Margaret’s answer to “Do you consider yourself a feminist? How much do you think society would change if everyone believe…” > Likes and Comments
1133 likes · Like
Surprised by the answer. What has how another person defines it got to do with anything? By that token you can be an 'ist' based on someone else's definition as well e.g. racist. Surely you have the power to say whether you are or aren't something based on the agreed and accepted dictionary definition? If someone asked if you consider yourself a racist, would you give the same answer? Diplomatic and dull.
BeautifulNerd... perhaps you should consider most racists do not consider themselves so and yet they nevertheless are so. So yes, it is important how that other person defines that word. I have met many a bigot who denies their sense of personal group entitlement and many a feminist who refusing to be lumped with the clan of men are the Problem choose not to be labeled so.
I disagree, but it's only my opinion. I can look at a label and identify with ease whether I am or am not that label. The opinion of others does not come into it, but rather my own opinion based on the definition. The example given (as to whether someone equates feminists with being anti-lipstick) is just a stereotype, just like the "men are the problem" view of feminism is a stereotype. I would not concern myself with how someone stereotypically views the label, otherwise what is the point of definitions and autonomy? I would asses the definition of the label and see whether or not it applies to me. It's fairly simple to do. We do that in everyday life; identifying as straight, gay, bi, middle class, working class etc. The answer seemed evasive in my view.
Same, and if I am not, I would explain how I am not, in the same way that someone could reject the label bisexual and say how their predilection differs from it. What appeared to happen was MA said "I don't know how you perceive that label so I won't answer - here are my general views". It seems like a cop-out for someone so intelligent to allow the POSSIBILITY of people having a stereotypical view to stop them from answering a simple question, but it's her prerogative and perhaps she did not wish to publicly "come out" with her stance, for whatever reason. A shame, I think, but her choice.
I think you’re right. And not many people do like labels, to be fair. I guess you come to an interview looking for answers and when you get evasions instead it can be frustrating - but it’s her prerogative.
Evasive answer is right, BeautifulNerd! The second part of the question allowed for a great deal of explanation and insight. She did none of that. I'm more disappointed by the superficial response to the bit about gender equality: "men and women aren't exactly the same" if that's what you mean. Of course that's not what Tatitana means. What literary mind, who writes about women's issues in deep analytical ways, thinks gender equality means the genders are the same? Evasive, superficial answer designed not to alienate readers (obvs, a fail for this reader).
I agree whole heartedly. I don't know what drove her answer, but I do know it was a disappointment at best for me, and a purposeful obfuscation at worst, by her.
I liked her answers. Everyone wants you to choose sides and defend your choice and for some people the ongoing feuds are tiresome. She feels comfortable in her own thoughts and feelings and doesn't feel the need to expand on it. Women are women and deserve equal treatment. Enough said. Nobody can predict the future but you can look at the past and see trends in society and human behavior. Bravo, Ms. Atwood!
No one is saying equality is symmetry except her, which was my point. No one says that. So to suggest that is to derail the issue and avoid the question. It's an absurd proposition and clearly a misinterpretation of the question. Sometimes if you don't want to answer a question, you can pretend to misinterpret it. Or, if you really hold such a superficial understanding of gender equality, you could genuinely provide an answer like that.
Read her answers again. I thought she was especially insightful in that people make themselves miserable trying to break things down to the nth degree and draw conclusions from the debris. Be good to each other. Respect each other. It's the best we can do, I think. At least it's a start.
But that is like such a "no-duh" answer. To ask whether people believe in gender equality means do they believe that the genders should be treated equally, not to they think women and men are the same. *Especially* coming on the heels of asking someone about feminism and social change. If the question were really about whether she thought women and men were exactly the same, I imagine the question would've been something along the lines of "do you think women and men are the same?" Or "do you think women and men are different?" And who would ask that kind of question except someone only interested in capturing an absurd position held by a small minority of people who hold extreme (and untenable) beliefs.
I don't think she derailed the issue at all. She avoided labeling herself. Not everyone feels the need to justify their opinion with a label or group backing. Maybe the word "exactly" the same " is throwing you off. I believe she is saying that if feminism/ gender equality means being "equal" to men, that is an unrealistic goal because women may be the same animal but they are a different breed. We both have our strengths and weaknesses but neither is greater than the other. The more we try to tear the issue apart, the harder we make it.
"women may be the same animal but they are a different breed." No, they actually aren't. Women aren't exactly the same as men because no two people are exactly the same as each other. And that's where Margaret Atwood's answer is exactly right - trying to figure out what perceived difference between people mean, whether it be genders, races or anything else is asking the wrong question. Instead of asking whether the differences between groups of people means they should be treated differently we should be asking how to try to get people to equal levels of health, prosperity, safety and happiness regardless of whatever differences there are between them.
