The Handmaid's Tale

[fabrice4]

I wonder why the author had to invent all the "The Handmaid's Tale" to talk about patriarchy when there are a few real situations in the real world starting from the taleban regime?

It made me wonder


thanks

 

[Vince W]

The Handmaid’s Tale was published in 1985, pre-Taliban.

 

[fabrice4]

There were others examples already available

 

[Rodders]

The Handmaids Tale is still on my list of books to read. Perhaps my next novel.

 

[Justin Swanton]

I wonder why the author had to invent all the "The Handmaid's Tale" to talk about patriarchy when there are a few real situations in the real world starting from the taleban regime?

It made me wonder


thanks

Possibly because the real situations are actually quite few? There's the Taliban, sure, but even in Islamic terms they're an aberration. In the Western world if you want to portray oppression of women in a way that makes an impact you have to do science fiction.

BTW I'm no longer sure about what you are or aren't supposed to talk about on the forum. I post this in the hope it hasn't crossed any boundaries.

 

[The Judge]

Well, she was writing fiction, not a factual account, and presumably wanted the freedom to take the story in the way she wanted it to go, and not be constrained by any one specific country or religion, which would simply have allowed bigots to trumpet that she'd got a fact wrong and therefore whatever she said could be ignored.

She was also deliberately pointing a finger at the US, both for the self-interested and sanctimonious politicking clearly apparent there and in Canada (and everywhere else) and as a warning that no country is safe from religious fundamentalism and misogyny -- the horrors in the story come about not because the men in control are from a foreign country or a medieval hidebound cult, but because they are selfish and out to maintain power for themselves, so women in the West aren't automatically safe from this terror; rather this suppression of our rights is something we must continue to guard against in our own societies.** And she has said, repeatedy, that practically everything in The Handmaid's Tale has its basis in historical or contemporary reality.



** but we don't talk socio-politics here, so please don't make any comments about more recent events

 

[Justin Swanton]

Sticking to the SF side of things, I think The Handmaid's Tale, like The Man in the High Castle, fits better in a parallel universe than having any plausibility as a near-future scenario in the Western world.

 

[Toby Frost]

I wonder why the author had to invent all the "The Handmaid's Tale" to talk about patriarchy when there are a few real situations in the real world starting from the taleban regime?

Probably for the same reason that 1984 isn't set in Nazi Germany or Communist Russia: it's about general ideas rather than one specific regime. 1984 was deliberately set in the UK so British readers couldn't dismiss tyranny as something weird foreigners did (there's a book about the US being taken over by a dictator called It Can't Happen Here, for the same reason). Also, it's probably easier to sympathise with people who have similar names, and are presumably from a very similar culture, to you, and her main readership would be English-speaking.

Also, I suspect that The Handmaid's Tale isn't meant to be a literal "This is what I think will happen" (1984 isn't meant to predict the future, either). It's a warning about certain trends and tendencies and depicts one way of them being taken to their logical extreme.

I agree entirely with The Judge's post.

 

[Justin Swanton]

Personally, I would think a scenario that is diametrically opposite to The Handmaid's Tale is much more plausible. In this scenario, men are finally shamed into ceding all political power to women, accepting the argument that their testosterone makes them too aggressive to be in charge of things like armies. The women then enact laws that keep the men under tight control. Men may not hold any important positions in commercial, legal, political or military life (in fact they may not join the police or army at all and they may not carry arms). Women prefer having girls rather than boys, so men end up greatly outnumbered by women though they remain useful for tasks that require physical strength. Eventually women refuse to marry men and marry each other instead, using select men as studs for artificial insemination to supply children.

After a while the men begin to conspire to end this regime. There are many women sympathetic to them, enough to be willing to betray their own sex (this is meant to be a shocking tale). The question is, what to do? Direct rebellion is out as the women now outnumber the men 8 to 1 and the men would be slaughtered. The men, helped by sympathetic women in the medical industry, develop a secret drug to render themselves impotent. All men take it or are given it without their knowledge (sympathetic women that do catering for the men's communal kitchens). The men have the antidote which works only if taken up to a few weeks after the drug has been administered. The men then give the women an ultimatum: either change the laws of the regime and make men equal citizens alongside women or let the entire human race go extinct. What do the women do in response? Will they locate the hidden antidote in time? You'll need to read the book. I'll call it The Gardener's Tale.

Actually a movie was made on this theme. Forget its title though.

Edit: found it!

 

[Rodders]

Edmund Cooper wrote a couple of books in which the female population dominates the male.

Five to Twelve and Who Needs Men.



Both are worth a read, i think. Be warned, they are very much of their time.

 

[Justin Swanton]

Edmund Cooper wrote a couple of books in which the female population dominates the male.

Five to Twelve and Who Needs Men.

View attachment 106265 View attachment 106266

Both are worth a read, i think. Be warned, they are very much of their time.

My storyline is much more sophisticated.

 

[Astro Pen]

I expect she didn't want mysterious black 4x4s with raybanned occupants following her everywhere.

 

[BAYLOR]

I wonder why the author had to invent all the "The Handmaid's Tale" to talk about patriarchy when there are a few real situations in the real world starting from the taleban regime?

It made me wonder


thanks

You might want to check out Alph by Charles Eric Maine Its about future world which the total population of earth is all female but one scientist Polet to bring men back into the world.

 

[Justin Swanton]

It looks like an intelligent book. I'm hooked (maybe).

 

[hitmouse]

I wonder why the author had to invent all the "The Handmaid's Tale" to talk about patriarchy when there are a few real situations in the real world starting from the taleban regime?

It made me wonder


thanks

I am curious how/when this thought occurred to you.
Was it after reading the book?

 

[Finch]

I read the book not long after it was published, in 1985. It is Margaret Atwood's best book , and the only one I managed to finish. I don't think it has anything to do with Muslims . In fact, it is about right wing Christen fundamentalists taking over America. Most of the female population has been made infertile by environmental pollution. So fertile females are used by the ruling head honchos to reproduce their kids. There was a film made in the nineties with Faye Dunaway and Robert Duvall . It is a good read .

 

[Danny McG]

The Handmaids Tale is still on my list of books to read. Perhaps my next novel.

Warning!!!
It's proper cack

 

[Toby Frost]

It's a classic - it's just low on spaceships and robots.

 

[BAYLOR]

It's a classic - it's just low on spaceships and robots.

And no Zombies. Im very disappointed by that .

 

[KGeo777]

Atwood wrote a book on the history of popular science fiction culture-- listening to her talk about it was like watching Canadian maple syrup running down a tree.
I don't know how she would be an authority on that subject based on her work up to the time.
I was curious to know if she would comment on the Weinstein scandal given this book especially since it was being revealed as her tv show was on air but she gave a very wishy washy "I don't want to rock the boat" kind of answer.

The book was written at a time when there was a lot of agitprop coming out of Canada aimed at the US.

There was a tv show in Canada where they would ask US politicians silly questions about Canada--like "should Canada get rid of the national igloo?" and a US politician would say "no I don't think you should."
So for Canadians, I guess you were supposed to be amused that the US is so ignorant of Canada but it seems to me that it is a double-edged sword because it also reveals how little an impression Canada makes on the world. Most Americans don't think of Canada because they have others things to do and Canada doesn't do much that resonates on the world (oh I forgot about the space shuttle arm that Canada made. They used to talk about that all the time--Canada's big achievement!).
Canadians probably don't think much about mocking the US now given the situation here. People in glass igloos...