MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

The Handmaid’s Tale Author Margaret Atwood Accused of Crimes Against Feminism for Defending Due Process

Atwood: "In times of extremes, extremists win. Their ideology becomes a religion."

AtwoodMichal Dolezal/ZUMA Press/NewscomIn the first year of the Trump presidency, the Hulu television series The Handmaid's Tale—which concerns a dystopian future U.S. where totalitarian religious authorities subjugate women—became essential #Resistance viewing. Many saw parallels between the treatment of women within the universe of the show and President Trump's alleged history of abusive behavior.

One might expect, Margaret Atwood, the author of the source material—the 1985 novel of the same name—would be considered something of a feminist hero. But now Atwood must counter charges that she is actually a "bad feminist," because she thinks the University of British Columbia denied due process to a male professor accused of sexual misconduct.

"And now, it seems, I am conducting a War on Women, like the misogynistic, rape-enabling Bad Feminist that I am," wrote Atwood in an op-ed for The Globe and Mail.

In 2016, Atwood joined dozens of other writers in signing a petition that called on UBC to release the records of its investigation into Steven Galloway, an author and chair of the university's creative writing program. Galloway was accused of sexual misconduct, but the details were fuzzy, and UBC's procedures for handling the complaint lacked even a semblance of transparency.

Atwood has not taken a position on Galloway's guilt or innocence; rather, she believes the university was unfair to everyone involved in the dispute, and has made it impossible to determine the truth. (Galloway also lost his job.) As Atwood wrote:

...after an inquiry by a judge that went on for months, with multiple witnesses and interviews, the judge said there had been no sexual assault, according to a statement released by Mr. Galloway through his lawyer. The employee got fired anyway. Everyone was surprised, including me. His faculty association launched a grievance, which is continuing, and until it is over, the public still cannot have access to the judge's report or her reasoning from the evidence presented. The not-guilty verdict displeased some people. They continued to attack. It was at this point that details of UBC's flawed process began to circulate, and the UBC Accountable letter came into being.

A fair-minded person would now withhold judgment as to guilt until the report and the evidence are available for us to see. We are grownups: We can make up our own minds, one way or the other. The signatories of the UBC Accountable letter have always taken this position. My critics have not, because they have already made up their minds. Are these Good Feminists fair-minded people? If not, they are just feeding into the very old narrative that holds women to be incapable of fairness or of considered judgment, and they are giving the opponents of women yet another reason to deny them positions of decision-making in the world.

Several prominent signatories recently removed their names from the petition because they didn't want to appear like they are on the wrong side of the #MeToo movement. Author Carmen Aguirre, a spokesperson for the petition's signatories, told The Globe and Mail that "for those of us who have chosen to keep our names on, I get the sense that we feel stronger than ever about the content of the letter, which for us was always about due process and never about questioning the claims."

It's deeply unfortunate that due process has become synonymous with rape denial in the minds of some feminists. As Atwood made abundantly clear in her op-ed, due process is vital specifically because women deserve the same rights and status as men:

I believe that in order to have civil and human rights for women there have to be civil and human rights, period, including the right to fundamental justice, just as for women to have the vote, there has to be a vote. Do Good Feminists believe that only women should have such rights? Surely not. That would be to flip the coin on the old state of affairs in which only men had such rights.

Atwood also noted that the #MeToo movement, in bringing attention to the unfair treatment of women in the workplace and the inadequacies of the legal system, has done a great deal of good. But the overall goal must be to reform the legal system—not circumvent it in cases where the victim is a woman.

"In times of extremes, extremists win," wrote Atwood. "Their ideology becomes a religion, anyone who doesn't puppet their views is seen as an apostate, a heretic or a traitor, and moderates in the middle are annihilated."

Indeed, the supposedly "good" feminists in opposition to Atwood should keep in mind that automatic, unfailing, unquestioning belief is a hallmark of religious extremism—of precisely the kind of society Atwood was warning us against in The Handmaid's Tale.

(Related: "The Detroit Free Press Eats Its Own in the #MeToo Feeding Frenzy.")

Photo Credit: Michal Dolezal/ZUMA Press/Newscom

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • guy who doesn't care||

    "The Handmaid's Tale Author Margaret Atwood "

    don't care

  • IceTrey||

    "guy who doesn't care"

    don't care

  • 123 go||

    And yet you took the time to reply.

  • IceTrey||

    Well since he took the time to post I felt he deserved it.

  • 123 go||

    So you were lying.

  • IceTrey||

    No, I don't care I just want him to know I don't care. If you tell someone you couldn't care less do you mean that you do care just because you verbalized it?

  • 123 go||

    "No, I don't care I just want him to know"

    So you admit lying and are lying about that too.

  • poptart||

    I've never seen someone so stridently insist he doesn't care abput something. I thought the "aspie retard" comment was out of line until just now...

