An Open Letter to Margaret Atwood
by Kristin King
Dear Margaret
Atwood,
In a recent
op-ed, you asked the question: “Am I a bad feminist?” My short answer, from one
feminist to another, is no. My longer answer is that the question itself turns
what ought to be a dialogue into a bitter argument. This is poor feminist
practice. Your response to #metoo activists similarly polarizes debate
surrounding sexual harassment and abuse, when the conversation could instead
have turned elicited insights. And strangely, your response inadvertently pulls
from talking points that have been circulating recently as a result of a
deliberate and misogynist public relations campaign.
However, the
best part of feminism is our ability to learn from our disagreements. In the
interest of furthering feminist solidarity and dialogue, I have some comments
to make.
The good/bad feminist divide
Framing the
issue as a Good Feminist / Bad Feminist one draws battle lines and sets you up
for further attack. It puts on blinders and prohibits dialogue.
Let me offer a
glimpse of my own perspective on the feminist movement, from someone who found
feminism in the early 1990s. The first professor who taught me feminist theory
was Katherine Stockton. She grounded me in queer issues, disability in the
feminist movement, and more. And the next was my creative writing professor
Colleen McElroy, who helped me start learning about race with authors such as
bell hooks and Gloria Anzaldúa. My continuing self-education has also included
the Combahee River Statement, which considered issues of race, class, and
gender both together and separately.
So I didn’t
participate in second-wave feminism, even though I certainly reaped its
benefits. But I did watch a rift widen between second-and third-wave feminists.
I have seen some second-wave feminists who have succeeded in their goals,
perhaps have become acting CEOs in their own companies as you have done, dismiss
feminists working intersectionally, viewing that practice as a distraction from
the primary issue of male and female equality.
Skipping ahead
to the present, I see that many millennial feminists are broke, can’t afford
college, which isn’t going to get them good jobs anyhow. It’s not just that
they don’t expect to reach the glass ceiling--they’re not even inside the
building. They’re living in sleeping bags out in the cold.
So there are
real divisions between women, based on their lived experiences, and those
divisions can be and are being exploited by, in your words, “those who do not
wish women well.”
Into this mix
comes your op-ed and the language it uses. I see it using talking points that
are also being pushed by corporately funded propaganda outlets posing as media.
I assume this is unintentional, so a close examination of what I see might
provide a beneficial learning opportunity.
Using the language of the far-right
corporate patriarchy
First let’s
take a peek at some of the underlying power dynamics .-The wealthiest and most
powerful, white men of course, the patriarchy, are using their wealth to pay PR
firms to design and push their talking points, which then end up in popular
culture, our everyday conversations. Some of it is misogynist, but the primary
goal, I believe, is the aim of holding on to money and power. Noam Chomsky articulated
the basic problem of news propaganda back in 1992, in his book Manufacturing Consent, and many people
have also been watching the idea of manufactured backlash, as in a recent Huffington Post article, “The Fake
Feminism Of The #MeToo Backlash.” Unfortunately, in our current age, all manner
of billionaires and corporations are using social media to spread propaganda
that benefits them. And none of us is immune.
Within that context,
I’ll put on my hat of “literary critic” and compare three texts: an article
published on a news media site of unknown ownership, an article published by a
P.R. company, and finally your op-ed.
On December 13,
2017, the article “The #MeToo Movement Is Destroying Trust Between Men And
Women” by D.C. McAllister appeared in The
Federalist online journal. The
Federalist isn’t a news journal but a series of opinion pieces that feature
classic examples of propaganda, such as glittering generalities, straw men, name-calling,
deliberate vagueness, and a false framing of the narrative. The journal has a
readership in the millions--a guarantee that the ideas it spreads will
propagate widely. Who is funding this journal? That’s not so transparent. Reader
beware.
On December
18th, 2017, another article appeared on another propaganda outlet, this one
specifically targeted at feminists. The outlet was the site Spiked! Online, which has a long history
of manipulating public dialogue, especially in the field of agricultural
science. This history is readily available through SourceWatch or through research
explained by George Monbiot. Its intention is also clearly laid out in their
own words upon launch in 2000, available on the Wayback Machine, “nothing less
than the creation of a new language for political, social and cultural writing
in the twenty-first century.”
