The Handmaid's Tale

No, it's fascinating - the thread keeps teetering on the brink, and then dragging itself back to (relative) safety...

I must say, I didn't know Margaret Atwood was Canadian - the first Canadian author to pop into my mind would be A E van Vogh, followed by Guy Gavriel Kay, Spider Robinson, Cory Doctorow and Judith Merril.
 
Very good. Lex recipitur in modo imponitur. ;)
 
By whom, and what does “ most prominent” actually mean in this setting?
By the Canadian government standard since they run the media--they were always promoting her. And in film it was Atom Egoyan. "Canada's greatest filmmaker."
 
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
IMO The Handmaid's Tale is simply about when happens when you extrapolate the casual sexism of Western society into a more active discrimination. I didn't get that when I first read it, and I don't think many other men still get that either, which is why the book is still especially relevant.
 
IMO The Handmaid's Tale is simply about when happens when you extrapolate the casual sexism of Western society into a more active discrimination. I didn't get that when I first read it, and I don't think many other men still get that either, which is why the book is still especially relevant.
I don't know if you even need sexism to get there. Just scarcity and class.
 
I don't know if you even need sexism to get there. Just scarcity and class.

My wife and I both read the book quite a few years ago and I didn't think much of it. But when we discussed it she pointed out how well it related to lots of her experience.

A simple example: sometimes when we've been shopping together, even when she has paid for it, the cashier will sometimes give me the change. It's one of those things that might be called a "microaggression". It's not an error, there's a subconscious idea that women are less entitled to control money, which is why it happens. My wife pointed out how disenfranchising this is, and how in The Handmaid's Tale Margaret Atwood expanded on this in the book's setting by disallowing women from having credit cards, which then developed into women not being allowed to control their own finances.

Another example is that I reported on the forums on how I found the epilogue dull and pointless - it was just academics talking about the period and mentioning the main character's recorded testimony. However, The Judge pointed out how it was an example of ordinary social dismissal of women's opinions. Even though the main character was a first hand witness and primary source for the period of history being referred to, her account was denigrated in lieu of later male academics.

I think the book was actually a watershed moment for me - after my wife told me about these little experiences of casual sexism she experiences, I suddenly realized I knew nothing of this and if I wanted to learn more about it I would have to stop talking and start listening. Since applying that I would like to think I've learned a lot more about issues of discrimination, namely because of actively avoiding the knee-jerk reaction of spouting an opinion, rather than listening to someone else's, especially when that someone else has real experience of the issue being discussed.
 
My wife and I both read the book quite a few years ago and I didn't think much of it. But when we discussed it she pointed out how well it related to lots of her experience.

A simple example: sometimes when we've been shopping together, even when she has paid for it, the cashier will sometimes give me the change. It's one of those things that might be called a "microaggression". It's not an error, there's a subconscious idea that women are less entitled to control money, which is why it happens. My wife pointed out how disenfranchising this is, and how in The Handmaid's Tale Margaret Atwood expanded on this in the book's setting by disallowing women from having credit cards, which then developed into women not being allowed to control their own finances.

Another example is that I reported on the forums on how I found the epilogue dull and pointless - it was just academics talking about the period and mentioning the main character's recorded testimony. However, The Judge pointed out how it was an example of ordinary social dismissal of women's opinions. Even though the main character was a first hand witness and primary source for the period of history being referred to, her account was denigrated in lieu of later male academics.

I think the book was actually a watershed moment for me - after my wife told me about these little experiences of casual sexism she experiences, I suddenly realized I knew nothing of this and if I wanted to learn more about it I would have to stop talking and start listening. Since applying that I would like to think I've learned a lot more about issues of discrimination, namely because of actively avoiding the knee-jerk reaction of spouting an opinion, rather than listening to someone else's, especially when that someone else has real experience of the issue being discussed.
I wasn't commenting on the book as much as saying that any group can become an underclass if the economically dominant group sees them as a necessary commodity. So while it is easy to imagine this happening to women, it is not so different than a male military draft that doesn't apply to the sons of wealthy parents.
 
Last edited:
Not sure that this thread is the place for that link.
Just following on the conversation. I'm happy to revert to SF future dystopias where women are enslaved by men and vice versa. It's always tricky to talk about an SF take on a theme without talking about the theme itself. The link does serve to show that a women-enslaving-men dystopia isn't as farfetched as all that.
 
IMO The Handmaid's Tale is simply about when happens when you extrapolate the casual sexism of Western society into a more active discrimination. I didn't get that when I first read it, and I don't think many other men still get that either, which is why the book is still especially relevant.
I read A Handmaid's Tale nearly forty years ago, so my opinions of it have become corrupted over time . Also , all works of fiction can be translated in different ways . I'm not a big fan of Atwood , I find her writing a bit on the dull side . But as I remember it, the book is about more about religious attitudes in America , which is right wing , and anti-female . It goes back to the the Bible, which see females as more sinful ( Admen and Eve )and the Puritans belief that women are equal in the eyes of God but not by the devil . Atwood would look at the Salem witch trials, as evidence .
 
