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.

"So your argument started out as being that in social situations we distinguish sex not via thousands of years of evolution that have enabled us to assess at a glance from countless subtle body cues from gait to tone, but via observed personality traits."

The idea that biological variation doesn't exist that creates ambiguity in social distinctions is scientifically illiterate. Clearly, the results speak for themselves:

https://www.snopes.com/news/2023/07/27/katie-ledecky-trans-rumors/

"It also fails to account for the fact that tricking someone into thinking you are something does not in fact make it so."

This one is particularly silly. That presentation may obscure gametal & chromosomal realities is irrelevant to social distinctions because THEY EXIST REGARDLESS. That people are 'tricked' doesn't change the social categorisation.

"If I trick people into believing I am of pensionable age - whether by altering my body, mannerisms or anything else - it does not and should not in fact grant me membership of that group and everything that goes with it."

It does grant you membership in a social sense but that's separate from whether it does in a legal sense that depends on the detrimental consequences so your example is a false equivalence.

I find it difficult and sometimes in advisable to leave nonsense unanswered.

Just because it's obvious nonsense to you (and me) does not mean it's obvious nonsense to everyone reading.

I benefited hugely over the years from reading posters here meeting such nonsense with reasoned argument (initially because I hadn't thought about it all before, and later because it was an oasis of rationality at a time when I felt I was living in the upside down) and I am happy to pick up that baton where I can.

Sadly I don't think one ever gets to the stage (on any topic) of having the luxury of ceasing to make the argument for one's position. If you get complacent about it, you stop honing your arguments, the arguments stop being familiar to you and the world at large, and you (and the genesis that come after you) start to forget exactly what they were, why they were persuasive and why they mattered.

I appreciate that not everyone agrees with that view of things.

If you're a woman, may I suggest not copying the less attractive stereotypical male characteristics? And if you're a man, you might want to consider moving away from those same less attractive stereotypical male characteristics.

1. You are eliding the idea that social assumptions about one's sex are made based on personality traits (your original stance) with the idea that social assumptions about one's sex are made based on what you are now calling 'biological variation'. This is the same sort of double-think, mental goalpost shifting that I set out in my Group A/Group B examples. I'm not sure you're even aware that you are doing it.
2. Presentation obscuring reality (as you put it) matters when rules are in place on the basis of reality, especially when these relate to safety. The reality is that wolves are not sheep. The reality is that some wolves prey on sheep. A sensible farmer will, on those bases, separate sheep and wolves as far as possible. If a farmer is tricked into believing that a wolf was a sheep (due to its personality, presentation, 'biological difference' or anything else), said farmer will have no reason to separate the Wolf-Who-Is-Now-A-Sheep-In-A-Social-Sense from the flock because he will not be aware that all the same risk factors apply as apply to any other wolf. You have prevented the correct risk assessment from being carried out and prevented him from applying the measures he would have applied had he known. The reality is that the sheep are less safe.

If we were in a world where all that was being argued for was, "some men want to present as a woman might socially be expected to, but obviously he's not actually a woman and we wouldn't dream of pretending he is in matters of law or anywhere it might have a detrimental consequence [to use your phrasing], such as safety," I think you'd be hard pressed to find anyone on this board having a problem with that and we would categorically not be in the position we are in legally and, say, in sport.

But perhaps I'm doing you a disservice and that's exactly what you're now arguing for?

The problem is it is totally derailing the discussion about Margaret Atwood.

1. "You are eliding the idea that social assumptions about one's sex are made based on personality traits (your original stance) with the idea that social assumptions about one's sex are made based on what you are now calling 'biological variation'. This is the same sort of double-think, mental goalpost shifting that I set out in my Group A/Group B examples. I'm not sure you're even aware that you are doing it."

Thanks for the bastardised version, but that's not helpful in a good faith discussion. You said:

"So your argument started out as being that in social situations we distinguish sex not via thousands of years of evolution that have enabled us to assess at a glance from countless subtle body cues from gait to tone, but via observed personality traits."

