Okay, Margaret Atwood's Wrong, But Would He March Up To Her In The Supermarket And Call Her "You Twit"?
I blogged the other day about there's actually been a dress code for quite some time in the House -- maybe even way back when one summer when I was an intern for United Press International.
Men have to wear a jacket and tie and women have to have their arms covered -- that is, they can't be wearing sleeveless tops.
Still, not surprisingly, the "The Democrats/The Republicans (Pick One) Are Hitler!" forces always come out -- knee-jerk, sans a wee bit of googlywoogly -- to blame the other party.
This time, it was The Handmaid's Tale author Margaret Atwood. Whether you generally agree with her politically or not, she's a nice, accomplished 77-year-old Canadian lady, and presumably a total stranger to this Patrick person.
I have some sense that she's nice because she was friends with Elmore Leonard, who talked about her a little bit.
But even if we had no idea whether she were nice or not, who talks to 77-year-old ladies this way, just because they get a fact wrong?
Here's the tweet and the response:
The dress code FAR pre-dates Ryan, and men have to wear jackets & ties. Do some basic research, you twit.
— Patrick (@jd2319) July 11, 2017
It still amazes me when some person on Twitter or elsewhere on social media ups and talks to a total stranger this way.
Okay, so she's wrong. (Don't we all get it wrong here and there?)
Here's what I suggest as the standard for how to treat strangers on the Internet, from my science-based book, "Good Manners for Nice People Who Sometimes Say F*ck":
The "Behave as You Are in Real Life" ruleIt's easy to get bewitched by the power you can have with a few clicks and keystrokes, especially when combined with anonymity. Understanding this, I made a rule for myself that every comment I make on a blog or website I make in my own full name.
Now, maybe your job or family situation doesn't allow you to post in your real-life identity, or maybe it just creeps you out.
To keep from going ugly on the Internet, resolve to at least post as the same person you are when speaking face-to-face with someone at work, a dinner party, or the grocery store, assuming you aren't in the habit of greeting a grocery-shopping stranger eyeing some out-of- season veggie with "well ur a dum bitch now aren't you?"
The "Behave as You Are in Real Life" rule should also apply when commenting on the rich, famous, and enfranchised. Some movie star might have buttloads more money than you--and in- ternational fame, to boot--but it's safe to assume she also has feelings.
Marilyn Monroe told Life in 1962 about the ugliness she encountered:
When you're famous, you kind of run into human nature in a raw kind of way. . . . It stirs up envy, fame does. People you run into feel that, well, who is she-- who does she think she is, Marilyn Monroe? They feel fame gives them some kind of privilege to walk up to you and say anything to you, you know, of any kind of nature--and it won't hurt your feelings--like it's happening to your clothing. . . . I don't understand why people aren't a little more generous with each other.
I think Patrick should rethink his Internet M.O. -- assuming he doesn't run up to 77-year-old ladies in the grocery store and call them rude names -- and I also think he should apologize to Margaret Atwood.
Oh, and no, it isn't the same thing, the way @ENBrown referred to people in general about what I called "sleeviegate" -- tweeting, "It has been a rule for decades you lying hysterical fools."
Is there any reason to assume that Patrick (if that's his real name) has any idea who Margaret Atwood is, that she's 77, or even if that's her real name? It could be that she's as anonymous to him as he is to her, and he's replying to her tweet in that spirit.
Rex Little at July 11, 2017 12:48 AM
The internet age and anonymity has broken some of the social barriers.
Most of us no longer know who we are talking to and what their *social status* is unless we look them up on wiki.
Putting yourself out on twitter is a bit like joining verbal roller derby.
Civility certainly has its place, but be prepared for it to be used to criminalize anything you say that someone finds offensive.
We seem to be heading that direction if the SJW's have any say.
Personally I would rather we retained the constitutional right to be rude.
Isab at July 11, 2017 3:09 AM
"Personally I would rather we retained the constitutional right to be rude."
Suggesting that it is best practices to be civil to our fellow human beings is a long way from stripping anyone of their constitutional rights.
Why is it that people often try to justify poor behavior by saying they have the "right"? Having the right to do something simply means you can do it even when you have no valid justification. The right isn't justification in and of itself.
What one needs justification for is to do things that they don't already have the right to do. For example, you would be justified breaking someone's car window open if you saw an infant locked inside when it was 105 degrees outside. In that scenario you need the justification because normally you wouldn't have the right. Now if it was your own vehicle you can break the windows any time you like for any reason whatsoever or even no reason at all... because you have the right to do so.