  • IceTrey||

    I've never seen anyone inject their stupidity into a joke as much as you have.

  • poptart||

    "I've never seen anyone inject their stupidity into a joke as much as you have."

    I've never met someone who doesn't read their own posts before.

  • IceTrey||

    I don't see how communicating disinterest is a sign of interest. Is he lying too?

  • poptart||

    "I don't see how communicating disinterest is a sign of interest"

    Clearly, aspie.

  • Trigger Warning||

    Freedom is slavery.

  • Ossicle||

    Man up and accept it, IceTrey. You don't get to have it both ways. Either you don't care, and ignore it, or care, and say something. You tried to get away with a bitchy little remark that was self-contradicting. Don't scrabble and fight to try to make people think it was otherwise, just learn something.

  • WoodChipperBob||

    Right, because no one ever posted on the internet about something they don't care about.

  • poptart||

    Hey look, it's that retard I torched last night for correcting someone who wasn't wrong.

    And now you're here lying about not caring, by proving you care with a post claiming you don't care.

    Protest more milady.

  • IceTrey||

    If I don't post he won't know I don't care and that's what matters.

  • 123 go||

    "Protest more milady."

    And then he does, like magic.

  • IceTrey||

    I protest that that is a protest.

  • poptart||

    of course you do

  • Sweets Swisherton||

    I'm sure he cares what some aspie douchbag like you thinks.

  • IceTrey||

    I'm sure he doesn't hence his nom de plume.

  • 123 go||

    So why did you lie about not caring then.

  • IceTrey||

    Why did he?

  • poptart||

    Why do you care?

  • Agammamon||

    Four socks in one thread arguing with one guy.

  • DesigNate||

    Sad really.

  • ||

    Seriously. That was a bad start. Like the Steelers yesterday.

  • Bacon-Magic glib reasonoid||

    That's not hockey, eh?

  • Domestic Dissident||

    You lefties sure seem like you're obsessed you're with this author, and this book in particular. I probably need to do some research to find out why; It seems to be like your new Alinky's Rules for Radicals.

  • Alinsky||

    Who the fuck is Alinky.

  • GILMORE™||

  • Deflator Mouse||

    Everyone loves Alinky, you're gonna get Alinky, go Alinky go!

  • IceTrey||

    You do know this isn't Alternet?

  • poptart||

    Jesus Christ why are you such a fucking crybaby.

  • Sweets Swisherton||

    If you saw his other posts, they're even worse.

  • 123 go||

    Just look upthread where hit shitposted about not caring.

  • IceTrey||

    Why are you such a little bitch? You do see he called everyone here a lefty? Do you think that's true?

  • poptart||

    "Why are you such a little bitch? "

    You do see he called everyone here a lefty? Do you think that's true?

    Cry more.

  • Ossicle||

    LOL!

  • DiegoF||

    Shhh...if they really are, as it does seem, dumb enough to be using a work of fantasy fiction as a strategy manual instead of what apparently is one of the more brilliant ones ever written (what I've seen of it seemed to contain stuff I'm skeptical of, but activists across the ideological spectrum seem to swear by its genius), then I say don't make too much noise! I hereby censor your speech for the greater good of the cause.

  • Scarecrow Repair & Chippering||

    if they really are, as it does seem, dumb enough to be using a work of fantasy fiction as a strategy manual

    These are people who treat Das Kapital as a literal Bible.

  • Mickey Rat||

    Fantasizing about this type of dystopia is a kink for some leftists.

  • NCBlueJay||

    Good for her. Sincerely. She could have easily said nothing, taken her name off the letter, and continue getting praise from feminists. Whatever else you might think of her, it's commendable that she's willing to stand up for due process and face a feminist backlash.

  • Deflator Mouse||

    Them are some pretty low standards.

  • josh||

    "Them are some pretty low standards."

    They used to be...now it's grounds for sainthood, and you take what you can get.

  • Deflator Mouse||

    A guard at Auschwitz hates Jews, and has been gladly packing them into the gas chambers for years, but then is confronted with a prisoner who is only 1/4 Jewish. The guard protests that this prisoner's really not supposed to be part of the Holocaust with only 1/4 Jewish blood. He gets some lip from the more hardcore younger SS troops for being a Bad Nazi, but in the end they still gas the 1/4 Jewish guy anyway without his involvement.

    Are we supposed to praise this guard for standing up for the rights of 1/4 Jewish people?

  • GILMORE™||

    It may be a strained analogy, but it has potential.

    i think you're on to something with the idea of how certain writers fall over themselves praising people for their slight deviations from a track-record of awfulness.

  • Deflator Mouse||

    They always say that the surest way to win a Nobel Peace Prize is to kill a ton of people and then stop.

    Though the Nobel committee reversed that with Obama by giving him the prize at the beginning of his killings.