Which implied that social categorisations are based on evolved assessments that accurately reflect reproductive traits. I used an example of biological variation to show that 'evolved assessments' are not reliable & how we rely on surface level associations. In terms of social assumptions being made on personality traits, I made it clear at least twice before that:

"Presentation is downstream from personality inclinations so we do in a sense rely on personality traits."

"Presentation obscuring reality (as you put it) matters when rules are in place on the basis of reality,"

I don't disagree as I already stated regarding your example on pensioners. Again, you’re conflating two separate issues here: Social categorisations & legal ones. That there maybe competing rights as a consequence of social categorisations doesn't preclude their management like sporting restrictions.

In terms of being 'tricked' I would be very interested in your solution for policing such 'trickery'. As it turns out, jumping at 'trickery' shadows is exactly why cis women like Katie Delecky are facing harassment now.The increased scrutiny on women that's a direct consequence of trans panic hasn't made them any safer in fact more unsafe.

"You have prevented the correct risk assessment from being carried out and prevented him from applying the measures he would have applied had he known. The reality is that the sheep are less safe."

Um, I don't make the rules on gendered social categorisations (I'm not that powerful), I'm just describing them. These categorisations aren't prescriptivist, rather descriptivist of the reality that has been socially constructed. Trans people don't make the rules, they simply identify with them according to their personal inclinations.

"If we were in a world where all that was being argued for was, "some men want to present as a woman might socially be expected to, but obviously he's not actually a woman and we wouldn't dream of pretending he is in matters of law or anywhere it might have a detrimental consequence [to use your phrasing], such as safety," I think you'd be hard pressed to find anyone on this board having a problem with that and we would categorically not be in the position we are in legally and, say, in sport."

The differences are more about what qualifies as a detrimental outcome not to mention the dehumanising & demonising framing.

By all means crack on about Margaret Atwood. I discussed that too, and linked the discussion I was having with the other poster back to it.

I think the only other things I had to say about it Atwood were that I liked The Handmaid's Tale, The Testments and Cat's Eye quite a bit; I've found her other work harder to get into but must try again.

From what I've read, I find her views to be surprisingly unconsidered and shallow, particularly given what I consider to be her clear sense of herself as a bit of a logical, no-nonsense intellectual.

And, possibly controversially (and almost certainly a bit mean-spiritedly), she seems fairly typical of my personal, limited, experience of Canadians to date - (1) extremely concerned with being thought of as liberal-minded; (2) takes herself and everything else quite seriously; (3) considers herself to be a considered and serious thinker; (4) is actually quite hampered in (3) by being terrified of the alternative to (1).

What do you think?

When he posts an untruth it's because he wants us to discuss Baileys and other cream liqueurs, apparently.

Err, I'm one of the very few commenters that directly addressed the OP. That other commenters have raised other issues related to that is on them not me.

It's interesting how just about every thread on MN feminism has 'derailing' tangents from most commenters & yet you only focus on me for 'some' reason….🤔

That you feel the need to actively prevent enragement when people can easily skip over irrelevant posts as we all routinely do says more about your fragility than anything else.

I think the only other things I had to say about it Atwood were that I liked The Handmaid's Tale, The Testments and Cat's Eye quite a bit; I've found her other work harder to get into but must try again.

I started reading her books from the beginning (ie the earliest ones... not the beginning of each book) but got waylaid after a few... need to jump back in.

""If we were in a world where all that was being argued for was, "some men want to present as a woman might socially be expected to, but obviously he's not actually a woman and we wouldn't dream of pretending he is in matters of law or anywhere it might have a detrimental consequence [to use your phrasing], such as safety," I think you'd be hard pressed to find anyone on this board having a problem with that and we would categorically not be in the position we are in legally and, say, in sport."

The differences are more about what qualifies as a detrimental outcome not to mention the dehumanising & demonising framing."