That you have the right to wallow in your own feces if you so desire doesn't imply that if someone suggests that is a bad idea it means they are going to drag you away in cuffs and lock you up.
Be rude if you like, let's not pretend that it has any high minded "rights" component behind it though.
Artemis at July 11, 2017 3:44 AM
So "...you lying hysterical fools" from Elizabeth Nolan Brown is okay, but "twit" from Patrick is not? What is the distinction?
I'm not trolling, I'm genuinely confused.
L. Beau Macaroni at July 11, 2017 5:36 AM
She's speaking generally and not calling a particular person a name. It's like saying, "people who think this way..."
Amy Alkon at July 11, 2017 5:54 AM
It would be one thing if Atwood suggested the dress code was outdated and let it go at that.
Instead, she insulted Ryan, and republicans by implying they're so repressed they can't stand the sight of shoulders.
And she did so without checking for the facts. Or so we think. Perhaps she did know but hoped a substantial number of her followers didn't.
Referring to The Handmaid's Tale means anybody who agrees with the dress code is a kind of crytpo Handmaid's Tale oppressor. Which is to say, nuttily conservative Christian.
Not Muslim.
She managed to punch a lot of buttons and, as a successful writer, likely knew what she was saying.
So a brisk response is to be expected.
And I'm being very careful with the cars/pirates thing.
Richard Aubrey at July 11, 2017 5:57 AM
"Would He March Up To Her In The Supermarket And Call Her "You Twit"?"
Probably yes. If she was standing in the supermarket loudly saying these things then many people would respond.
She wasn't acting privately when she posted her comment. She wasn't just quietly going about her business. She loudly said something stupid in a public debate forum and someone else stood up to tell her she is wrong. The supermarket thing is not analogous.
I also agree with Isab about her being as anonymous to him as he is to her. I had no idea who she was. I expect for most of us she has zero social standing.
Ben at July 11, 2017 6:04 AM
Let Atwood be rude, she's probably enjoying the sudden spike in attention and well, that feels good.
BUT, if anyone of you knows her, warn her about saying something out of line. Joss Whedon was having the same moment until the second Avengers film (Tony Stark joking about the Prima Nocta, and *gasp* Black Widow wanting to be a mom) happened, the radfems dogpiled onto him, and it was a nasty sight.
Also, it could be worse, she could have been spewing woke nonsense like J. K. Rowling has been doing for a while.
Sixclaws at July 11, 2017 6:17 AM
> I'm not trolling
Well, time to step up your game.
This podcast (autoplay) has an interesting distinction about what constitutes trolling vs. what constitutes worthwhile disputation.
I've been overheated on the internet many, many time. But one of the first things we notice about people who are new to expressing themselves on the internet, anonymously or not, is that as they begin disgorging the heretofore unchallenged presumptions in their conscious minds, they presume that their opinions on factual matters will be admired as the handiwork of a singular genius... And that their freshly enlightened readers will bathe them in a warm, swirling flow of gratitude and admiration.
Such people are often surprised & crushed when others will convincingly critique these thoughts as unlearned or presumptuous.
All of this communication has got to be good for the species, no matter how unpleasant. Heretofore —back in the days when the New York Times was (wrongly) presumed to be the font of instantaneous truth— the man on the street had just as many stupid ideas in his head as the typically arrogant internet commenter. Aren't we glad that these people are finally being corrected?
Crid at July 11, 2017 6:23 AM
"And she did so without checking for the facts."
That's the crux of the problem. There are a whole lot of memes circulating these days, and the people who start them know that they are false, but they don't care. Then people believe it because it's what they want to believe; it confirms their pre-conceived notions. Here's the thing: the old saying about "if it seems too good to be true..."? That applies to politics too, especially now. Consider the difference between:
* "Donald Trump used political influence in Atlantic to procure beachside property below market for his casino".
and
* "Donald Trump engaged in sex tourism in Nigeria, got a girl pregnant, and then used political influence to have the Nigerian government kidnap her and sell her into slavery in Sudan".
The first is plausible (and true, to some extent or another). But it isn't "sexy". Few people who don't live in Atlantic City care about its local politics. So it doesn't get repeated very much, despite the fact that there is at least some truth to it. The second statement is ridiculous, but it is the sort of thing that will get repeated, and repeated, and repeated, because it confirms the pre-conceived notions of certain Trump opponents.