  • DiegoF||

    Not fair! In 2012 they awarded one to the EU, who are just a bunch of thieves and charlatans, not murderers. And in 2007 they awarded one to Al Gore, back when he his own fortune was limited to directing government funds into "green" energy schemes he had set up; he had not yet even crossed the line into billionaire by selling his media assets to the Qatari oil sheiks!

    Neither one of these parties was a murderer. Their public swindle is, of course, carried out on the backs of the least fortunate, creating untold misery to little good beyond the self-enrichment and -aggrandizement of themselves and other wealthy elites. But even those effects were mostly in the future. (And, on balance, still are.)

  • UnrepentantCurmudgeon||

    Obama had not had a chance to murder anyone when he received his Nobel. But he soon rectified that oversight. His ongoing drone bombing campaign indiscriminately murdered (OK, "killed") civilians along with whatever legitimate military targets he may have identified. Why "his" campaign? Because he waged war without Congressional approval. So he owns the fact that there was always a war we were involved in somewhere throughout his terms in office.

  • DiegoF||

    Does it apply to Atwood though? I mean, yeah, the fact that apparently all it takes now is the meekest defense of one aspect of liberalism on one occasion to turn you into a Dissident Feminist™ says more about feminism than it does about Atwood. I doubt she really is anything like, say, Christina Hoff Sommers.

    But has she really racked up any such track-record of awfulness? Or did she really just write some mediocre sci-fi novel whose supposedly tight parallels to real-life America, present and future, have proved useful for an endless circlejerk of lazy journalistic writing? That is not necessarily her fault; let her write the book! (There would have been absolutely nothing objectionable about The Da Vinci Code, for example, had it just been--as Tom Hanks, and I, had simply assumed--a fun fantasy; instead, the author included an afterword that makes it clear that he actually believes the deranged foil-hat history he describes.)

  • Paloma||

    Atwood wrote The Handmaiden's Tale after observing from West Berlin the tactics East Berlin used to keep its citizens in line psychologically as well as physically. There were other elements from Islamic fundamentalism that in the novel were applied to the United States. "It could happen here if we don't watch out" seems to be the theme. Just like Soylent Green and Planet of the Apes.

    I would think that "if we don't watch out" would include not stifling free speech. After all it's the women in Handmaiden's Tale that dish out the worst punishment to each other.

  • DiegoF||

    Oh, is that it? Well, then, yes, unfair! Unfair! You apologize to Atwood, Gil and Mouse!

  • Deflator Mouse||

    She doesn't endorse third-wave feminism.

    The article gives no reason to believe she has a problem with expansive definitions of sexual harassment or the divorce-rape system upon which second wave feminism is built.

  • GILMORE™||

    Atwood wrote The Handmaiden's Tale after observing from West Berlin the tactics East Berlin used to keep its citizens in line psychologically as well as physically.

    That may be so. I read the book when it first came out (the 80s - my mom was teaching it in an english class) and read a few interviews w/ her at the time, and my memory was that the book was written as (and widely received as) as critique of the boom in pop Evangelicalism in the US, and the threat that 'popular piety' presented to any society. basically, an anti-theological tale which had little to do with either second or third-wave "feminism" other than simply having female characters.

    She herself said that its not really a feminist book at all; and that she basically wrote women and men as they are, not how they 'should be'.

    *i didn't like the book much, fwiw, when i first read it. i've never gone back to it. I also think most of the people who comment on the book have never read it themselves.

  • ||

    I read in the 80s too and don't remember much of it.

  • Brandybuck||

    Precisely. Those who can summarize any of Atwood's novels in a single sentence are only demonstrating that they have not read her novels. Claiming that A Handmaid's Tale is about right wing fundamentalist fascism oppressing women, is like claming Oryx and Crake is about a post-apocalyptic world destroyed by genetic engineering. It's only true if you read the Reader's Digest Consensed Version of the jacket blurb.

  • Deflator Mouse||

    I was exaggerating to make a point.

    Joining a crowd for thugs to hide in makes you as guilty as the thugs.

  • DiegoF||

    No of course you were exaggerating; you were not actually comparing Atwood's sins to those of a death camp guard. My question is whether she, who I've just been informed was inspired more by the evils of Communism than by the supposedly tightening stranglehold of the Reagan-era Religious Right, really should have her fanciful sci-fi novel associated with the toxicity of the current feminist circlefingering over it at all.

  • Deflator Mouse||

    Any good leftist socialist feminist would find plenty to object to in the actual implementation of communism in the real world. That doesn't change what they are.

  • Tony||

    Well The Da Vinci Code is atrociously written, and I object to that.

  • Scarecrow Repair & Chippering||

    It was damned successful. I'd say that makes your definition of "atrociously written" somewhat suspect. Elitist, in fact.

