Margaret Atwood

[MummBRaaarrrTheEverLeaking]

twitter.com/MargaretAtwood/status/1450429768067846145?t=8q-A8MlvzZsx6pt4Vu1_LA&s=19

Has retweeted an article from the Toronto Star "why can't we say woman anymore" and bloody hell are they coming for the latest witch burning in the comments!

Ranging from disappointment to the usual sweary abuse. I thought oh how long till the capitulation begins, turns out I didn't have to wait long!

She's following it up with retweets about 'we can say people when it's accurate and inclusive' and then defending the article because the writer isn't "a terf"???

Not really sure what she's trying to achieve here, anyone?

I think Atwood is probably typical of many professional people. Has paid minimum attention previously to the detail of what has been happening.

So the assumption is made that those horrible 'terfs' and 'transphobes' she hears about have been doing and saying outrageous things. Not realising of course that her own very reasonable thoughts are enough to send her to the gulag too.

Her being Canadian is likely a factor here because Canada has suppressed a hell of a lot and they don't seem to have a media as robust as ours.

I would be happy for her to fully wake up to the extent of abuse and coercion women have been subjected to and of course will defend her against all the sexist, ageist abuse she is getting now. I can't muster a lot of sympathy though after she was happy to put her name to a JKR witch hunt.

A lot of the commentary is how Atwood has always been trash/racist/bigoted/a rubbish author. It's very Orwellian; X has always been an enemy of the people. I'm simultaneously fascinated and horrified at how totalitarian this movement is. It's like we're getting to see how all those regimes happened.

YY, it's pretty terrifying.

Agreed, it is very totalitarian.

One thing that has always fascinated me about it, though, is its limitations as a strategy. If you abuse people, intimidate them, call them bigots, get them sacked, ostracise them, threaten them with violence, then for a while that works to enforce compliance. Most people are too frightened to speak out, and the minority who do can have their lives ruined.

So tactically it works for a while. But in the long term? Eventually, surely, even the dimmest of bulbs starts to see what's going on. No one sensible thinks that Margaret Atwood - up to now a trans ally - deserves to be called those vile names simply for tweeting an article.

@EsmaCannonball

A lot of the commentary is how Atwood has always been trash/racist/bigoted/a rubbish author. It's very Orwellian; X has always been an enemy of the people. I'm simultaneously fascinated and horrified at how totalitarian this movement is. It's like we're getting to see how all those regimes happened.

YY, a cursory look at Twitter last night showed great deal of criticism and dismissal of her non-intersectional "white feminism" which has always made her A Piece of Shit. A lot of people have clearly been waiting for an opportunity like this to stick the boot in which has kind of blown this up even more.

@Ereshkigalangcleg

A lot of the commentary is how Atwood has always been trash/racist/bigoted/a rubbish author. It's very Orwellian; X has always been an enemy of the people. I'm simultaneously fascinated and horrified at how totalitarian this movement is. It's like we're getting to see how all those regimes happened.

YY, it's pretty terrifying.

Yes. Normally you just read about these things in history books and wonder how it all happened. I think we have a fair idea now.

@EsmaCannonball

A lot of the commentary is how Atwood has always been trash/racist/bigoted/a rubbish author. It's very Orwellian; X has always been an enemy of the people. I'm simultaneously fascinated and horrified at how totalitarian this movement is. It's like we're getting to see how all those regimes happened.

Yep. I can remember seeing posts on twitter of them gloating about the fact she was on their side, now suddenly she's never been one of theirs. Bizarre.

Oh! I’m so pleased this got some column inches.

And that they quoted Amanda J K’s nonsense.

@RoyalCorgi

Agreed, it is very totalitarian.

One thing that has always fascinated me about it, though, is its limitations as a strategy. If you abuse people, intimidate them, call them bigots, get them sacked, ostracise them, threaten them with violence, then for a while that works to enforce compliance. Most people are too frightened to speak out, and the minority who do can have their lives ruined.

So tactically it works for a while. But in the long term? Eventually, surely, even the dimmest of bulbs starts to see what's going on. No one sensible thinks that Margaret Atwood - up to now a trans ally - deserves to be called those vile names simply for tweeting an article.

It's like any abusive dynamic. Starts with lovebombing, rainbows and cute slogans, all looks very pretty and inspirational.

But step out of line, ask questions, err in any way ...

I have no sympathy for Attwood. That said, I do not believe that anyone - regardless of their views - should be subject to abuse.

So tactically it works for a while.

My gut feeling is that to sustain this you need to keep ratcheting up the abuse/control. I don't think you can reach a stable point where you can keep it ticking over. It has a pyramid scheme vibe about it.

It looks as though she's literally just understood what she supported before- not a gentle welcoming of refugees from toxic masculinity but the careful dismantling of women's rights to facilitate an invasion of that same toxic masculinity.

If we can get to a point where people like Atwood can say this out loud, I think that's a golden bridge. Beautifully put.

This just reiterates that it's far better to be in the "No thank you" camp than the "Anything you say" camp as inevitably, you'll be treated the same at some pint anyway when you slightly step out of line.

My gut feeling is that to sustain this you need to keep ratcheting up the abuse/control. I don't think you can reach a stable point where you can keep it ticking over. It has a pyramid scheme vibe about it.

I think you're right, but I also think - as with pyramid schemes - it is doomed to fail eventually. Look at the number of men who initially didn't grasp what was going on and who are now saying "Hang on, this isn't right." I mean, not many, admittedly. But enough to clear the way for others to come forward.

[quote ArabellaScott]In the Mail:

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10110001/Handmaids-Tale-author-Margaret-Atwood-branded-transphobic-row-gender-neutral-language.html[/quote]
The Mail piece reads like it was written by a Guardian TRA!