The very fact that the debate on male Vs female dominance persists, is the proof for the imbalance. Furthermore, millions of years have passed since the beginnings of human beings on earth. Was there any period in time when female dominance was established in a country, or in a society. Empresses might have ruled, women leaders might have led people... but they were isolated from rest of their own sex. Only in fiction, we hear about countries and military powered by women! Physically and mentally male dominance is natural! All species in the animal kingdom exhibit this! Lady spider devouring the male is not female dominance! It is a biological necessity, just as male dominance over the female. We don;t hear a woman raping a man! Even if she is physically stronger, the inbuilt biological mechanism fails her to ready him for the sexual act! It is Nature that decides who should dominate whom. Just because of the male dominance there need not be any feminist move against it! Because it is a fight against NATURE!
As a 51 year old, I read the answer not as an avoidance or capitulation but as a seasoned, slightly media weary sigh. Of course Margaret Atwood believes in gender equality, but to step outside the kind of obvious question and give a an answer that deals more with where our true daily lives and struggles meet the pavement suggests wisdom instead of avoidance. Theoretical notions of equality are all well and good and should be discussed, written about and studied, but she's right; on a daily basis, even dealing with the most thoughtful people, mutual understanding between genders is at the root of a lot of our problems. It's actually much easier to deal in theory because you can sidestep all that reality.
I am not going to read another book by Margaret Atwood. I have suffered more than enough in my life.
Margaret Mead, Margaret Atwood, Virginia Woolf. Besides, I was educated by Jesuits.
I have read Lady Oracle and Bodily Harm.
There are plenty of Jesuits in Holland. I myself went to Canisius College in Nijmegen together with 1400 other unfortunate boys. Our former PM Ruud Lubbers went to the same school like most prominent catholic politicians. I hope I have satisfied your curiosity.
The objections to Miss Atwood's answer seem to be thoughtless quibbling. If you define yourself as an "ist" of some kind, you may be subscribing to a program of beliefs laid out by someone else. Or, you may later have words put in your mouth by someone who decides to define the "ism" in his or her own way.
' I believe women are full human beings (radical, I realize).' Thank you. I completely agree with this.
Effettivamente, lo trovo alquanto giusto. Ritengo che sia.
Stata un'ottima invenzione.
Myslím si, žena má být ženou. Milá a půvabná, i když třeba vykonává mužskou práci. Muž má být zase mužem za každých okolností. Ochrance a obdivovatel žen. Ale když žena pracuje měla by být stejně, ne-li více ohodnocená, jako muž. Nevidím důvod, proč by žena za stejnou práci měla méně vydělat jak muž.
I'm always puzzled and somewhat let down when people conflate equality with sameness. It is refreshing to hear someone echo this sentiment. I've never believed the goal should be sameness whether the topic is racism, sexism, or any "ism". Shouldn't we be striving, rather, for a society where we can recognize and acknowledge difference without generating irrational value judgments? I want to live in a world where men and women can share sameness, but also enjoy difference independent of enjoying equality of value as human beings. I prefer to find opportunity to celebrate difference versus imposing sameness.
As a gay man I feel like I'd be a hypocrite if I weren't a feminist. I want equality. How could I possibly not want that for women too? I want it for everyone. It's sort of a no brainer.
It's such a shame that when a brilliant woman, such as Mrs. Atwood, truthfully answers the question without being radical or political about it, gets bashed by other people, especially by other women. Feminism is supposed to be about choice, but it seems that since we've hit the fourth wave of feminism, nothing is good enough for you radicals other than complete and total compliance. It's not good enough to agree that women deserve an education and medical care too, we apparently must also agree that women are perpetual victims and as always, men are the scapegoats who deserve to be emasculated (as is evident every time you turn on the television).
She answered the question as truthfully as possible without wanting to get bullied, but that's still not good enough for some of you. It just goes to prove that this theory is correct:
It may have started out about equality, but it ended with judging women on how well they can adopt masculine qualities.