  • Tony||

    Apart from the question of whether sales figures have anything to do with writing quality, um have you read it? And now it's elitist to care about quality in writing? This market-is-god stuff is really kooky.

    What about quality in factory equipment? Is it elitist to care whether that works well?

  • I am the 0.000000013%||

    Quality is one characteristic. I prefer value as a defining metric, and in my opinion value is always personal.

    If I have to choose between plot and writing quality, I will weight in favor of plot. Many people do not feel the same as me and that's good because if occasionally results in well plotted writing that is also eminently readable.

  • Galane||

    What matters is what the readers are willing to buy. Jim Butcher wanted to write "high fantasy" but his professor wasn't having it. So Jim wrote what he figured would be something awful, to prove that his HF stuff really was worthy.

    Prof said "This is great! You should get it published!". 15 Dresden Files books later, Jim Butcher is doing quite well for himself.

  • Brandybuck||

    It's an action adventure novel tinted with a bit of mystery. It's a fun page turner, but that's all. Dan Brown is just a less wordy Robert Ludlum.

  • GILMORE™||

    has she really racked up any such track-record of awfulness?

    I don't know, and i don't think so.

    I just thought his point was a good one, at least in identifying a tendency (w/ robby in particular) to go out of his way to praise lefties whenever they make rhetorical gestures that libertarians might superficially approve of

    (while ignoring the reality that these same lefties are themselves the source of the problem)

    The first one that comes to mind was his celebration of Prof Mary Koss as a critic of the 'campus rape crisis' stats....

    .....while completely ignoring the fact that she was one of the earliest core proponents of the idea of "rape crisis", and was the author of studies which vastly inflated its significance

    Gilbert points out that in a 1985 survey undertaken by Ms. magazine and financed by the National Institute of Mental Health, 73 percent of the women categorized as rape victims did not initially define their experience as rape; it was Mary Koss, the psychologist conducting the study, who did.
  • NCBlueJay||

    Comparing dull second-wave feminism to the Holocaust is... a choice. Did you strain yourself with that reach?

  • Deflator Mouse||

    Well, look what they did to Robin Williams.

  • DiegoF||

    Excellent point! Although I suspect he had it coming; look at this problematic encounter, in hindsight so chilling. Of course the patriarchy would soon unleash its familiar divide-and-conquer tactics upon members of her race to disrupt intersectional awareness--murdering a young male in the guise of police action as usual, then feigning exaggerated concern in order to denigrate the silenced shame of the doubly othered illustrated by the Williams objectification in favor of a false-flag campaign of "awareness" of the harder-to-hide killing of male youth in her community.

  • ||

    Go the Soviet route and never have the argument.

  • Deflator Mouse||

    Do Good Feminists believe that only women should have such rights? Surely not. That would be to flip the coin on the old state of affairs in which only men had such rights.

    "Good Feminists" would retort that the coin needs to be flipped to counter inherent male privilege still enforced by the patriarchy.

    It is cute to see the third wave fems attack the second wave ones. Sort of like a black widow spider getting devoured by her offspring.

  • GILMORE™||

    - "Crimes Against Feminism"

    aka 'common sense'

  • DajjaI||

    If Bernie was president then maybe I'd have a Netflix password and could see what the hell everyone is talking about.

    Hitlary Storm Cuckton for President 2020 approves this message.

  • OpenBordersLiberal-tarian||

    It's on Hulu, not Netflix. And Hulu has a free one month trial you should check out.

  • Paloma||

    There's also a book you can get on Amazon.

  • Brandybuck||

    What's a book?

  • BYODB||

    Hulu is basically cancer unless you already have a cable subscription. Or at least it was the two separate times I tried them as a service.

  • OpenBordersLiberal-tarian||

    Many saw parallels between the treatment of women within the universe of the show and President Trump's alleged history of abusive behavior.

    It's much more serious than that. The religious fundamentalist dystopia of the TV show isn't just a reflection of Drumpf's past; it perfectly describes what he's doing to the country right now. Scheming with Russia to deny the first woman President her rightful victory was bad enough, but once in office Drumpf immediately began establishing a Christian theocracy. For example, his first Supreme Court pick was Neil Gorsuch, a dangerous fanatic who probably doesn't even believe in the Constitutional right to privacy. Furthermore, the Drumpf Administration's Net Neutrality decision established severe obstacles for people seeking abortion access.

  • GILMORE™||

    Did i mention that i enjoy your work? I enjoy it.

  • OpenBordersLiberal-tarian||

    I appreciate it. I don't have a Patreon or anything, so if you want to reward me you can promise to get all your friends and family to vote Democrat in the November midterms. We need to make the #BlueWave happen.

  • GILMORE™||

    "if you want to reward me you can promise to get all your friends and family to vote Democrat"

    You have my word. we'll vote a dozen times apiece!

  • WoodChipperBob||

    Only the dead ones get to vote a dozen times. If they're still alive they can only vote twice.

