3 ms·

Margaret Atwood has become one of her own handmaidens, rising up against tyranny

12 points by leephillips 5y ago

Festro 5y ago
Considering that Atwood recently claimed to have interviewed George Orwell by way of a medium - I'd say they're not a great person to look to for thought leadership. Unless they were joking, hard to read internet comments and all that. https://twitter.com/MargaretAtwood/status/1450249592168140801 https://twitter.com/MargaretAtwood/status/145024959216814080...
- leephillips 5y ago
  First of all, I’m pretty sure Atwood is an actual human individual author, and not one of these author committees with a collective pen name. Or are you on board with the erasure of women that is the subject of this piece? Secondly, come on. It’s not “hard to read” that she probably doesn’t literally believe in talking to dead people. It’s an obvious literary device. Thirdly, what kind of loser would be looking for “thought leadership”?
  - Festro 5y ago
    "First of all, I’m pretty sure Atwood is an actual human individual author, and not one of these author committees with a collective pen name. Or are you on board with the erasure of women that is the subject of this piece?" What on earth are you on about?? Second - Yep, I admit that's a possibility. Third - Well, the article you linked lauds Atwood as a leader in the debate about the use of gendered terms - going as far as to call her a 'handmaiden' akin to the ones in some of her works. So, the 'loser' would be the article author? I wouldn't call them a loser though. EDIT: I figured out your mental jump on the first point. You think that my use of 'they/them' is an "erasure of women". Not at all, I just wasn't referring to a sexed or gendered aspect of Atwood, to invoke their sex or gender would mean I was making a point based on those features, which I'm not.
    - leephillips 5y ago
      “What on earth are you on about??” → “they” And if, as you admit, you are entirely unsure of her intended meaning, the decent thing to so it to interpret her charitably, instead of jumping to the most damning possible interpretation.
      - Festro 5y ago
        Bit of a hypocrite aren't you? You thought I was 'erasing women' by using 'they'.
        leephillips 5y ago
        Not a hypocrite. Didn’t “think” it. By bending over backwards to avoid normal English for the purpose of neutering a woman, you were literally erasing women.
        Festro 5y ago
        Didn't bend over backwards - was quite easy to use neutral terminology when the sex or gender of a person is irrelevant to the point being made. 'Normal English' doesn't exist as a stable point that can be reliably referenced. Even the OED is constantly updated. Language is a constantly changing thing. This is an example of that. Plenty of languages use gender neutral pronouns all the time - they laugh at this kind of debate. "you were literally erasing women" shit. Call the police. I assume that means I've murdered someone? Didn't realise I had magical powers like that. People can use language how they please. Call people 'her' or 'she' if you think it's relevant. If you want to be inclusive and not be sexist then maybe go for a neutral term. Context matters remember - a public body should likely opt for the latter. A friend who knows how someone identifies could freely go for the former.
        leephillips 5y ago
        Ketchup no conversant they if if hdfhvhvkjsf. Don’t you agree?
c3y 5y ago
Yes, she certainly has revealed herself as a terf.
terr-dav 5y ago
The sub-headline reads: "...rising up against the tyranny of extreme activist trolls" She's crying about people being mean to her on the internet. Where's the tyranny, exactly?
beepbooptheory 5y ago
It is astonishing that, after all that has happened, these people still feel like the victims in this situation. Its hard to understand anymore what they are really even fighting.
- terr-dav 5y ago
  Who does 'these people' refer to?
  - beepbooptheory 5y ago
    In general: pundits, writers, and other high-profile people who are uncomfortable with trans people. The little rhetorical trick they use, which I understand you are baiting here, is to say that they are simply so many different isolated individuals who are "concerned" or "asking questions," and the "other side" is some monolithic gender-queer gestapo of sorts that stifles and harasses these poor individuals for no reason. Putting aside the bad faith at display here (which has very much a political and financial paper trail if you care to look), I just think you can simply look at the literal body count of either side and come to some straightforward moral conclusions.
    - terr-dav 5y ago
      I agree with your opinion. I just couldn't tell what the antecedent to 'they' was. Yeah, the financial paper trail is probably the most compelling. The most reactionary media figures tend to be directly financed by wealthy interests who are happy to sow division by inflaming superficial threats to people's identities. The most popular explanation for this type of behavior is simply that people are bigoted and otherwise bad. I think the more meaningful and rational explanation is that the wealthy owners of society are employing a divide-and-conquer strategy. In this case, superficial differences are emphasized in order to reduce the ability of the people to develop class-consciousness and organize based on their common interests.
GoodJokes 5y ago
It really is shocking how hard it is for people to be able to separate gender and sex. One would think writers, who ostensibly need to understand nuance, could figure this out.