It's always tricky to talk about an SF take on a theme without talking about the theme itself.
The theme of the book (and of the OP) was about patriarchy and the oppression of women in The Handmaid's Tale.

I'm not sure whataboutism is the play here.
 
The theme of the book (and of the OP) was about patriarchy and the oppression of women in The Handmaid's Tale.

I'm not sure whataboutism is the play here.
I'm sure it's not. The question was raised about how plausible a near-future scenario The Handmaid's Tale is. My take is that it's less plausible than a scenario in which roles are reversed. The Handmaid's Tale is that genre of SF that turns the spotlight on present trends by deliberately exaggerating them, which begs the question: just what are those present trends?

If one wants to keep the conversation safe then choose trends that don't currently exist, like the hatred for technicians and scientists in A Canticle for Leibowitz. Personally I'm irritated by the caricature of Christianity in the series as "right wing" and "anti-female" (the same caricature permeates V for Vendetta). Anyone with a smattering of theology knows it's nonsense. If you want a believable right-wing oppressive anti-women regime then choose militant atheism. You'll find a real live example of it in Germany in the 30s and 40s.
 
Last edited:
The whole idea of the handmaidens is taken from the stories Jacob (Israel) and Abraham (his dad), whose wives gave their handmaidens to their husbands to bear them children after they themselves were too old. So a good excuse to do it in modern times by the creators of Gilead.

But it seems to me that the society of Gilead is necessarily self-defeating, quite apart from any revolt by the handmaids or other servants.

In the books, and the television series, we are shown the lives of the Commanders, the creators of this society, equivalent to the party members of 1984 etc, and of their immediate families; wives, handmaids, and other servants.
Also of the handmaid training facilities and the famous Aunties who train them. Most especially we see Aunt xxxx, whose name I’ve forgotten, who is Offred’s teacher/mentor.

We also see occasional shopkeepers soldiers etc, but only in relation to Offred’s daily life.

As we know, most of the women of the world, or at least of North America have been rendered barren by some disease, which is not defined, which is why the Commanders are given the handmaids to bear their children. These girls or women are collected from the general population as soon as they show signs of being able to bear children. It’s not specified whether that means they are allowed to carry their pregnancy to term, (the only possible sign that they are fertile), but we can assume the children so produced are then forcibly adopted by a Commander, or possibly someone of less high state who is considered worthy. We see in the second series of the TV series that the daughter of the woman who is now Offred has been so given to a Commander.

So, my point is that, we have absolutely no knowledge of the life of anyone below Commander and their family in this story, so we have no knowledge of how the infrastructure of the country is maintained.

Who is farming the fields, building the houses, mending the cars, keeping the electricity, gas etc supplied to the commanders, and how are they persuaded to do it. I can’t imagine they are given good wages, so it has to be that the army are forcing them.
Who is keeping the army in check.

I understand that such things work in totalitarian regimes. The better off keep the worse off in check, in order to maintain their privileges.

But In 20 years they will be too old, and if all the children are by then little commanders, there is nowhere to go.

This of course, will be the same in all other societies throughout the world in the disease if worldwide. All societies must collapse and new forms of society must be found. However, Gilead is not it, with Offred’s revolution or without it.

On the other hand, Atwood wasn't really interested in that, but was simply writing a novel to describe the possible outcome of an unchecked patriarchy, and as such has achieved her goal.
Some have expressed the view that this is not realistic, and that some sort of opposite is more likely in reality, where men are subjugated to the control of women. My personal view is that neither is really likely. We are moving, slowly, towards a balance. How or why this may or may not come about is not for this forum.
 
It would be interesting to explore the nature of the dictatorship in the book. Dictatorships can't in fact oblige the bulk of the population to do anything by force, only minorities within it. Hitler could not subjugate the Germans, only the German Jews. A dictator always has to pose as a benefactor to his people, enough that they willingly give him power. If he is massively unpopular his subordinates will read the wind and turn against him. Which suggests that the ordinary people of Gilead live fairly normal lives and only the handmaids are actually oppressed. Their oppression is disguised from the populace by the spurious privilege they have as bearers of the commanders' children, and they are kept under tight control so the truth never comes out, as Hitler did not trumpet in the press that he was gassing the Jews.
 
Who is farming the fields, building the houses, mending the cars, keeping the electricity, gas etc supplied to the commanders, and how are they persuaded to do it. I can’t imagine they are given good wages, so it has to be that the army are forcing them.
Who is keeping the army in check.
[sorry, I can't use quote for some reason]

I got the impression that this is done by a mixture of slaves (political prisoners, gays, heretics, unbelievers and the like) and private enterprise (see also IG Farben, Die Krupps etc). Gilead still seems to be a capitalist system: reference is made to contracts being given to deporting/killing Jews on boats. I assume the Eye keeps the army in check, as it seems to be a secret police force.

Which suggests that the ordinary people of Gilead live fairly normal lives and only the handmaids are actually oppressed.

I think the average citizens do lead fairly settled lives, although they presumably live in fear of the Eye, and are aware of state violence because of all the corpses strung up to see. Poor men get econowives, IIRC, who wear multi-coloured uniforms. Gilead seems very militaristic and values soldiers highly. I don't know how, or if, poor people produce children without handmaids.