I'm really happy for the answer! I think that MA's books have wrongly been categorized as "feminist". I even think she included several short veiled jabs about feminism in the novel "Cat's Eye". Feminists need to learn that they do not own the issue of female equality, and they need to respect the rights of other women to define themselves as feminists or not. (I can't tell you how many times I've been told that I'm a feminist even though I say I'm not.) I think MA is being coy because of a backlash that would happen if she came out as a non-feminist. I think she's way too intelligent to be a part of that camp.
back to top
message 1:
by
[deleted user]
(new)
May 25, 2014 10:39AM
Oh Margaret Atwood is such a smart brain, I love her answers to our questions- ti my question, too.
reply
|
flag
Surprised by the answer. What has how another person defines it got to do with anything? By that token you can be an 'ist' based on someone else's definition as well e.g. racist. Surely you have the power to say whether you are or aren't something based on the agreed and accepted dictionary definition? If someone asked if you consider yourself a racist, would you give the same answer? Diplomatic and dull.
BeautifulNerd... perhaps you should consider most racists do not consider themselves so and yet they nevertheless are so. So yes, it is important how that other person defines that word. I have met many a bigot who denies their sense of personal group entitlement and many a feminist who refusing to be lumped with the clan of men are the Problem choose not to be labeled so.
I think this is a very confusing stuff. Who are you? What you think you are, or what he others take you for?
As an example:
My parents survived concentration camps. Their families were completely secular, and considered themselves Czechs. Some of the married non Jews- it saved them. But when the Nazis came, with their Nurnberger laws, even people who did not even know they were Jewish or did not consider themselves Jewish because they took " Jewish" sa religion, not nationality, were suddenly Jewish whether they wanted or not.
Am I making sense? What other people consider us to e matters,
As an example:
My parents survived concentration camps. Their families were completely secular, and considered themselves Czechs. Some of the married non Jews- it saved them. But when the Nazis came, with their Nurnberger laws, even people who did not even know they were Jewish or did not consider themselves Jewish because they took " Jewish" sa religion, not nationality, were suddenly Jewish whether they wanted or not.
Am I making sense? What other people consider us to e matters,
I disagree, but it's only my opinion. I can look at a label and identify with ease whether I am or am not that label. The opinion of others does not come into it, but rather my own opinion based on the definition. The example given (as to whether someone equates feminists with being anti-lipstick) is just a stereotype, just like the "men are the problem" view of feminism is a stereotype. I would not concern myself with how someone stereotypically views the label, otherwise what is the point of definitions and autonomy? I would asses the definition of the label and see whether or not it applies to me. It's fairly simple to do. We do that in everyday life; identifying as straight, gay, bi, middle class, working class etc. The answer seemed evasive in my view.
yes. this is a very good point. but then, before I would say I am an ...ist, I would use a qualifier- what I mean by it.
Same, and if I am not, I would explain how I am not, in the same way that someone could reject the label bisexual and say how their predilection differs from it. What appeared to happen was MA said "I don't know how you perceive that label so I won't answer - here are my general views". It seems like a cop-out for someone so intelligent to allow the POSSIBILITY of people having a stereotypical view to stop them from answering a simple question, but it's her prerogative and perhaps she did not wish to publicly "come out" with her stance, for whatever reason. A shame, I think, but her choice.
I think Margaret Atwood does not like boxes .Here is her reply to my question: Lucie Novak asked Margaret Atwood:
How would you describe your " genre"?I struggle in stating a genre for my own first novel, and by searching I realise I do not know what genre your books, or my other favourite Salman Rushdie's books are. I read most of your and his novels. My two most favourite books of yours are " Cat's Eye" , " Blind Assassin" and " Penelopiad" What genre are they in your opinion? Lucie
Margaret Atwood
Hello: Nobody talked much about "genres" until maybe 15-20 years ago. Primarily the term is useful for: 1) Helping bookstores arrange books on shelves and b) Allowing people to sneer at certain kinds of books, and/or claim a section of literary turf for themselves in order to restrict the clubhouse.
It doesn't REALLY matter what "genre" your book is. What matters is that it's a good book of its kind. Whatever that kind may be. I am too old to have ever been very worried about what "genre" any given book of mine might be. I read everything. But then, I am easily amused.
How would you describe your " genre"?I struggle in stating a genre for my own first novel, and by searching I realise I do not know what genre your books, or my other favourite Salman Rushdie's books are. I read most of your and his novels. My two most favourite books of yours are " Cat's Eye" , " Blind Assassin" and " Penelopiad" What genre are they in your opinion? Lucie
Margaret Atwood
Hello: Nobody talked much about "genres" until maybe 15-20 years ago. Primarily the term is useful for: 1) Helping bookstores arrange books on shelves and b) Allowing people to sneer at certain kinds of books, and/or claim a section of literary turf for themselves in order to restrict the clubhouse.
It doesn't REALLY matter what "genre" your book is. What matters is that it's a good book of its kind. Whatever that kind may be. I am too old to have ever been very worried about what "genre" any given book of mine might be. I read everything. But then, I am easily amused.