  • JoeBlow123||

    #BlueWave2018 & #BlueTsunami2020

  • Deflator Mouse||

    Don't encourage it!

  • IceTrey||

    Since there has never been a woman President how could she have been denied her victory?

  • Sweets Swisherton||

    Why are you responding seriously to a parody.

  • Paloma||

    It's really the only way.

  • DiegoF||

    Wait! I've finally figured out his identity!

    You know who else had those initials? ...

  • IceTrey||

    Poe's law.

  • Hank Phillips||

    Toni Nathan won. That much is clear from the definition of winning--which is different from encouraging looters to rob and murder you.

  • ||

    I hope you get paid to look like this much of an idiot. The court jester has arrived folks.

  • GILMORE™||

    "Many saw parallels between the treatment of women within the universe of the show and President Trump's alleged history of abusive behavior."

    and by 'Many', we mean, "a few asshats in the media who recycle each others mental-farts"

  • Feminist Killjoy||

    The counter to this is usually that the justice system is unfair to women reporters of sexual assault. So many aren't investigated to start with, even acknowledging that it's a difficult crime to investigate. Rape kits aren't tested for years. There's also no easy way to sidestep by taking it into your own hands and hiring a lawyer and making a civil case.

    But that's not a good reason to redirect your anger towards anyone accused who can be easily punished for a cheap "win". Each case is individual, regardless of whatever stats you can find to show how many false accusations there are.

    After the Jian Ghomeshi assault case fizzled a couple years ago, many so-called feminists attacked his female lawyer as a sort of gender traitor. One of the accusers, though, decided to start up an organization to help women report sexual assault crimes because her takeaway was that even as a victim reporting a crime, her takeaway was that she'd needed to know the system better and have an advocate to help her navigate it, because she felt very let down by the police and prosecutors.

    Or maybe it's better to call an author a cunt on twitter. Or chuckle and enjoy feminist infighting.

  • Feminist Killjoy||

    (Of course, if I'm being cynical, I think that the only reason you'd want to help female assault victims before they go to the police is to get their story straight because they might be lying. Perhaps they even got together with other women who had bad dates with the same person and decided to punish him for dropping you. If you want to help other women, then you tell them your story and reinforce the idea that it's okay to be rude, to leave, to explicitly say "no", because that's actually helpful. Men, too, need to hear it's perfectly fine to not be down for whatever 24/7. Why the hell do you call yourself a social justice warrior if you don't want to deal with social stuff socially, instead of legally??)

  • Hank Phillips||

    There's always Tat's Sinfest cartoons...

  • BYODB||

    Which was an awful shame since at one point he was actually funny and intelligent.

  • Galane||

    I used to enjoy "Sinfest", until he changed everything and ruined it. Nothing but pandering to the SJW's now.

  • Domestic Dissident||

    It sure doesn't take much to get Steelers fans to start booing their own guys. A swift punch right in the mouth will do the trick.

  • Jerryskids||

    Atwood isn't a Bad Feminist, she's a White Supremacist. Due process and things like facts and logic and evidence simply perpetuate hegemonic neo-paternalistic idioms of marginalization, normalizing the foreshortened masculinity of the duopoly and displacing the narratives of the disadvantaged.

  • Deflator Mouse||

    She looks like the puppet from Saw with gray hair.

  • JoeBlow123||

    Make sure you throw in dialectic, zeitgist, and some other bullshit Hegelian/Marxist claptrap words like Global South and you are all the way there to certified, incomprehensible sociology university professor status!

  • Tony||

    "In times of extremes, extremists win," wrote Atwood. "Their ideology becomes a religion, anyone who doesn't puppet their views is seen as an apostate, a heretic or a traitor, and moderates in the middle are annihilated."

    Smart people say smart things.

    I watch some of these actresses say things like we have to punish a few innocents because women suffered so long. It's not time to talk about due process, it's time for the emotional fulfillment of destroying careers without it.

    I get where they're coming from but I just want to ask: do you want men to be allies or not?

  • 123 go||

    Ok Paloma.

  • MarkLastname||

    Where they're coming from is collectivist sadism, and it earns them no sympathy. Do people not realize than most white racists probably have a sob story about being mugged by a black guy to rationalize their disposition?

    I don't 'get' where people who want to lynch innocent men for cathartic reasons are coming from, and as an innocent man, I will never be their ally since it is clear they want to be my enemy.

  • Longtobefree||

    You are guilty (if you are really a man).

  • Incredulous||

    Tony's a left wing facist prick so it's probably best to just ignore him.

  • Mark22||

    I get where they're coming from but I just want to ask: do you want men to be allies or not?

    For most feminist men, the answer to that seems to depend on how pretty and doable the feminist in question is.