Regarding the Christian (or as Atwood has put it, pseudo-Christian) basis of Gilead, all dictatorships are ultimately religions, whether secular or not, because they require a cult of personality: Hitler's torchlit rallies look like black masses for a reason; Tojo's Japan made the Emperor a literal deity. O'Brien puts it well in 1984: Big Brother is real, and he will also never die. All dictatorships are also a way of allowing the sadistic persecution of a particular group: in Gilead's case, women.

Regarding relevance, while something literally like Gilead is very unlikely (it would require mass sterility, for one thing) it is abundantly clear that there are now quite a few men who hate women as a creed. I don't mean the sort of patronising "Women, eh?" sort of talk one occasionally hears down the pub: I mean the kind of active hatred that a Nazi feels towards a Jew. One hears patronising things from women about men, but this kind of rabid hate seems particularly male. There is no anti-man terrorist movement. There have been no anti-man killing sprees. Like 1984. THT remains highly relevant even if the fictional details are wrong.
 
Last edited:
On the other hand, Atwood wasn't really interested in that, but was simply writing a novel to describe the possible outcome of an unchecked patriarchy, and as such has achieved her goal.
Some have expressed the view that this is not realistic, and that some sort of opposite is more likely in reality, where men are subjugated to the control of women. My personal view is that neither is really likely. We are moving, slowly, towards a balance. How or why this may or may not come about is not for this forum.

If you watch a chunk of U.S. '80s movies you'll see young women treated as commodities, in spite of the feminist movement of the '70s. Our TV shows were moderately better, but still male-oriented (during prime time at least). There were still very few women in the higher echelons of either business or government. So, yes, I think she was exaggerating a trend. She was also aware of history and, I suspect, assuming that those who don't know (or don't care about) history will repeat it. The 1800s saw the disenfranchisement of women especially around the Industrial Revolution, as we moved into cities, away from the agricultural economy that women were a vital part of -- in literature George Eliot's Adam Bede taps into that. It was a long hard slog for women to get control of their lives and finances, and to eventually get the vote. And any social progress can be undercut or eradicated by circumstances, which I think is Atwood's warning.
 
It would be interesting to explore the nature of the dictatorship in the book. Dictatorships can't in fact oblige the bulk of the population to do anything by force, only minorities within it.
Dictatorships vary. They can certainly oblige the bulk of the population to do almost anything through fear. Stalin, Mao, Hoxa, Pol Pot, Kim Jong-il, did/do persecute minorities, but also the borgeousie, capitalist sympathisers, etc, and of course they made the rules about who fit those labels to suit their needs i.e. potentially anyone.
 
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 just heard her interviewed on TV this morning. She was heavily influenced by Orwell and by 1984, but she was also writing it while living in Berlin in 1984, at the height of the tensions there. She feels that totalitarian regimes generally fall back onto some existing structure, they just change the flags and the slogans, and as she has a Phd in American Puritism, she quite naturally used that period as ideas when she set it in the USA. She feels no responsibility for things working out as they have; like Toby says it wasn't meant to be a prediction of the future.
 
I tried to predict the future.

I thought it would be interesting so I compressed about 200 years of selected possible events into 20 years of time which I then compressed into a story that unfolds over 24 hours. Its confusing to say the least. I left out all kinds of mechanics, details about how things got accomplished. Writers are not only allowed to leave out numerous details, they are encouraged to edit out material that is not directly part of the story because good editing makes a better story. If extra details are not included from the start, they don't need to be removed later. Its the readers job to fill in those details however they want to. This can create the situation where the reader increases their appreciation of the story. It can also backfire if the reader decides to ask questions that go against the grain of the story. Perhaps the reader isn't too thrilled about what the story is saying so they might wonder about minor flaws instead of riding the main thrust of the story.

Margaret Atwood says she isn't a science fiction writer. Stories can be shaped by personal events or by physical events. When it is personal events, the more detailed, the better it comes out as it is easy to know from personal experience how to interact with the story. With physical events it is much easier to cruise over left out details. Take rocket ships. We write about them all the time and yet there is no way to build what we write about but no one questions that. Building space ships the size of ocean liners takes so much for granted and yet there they are with absolutely no practical explanation of how they come into existence.

The beauty of writing is that a writer can write a story for any number of reasons, and present it in any number of fashions. It doesn't even have to make sense. When important issues are mixed in with fiction, sometimes the fiction becomes more important than the issues an author might be trying to highlight.

I have read some of Margaret Atwood's stories. I particularly like the MaddAddam series, which I found to be very entertaining as well as informative about possible future developments. I read The Blind Assassin and got nothing out of it. I haven't read Handmaid's Tale and probably won't. I also haven't read P. K. Dick's story, The Man In The High Castle, and have no intention to read it, but I have greatly enjoyed his other stories. For me, The Man In The High Castle and The Handmaid's Tale are similar in nature. They make important observations but I don't have to read a fictional story to find them.
 

Similar threads


Back
Top