The article
itself, “Meet the Women Worried about #MeToo,” includes short pieces written by
thirteen different women and selected by an editor for the benefit of those
funding the magazine.
A close read of
both articles reveals common messages, or talking points, that the outlets want
to spread to the public for general use. Each of these messages stops or
deflects dialogue in some way. And each message is reflected in your own op-ed.
I’ll just take three to examine: the witch-hunt metaphor, framing as a legal
issue, and “real feminists.”
Witch-hunt metaphor
The metaphor of
a witch-hunt and similar terms is a key weapon used against #metoo. Combing
through through the two propaganda articles, it’s easy to find phrases like,
“the sexual harassment witch-hunt,” “mob behavior,” “mass hysteria,” and “orgy
of female victimhood,” as well as references to the beheadings that took place
in the French Revolution.
This metaphor
has an invisible payload of meaning, which is quite intentional on the part of
propagandists. Witches don’t exist, and this implies by analogy sexual
predators don’t either. Then there is the gendered component, which is perhaps
the reason “witch hunt” is used rather than McCarthyism.
In your op ed,
when you note that your accusers mistakenly “think I was comparing them to the
teenaged Salem witchfinders and calling them hysterical little girls,” it’s
worth going deeper and asking “Why do they think that?” I suggest it’s
because somebody with money is pushing the witch-hunt metaphor in order to
deliver that exact message.
Explaining what
you did and did not mean by “witch hunt” doesn’t solve that problem, because
the implication remains. A stronger move might involve hunting for a new
metaphor, or simply diving into the specifics of the core issue with more
concrete language.
Framing as a legal issue
Another propaganda
talking point is framing an assault complaint as a legal issue and invoking the
principles of “due process” and “innocent until proven guilty.” There’s a core
of truth here: an accusation of anything requires fair consideration. But
there’s also a big manipulation of language.
Going back to
the propaganda articles, the Federalist article complains, “When anything from
a naive touch during a photo shoot to an innocent attempt at a kiss is compared
to rape” and “men never know when they will be presented at the court of
injustice as a ‘sexual abuser’,” it is arguing by implication that an innocent
kiss can get a man taken to court. The Spiked
article makes similar connections, right down to requiring an act to be illegal
before it’s called assault.
A legal framing
puts blinders on us and asks us to ignore obvious facts. First, making a public
complaint or talking to Human Resources is entirely different from filing
criminal charges. Second, social media is not a court. Third, “innocent until
proven guilty” is a high standard that our criminal justice system should, but
does not often, provide. Fourth, although the government owes us “due process”
in criminal cases, most people don’t actually expect it in the workplace. (Though
we should.)
It’s worth
taking a moment to explore due process in the workplace. All workers deserve a
fair process before disciplinary action is taken, but most don’t get it. Most
people have “at-will” employment, and they get fired all the time for getting
sick, failing to smile . . . and for reporting sexual harassment and assault to
HR. The remedy here is a grievance
process that requires employers to establish “just cause” and for workers to
have access to a grievance process.
Your op ed
unfortunately fell into the trap of using a legal framing, and the focus on
“due process” paved the road for an incomplete analysis of the situation. Your
note that “[h]is faculty association launched a grievance that is continuing,”
actually refers to a union grievance, which will indeed be heard and settled by
a higher authority than the university. Because of his union membership, the
professor has more due process than most people get. Further, although the
workings of the university process are not publicly available, that does not
automatically mean they were incorrect. The university is likely legally
compelled to remain silent, and also, confidentiality protects both accused and
accuser.
Is it possible
to say what we mean without using legal metaphors? Definitely. For instance,
perhaps “due process” is best when a case of assault is going to court, but “a
grievance process” more accurately conveys what we need from other institutions
and the community at large.
Real feminists
Another talking
point, which is revealed in the Spiked
article, pits “real” feminists against the rest. “Real” feminism is defined as
fighting to be treated as equals in the workplace, empowering women as opposed
to infantilizing them, and working together as “women and men of good will” to
“fashion more equitable workplaces.” The past history of women dealing with
harassment gets a new, macho spin, for “those of us who have spent years metaphorically
kicking sex pests in the balls.” And the worry expressed is that all this fuss
over harassment risks “turning the clock back on hard-won sexual equality.”
