Of all people....Margaret Atwood ‘we’re all part of a flowing bellcurve’

[BubblegumFactory]

Can’t link to Twitter so I took a screenshot.
I’m kind of in shock.
Anyone else seen this?

Sharp.

Ha, that thread is grimly hilarious Heistsociety.

Sorry to go slightly OT but has anyone seen the Iranian film "Under the Shadow"? It was on Netflix until recently. It's about a woman living in Tehran in the early years after the revolution and during the Iran/Iraq war (it was recently made but set in about 1983 I think). There may or may not be a ghost in her house. But her backstory is: she was a doctor who lost her job under the new regime, and her husband, another doctor, agreed that perhaps she should stay home and look after their daughter. She has lost her career and independence overnight. In one scene, she flees her home in terror (I can't remember if it's a bombing or an apparition) and is immediately arrested because she's not wearing a chador. It's a vivid haunting picture of a woman on the edge of madness, someone whose whole life has been upended and it's very clever that you're never really sure if the ghost is real or not. It's fictional but for so many women around the world The Handmaid's Tale was and is very real. Margaret Atwood's sophistry about fecking clownfish or whatever, just depresses me. It's not some kind of intellectual game ffs.

Bellend curve more like.

Not a surprise if you've followed Atwood over the years

Yes. Handmaid's Tale was very misunderstood. She is lib fem through and through.

but I remember a discussion about it at university where we talked about whether she was implying that the feminist movement that included Offred’s mother was indirectly responsible for the pushback from society resulting in the rise of Gilead. I think even then she said it wasn’t a feminist novel, it was once that about women

I remember when the novel was released. If you can, go back to some of the reviews and her discussions of it at the time. An early scene in the book (I loathed it so gave it away and can't check up on this) is Offred's mother with other radical feminists burning books (pornography). The point Attwood was making (and it is an interesting one) is that feminists created Gilead with their allegiance to the 'new right', the evangelical Christian movement and Reagan. She openly opposed radical feminism and always has been a lib. fem.

Marge Piercy, on the other hand, rocks.

There used to be flourishing women's publishing houses such as The Women's Press

medium.com/the-cinnamon-bun/whatever-happened-to-the-womens-science-fiction-press-8b8f4b0a5d5a

who published works equally as wonderful as Atwood. They didn't touch the public nerve so much though because they were radical, anarchist or socialist in orientation.

Also, Olivia records if you don't know them.

Oh dear, don't check her Twitter. She's thanking clear thinking youngsters for setting her straight re the 'untruths' in JKR's essay.

Ok. It's kind of depressing now. I feel it's a bit malicious, a bit 'lets cut the opposition down to size.' Ungenerous?

Ok. It's kind of depressing now. I feel it's a bit malicious, a bit 'lets cut the opposition down to size.' Ungenerous?

Yes I think she's basically trolling for attention on the back of this. Not many people are immune to the temptation of a bit of consequence-free virtue signalling.

Not a surprise if you've followed Atwood over the years

I agree. I can't stand Margaret Atwood either as a writer or a person.

The Handmaid's Tale is an utterly vile book. I've never seen as some sort of feminist warning but rather the work of someone rather enjoyed doling out misery and punishment on her female characters.

Monday that's about as dignified a response as this deserves, quite frankly

It's not very edifying.

She's gone down in my estimation as a person on the basis of that behaviour towards our Jo.

I can't believe that the woman who wrote The Handmaids Tale could tweet this unmitigated bullshit

Oh I can very easily. I think you really have to dislike women to have written it.

Atwood is probably in the same camp as Philip Pullman, where she has either adaptations of her work ongoing, which could be jeopardized by her being #cancelled, or she hopes more of her work will be adapted in the future. TV money comes with PR strings. At best, she's putting profit above her principles.

At worst she's a hypocrite and a sell out.

Fucking hell! I love Margaret Atwood's books - apart from some of the early ones that were a pile of shite! Didn't realise she'd swallowed this women feelz nonsense...

apart from some of the early ones that were a pile of shite

What was the one with the drowning scene that was somehow tied to an abortion?

