A man is just a woman’s strategy for making other women


Margaret Atwood, one of the greatest female authors of our time, and a revolutionary. I love this quote.


  1. As a feminist who presumably promotes the idea of ‘gender equality’ can we presume you love the quote just as much when we reverse the genders?

    “A woman is just a man’s strategy for making other men”

    I’m guessing that if a man ever said that he would immediately be jumped on by feminists claiming it was stupid, objectifying and offensive to women.


    • I think everyone is biased towards their own sexuality, I obviously have a bigger connection with other females so of course I am going to be able to relate to a quote like this. Speech is free, literature is art and as with all art, there is objectivity. I appreciate that. If Margaret Atwood (one of my favourite authors, the reason behind my post) had written the reverse quote, about men, I wouldn’t have posted it on my blog. Not because I would have been offended, I probably wouldn’t have even registered any underlying issues, but because I post things that I appreciate, can relate to and above all enjoy.

      For me, being a feminist is being a confident woman. A woman who has freedom of speech and who doesn’t allow sexism to get in her way. What you are suggesting is that I should think twice about what I put in case I offend men. That my friend is not freedom of any sort.


      • > I think everyone is biased towards their own sexuality…

        Well interestingly…. no 🙂

        A 2007 study showed that women have an own group preference towards other women, but men don’t exhibit an own group preference towards other men. And men actually have a slight bias in favour of women.

        Men seem to lack the capacity to view men as a group and feel any loyalty towards that group simply based on the fact that they are men.

        And history reflects these findings. Take, for example, one of the cornerstones of feminist theory – the vote.

        For most of history ordinary men and women did not have the vote. Men got the vote marginally sooner than women but they had to agree to fight wars for the state in return – and probably end up dead as a result.

        Then five minutes later (historically speaking) women demanded to vote too and got it without any obligations at all.

        And the government at the time was composed entirely of men. These men gave women a privilege they denied to men. The showed a bias towards women. Women’s suffrage was not an example of gender equality at all, but female privilege and men’s chivalry (benevolent sexism if you like).

        We are so used to women’s own group preference that we see campaigns lie “He for She” (men serving women) as perfectly acceptable. But if a an got in front of the UN to promote “He for She” (not that a man would ever be allowed to do such a sexist thing) women would condemn him for sexism and most men would not even pay attention – they certainly would not log about how wonderful it was that a man was promoting men’s interests on their behalf.

        If you say to the average man “95% of workplace deaths are men” they are not likely to react as if ‘men’ as a group are somehow suffering an injustice or a burden and that this issue must be addressed. There will be no new hashtag and viral video campaign.

        But if the genders were reversed even women in comfortable safe careers would feel that ‘women’ as a whole are being treated badly and you can bet the internet would be awash with hastags and viral vids.

        You just have to look at the massive feminist movement compared to the almost non existent men’s rights movement to see how men have much less of an own group bias than women.

        > What you are suggesting is that I should think twice about what I put in case I offend men.

        No not at all. Biologically (genetically) speaking the slogan is accurate (if incomplete). Men AND women are the mechanism by which our DNA gets to make more DNA.

        My point was that while your slogan is seen as acceptable (just a harmless bit of wit) if we swapped the genders around most feminist would complain that it was offensive and demeaning to women.

        Like if you swapped “He for She'” to “She for He” ost feminists would think that was unfair.

        If women had been obliged to fight wars for the state in return for the vote, but men could vote without any obligations, I don’t think many feminists would accept that this situation represented ‘gender equality’! Especially if millions of women had died horrific deaths on the battlefields over the last century while men got to stay at home.

        Hilary Clinton famously said that the REAL victims of war were not the dead male soldiers but their grieving widows. I don’t think that feminists would agree if she had said the real victims of war were not the dead female soldiers but their grieving husbands.

        Female own group preference (and complete men’s lack of it) is everywhere.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.