Honestly, this is excellent if we have in fact reached agreement that in reality of course men are not women, however much they may wish to present like them (and even if on occassion they succeed in fooling people into thinking they are the other sex in social situations).

If you are with me that far, then we are a lot further down the road of productive discussion than I imagined, and all we need argue about is in which situations sex matters.

Interestingly, that leads us precisely to the FWS Supreme Court judgment (which is cogent) where the answer is, essentially: You must have mixed sex everything unless you can show that having separate sex provision is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. If you successfully show that separate sex provision is a pmoaala (for which you would have to establish based on data and other evidence, that not to do so would negatively impact either men or women as a sex class), that is the end of the matter. There is no question that men with the other characteristic of a particular gender identity can be included in the provision for women, any more than you could include any other sub-set of men. If you say that, actually, you can include some men in the women's provision with no problem or detrimeny then your pmoaala basis for a single sex space is fatally undermined and you clearly don't actually need a single sex space. Therefore the provision must be entirely mixed.

That is the legal argument re the EA2010 but also simply the logical one. If I have data that collected the incidents of assault against women in single sex changing rooms, prisons etc as compared to mixed sex ones and use that as the basis for my pmoaala, there is no basis whatsoever to make an exception for the section of the opposite sex who think or present in a traditionally feminine way, any more than it makes sense to make exception for any other sub-class of men. Because that's not level or the basis on which the separation was justified - it is entirely outwith relevance to the reasoning.

Essentially gender (or what you seem to be calling 'social' sex) is something completely separate from the question of in which situations sex matters. It doesn't even come into the discussion because we both acknowledge that sex is, in reality, biologically determined and is not affected by any other characteristic a person may possess.

We could go into chapter and verse about the facts and data of what causes harm when men (any men) are included and where women need single sex provision, but we have probably taken up enough of this thread and we would happily be back to arguing on the basis of factual evidence.

I am DELIGHTED with our progress.

Interesting. I think I've only ever tried her books from 2000 onwards. Maybe I should try the early stuff. What did you think of them?

Mind-blowing that an adult human male (presumably adult, but the jury is out) attends and comments on this feminist forum regularly, under some sort of illusion that women (adult human females) actually give a shit what they think.

Male entitlement in all its blaring, neon colours.

Go away. We're not interested in your garbled shite. Your opinion does not feature in women's thoughts. Irrelevant.
You're not one of us, and never will be.

Sad times, brother x

I am DELIGHTED with our progress.

Not so fast.

"Honestly, this is excellent if we have in fact reached agreement that in reality of course men are not women, however much they may wish to present like them (and even if on occassion they succeed in fooling people into thinking they are the other sex in social situations)."

It's a little more complicated than that. Men are not women in the reproductive biological sense, but some do share average biological psychological commonalities that would make them more like cis women than cis men. Therefore its reductive to use "are" than "like" in certain contexts. A very butch cis woman can be more like a man in terms of average behavioural traits.

"You must have mixed sex everything unless you can show that having separate sex provision is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. If you successfully show that separate sex provision is a pmoaala (for which you would have to establish based on data and other evidence, that not to do so would negatively impact either men or women as a sex class), that is the end of the matter. There is no question that men with the other characteristic of a particular gender identity can be included in the provision for women, any more than you could include any other sub-set of men. If you say that, actually, you can include some men in the women's provision with no problem or detrimeny then your pmoaala basis for a single sex space is fatally undermined and you clearly don't actually need a single sex space. Therefore the provision must be entirely mixed."

As this is being judicially reviewed because of the the Good Law Project's legal challenge I don't think its time yet to make any conclusions particularly given the objections seem very compelling & the issues are more complicated than they appear.

I thought THT was a fairly good story, but I have never liked her novels overall. The people in them all seem to lack souls, they seem dead inside. THT was somewhat compelling, there was a vision of a coherent world. But I'm not sure it was really as insightful as some seem to think.