A majority of Americans believe that Jared Loughner was a right-wing militiamen who shot Gabrielle Giffords under direct orders from Sarah Palin. OK, that's an exaggeration, but not by much. The point is that a lot of people want it to be true, so they repeat it. The New York Times wanted it to be true, so they repeated it a few weeks ago, contradicting a previous correction. As a result, Sarah Palin's lawyers will now get to do discovery on their asses, and who knows what will turn up. Although I doubt that the case will get to trial, it's quite possible that the disclosures made in discovery will wind up destroying a century-old, once-respected institution. All because a lot of people who worked there wanted something that is false to be true.
Ultimately all of existence comes down to the laws of physics. And said laws do not give a damn what humans think. If you jump off of a high cliff, no matter how much you sing "I Believe I Can Fly" at the top of your lungs in midair, you're going to hit the bottom and you're going to splatter. Denying that gravity exists is not useful and not conducive to living a sane and healthy life. Neither is being willing to believe even the most ridiculous rumors about your political opponents. "Patrick" should apologize for being rude to Atwood. But Atwood should also apologize for repeating a slanderous rumor, which the slightest amount of checking would have shown to be patently false.
Cousin Dave at July 11, 2017 6:26 AM
I see what you're saying, Amy (is it okay if I call you Amy?), but that is just a little different from the rules that learned at my mother's knee. Consider the following statements:
1. Beau is an a**hole because he is a Chicago Cubs fan.
2. Fans of the Chicago Cubs are a**holes.
3. Beau is making a risible error in continuing to support the Chicago Cubs.
4. Fans of the Chicago Cubs are making a risible error in continuing to support the franchise.
According to my mother's rules, statements 1 and 2 are rude, because she would see no need for such language, but 3 & 4 are acceptable. If I read you correctly, only statement 1 is rude, calling a particular person a name, but 2 is speaking generally, and therefore okay. I assume that you wouldn't find 3 or 4 rude, even if you disagree with their substance.
I hope that I have properly understood you, Amy. Thanks for your rapid reply to my question, and go Cubs!
L. Beau Macaroni at July 11, 2017 6:29 AM
I dont say anything online I wouldnt say to a person in meat space.
I actually got blocked on facebook for calling one of my aunts stupid any laying out in great detail why she was wrong about things like domestic violence and the pay gap
The truth is asshole who get upset on the internet dont give a fuck about insulting words peppered about your response.
Their pissed that you dared contradict them, doubly so if you used objectively verifiable facts to do so
lujlp at July 11, 2017 6:53 AM
The article to which Atwood linked is not exactly a shining beacon of civility.
I've noticed that calls for civility generally come after a hammer blow of incivility from one side is met with a fusillade of invective from the other. Instead of ineffectual calls for civility, let's practice it.
No more "resistance" to a disliked president from the other party, as if the Nazis have occupied Paris. Bring back the "loyal opposition" of which Everett Dirksen was so fond.
Conan the Grammarian at July 11, 2017 6:53 AM
Okay, so she's wrong.
Five minutes or less of consulting Google would have put her on the right path. I'm pretty sure that the House of Commons in England has a dress code, and I'm also pretty sure the Canadian parliament has dress code, but they're not trying to institute The Handmaid's Tale?
Here's 30 seconds of googling regarding Canada:
http://www.ourcommons.ca/marleaumontpetit/DocumentViewer.aspx?Sec=Ch13&Seq=3&Language=E
Oh, the horror! Tho the House of Commons on the other side of the pond seems to see ties as being optional.
https://www.usnews.com/news/world/articles/2017-06-29/the-ties-they-are-a-changing-dress-code-eased-in-uk-commons
I R A Darth Aggie at July 11, 2017 7:17 AM
She's speaking generally and not calling a particular person a name. It's like saying, "people who think this way..."
It may have been addressed generally, but I guaran-damn-tee you that individuals took it as aimed at them, personally. Hillary didn't name anyone in her "basket of deplorables" but an awful lot of people took it that way.
I R A Darth Aggie at July 11, 2017 7:25 AM
Because name-calling a group of people who don't agree with your position is so much more civil than trying to understand their position or working to enlighten them as to yours.