I think you’re right. And not many people do like labels, to be fair. I guess you come to an interview looking for answers and when you get evasions instead it can be frustrating - but it’s her prerogative.
Yep I like her, love her books, too.
Evasive answer is right, BeautifulNerd! The second part of the question allowed for a great deal of explanation and insight. She did none of that. I'm more disappointed by the superficial response to the bit about gender equality: "men and women aren't exactly the same" if that's what you mean. Of course that's not what Tatitana means. What literary mind, who writes about women's issues in deep analytical ways, thinks gender equality means the genders are the same? Evasive, superficial answer designed not to alienate readers (obvs, a fail for this reader).
I agree whole heartedly. I don't know what drove her answer, but I do know it was a disappointment at best for me, and a purposeful obfuscation at worst, by her.
I liked her answers. Everyone wants you to choose sides and defend your choice and for some people the ongoing feuds are tiresome. She feels comfortable in her own thoughts and feelings and doesn't feel the need to expand on it. Women are women and deserve equal treatment. Enough said. Nobody can predict the future but you can look at the past and see trends in society and human behavior. Bravo, Ms. Atwood!
Oh well done, exactly my opinion. I think her answer was fine. Equality is not symmetry
No one is saying equality is symmetry except her, which was my point. No one says that. So to suggest that is to derail the issue and avoid the question. It's an absurd proposition and clearly a misinterpretation of the question. Sometimes if you don't want to answer a question, you can pretend to misinterpret it. Or, if you really hold such a superficial understanding of gender equality, you could genuinely provide an answer like that.
I think it is you who does not understand. That is exactly what she said when she answered that women and men are not the same
Read her answers again. I thought she was especially insightful in that people make themselves miserable trying to break things down to the nth degree and draw conclusions from the debris. Be good to each other. Respect each other. It's the best we can do, I think. At least it's a start.
But that is like such a "no-duh" answer. To ask whether people believe in gender equality means do they believe that the genders should be treated equally, not to they think women and men are the same. *Especially* coming on the heels of asking someone about feminism and social change. If the question were really about whether she thought women and men were exactly the same, I imagine the question would've been something along the lines of "do you think women and men are the same?" Or "do you think women and men are different?" And who would ask that kind of question except someone only interested in capturing an absurd position held by a small minority of people who hold extreme (and untenable) beliefs.
I don't think she derailed the issue at all. She avoided labeling herself. Not everyone feels the need to justify their opinion with a label or group backing. Maybe the word "exactly" the same " is throwing you off. I believe she is saying that if feminism/ gender equality means being "equal" to men, that is an unrealistic goal because women may be the same animal but they are a different breed. We both have our strengths and weaknesses but neither is greater than the other. The more we try to tear the issue apart, the harder we make it.
"women may be the same animal but they are a different breed." No, they actually aren't. Women aren't exactly the same as men because no two people are exactly the same as each other. And that's where Margaret Atwood's answer is exactly right - trying to figure out what perceived difference between people mean, whether it be genders, races or anything else is asking the wrong question. Instead of asking whether the differences between groups of people means they should be treated differently we should be asking how to try to get people to equal levels of health, prosperity, safety and happiness regardless of whatever differences there are between them.
OH yes Very good point. But maybe we have covered everything now. I liked your note, KT
The very fact that the debate on male Vs female dominance persists, is the proof for the imbalance. Furthermore, millions of years have passed since the beginnings of human beings on earth. Was there any period in time when female dominance was established in a country, or in a society. Empresses might have ruled, women leaders might have led people... but they were isolated from rest of their own sex. Only in fiction, we hear about countries and military powered by women! Physically and mentally male dominance is natural! All species in the animal kingdom exhibit this! Lady spider devouring the male is not female dominance! It is a biological necessity, just as male dominance over the female. We don;t hear a woman raping a man! Even if she is physically stronger, the inbuilt biological mechanism fails her to ready him for the sexual act! It is Nature that decides who should dominate whom. Just because of the male dominance there need not be any feminist move against it! Because it is a fight against NATURE!
LOL. Are you a troll? you must be! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_(I...
Or even the Billy Goat Gruff type one.
There are plenty of female leaders- companies, hospitals, countries and without being isolated from their sex. They even have sex! ANd only if they want to! ANd there are millions of male/female intimate relationships with the woman being dominant partner.
Maybe this has been only the development of the last 100 years, but it did happen!
Or even the Billy Goat Gruff type one.