I think Stock is right that in her books, it seems like evil is imposed on women from outside mainly. She doesn't really seem to consider that women may use power for their own ends, including against other women. That women may not be simply serving patriarchy when they enforce conformity on other women, but that they do it because it satisfies their own desire for control and especially , status.

Your observation of Canadians is, I think, not inaccurate. I do think there is an additional element in that I doubt Atwood has been exposed to much of the discussion on these issues as the Canadian media is so locked down.

Thank you – I think there’s a lot of truth in what you say. I love her storytelling, but get frustrated by her characterisations sometimes and I was really interested in Stock’s point that her blind spot on sex stems from the fact that although she repeatedly centres women (and our bodies) in her work, she was never was an active feminist herself. I always thought of her as a ‘feminist writer’ – I was even taught this at school. But if she simply sees men/ women and their power structures primarily as compelling subject matter, rather than as injustices she feels driven to address, perhaps that explains her lack of insight on sex and gender.

It's a little more complicated than that. Men are not women in the reproductive biological sense, but some do share average biological psychological commonalities that would make them more like cis women than cis men. Therefore its reductive to use "are" than "like" in certain contexts. A very butch cis woman can be more like a man in terms of average behavioural traits.

Putting aside the fact that I don't agree with this at all for a minute, you seem to be missing an important factor. We have single sex spaces (and sports etc) because of physical differences between the sexes, not because of "psychological commonalities" which have no bearing on the matter at all.

That's interesting. Arguably Aunt Lydia and Serena Joy are there precisely to be The Women Serving Their Own Desire For Control And Status, but I do agree that the characterisation is not deep - more that they are designed to be those archetypes there to make that point rather than fully rounded characters.

I hadn't considered it before but I think there's something in Atwood using her novels as a way to make sense of the world and people in particular (as she says herself, as quoted in Stock's article) and set out systems rather than engage in deep characterisation. I'd say either she wants her novels to make A Point first and foremost and the storytelling is hampered by that and/or as she actually struggles to empathise with other people on a personal level and is very much a systems-based creature. So she can set people in place in a system well enough and ascribe ome or two blumt motivations to them but struggles to fully imagine the full range of an individual experience.

By contrast, just to be trite and being JK Rowling into it, I'd say that JK's great strength is the depth of her characterisation and that she tends to put a lot of thought into who her individual character is, minor quirks, background and all, and not all there simply too pull in the direction of an authorial Point (with the arguable exception of The Casual Vacancy which I enjoyed less). I get the impression that JK overall is genuinely interested in people for people's sake whereas Atwood, as she more or less says, is interested in systems - just so happening to include human systems.

But that's what's so interesting about where they've ended up in this debate. Because at first sniff I'd have said that JK's tendency to prioritise individual empathy could easily have led her to fall into the weaponised compassion of TRA side, whereas Atwood's tendency to want to examine systems and structures should have made it more natural for her to step back and look at organising principles of sex categories and the systemic reasons for the existing rules on sex separation and what might happen to the system if the categories become porous or the system rules are tweaked.

Perhaps Rowling's empathy was served by being low on what we might call internalised misogyny. Perhaps - controversially - she applied the same empathetic concern to women as the TRAs ask people to do to men. The interesting flip side is to wonder what is acting against Atwood's self-expressed interest in logical examination of this system? Either she's simply not very good at it in the first place and lacks rigour and clarity of thought or there are other considerations acting so strongly on her that she refuses (consciously or otherwise) to seriously consider it and dispassionately think this one through. Could be both, but I think the latter is certainly true judging by this Guardian interview of 2022 in which (after making comments for years about the awfulness of 'terfs') she declares, "I’m not informed enough" when asked direct, probing questions about her views.

https://www.theguardian.com/books/ng-interactive/2022/feb/19/margaret-atwood-on-feminism-culture-wars#:~:text=%E2%80%9COpen%20question.,your%20obsession%20of%20the%20day.%E2%80%9D

(Incidentally, this article - fairly or otherwise - makes her sound absolutely insufferable.)

