Maybe Roupenian actually, literally faces threats from men who didn't like her story. It... wouldn't be the first time people harassed a writer for a creative work they took to be offensive.
It's a #MeToo era-story which is used to narrate supposedly 'real world threats'.
The reason that some might be upset, is because you have a real world story of a 'nice guy' - who was used as the basis to narrative a story about how 'men are bad' aka a warning about 'toxic masculinity' etc..
Here is 'The Atlantic's headline of the original 2017 publication:
"The depiction of uncomfortable romance in "Cat Person" seems to resonate with countless women." [1]
Here is NPR's headline:
"'Cat Person' Author's New Book Evokes #MeToo Themes" [2]
WaPo:
"Opinion: ‘Cat Person’ is a next step in the #MeToo movement" [3]
So that's literally the first three pieces that came up in the Google search - and those three publications are 'major, respected, institutions'. All three are using the 'creative fiction' to promote a narrative about men's supposed actions etc..
It's obviously not just about 'some random bit of fiction that happened to be about real people and those real people are upset'.
If this was Stephen King, who used his 'Real Life Doctor' as the inspiration for some diabolical character - that would be the story. But there wouldn't be any elevation of the story into some kind of narrative in that case ... so it'd just be about a possibly upset Doctor.
[1] https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2017/12/a-vir...
[2] https://www.npr.org/2019/01/13/684894872/cat-person-author-s...
[3] https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2017/1...
Edit:
Here's a gem [4] it's literally an academic publication using the original story as basis for describing narcissism in the role of the oppression of women.
"I argue that Beauvoir’s notion of narcissism is an important tool for feminists today—well beyond the interpretation of Cat Person. It presses us to see systematic subordination not just as something done to women, but also as something women do to themselves. This in turn highlights the neglected role of self-transformation as a key aspect of feminist political resistance."
This is pseudo-intellectual hyperbole (published!) over a story that amounts to a giant lie.
It's intellectual bigotry.
[4] https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&c...
You both seem the be making the same fundamental error, neglecting the thrust of this article, and the original piece: things are ambiguous, and in that ambiguity, we can contemplate, and people find that contemplation fascinating
This is literally a case study in 'narrative creation'.
That's exactly what that is.
They are even including the same hashtag in their pieces so that you can 'hashtag along' with the narrative!
This is almost every major publication you can think of, latching onto the same 'creative work of fiction' to project a social ideal.
This is how 'movements' move.
It's in a similar vein to how the narrative that 'The 2020 Election Was Stolen' was created - though half truths, misrepresentations, the story about that 'one guy who cheated on his mail in vote' (as though it was evidence of anything) etc..
Stories are used to help demonstrate (i.e. form a visceral connection) the issue that critical masses of people with influence want to project.
Of course they can often serve a good purpose ... just not in this case.
It's like realizing the cancer is actually at stage 3.
https://www.vox.com/culture/2017/12/12/16762062/cat-person-e...
Quoting from that article, also:
“Cat Person” does not bear any of the signifiers of a personal essay: It is told in the third person, not the first, and it appears in the New Yorker’s fiction section, with FICTION splashed at the top of the page. Nonetheless, the default response from many seemed to be to treat it as an essay rather than as a short story.
A lot of the criticism I'm seeing in the comments here seem to tacitly be assuming that this essay in Slate is relaying facts about "Cat Person" that were known at, or shortly after, the time of publication. They were not. If anything, the assumption was that the story was somewhat autobiographical -- and from what I can see, it really was somewhat autobiographical. The character of Margot is, again, fictional, but she clearly owes more to her author's experiences than to the essayist's.
Roupenian shouldn't have taken autobiographical bits and bobs from a stranger's life, no. But do keep in mind that she had absolutely no idea that the story was going to go viral this way; it's not like Twitter is regularly aflame with buzzy conversation about the latest short fiction piece in the New Yorker. This was an extraordinary event, and like all too much on Twitter in the last few years, chiefly driven by people who decided the story was something people needed to get outraged by. And, again, their outrage was not over Roupenian's mild appropriation.
So, yes, true -- although it's arguably also something of a time-honored tradition for the real person(s) involved to be less than pleased if they feel too-personal parts of their lives were used in fiction without permission. At the extreme this has gotten authors sued, sometimes even successfully. But cases like, well, this one are probably more common: Alexis Nowicki isn't suing Kristen Roupenian, but she's upset, feels unfairly used, and likely knows this essay could catapult "Kristen Roupenian is a bad person" (back) into the media narrative.