There are plenty of female leaders- companies, hospitals, countries and without being isolated from their sex. They even have sex! ANd only if they want to! ANd there are millions of male/female intimate relationships with the woman being dominant partner.
Maybe this has been only the development of the last 100 years, but it did happen!
As a 51 year old, I read the answer not as an avoidance or capitulation but as a seasoned, slightly media weary sigh. Of course Margaret Atwood believes in gender equality, but to step outside the kind of obvious question and give a an answer that deals more with where our true daily lives and struggles meet the pavement suggests wisdom instead of avoidance. Theoretical notions of equality are all well and good and should be discussed, written about and studied, but she's right; on a daily basis, even dealing with the most thoughtful people, mutual understanding between genders is at the root of a lot of our problems. It's actually much easier to deal in theory because you can sidestep all that reality.
yes, and like always, walk the walk is harder than talking the talk. And Margaret ATwood with her brilliant books with various female characters that are alive, real, and very well written is in my opinion not only one of the finest living authors, but also a fine woman.
I am not going to read another book by Margaret Atwood. I have suffered more than enough in my life.Margaret Mead, Margaret Atwood, Virginia Woolf. Besides, I was educated by Jesuits.
You are kidding, right? Jesuits in Holland!!!??? And which of her books did you read? Curious ( always)
I have read Lady Oracle and Bodily Harm.There are plenty of Jesuits in Holland. I myself went to Canisius College in Nijmegen together with 1400 other unfortunate boys. Our former PM Ruud Lubbers went to the same school like most prominent catholic politicians. I hope I have satisfied your curiosity.
Yes, thank you for that.I always considered rC in Holland very small minority, somehow I thought that in the religious wars, Catholics stayed in the South- Belgium. I like your country , been many times, I think the books you read by MA are rather " female" Try Oryx and Crake and the other 2 - very different..My ex husband also liked Blind Assassin
The objections to Miss Atwood's answer seem to be thoughtless quibbling. If you define yourself as an "ist" of some kind, you may be subscribing to a program of beliefs laid out by someone else. Or, you may later have words put in your mouth by someone who decides to define the "ism" in his or her own way.
' I believe women are full human beings (radical, I realize).' Thank you. I completely agree with this.
Effettivamente, lo trovo alquanto giusto. Ritengo che sia.Stata un'ottima invenzione.
Myslím si, žena má být ženou. Milá a půvabná, i když třeba vykonává mužskou práci. Muž má být zase mužem za každých okolností. Ochrance a obdivovatel žen. Ale když žena pracuje měla by být stejně, ne-li více ohodnocená, jako muž. Nevidím důvod, proč by žena za stejnou práci měla méně vydělat jak muž.
She is just such a smart nice woman! And a great writer!
her answer to my question ( lower down ) was perfect, too.
I'm always puzzled and somewhat let down when people conflate equality with sameness. It is refreshing to hear someone echo this sentiment. I've never believed the goal should be sameness whether the topic is racism, sexism, or any "ism". Shouldn't we be striving, rather, for a society where we can recognize and acknowledge difference without generating irrational value judgments? I want to live in a world where men and women can share sameness, but also enjoy difference independent of enjoying equality of value as human beings. I prefer to find opportunity to celebrate difference versus imposing sameness.
She is so great, not just like a writer!
As a gay man I feel like I'd be a hypocrite if I weren't a feminist. I want equality. How could I possibly not want that for women too? I want it for everyone. It's sort of a no brainer.
It's such a shame that when a brilliant woman, such as Mrs. Atwood, truthfully answers the question without being radical or political about it, gets bashed by other people, especially by other women. Feminism is supposed to be about choice, but it seems that since we've hit the fourth wave of feminism, nothing is good enough for you radicals other than complete and total compliance. It's not good enough to agree that women deserve an education and medical care too, we apparently must also agree that women are perpetual victims and as always, men are the scapegoats who deserve to be emasculated (as is evident every time you turn on the television). She answered the question as truthfully as possible without wanting to get bullied, but that's still not good enough for some of you. It just goes to prove that this theory is correct:
It may have started out about equality, but it ended with judging women on how well they can adopt masculine qualities.
I'm really happy for the answer! I think that MA's books have wrongly been categorized as "feminist". I even think she included several short veiled jabs about feminism in the novel "Cat's Eye". Feminists need to learn that they do not own the issue of female equality, and they need to respect the rights of other women to define themselves as feminists or not. (I can't tell you how many times I've been told that I'm a feminist even though I say I'm not.) I think MA is being coy because of a backlash that would happen if she came out as a non-feminist. I think she's way too intelligent to be a part of that camp.