Margaret Atwood has been the greatest disappointment to me. How she could swallow gender horseshit after writing The Handmaid's Tale. Mind blown.

Interesting to provide a context for her work at the time, for sure. But not in a par with the world-building in Handmaid's Tale. I do need to read her other more famous ones too!

1. Either you think there is a basis to separate certain things in the basis of actual sex or you don't. We can argue about what and when but I believe you've already conceded the point. If you think that because some women (albeit, 100th if the number of men) also engage in behaviour X that separation of the sexes is designed to protect women from, or because not all men are offenders, there is therefore no point in ever having separation in the basis of sex in the first place, we can discuss it. But, as I say, I think you have already conceded that there are times when the best organising principle is sex.

1. To be clear, the GLP case is not a judicial review of the Supreme Court decision; it is a review of EHRC guidance. The challenge is being heard in the High Court, which is bound by the Supreme Court judgment. The Supreme Court judgment is very clear on the point I made, and was at pains to be so. I disagree that the GLP arguments re the EHRC guidance were, in any event, compelling and it is particularly telling that Swift had to remind GLP that it needs to make legal arguments, rather than 'social justice' appeals. The legal arguments and issues themselves are not complicated following the FWS judgment. Complication (such as it is) is really only introduced where people want to try to relitigate the same issues that were heard by the SC and not accept the clear legal ruling.

I think @TempestTostnails it: Atwood’s people don’t have souls. They’re like moving parts in the grand machine of her ideas. And novels of ideas are all very well, but they stand and fall by the idea. Thinking back to THT I see the coda as the giveaway. She’s not interested in Offred and the rest. She’s simply constructing the historical document to be recovered by the academics at the end. At the other end of the spectrum is Elizabeth Jane Howard, in my view the most skilled storyteller of unhappy marriages ever. Her characters really do have souls, and it’s impossible to read her without entering her characters’ misery, as well of course as the textures of ordinary life.

Have we been reading different books?!? Women's complicity in our own oppression is exactly what I got all those years ago from reading Atwood. She's the world expert on it. I thought that made her uncomfortable reading for feminists, I loved her myself but didn't recommend her to my other feminist friends, her view of humanity (including women) is too bleak.

The point of many of her books is that we don't all live in a "coherent world". She mostly writes (or used to write, I stopped around Alias Grace) about people whose stories aren't tidy and coherent but full of conflict and contradiction.

And I thought it was other people - the TV series - that picked up "The Handmaid's Tale" and built a whole coherent world out of it. I stopped after the first series, it made good TV but I'd already got what I wanted from the book.

It's funny, isn't it, how people in Atwood's novels display their sexism partly as the belief that women are people who share biological psychological commonalities rather than simply being humans of any and all psychological types with a female body.

In reality some people steadfastly refuse to recognise how sexist this is and blithely go along with it as if it is a useful belief around which to organise law and society, rather than one that harms people.

In terms of being 'tricked' I would be very interested in your solution for policing such 'trickery'. As it turns out, jumping at 'trickery' shadows is exactly why cis women like Katie Delecky are facing harassment now.The increased scrutiny on women that's a direct consequence of trans panic hasn't made them any safer in fact more unsafe.

The solution, basically, is “good men stay out so that bad men stand out.”

That’s a very powerful social technology for managing risk. It’s been undermined.

The other one is institutional enforcement of the rules.

It’s analogous to why a high-trust society/economy functions so much better than a low-trust one. People don’t need to do costly local enforcement, people can interact/trade with strangers with a high degree of confidence so everything works better. And wrongdoers do less wrong (eg far less likely to offer bribes) because: i. it isn’t normalized, ii. they will stand out, iii. they can expect to be punished for their wrong when they are caught.