Incivility is a sign of contempt. You don't feel the person is, or people are, worthy of you simple courtesy and respect. This has been endemic in our national political debate for far too long.
Some of the incivility could also frustration stemming from poor vocabulary. We don't teach our children words or argument anymore. When you don't have the vocabulary to argue your point beyond an initial exchange, you resort to "you stink" invective or repeat your position ad nauseam to bludgeon your opponent.
Hillary Clinton was frustrated in not being able to make headway with a bloc of voters, so she dismissed them as "a basket of deplorables" instead of trying to reach them.She insulted them rather than reaching out to them, thus losing them forever. She was never able to connect with the people who clung to God and guns, people she felt were rednecks and reactionaries. According to the Chicago Tribune, "her failure to connect was — and perhaps remains — a far bigger problem than any of the Clinton scandals."
Mitt Romney did the same thing with his 47% comment, "There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it. That that's an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what."
It requires work and effort to connect with those who don't agree with or know very much about your positions. Easier then, to dismiss those you've failed to connect with as contemptible knuckle-draggers, "deplorables," and permanent dependents.
Easier then to shut your ears and sing "la la" than listen to them and their concerns. Really listen, that is. Listen to hear, not listen to respond.
"Most people do not listen with the intent to understand; they listen with the intent to reply." ~ Steven R. Covey
Conan the Grammarian at July 11, 2017 8:38 AM
Sorry, I take the point but no more mercy for moonbats. And yes I will say it to their face.
vanderleun at July 11, 2017 9:02 AM
OK I've done a little more digging, from the promos I saw I assumed the story was set in the past. Now that I've read the synopsis, I think Patrick was far too kind
After all he called an old lady a very mild insult that not even school children use as it is so tame?
What did she do? She made a sexist, misadrist, claim aginst Paul Ryan specifically, all republicans as a group, and men in general accusing them of sexist behavior and trying to control female sexual behaviors and being rapists
Or were you unaware that the Handmadiens in her books are rape victims?
So when Ms Atwood says its straight out of A Handmaidens Tale she is basically accusing Ryan of supporting rape
Were she a man and made such a charge about me I'd've bitch slapped him and then kicked his ass if he fought back
Calling a woman baselessly accusing men of supporting rape and the violent subjugation of women a twit seems quite reasonable
lujlp at July 11, 2017 10:44 AM
Related:
https://www.city-journal.org/html/can-democrats-make-nice-deplorables-15313.html
To amplify vanderleun's remarks, the progs are upset that some of us have dropped gloves and decided to play by their rules.
I R A Darth Aggie at July 11, 2017 10:51 AM
Headline: Novelist Gets It Wrong
Sorry to see Atwood joining the ranks of Stephen King, et al, in the "I sold a lot of fiction so I've got the answers!" club.
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at July 11, 2017 11:27 AM
"meat space"
A fat-and-protein-rich sector of the Gamma quadrant, if memory serves.
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at July 11, 2017 11:30 AM
Atwood may be a nice lady, but why does a Canadian novelist think she has any special insight into American politics?
She used her own 30+ year old novel as a reference point. If not for the series being made out of it by Hulu, how many among the general public would know of it today?
She's made her low opinion of the United States abundantly clear in her novels. So, it's not surprising she would see the the worst in a simple situation.
And it is a simple situation. A dress code that has existed for decades is finally being equally enforced; and she thinks that is equivalent to a rape-supporting theocratic patriarchy that she fantasized about in one of her novels?
Methinks she needs to sit down and chill.
Conan the Grammarian at July 11, 2017 12:10 PM
But the right to bare arms is in the Constitution!
Snoopy at July 11, 2017 12:55 PM
"If not for the series being made out of it by Hulu, how many among the general public would know of it today?"
It's on the reading list in some American high schools and as such has weathered god-knows-how-many lawsuits from fearful folk threatened by unnerving fiction.
Apparently if you're 17 you can kill for America but you can't read any fictional criticism of an America that doesn't even exist.
On the other hand ... she wore a glove.
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at July 11, 2017 1:24 PM
You read that wrong Snoopy. It was a right to bear arms. But you may be taxed on the meat or hide.
Ben at July 11, 2017 1:27 PM
She was smart enough to make her novel in a dystopian, fictional US, instead of, say, Pakistan.
That's why her head's still on, in a manner of speaking.