Fuck, it was dreadful.

Goosefoot
I think the people in her books are weirdly soulless and disturbing. I made a good effort to read a bunch and some were required in school as part of CanLit, but I gave up in the end because they made me feel depressed

Chiochan

Weirdly, Im not that surprised
I liked some of her work a lot, but it has always struck me from her work that she seems quite cynical
mix this with ambition and you end up with someone prity ruthless*

I completely agree. The esteem she is held in by feminists has always puzzled me. I always got a sense that she really enjoyed piling on the misery.

@Mycatismadeofstringcheese

I’m going to have to reread the Handmaid’s Tale but I remember a discussion about it at university where we talked about whether she was implying that the feminist movement that included Offred’s mother was indirectly responsible for the pushback from society resulting in the rise of Gilead. I think even then she said it wasn’t a feminist novel, it was once that about women. It has been a while so I might be misquoting.

That's interesting, I don't remember the details about Offred's mother. It's been 25 years since I read it though.

But it's very often true that an ideological movement begets it's opposite, and then they feed off each other, becoming more and more extreme.

A few people have noted how elements or arguments that came from feminism were rolled into gender ideology, both in terms of contributing ideas or in a reactionary sense.

Surfacing, yes.

I liked her when I was younger, but went off her as I gained more life experience. And read more widely. I think she's over hyped. Alice Munro is the real goddess of Canadian literature but she's not as TV- friendly.

(I was replying to Yetanotherspartacus sory)

See this doesn't bother me because, after all, she is a fiction writer. Some of what she writes is speculative fiction and its often about matters of sex and gender. So for her to be playing with ideas about barracudas or whatever is a healthy part of her creative work.

Surfacing, yes

Thank you. I was searching Google frantically and couldn't find it!

@YetAnotherSpartacus

apart from some of the early ones that were a pile of shite

What was the one with the drowning scene that was somehow tied to an abortion?

Fuck, it was dreadful.

Surfacing, maybe?

I think, reading these tweets, she actually really is at sea with this subject. She doesn't get the science, the whole idea that DSDs create a bellcurve just doesn't make sense, that's not how they fit together. She doesn't seem to understand the legal implications or have any real background for the larger discussion.

A lot might be down to her being a Canadian, the degree to which all this simply fails to be seen in the Canadian press is shocking. I've not been able to come to any conclusion other than it's actively being suppressed.

I used to be a big supporter of the CBC and still think as a concept it's important, in fact I still belong to Friends of the CBC. But I'm at a point now where I think they've become a sort of force for ignorance. They don't even question the orthodoxies of the progressive left any more, they don't seem to allow that it's possible to do so.

Yep. Surfacing. :)

I'm not buying her ignorance. Most of her books were deeply political. I don't think she is naive.

@YetAnotherSpartacus

Yep. Surfacing. :)

I'm not buying her ignorance. Most of her books were deeply political. I don't think she is naive.

No... But I think she's been totally sheltered from this discussion. She reminds me a bit of my mum, although my mum is far more open to listening. But she just doesn't see the information anywhere, and it's not natural for her to think about things like how it will play out legally unless something brings it in front of her. She does, as a nurse, think about health related elements very clearly but also as a nurse things in terms of care for all.

And up until the past month she still believed the CBC was reliable and it was her main source of news. She still won't read the Globe and Mail, much less The National Post - too right wing. No real knowledge of alternate media like podcasts.

Atwood is still very much of the type who thinks that of course the progressive left is being honest and, well, progressive.

She's kind of a curmudgeon though, I think if she saw the right thing she might rethink just because she's cranky.

Yes - The Handmaid's Tale (TV show) did go very strange at the end of the last series though, didn't it? Can't say I liked it much by then...

The book will always stand alone as an excellent work IMO - a cautionary tale of what happens when women lose their rights (or rather, men take women's rights away!).

Oh, and everything I've read that Atwood says on this subject, it's cleat that she is talking about the old-school transexuals - effeminate gay males - more likely to pass and empathise with women.

Not the ones who have autogynephilia - who (some of them) can be a different kettle of fish altogether.