@nauticant

So tactically it works for a while.

My gut feeling is that to sustain this you need to keep ratcheting up the abuse/control. I don't think you can reach a stable point where you can keep it ticking over. It has a pyramid scheme vibe about it.

Yes.

WRT the golden bridge: I've often been elegantly educated by the women of FWR's wise examples on how to help someone recovering or seeking an exit from a difficult/abusive situation.

One doesn't try to browbeat or cajole or persuade. It's providing an example of what a mature, respectful discourse based on mutual respect looks like.

No lovebombing, no castigation.

Reasonable arguments, based on fact, not emotional manipulation.

ooohh! REALLY disappointed with that Mail article, I thought that they were on our side?
Unless they are thinking that showing all of those crazy tweets shows how absurd the tweets are??

I have no idea.

But they show none of the intelligent tweets from our side

I'm saying it again, I do not feel sorry for MA. I love her books. I don't wish her harm. I hope she does realise what a terrible situation she has lent legitimacy to through her position of authority as a revered author and expert on women's rights. I hope she regrets what she did. I don't expect her to say that she does regret it or apologise as I don't believe she has it in her to be contrite. I will be delighted if she decides to stand up for women, as her voice will open up a dialogue that is verboten in her circles. I don't think any of those positions is incompatible with the other.

I do not buy the line that she has become an unwitting ally to TRAs through kindness or whatever. She famously said that nothing that was written in Handmaid's Tale was made up - that it was all a representation of what was happening to women in real time. She is supposed to be (set herself up as) learned in the plethora of ways men worldwide have found to suppress, terrorise and remove the human rights of women. Nothing that has been done in the name of trans rights is particularly obscure, it's not hard to spot the pitfalls. Not for an intelligent woman of the world, who has always put women at the forefront of her writing, and has the privilege of time to think about this stuff and to speak out from a place where her livelihood is not under threat. And living in Canada, she would have seen gender politics rolled out, not by stealth as it has been in the UK/Ireland, but right in her face.

So why didn't she see the downside for women? Is she in fact out of touch? Handmaid's Tale was written/published nearly 40 years ago. Perhaps the TV version rolling out gave MA a reflected glow of contemporary relevance that didn't actually exist?

If she does have her eyes opened now, I can't help thinking it's only because she is on the receiving end personally. It's not about those poor immigrant women Yaniv went after in her country, the poor women in prisons sharing with TW in her country, the women ousted from sport by the Canadian sporting authorities that support self ID, the silencing and cancelling that has gone on in universities in her country. All of the women whose lives have been irreversibly damaged by Canadian self ID laws did not have a voice with the clout MA speaking for them. How different it could have been if she had put herself out for them instead of putting herself out for the powerful lobby of TRAs. I hope MA is having a road to Damascus moment, but I rather suspect the revelation will be based on self preservation alone. As this thread demonstrates, people on this side are kinder and more forgiving as a whole, she's safer here. Which is fine, everyone should welcome MA if she does cross that golden bridge. But I do not and will not feel sorry for her.

@oldwomanwhoruns

ooohh! REALLY disappointed with that Mail article, I thought that they were on our side? Unless they are thinking that showing all of those crazy tweets shows how absurd the tweets are??

I have no idea.

But they show none of the intelligent tweets from our side

Did you read the comments, though?

I think the writer might be US based, which might explain how it's written. (certainly all her other articles seem to be US news)

That's another point - it seems to me that the context of Canada/US politics and media makes a huge difference to how the matter is positioned.

Ah, good point @ArabellaScott, I'd not scrolled down past the c**p to get to the comments. They are great! And one can use the 'ratings' buttons to help some up the chart too

@DialSquare

This just reiterates that it's far better to be in the "No thank you" camp than the "Anything you say" camp as inevitably, you'll be treated the same at some pint anyway when you slightly step out of line.

Exactly, a ‘may as well be hung for a sheep as lamb’ type thing

Atwood is at the top of an elite ultra-woke group in a very woke country. She has more status than you can shake a stick at. Having seen how she's enjoyed that over the past couple of decades I really don't expect her to put it at risk. I think her "coming out" here is more carelessness than statement. The next plausible move from her would be status preservation.

I read the Mail article as if the situation was all so ludicrous that they didn’t need to make much more comment. It wrote itself.

But maybe I’m being too charitable.

So why didn't she see the downside for women? Is she in fact out of touch? Handmaid's Tale was written/published nearly 40 years ago. Perhaps the TV version rolling out gave MA a reflected glow of contemporary relevance that didn't actually exist?

I think some people can only see threats to women coming from the right wing. Especially in North America where politics are even more polarised. Truth is both sides are only too eager to put the boot on our neck, they just differ in their means.

The USA is just so polarised politically, generally people believe you're either on the left and believe in all the wokedom OR you're on the right, you're a christian fundamentalist and you believe in traditional sex roles and do not believe in abortion, same sex marriage or being trans. Most people in the USA just don't see how you can be on the left and have an issue with how far trans rights have trumped women's rights - they don't understand how those beliefs sit together in one world view. Indeed, many people believe that if you think trans rights have gone too far, you also believe in traditional sex roles and stereotypes - which I can see no evidence of, in the UK at least.

And living in Canada, she would have seen gender politics rolled out, not by stealth as it has been in the UK/Ireland, but right in her face.

I can see why you might think that, but it's not how it has played out. I seriously doubt Atwood has had more than an inkling of the problems involved in this. People have been very reassured by the state that these laws are just fine and will have no bad effects. They do not know about people like Yaniv and if they hear they think they are just crazies that you get everywhere from time to time.