These statements
divide women into two groups: the over-40 crowd who fought for and won equality
and the strange younger demographic who thinks winking constitutes harassment,
who are “fragile” and lack “robust common sense.”
This division
helps nobody, and so it’s disturbing to see it reflected in your op ed, which
ironically divides women into “Bad Feminists” (who are right) and “Good
Feminists” (who are wrong). The wrong feminists “believe that women are
children,” align politically with misogynists, want to take away fundamental
justice from men, are “feeding into the very old narrative that holds women to
be incapable of fairness,” are “giving the opponents of women yet another
reason to deny them positions of decision-making,” have an ideology, expect
everyone to “puppet their views,” and are now participating in unproductive
squabbling.
It might be
more useful to think about good and bad feminist practice. Instead of calling names, a focus on practice opens a dialogue about what we are doing and
why we are doing it. What constitutes good feminist practice to me? To you?
Where are we similar and different?
How did this happen?
Your op-ed came
at a key moment for the #metoo backlash and dovetailed with talking points that
have been chosen by corporations whose business is public propaganda for the
world’s most powerful men. Why? I speculate that somebody took advantage of the
frustration you have been feeling over seeing a fellow novelist publicly
attacked, and that after the talking points they were pushing had a time to
saturate public dialogue, offered you the opportunity to put your words in
print--but for their own cynical reasons.
That an author
of highly revered feminist dystopia can be manipulated by patriarchy’s PR
machine makes this a chilling moment for all of us. Time to step back and look
at how social media is not only providing fake news but also twisting public
dialogue as it comes out of our own mouths, turning thoughtful commentary into
friendly fire.
What now?
The simplest
solution to the problem of dialogue we don’t like is to ask everybody to “stop
squabbling.” From your point of view, the angry #metoo activists should calm
down and quit their witch-hunt. From my point of view, I’d prefer that you stop
using the term witch-hunt. But both
requests to silence speech are too easy, and they leave us open to yet more
manipulation and pointless infighting.
A trickier but
more powerful answer is for us to deepen the dialogue, to continue as feminists
have always done and reach across divisions to find common ground. An example
of such cross-generational discussion is “Feminists From Three Different
Generations Talk Me Too,” which recently appeared on Vox.com. From a position
of mutual solidarity, it is indeed possible for feminists to consider the
issues on our own terms.
That brings me
back to the issue at the heart of your op-ed--what #Metoo participants should
and should not do.
How to stop sexual violence
The real
question is not whether or not you are a good or bad feminist, or whether
#Metoo posters represent a lynch mob, but what to do with the very real
question of sexual violence in our communities.
One group that
has been working on the problem for decades is women of color. In particular, a
group called Incite! Women of Color Against Violence met in a founding
conference in 2000 to discuss how to stop violence in their communities, and it
branched off in many directions. A framework for community accountability
emerged in 2003 with no clear answers but with groundbreaking ideas and
questions. A lot of the strategies and terms that are now surprising many white
people, such as “believe the survivor,” came out of that work. But it is a
nuanced practice, including other concepts such as “impact versus intent” and
sitting down with both parties. That’s very different from someone reflexively
sending a “believe the survivor” tweet.
We have thorny
problems to address, such as a conflict between transparency and
confidentiality, and also between the need to believe the survivor and to
follow a fair process. But I know from first-person experience that they are
being addressed. I recently participated in a democratic discussion about how
an organization might modify its complaints process to account for sexual
harassment and abuse. Even though most of the people in the organization are
men, the new survivor-focused process passed overwhelmingly. It looks like the
world is ready for a change.
This is, as you
say, an important moment in history.
Yours for the
movement,
Kristin King
Works cited, and further reading
bell hooks
“Manufacturing Consent.” Wikipedia, Wikimedia
Foundation, 1 Feb. 2018, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_Consent.
.jpg/220px-Thirteenth_Doctor_(Doctor_Who).jpg)
