Woman on fire

> Margaret Atwood discusses the evolution of feminism, and why her book The Handmaid’s Tale may not mean what readers think it does

mean the Pope? Do we mean Mormons?

“What are we talking about here? Because they’re quite different.”

The author, who has been shortlisted for the Booker Prize five times, then made it clear that she aligned herself with notions of feminism founded on equality, but did not specify any further about which part of the movement she meant. “So, if we mean, should women as citizens have equal rights, I’m all for it, and a number of advances have been made in my lifetime regarding property rights, and divorce, and custody of children, and all of those things,” Atwood said.

“But do we mean, are women always right? Give me a break! I’m sorry, but no! Theresa May (the muchmaligned current Prime Minister of the United Kingdom) is a woman, for heaven’s sakes!”

Despite the fact Atwood frequently depicts female characters dominated by patriarchy in her books, she has denied the notion The Edible Woman, which was published in 1969 and coincided with the early second wave of the feminist movement, is a feminist title, claiming she wrote it four years before the movement.

The author has argued the ‘feminist’ label can only be given to writers who both willfully and consciously work within the context of the movement.

She has been similarly reluctant to label the Handmaid’s Tale as a feminist title, saying she does not perceive the Republic of Gilead to be a solely feminist dystopia because not all men have greater rights than women.

Atwood has claimed while some of the observations that informed the content of The Handmaid’s Tale may be feminist, her novel is not meant to say “one thing to one person” or serve as a political message – instead, The Handmaid’s Tale is “a study of power, and how it operates and how it deforms or shapes the people who are living within that kind of regime”. – The Independent