  • Brandybuck||

    You're reading way too much into it. I don't see any actual ideology behind this, beyond just enough veneer to fool the media into thinking that's what it is about. At this point the #MeToo feminists are about the emotional feelz. Some dude might have done something, so let's project all our hatred onto him and demand the guillotine.

    It's nothing more than the current incarnation of McCarthyism. #MeToo started off good. There were nasty wounds in Hollywood and D.C. that needed their scabs ripped off and exposed to sunlight. But the emotions took over and it's nothing more than a witch hunt now. Or warlock hunt, as some have called it.

    Like one of those Doctor Who episodes where the advanced medical technology got corrupted and is now trying to rid the universe of all life forms.

  • Nwallins||

    You can't spell allies without lies.

  • Nwallins||

    Case in point, has Al Gore been good for the internet or the climate?

  • UnrepentantCurmudgeon||

    Well, Gore invented the internet so there's that. So far as I know he did not invent the climate.

  • Jack Klompus Magic Ink||

    "Smart people say smart things."

    We'll hold our breath and wait for when you ever join this club, you malevolent retarded prick.

  • JuanQPublic||

    I get where they're coming from but I just want to ask: do you want men to be allies or not?

    "Allies or not?" Much like the "with us or with the terrorists" back in the George W Bush years. Suddenly, Jello-spined, self-described "liberals" are simultaneously and bizarrely both pining for the Bush Jr years and adopting the simpleton rhetoric that attempts to force others to fall into line. Quite simply, your "allies or not" question is not really a question, but rather a proclamation in question form.

    Boutique activism calls like this are void of all principle, and it appears that Trump has only hastened that void when it comes to the reactionism you've scrawled on the wall here.

  • Unlabelable MJGreen||

    Jesus, Tulpa's having a slow Sunday.

  • GILMORE™||

    He and Hihn seem to do alternating weekends

  • Arcxjo||

    "It's deeply unfortunate that due process has become synonymous with rape denial in the minds of some feminists."

    Yeah, because that JUST happened.

  • Hank Phillips||

    Creation pseudoscientists try to burn us at the stake for demanding evidence (denying Ghawd). Misanthropic global warming co2ercionists seek to have us tortured for demanding evidence (denying glowbull warming), but we're still here--and growing! Libertarian spoiler votes mean looter parties have to choose between shedding their coercive planks or shedding their government paychecks and perks. That's measurement.

  • Tony||

    How strange to see libertarianism defined as a sort of radical centrism. In truth, liberals have been on the right side of science the whole time. It's kind of a central part of our ethos. You guys pick and choose, and as I said elsewhere, this is why everyone agrees with libertarians on something but few take the whole package. Your position on climate change contradicts the entire scientific community. There is no cause for centrist smugness given that fact. There's cause to examine the reasons you need to reject facts that are inconvenient, or for mere tribal reasons.

  • Cyto||

    The history of progressives and their adherence to scientific principles is indeed impressive. The science of Eugenics immediately springs to mind.

    But if it is something more recent you'd like to ponder, perhaps take a look at the left's understanding of GMO agriculture.

    Or maybe vaccination. The left has some really interesting views on the science of vaccination.

    Or Alternative and Complementary Medicine. They are really, really pro-science in that area too, and not at all promoters of fake science and denialists when it comes to the evidence.

    It is a good thing that no true "liberal" would reject facts that are inconvenient.

  • Philadelphia Collins||

    Or when human life begins.

  • Tony||

    Blah blah blah. I could have written your stupid response myself, you people are so predictable.

  • UnrepentantCurmudgeon||

    No, what is really predictable is that the immediate response of every liberal to a counter-argument is to insult the person raising it. It's like the old saw about legal argument: "When the facts are with you, argue the law; when the law is against you, insult opposing counsel." Liberals just skip the middle man. But thank you for eliminating all doubt as to who you are and where you stand.

  • The Last American Hero||

    Don't forget the science of XX and XY chromosomes. They don't believe in such things.

  • MarkLastname||

    "In truth, liberals have been on the right side of science the whole time. It's kind of a central part of our ethos."
    Haha, ok pal. Even on your science 'trump card' issue, global warming, progressives have been consistently, publicly, and egregiously wrong. Forget even Paul Ehrlich's consistently wrong predictions; predictions Al Gore was making less than 20 years ago about climate change are proving to be widely inaccurate.

    The reality is, Tony, given how much the average left wing politician exaggerates the intensity of global warming, you and your ilk are likely as far away from reality as full on global warming deniers, but in the opposite direction. In short, if the parameter = x, and you've spent the last 50 years insisting the parameter is at least 2x, you're not in much of a position to lecture people who say it's basically 0.

  • Mark22||

    In truth, liberals have been on the right side of science the whole time.

    You mean like historical materialism, Marxist economics, scientific racism, eugenics, Keynesian economics, rejection of nuclear power, rejection of genetic manipulation, rejection of basic economics, Lysenkoism, ...?

