Brilliant Margaret Atwood memoir review

[hholiday]

By Kathleen Stock https://archive.is/v2z51 and https://unherd.com/2025/11/what-margaret-atwood-got-wrong/

Just wonderful, humane writing that goes closer than anything else I have read to exploring the blind spots in Atwood’s views on gender, as well as expressing delight in her fiction writing. I particularly love these killer closing lines:

But honestly, the idea that, in the near future, Western governments will need to use direct force to make women do market-friendly things against their own interests is now surely, definitively preposterous. The case of genderism — and surrogacy, and “sex work”, for that matter — shows that authorities only need to persuade enough women that certain activities are kind, or glamorous, or nobly self-improving; at which point, tender-hearted armies will rise up to ruthlessly punish dissenters themselves.

Good line. Made me shudder.

Interestingly, Stock's review says more about her view of women than Atwood's in that she clearly doesn't view them as autonomous beings…..when convenient. Desires that don't align with standard conservative views are "persuaded by authorities" rather than organically motivated. Women, it would appear are merely hapless programmable robots in Stock's world.

Where have we heard this before? Anti women's rights proponents have long been shouting from the rooftops how feminism 'persuaded' women to abandon their 'biological destiny' thus immiserating them & degrading society via its 'feminisation'. That feminism may have been an organic inclination rooted in the reality of gender interchangeability was totally lost on them.

That Stock attempts to falsely equate women's obvious coercion in sex work & surrogacy with gender non conformity tells you exactly what a bad faith operator she is.

I suppose the irony is totally lost on Stock mocking Atwood of all people for being clueless about women? My god, what a spectacular car crash that only a cultist wouldn't notice.

Both Atwood and Stock have informed and developed my feminism. I am grateful to both, along with many other brilliant women.

I do not expect feminists to agree with eachother all the time. That would be silly.

Stock attempts to falsely equate women's obvious coercion in sex work & surrogacy with gender non conformity

She doesn't link it with "gender nonconformity", she says women can be manipulated into supporting beliefs that are harmful to women. There's ample evidence of that, from foot-binding all the way to "choice feminism" and men winning women's sports.

It's not just women, either. Social pressures work on both sexes. They can be reinforced by violence and laws, but Gramsci's cultural hegemony is the more efficient tool. Little girls' feet were broken by force. Their mothers and grandmothers persuaded them it made them beautiful - as they went on to persuade their own daughters.

Stock's saying Attwood doesn't notice this. I'd say she depicts it at times but, for her, it's a regrettable and barely consequential side issue. It's okay - she doesn't set herself up as a feminist authority. Stock's right to point this out, though.

"She doesn't link it with "gender nonconformity", she says women can be manipulated into supporting beliefs that are harmful to women."

Firstly, two of these things (sex work & surrogacy) are very unlike the other (gender non conformity) in terms "persuasion by authorities". The idea it's "persuasion by authorities" & not economic desperation motivating these actions is ludicrous not to mention harmful disinformation because it obscures the true causal forces involved.

Secondly, gender affirming care availability isn't 'persuasion'. Affirming identity is simply not disputing it. Just like the enforcement of conversion therapy on gay people has been proven to be damaging, the same applies to trans people. That a minority of people can be confused as to their personal disposition doesn't justify the majority being labelled as 'manipulated'.

And lastly, in terms of "supporting beliefs that can be harmful to women", this is a broad brush that assumes that all outcomes are equally harmful to women which is only a very particular opinion not backed up by medical experts globally in terms of trans people.

Darn, I hadn't noticed I was replying to one of our resident transactivists. Of course you're unable to perceive that a discussion about women in relation to political and social influences is not about "gender affirming care availability".

Not going to bother with the rest of your reply, it's like discussing an orchestral concert with somebody who can only hear one note.

Nice try, but the crux of my claim is about women's autonomy not gender non conformity & you know that so having been caught out attempting 'we know what's good for you' patriarchal nonsense you are now running for the hills.

All humans are at risk of coercion; women are especially at risk as they feel the pressure of gender norms to "be kind" more acutely.

Ahhhh, so women do exhibit gendered typical behaviours now…when convenient to say so?

Progress of sorts….

Well women are human. Humans do have patterns of behaviour. I believe people even study it.... that doesn't make us automatons.

The only "women's autonomy" you are interested in is the the bit where they give in to TRA's demands.

I agree!

"when they give in"

Who needs the patriarchy when women are infantilising women all on their own…

That is pretty much what the KS quote says that the OP cited in her opening post, well down Hows.

Err, Stock thinks the opposite in that women don't know their own minds not that they are being infantilised.

Ooh, someone figured out how to use italics!

Great article, especially the real love for Attwood’s writing.

I don’t think Stock is saying that women are programmable robots, or that prostitution doesn’t arise from economic desperation. She’s looking at the women who define prostitution as ‘sex work’ and defend it as a non-economically driven choice.

women's kindness and conformity are basic instinctive survival instincts.
without it women are (used to be) hounded out of the safety of the community leaving them unable to raise their children.

Surely it is forcing people into gender conformity that Stock objects to, the idea that there is a very limited set of strictly stereotyped rules for presenting and everyone has to pick one, labelled 'masculine' or 'feminine' (neither anything to do with the person's sex) and stick to it.

And force other people, usually women, who don't conform, and who stick with sex, to abandon their own rights in favour of the conformists.

Instead of the old 'wear what you want, do what you're good at, act responsibly' aspiration.

I’m waiting for a capitalised IE, but I think he’s stopped using them. 😞

Sex work being considered as work is just a view that asserts it is a legitimate form of labor, deserving of rights, protections, and legal regulation similar to other industries. This is supported by arguments that it allows for better public health outcomes, legal recourse for workers, and protection from stigma which isn't to be confused with a justification for its existence. The reality is a regulated industry is better for women than an unregulated one.

The reality is that a regulated sex industry continues to treat women as units of consumption whose bargaining rights degrade with use, and the consumer rights of the male paying customer are prioritised.

"Surely it is forcing people into gender conformity that Stock objects to, the idea that there is a very limited set of strictly stereotyped rules for presenting and everyone has to pick one, labelled 'masculine' or 'feminine' (neither anything to do with the person's sex) and stick to it."

Trans women like cis women aren't a monolith as they exhibit a spectrum of female typical behaviours. Just like cis women they aren't all 1950's sex bots. That gendered behaviours are interchangeable between the sexes is the epitome of gender non conformity.

I know a lot of teenaged girls who would absolutely not fit this description of women! Kindness is not a common trait at a secondary school, but conformity is ruthlessly enforced.

I love Margret Attwoods writing, nothing has ever affected me as much as the hand maids tale. Completely changed my view of women’s rights, in that I didn’t have one before, and after reading that I most definitely did.

Oh look Hows is pro-prostituting women.

I remain unsurprised by him.