12 points by leephillips 5y ago

Considering that Atwood recently claimed to have interviewed George Orwell by way of a medium - I'd say they're not a great person to look to for thought leadership. Unless they were joking, hard to read internet comments and all that. https://twitter.com/MargaretAtwood/status/1450249592168140801 https://twitter.com/MargaretAtwood/status/145024959216814080...

leephillips 5y ago
First of all, I’m pretty sure Atwood is an actual human individual author, and not one of these author committees with a collective pen name. Or are you on board with the erasure of women that is the subject of this piece? Secondly, come on. It’s not “hard to read” that she probably doesn’t literally believe in talking to dead people. It’s an obvious literary device. Thirdly, what kind of loser would be looking for “thought leadership”?
- Festro 5y ago
  "First of all, I’m pretty sure Atwood is an actual human individual author, and not one of these author committees with a collective pen name. Or are you on board with the erasure of women that is the subject of this piece?" What on earth are you on about?? Second - Yep, I admit that's a possibility. Third - Well, the article you linked lauds Atwood as a leader in the debate about the use of gendered terms - going as far as to call her a 'handmaiden' akin to the ones in some of her works. So, the 'loser' would be the article author? I wouldn't call them a loser though. EDIT: I figured out your mental jump on the first point. You think that my use of 'they/them' is an "erasure of women". Not at all, I just wasn't referring to a sexed or gendered aspect of Atwood, to invoke their sex or gender would mean I was making a point based on those features, which I'm not.
  - leephillips 5y ago
    “What on earth are you on about??” → “they” And if, as you admit, you are entirely unsure of her intended meaning, the decent thing to so it to interpret her charitably, instead of jumping to the most damning possible interpretation.
    - Festro 5y ago
      Bit of a hypocrite aren't you? You thought I was 'erasing women' by using 'they'.
      - leephillips 5y ago
        Not a hypocrite. Didn’t “think” it. By bending over backwards to avoid normal English for the purpose of neutering a woman, you were literally erasing women.
        Festro 5y ago
        Didn't bend over backwards - was quite easy to use neutral terminology when the sex or gender of a person is irrelevant to the point being made. 'Normal English' doesn't exist as a stable point that can be reliably referenced. Even the OED is constantly updated. Language is a constantly changing thing. This is an example of that. Plenty of languages use gender neutral pronouns all the time - they laugh at this kind of debate. "you were literally erasing women" shit. Call the police. I assume that means I've murdered someone? Didn't realise I had magical powers like that. People can use language how they please. Call people 'her' or 'she' if you think it's relevant. If you want to be inclusive and not be sexist then maybe go for a neutral term. Context matters remember - a public body should likely opt for the latter. A friend who knows how someone identifies could freely go for the former.
        leephillips 5y ago
        Ketchup no conversant they if if hdfhvhvkjsf. Don’t you agree?

c3y 5y ago

Yes, she certainly has revealed herself as a terf.

terr-dav 5y ago

The sub-headline reads: "...rising up against the tyranny of extreme activist trolls" She's crying about people being mean to her on the internet. Where's the tyranny, exactly?

beepbooptheory 5y ago

It is astonishing that, after all that has happened, these people still feel like the victims in this situation. Its hard to understand anymore what they are really even fighting.

terr-dav 5y ago
Who does 'these people' refer to?
- beepbooptheory 5y ago
  In general: pundits, writers, and other high-profile people who are uncomfortable with trans people. The little rhetorical trick they use, which I understand you are baiting here, is to say that they are simply so many different isolated individuals who are "concerned" or "asking questions," and the "other side" is some monolithic gender-queer gestapo of sorts that stifles and harasses these poor individuals for no reason. Putting aside the bad faith at display here (which has very much a political and financial paper trail if you care to look), I just think you can simply look at the literal body count of either side and come to some straightforward moral conclusions.
  - terr-dav 5y ago
    I agree with your opinion. I just couldn't tell what the antecedent to 'they' was. Yeah, the financial paper trail is probably the most compelling. The most reactionary media figures tend to be directly financed by wealthy interests who are happy to sow division by inflaming superficial threats to people's identities. The most popular explanation for this type of behavior is simply that people are bigoted and otherwise bad. I think the more meaningful and rational explanation is that the wealthy owners of society are employing a divide-and-conquer strategy. In this case, superficial differences are emphasized in order to reduce the ability of the people to develop class-consciousness and organize based on their common interests.

GoodJokes 5y ago

It really is shocking how hard it is for people to be able to separate gender and sex. One would think writers, who ostensibly need to understand nuance, could figure this out.