Margaret Atwood

[MrsJoJo86]

What does everyone think of Margaret Atwood's recent comments on #metoo?

I'm a bit disappointed to be honest.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-42708522

This is the first I've read about it but yes that does seem very disappointing.

I get fed up with people banging on about 'due process'. Due process was invented by men to excuse men of rape and murder.

I think the media love to criticise older women.
I've read the article and agree with much of it. I agree with this:
"The #MeToo moment is a symptom of a broken legal system. All too frequently, women and other sexual-abuse complainants couldn't get a fair hearing through institutions"
And on the face of what she's written, I agree about refraining from commenting on the man's case. He has been investigated for assault, found not guilty, fired from his job anyway and there is on going legal stuff so the judgment can't be publicised yet. She isn't saying hes innocent, just that she's withholding judgment. Fair enough I think.

I think she's being held to higher standards than other people because she is a feminist. It irks me.

Why feel disappointment? It seems to me that her article is merely advocating due legal process for the accused - whether male or female - as opposed to vigilantism / trial by media. Surely that is something we must support in the interests of justice and upholding the rule of law?

The law lets rapists off every day. Screw the law. Atwood should spend less time defending rapists and accusing victims of male violence and oppression of engaging in 'witch hunts,' and more time attacking the patriarchy.

Here's the actual article. She explains her use of witch hunt and it isn't what you think. It is specifically about the fact our legal system isn't enabling women to get justice when they are abused.

She is making the point that women squabbling and dividing themselves into "good" and "bad" feminists doesn't change the system and in fact enables men to continue as they are.

I really do think she is making excellent points in a provocative way (similar to Germaine Greer) and your reaction is proving what she's trying to say.

www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/am-i-a-bad-feminist/article37591823/

She compared a trial of a man accused of sexual violence to the horrors of the soviet union, the french revolution and the theocratic regime in Iran. She should know better than anyone that these horrors were perpetrated by MEN.

and more time attacking the patriarchy.

To be fair Atwood has spent rather a lot of time doing this.

Exactly - and that's what she should continue doing. Not defending rapists and comparing those who demand justice for women to witch hunters. Witch hunts were led by men against women, remember.

I found little to really disagree with in her article.

This twitter response in the BBC piece Margaret Atwood has been told—repeatedly, in person, with compassion and without rancour—the painful & chilling effect of her involvement with UBC Accountable. She has been told of specific instances of pain, and given additional details wrt the case. She knows. She doesn't care.

... has an air of "how dare she think differently" and 'literal violence' to it that I don't like.

Cf also the "so disappointed in germane greer for disagreeing with me on trans/whatever" thing. I think GG is wrong on some stuff but I bloody luffs her, and am happy that she expresses opinions which are difficult.

Having said that I looked at this at first and thought "oh dear Margaret Atwood" . It would be nice if our idols always thought like we expected them to!

To the poster who wrote: "Due process was invented by men to excuse men of rape and murder."

Please tell me you are on drugs or have some other issue. Due process is a fundamental legal right. Everyone of any gender has every right to due process in respect of allegations against them. Anyone suggesting otherwise deserves to be on the receiving end of a few spurious allegations...

"There are, at present, three kinds of "witch" language. 1) Calling someone a witch, as applied lavishly to Hillary Clinton during the recent election. 2) "Witchhunt," used to imply that someone is looking for something that doesn't exist. 3) The structure of the Salem witchcraft trials, in which you were guilty because accused. I was talking about the third use."

So - if we disagree with Atwood's POV, we should assume anyone who is accused, is guilty because they have been accused? And it is to be accepted that they should be "tried by the media" & lose their job without any proof of the allegations.

I can't see anything in her article which seems unreasonable. She does specifically state that "vigilante justice – condemnation without a trial – it begins as a response to a lack of justice." I don't see how this supports anyone's assertions that she is failing to attack the patriarchy. Her views seem fairly moderate - especially considering she's such a feminist icon. "In times of extremes, extremists win... moderates in the middle are annihilated."

It's because of 'due process' and the insistence that the man's innocence must be assumed and the woman's held in doubt that only one reported rape in fourteen results in a conviction.

I think you'll find due process applies regardless of gender. The concept is one of innocent until proven guilty.

What would you prefer? Innocent unless male?

I think women have suffered enough.

Incidentally, the reason so many rape allegations result in no conviction is lack of evidence. One persons word against the other. Incredibly sad but very little answer in a fair and just legal system.

Afraid gender really doesn't come into this one. Genuinely scares me that some people think otherwise.

It's like the Liam Allan case. We're supposed to care about him when every week, largely unreported by the media, rapists go free.

Her article was interesting, and soundly argued. Without knowing the local politics it's hard to judge the rights and wrongs of the case in question, but sacking people because they were accused of stuff doesn't sit right with me.

Innocent until proven guilty in court is the only just way to run a legal system.
That statement does not defend rapists.

I think women have suffered enough.

So the accused is not entitled to a fair hearing? It's men's turn to suffer now?

The law must be followed or it loses all value & people will begin to take the law into their own hands. It's really rubbish that so few sexual assault cases result in conviction but the emphasis should be on appropriate education for everyone, starting as children, about consent etc. Also on destigmatisation for victims so they can come forward without fear of recrimination, ridicule or being automatically turned away. Not an immediate & blanket assumption that accusation equals guilt.

Chesterwife. ....said...

"To the poster who wrote: "Due process was invented by men to excuse men of rape and murder."

Please tell me you are on drugs or have some other issue. Due process is a fundamental legal right. Everyone of any gender has every right to due process in respect of allegations against them. Anyone suggesting otherwise deserves to be on the receiving end of a few spurious allegations..."

It's almost like they are trolling.

I believe in due process in principle, but it's not working for women. What it means is that men are always believed while victims are on trial.

Childrenofthestones do you think Liam Allan's victims was lying? Yes or No. Do you think Aziz Ansari's victim is lying?

I agree with her. She’s arguing against systemic failure of women to access justice.