IHMO, if you just look at it like any other form of Tribalism (i.e. Political, National and even Sports) it absolutelly makes sense that people whose identity is a Religion (or a Political Party, Nation or even Sports club) cannot emotionally accept that those of “their tribe” are bad since one of the core foundations of Tribalism is exactly that “we” are good and it’s the “others” that are bad.

The massive and for them extremelly important mental and emotional construct of self-validation and self-aggrandizing such people have based on their identity as member of a tribe (all those “we members-of-tribe are something-good” beliefs) - often at the cost of personal achievement recognition or as compensation for lack of personal achievement - would collapse if they accepted that the basic axiom of “membership of the tribe makes/proves people good/superior” is not true, so at the most basic psychological level they’re driven to not question that axiom and to deny anything that might disprove it.

“He was more conservative than he let on.”

no he wasn’t. or at least there isn’t any evidence of that.

he was a private person and was exactly as conservative as he let on publicly.

norm occasionally publicly talked about his politics, and also how he didn’t like to talk about politics in general.

that article is about how he was anti-political and didn’t like to disclose personal beliefs, not about how he was a secret conservative.

it’s a little gossipy, but it’s pop-culture spin on a few off-hand public comments over his entire lifetime of public appearances, not private, new information that changes anything already known to the general public.

I asked about Egypt specifically and the rise and fall of empires in general, but apparently that was “not the same thing”.

civilization advancing, stagnating, and regressing is not the same as civilization advancing, stagnating, and regressing.

his main stumbling block was that there was still birth control that he understood 200 years in the future.

he said there shouldn’t be any pills anymore, because there’s no way there would still be pills in the future.

I was like well there were pills 200 years ago from today.

but apparently “that’s not the same thing”.

so similar medical technology existing 200 years apart is not the same as similar medical technology existing 200 years apart.

and I was like maybe they put all their innovation into creating new materials for spaceships and they had a ain’t broke don’t fix it attitude toward birth control.

He’s like yeah, but there’s no way that any sort of technology like that could ever really go backwards.

and I had just watched this video about this specific diaphanous fiber weave that was like the most popular and technically advanced weave of all time that only the wealthy Romans wore, and it was due to a specific weaving technology for these super delicate fragile fibers, and that technology was not funded as rome went bankrupt and then was gradually forgotten and lost for centuries as the local weavers died out and didn’t pass on their knowledge, so instead of some insane thread count, the leading weaving expert from that region of the world today can still only match like 30% of the thread count with modern technology and techniques.

and he was like “that’s not the same thing”.

so technology going backwards is not the same as technology going backwards.

how dull and bewildering an exchange that was.

but riveting to read and write about!

norm’s own autobiography is a collection of fictional stories auntie joked about literature, I see no evidence he gets particularly outraged over every novel following this standards and rigors of classic lit and this is the single offender he chooses to attack repeatedly?

I don’t see how you can label the premise as even somewhat juvenile.

The premise is about women losing their civil rights in a society run by religious extremism.

gendered oppression based on religious extremism was part of the founding of a lot of countries, never stopped happening and now is happening even more, globally.

there are also books far less subtle with far more ridiculous premises that he has never commented on, although he chose this book and this author specifically to consistently sincerely lambast and insult.

The only way that makes sense as the only literary object of his unhumorous ire is that it offended something deeply personal to him, like his newly strengthened Christian sensibilities, which apparently he took seriously, even when talking to people in interviews.

the somewhat juvenile premise, the extreme lack of subtlety

As a woman who works in computer science, mansplaining is a very real phenomenon.

I would say that mansplaining is an actual real phenomenon, sometimes directly so (guys that do believe they know better than women) and other times indirectly, in cultures were men behave in a more assertive and aggressive way than women in conversations in groups and take over the conversation, in practice creating situations were they’ve taken over explaining something which a woman in the same group is vastly more qualified to explain.

However the word “mansplaining” has been so massivelly abused by mysandrists cosplaying as Feminists (to the point that in the last couple of years the most loud and frequent use of that word was by said mysandrists making prejudiced statements), that now there’s a natural “bullshit!” reaction to anybody using it.

All three were also subtler and more skillful writers than Atwood – Butler in particular is criminally underappreciated. Her stories were far ahead of their time, exploring ideas about race and gender in a way that really makes you think rather than bludgeoning you with it. She should be a household name.