Natural Way of Things” by an Australian author called Charlotte Wood also stayed with me for weeks. Similar theme - a group of young women whose “crime” was to have relationships with powerful men - were banished to an abandoned station in the Australian outback. Feted novel in Australia - won prizes - and there are inevitable comparisons to The Handmaid’s Tale but the feminist anger of the author is palpable.

I dont agree. It's typical twatteratti bullshit, as is the backlash.

^^ was in response to Eresh.

I dont agree. It's typical twatteratti bullshit, as is the backlash.

I happen to think denying biology goes a bit further than that. And no, the backlash to denying biology isn't just as unreasonable.

Calling people stupid; misogynistic; racist; ageist; transphobic; homophobic; child abuse apologists because they said something wrong / that you don't agree with, on Twitter, is as much twatteratti bullshit as the original smug, self serving tweets.

It is not healthy discourse. It is not conversation or even debate.

It depends what's been said. Do you think these things should never be called out?

Atwood has not in any way denied that males and females exist.

I get that if MA was an obs&gynae consultant, it should be brought to the attention of her patients. As a writer of fiction, not so much.

She is, IMHO, an amazing writer, but not so hot at science, brokering a mortgage, cooking or driving instructor.

@Highperbolay

I think the fact that women's lives are now far more like men's than they ever have been has caused a lot of people to come to believe that the only differences are minor and cosmetic.

Particularly the ability to avoid or limit pregnancy. A heck of a lot of the gains or changes in women's lives are down to that. No one in the thousands of years of human history could have made such a mistake because it was perfectly evident to one and all that women's lives were quite different from men's lives, as they were pregnant or had small babies for much of their adult life. That, or they made a deliberate decision to remain celibate, but again, that's a very obvious and significant whole-life commitment.

Is it this kind of thinking which leads to ridiculous assertions such as that a woman who doesn't get pregnant because she is on hormonal contraception, has been through menopause, is having chemotherapy, has PCOS or just isn't ovulating at that particular time of the month is the same as a male who doesn't get pregnant?

Also one sex class is responsible for 98% of sexual crime. Now how do we identify who those people are? It's a headscratcher for sure, oh so complex...

I think the reason is that it's not really a thought through idea, which means it goes unexamined. It's just that people don't see much difference in the day to day life of men they now than women. Most people aren't criminals, so stats around violence aren't really part of the observation.

People also get told very explicitly that women can do whatever men can do, and that if there are disparities it's down to sexism. And that inn the past when roles were so different, that was sexism too. So they think - by nature, men and women have no real differences, and it would be sexist to think there are, any we see are due to socialisation and sex roles.

Most people don't spend much time thinking carefully about what life was really like, say, 200 years ago, and they don't tweak that the reason women didn't do x, y, or z much was as much about biological constraints than sexism. (The fact that in many cases nuns did these things escapes notice. Why would that be?)

I blame historical drama and lit for a lot of this. Somehow the heroines never become inconveniently pregnant on a yearly basis.

@DioneTheDiabolist

I get that if MA was an obs&gynae consultant, it should be brought to the attention of her patients. As a writer of fiction, not so much.

She is, IMHO, an amazing writer, but not so hot at science, brokering a mortgage, cooking or driving instructor.

She did do a segment on a Canadian tv show on how to stop a puck getting in the net.

Yeah, but that's physics, not biology.
😂😂😂

get that if MA was an obs&gynae consultant, it should be brought to the attention of her patients. As a writer of fiction, not so much.

She is, IMHO, an amazing writer, but not so hot at science, brokering a mortgage, cooking or driving instructor.

Ok, this is a fair point.

Atwood has not in any way denied that males and females exist.

What do you think the bullshit Appeal To Fish was then?

Atwood has not in any way denied that males and females exist.

Her denial of the existence of males and females as two distinct groups is why we are having this discussion.

She wrote a book in which everyone's role in society was determined by their SEX, and now she is saying that we are all on a 'flowing bell curve' where nobody is actually male or female.

She is a writer, not a scientist. Thank god for that!

Margaret Atwood has just signed an open letter against ‘cancel culture’ and restrictions on free speech.
www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-53330105