    But the real problem with left wing approaches to science isn't even that they often get the science wrong, it's that they misapply it. When the left was advocating eugenics, the problem wasn't with the science, it was that the left said "therefore, for the benefit of society and humanity, we are going to violate the rights of individuals". Today, the left still gets the science wrong and still says "therefore, for the benefit of society and humanity, we are going to violate the rights of individuals".

    Your position on climate change contradicts the entire scientific community.

    "Our" position on climate change is that government intervention is worse than climate change can possibly be. I'll rather live on a planet that 4C warmer than on a planet in which the UN can engage in economic central decision making. You're right that that contradicts the entire scientific community, just not on scientific matters.

  • Tony||

    No you wouldn't. You don't know what you're talking about. You're fixated on the evils of central planning as a dogma. No dogma ever helped the world.

  • Nwallins||

    Says the reflexive dogmatic-in-chief

  • Mark22||

    You're fixated on the evils of central planning as a dogma.

    I'm fixated on the evils of central planning and socialism as a matter of personal experience. And those people were more competent than the UN.

    Yes, I will rather live on a planet that 4C warmer than on a planet in which the UN can engage in economic central decision making.

    Based on painful, personal experience.

  • I am the 0.000000013%||

    Liberals have always been on the the side of scientists who denounce religion.

  • Galane||

    "Your position on climate change contradicts the entire scientific community."

    What? That 97% bullshit? http://joannenova.com.au/2013/.....-fall-for/

    Who is John Cook? What did he do prior to starting his 'skeptical science' website? He wrote and drew a Star Trek parody webcomic called "Sev Trek". Then he figured out how to get on the AGW gravy train and quit doing the webcomic.

  • Otis B. Driftwood||

    Now these twits are going after Aziz Ansari. This shit is absolutely delicious.

  • NRPax||

    "It's deeply unfortunate that due process has become synonymous with rape denial in the minds of some feminists."

    Changed it for you. No charge.

  • gormadoc||

    As a story, her book sucks. It's supposed to be some critic of the religious right and oppressive states, but it falls into caricature. Maybe it could be a good critic of some fundamentalist Mormon nation, but it doesn't work well otherwise. It's ridiculous that a book so out of time (and not really relevant during it's own time) got a TV show and is used in high schools.

    On Atwood herself, it sounds like she's more concerned about the damage to feminism and academic freedom and not due process. While she's doing a good thing now, we shouldn't pretend that she's championing due process, rather than it being tangential to her main point. Although I am sure that she understands and values it; she is a smart person.

  • gormadoc||

    Fuck.
    ...during *its own...

  • Mark22||

    Maybe it could be a good critic of some fundamentalist Mormon nation

    No, it can't be. Human beings don't behave the way people in her book do. Atwood's book is simply a collection of leftist cliches, designed to appeal to leftist intellectuals.

  • Brandybuck||

    I see you haven't really read the book. Or if you did, you completely failed to understand it.

  • gormadoc||

    I have, but please explain. For my edification, if nothing else.

  • Brandybuck||

    Okay, in A Handmaid's Tale, the fascism is the system itself, not the individuals. The individuals can the oppressors or the victims independent of their social or political status. The worst oppressors end up being the women in the system itself.

  • Nwallins||

    Why is your point about women responsive to the main claim that the premises are out of time and irrelevant? Have you maybe failed to completely understand gormadoc's comment? I'm sure women are enforcers in Mormon and Muslim societies too. I love the Hulu show, BTW

  • gormadoc||

    Crazy thing is, I agree. All fascism is the system. Clearly Atwood was not criticizing individuals. But she was trying to demonstrate a totalitarian society that she felt was the only plausible kind to emerge in the US. She extrapolates from Puritanism and a certain theological thread in our society to a kind of dictatorship relying heavily on Christian trappings. The main point of the story, is of course, how women behave; do they acquiesce and become part of the system or do they try to free themselves in some way from it? It's supposed to explore that. I don't feel that it achieves its goal or that the premise is believable or realistic. It would describe some sort of fundamentalist Mormon society better than any plausible outcome of mainstream American trends.

    Please, explain where my understanding fails.

  • gormadoc||

    Crazy thing is, I agree. All fascism is the system. Clearly Atwood was not criticizing individuals. But she was trying to demonstrate a totalitarian society that she felt was the only plausible kind to emerge in the US. She extrapolates from Puritanism and a certain theological thread in our society to a kind of dictatorship relying heavily on Christian trappings. The main point of the story, is of course, how women behave; do they acquiesce and become part of the system or do they try to free themselves in some way from it? It's supposed to explore that. I don't feel that it achieves its goal or that the premise is believable or realistic. It would describe some sort of fundamentalist Mormon society better than any plausible outcome of mainstream American trends.

    Please, explain where my understanding fails.