Richard Aubrey at July 11, 2017 2:22 PM
Atwood may be a nice lady,
Really Conan? She accused Ryan and republicans of supporting rape and the violent subjugation of women
lujlp at July 11, 2017 3:37 PM
Well, if she is a twit, and she acts like a twit, and she is saying things like a twit - why not call her a twit?
She STARTED it by being obnoxious and bashing people that she disagrees with politically by calling them names FIRST.
So, sorry, no, one does not get to be an asshole and then call out others when they act like assholes back.
charles at July 11, 2017 3:44 PM
Well, luj, I used Amy's description of her, "...she's a nice, accomplished 77-year-old Canadian lady.... I have some sense that she's nice because she was friends with Elmore Leonard, who talked about her a little bit." [emphasis mine]
Conan the Grammarian at July 11, 2017 3:58 PM
Hmmmm, calling someone on Twitter a Twit over a Tweet. Quite the tongue twister.
Joe j at July 11, 2017 6:15 PM
The Handmaid's Tale is one of those books like 1984 and Brave New World that creates zealous converts who, regardless of when they read it, think that dystopian world is imminent and the book is a call to arms. People on my book forums are losing it over THT and how "timely" it is. (It is a classic, but it's no more or less relevant now than it was in the 80s when it was first published. The defunding of Planned Parenthood--often cited as an example of impending theonomy--is on the same continuum as Gilead the same way "not having pizza" is on the same continuum as starving to death.)
Women are dressing up as handmaids to protest their state legislature, unembarrassed that they never knew about the book before the Hulu show and eager to tell you it's a revered piece of literature and not to be taken lightly.
I think all of this is going to Atwood's head. Everyone should know who Margaret Atwood is, but I don't believe she's ever had a pop culture following like this. Suddenly millions of young people--not just book lovers--are hanging on her every word, asking her about Season 2 like it's the actual future. Like a lot of artists would, she is milking this. Also like a lot of humans, she is getting crazier with age. I just scrolled through her Twitter feed, and she sounds nuts.
She was entirely wrong to vilify Paul Ryan or say the dress code is related to puritanical repression. Still, when you call a 77-year-old woman a "twit," you look like the bad guy. And if you don't know who Atwood is, you look like an ignoramus. Focus is no longer on her.
Insufficient Poison at July 11, 2017 6:59 PM
Guess I'm an ignoramus, then. I never heard of Atwood before this post. I had heard of The Handmaid's Tale, but I thought it was written hundreds of years ago by Chaucer or somebody.
Rex Little at July 11, 2017 8:13 PM
Rex, you weren't responding to a tweet about her book. She's got a blue check mark and a professional portrait. I like to know who I'm addressing on Twitter, especially if I'm going to insult them and they're verified, indicating a broad public reach.
The title was inspired by Chaucer's Canterbury Tales, so it's not a dumb assumption at all. It's just one I'd check before jumping into a fray.
Insufficient Poison at July 12, 2017 5:43 AM
So I hope Paul Ryan has learned a lesson from this, which is: You can't make nice with the Left. It just emboldens them.
Cousin Dave at July 12, 2017 7:04 AM
Patrick got it wrong. The word is spelled with an "a", not an "i". "Feminist" is a common modifier.
Feminists deserve to be shamed and ridiculed at every opportunity.
Jay R at July 12, 2017 10:09 AM
I read the bookk decades ago. She was playing off the ginned-up fear that Jerry Falwell was going to turn into Nehemiah Scudder.
Yeah, I know who Wheeler, Martin, Rivera, and Dahlquist are, too.
Richard Aubrey at July 12, 2017 10:39 AM
There's wrong, and there's assholishly wrong.
Assholes get called out.
Ignorant 77-y.o. female assholes do not get a pass because ofcsge or gender.
Chester White at July 13, 2017 8:15 AM
Thread winner: Aubrey or lujlp?
That's a tough call.
Jeff Guinn at July 14, 2017 7:43 AM
Jeff. And I bet you can hum The Ballad of Rodger Young.
And what do you get before a drop? New security question.
The shakes?
The drizzlies?
Both.
Richard Aubrey at July 14, 2017 4:56 PM
The lieutenant may get the shakes, but that doesnt mean I do
lujlp at July 16, 2017 1:15 PM
lujlp
As the Navy flyers say, only your laundryman knows for sure.
That play on words dates me, too.
11B10 71542
Richard Aubrey at July 17, 2017 5:57 AM
Leave a comment