  • Rockabilly||

    Marxist purge. Nothing new.

  • ||

    While I'm glad she speaks about due process, I'm wary. She's liberal after all and they don't generally have a problem with the lack of due process (think Obama and drone killings of American citizens) for 'deplorables'. She (rightly I think) comes to the defense of a professor but I wish these sudden epiphanies were applied to ALL people.

    And let's face it, feminism helped to create this monster to which she's a part of. For people who make a living ostensibly understanding the 'big picture' and speak often of 'greater goods', they sure know how to miss the mark.

    For example, the professor who invented 'micro aggressions' who later on felt it was being misunderstood and misapplied today. Really? You couldn't conceive, as you wrote it down, that it had the potential to be misinterpreted as it has?

    Or the person who wrote that paper linking autism to vaccines and years later recanted. I'm pretty sure the person was told along the way 'hey man, you may want to rethink this.'

    Alas, by the time the mea culpa was issues, the damage was done.

    Where was I?

    Yes. Due process. If you kill it, we literally are aimless.

  • gormadoc||

    Well yeah, drones aim for us now.

  • BYODB||

    When it's 'publish or perish' one seldom gives thought to 'am I right or not'. Being correct is really pretty low down on the reasons why you publish, after all.

  • Mark22||

    "And now, it seems, I am conducting a War on Women, like the misogynistic, rape-enabling Bad Feminist that I am," wrote Atwood in an op-ed for The Globe and Mail.

    Oh, you're not a "bad feminist". You're simply a fairly ignorant intellectual who has translated a bunch cheap shots at men and religion into literary success, because you discovered early on that taking cheap shots at men and religion is popular with your crowd. And now it blew up in your face because the crazies that liked it were even more crazy than you imagined.

    It seems a little late to develop a conscience now, and you still don't understand what uninformed drivel The Handmaid's Tale actually was. My recommendation to you is: forget about this "due process stuff" and just have fun joining in with your fellow crazies: you're already 95% there anyway, why not go the remaining 5%?

  • ||

    She also suffered from Harper Deranged Syndrome. She spent a lot of time saying dumb shit about him. So yeah, she chose to be ignorant.

    http://bit.ly/2D659PB

  • Incredulous||

    Feminazis

  • Brandybuck||

    I really hate feminists who think The Handmaid's Tale is about right wing fundamentalists who enslave fertile women. That's not even the skeleton of the novel, at most it's part of the spine. Way too many feminists who point to Margaret Atwood as one of their own who have never actually read her novels.

    Ms. Atwood is an incredibly gifted novelist who has the talent of mirroring the ideologies back at each other. I don't like her real world politics, but her novels go way beyond cheap us-vs-them politics. They are far more nuanced that all the feminists screaming about nuance could ever muster.

  • Eidde||

    The novel was OK. And let's be fair, the theocrat dictators were only able to take over because there'd been a nuclear war and large numbers of the surviving women became infertile.

    So maybe it was meant as "huh huh, I'm doing a satire on the Reagan administration," but technically a nuclear armageddon was a prerequisite for the sexist fundamentalist takeover.

  • Brandybuck||

    That nuclear war was merely the starting premise. And it had absolutely nothing to do with Reagan.

  • Mark22||

    Ms. Atwood is an incredibly gifted novelist who has the talent of mirroring the ideologies back at each other.

    Sorry, I found Atwood's writing fairly dull. And in order to "mirror ideologies back at each other", she needs to understand the different ideologies, but she only understands her own self-righteous upper middle class intellectual leftism.

  • BYODB||

    Are these Good Feminists fair-minded people? If not, they are just feeding into the very old narrative that holds women to be incapable of fairness or of considered judgment, and they are giving the opponents of women yet another reason to deny them positions of decision-making in the world.


    I don't really know anything about this woman in particular, but I'll be damned if she doesn't nail this bit here 100%. Modern feminists are making the explicit case the women in particular are inferior whether they know it or not. In fact, if they don't realize they're doing this it's even worse.


    Paternalism is not the same thing as equality, ladies.

  • UnrepentantCurmudgeon||

    All that said, one way and another, I for one do not think that #MeToo has been a good thing for anybody. All it has done is pillory some men at the top of the entertainment industry for misdeeds done long ago and celebrate today's "truth tellers" for not having done anything at the time, announcing their victimhood today, and asking men to donate to their charity (a la Mark Wahlberg). Is anything really changing? I say "probably not" though I have absolutely no insider knowledge as to the shenanigans of people at the top. On the other hand, I grew up with and around women who forged their own paths, took the blows and soldiered on without making a cause of themselves. I'll take those pioneers over the current crop of whiners any day.

  • CGN||

    This is the same old "Women don't lie about (fill in the blank)" which besides being totally illegal, is just plain stupid. Look up Aileen wuornos killing spree if you think otherwise.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online