Sign in with Facebook
Kate's Reviews > The Handmaid's Tale
The Handmaid's Tale
by
by
It's been almost five years since I wrote my review. I've rewritten large parts of it for clarity. The main idea remains the same.
Extremist Judeo-Christian beliefs have won America's culture war. Now women have no rights. They are slaves to men and the biblical, patriarchal society in which they live. The Handmaid's Tale is the first-person account of one of these enslaved women.
Massachusetts Turns Into Saudi Arabia?
More than thirty years have passed since The Handmaid's Tale was first published in 1985, but many still think of it as the go-to book for feminist fiction. It makes numerous "best of" lists, the kinds with 99 other books everyone should read before dying. Even so, The Handmaid's Tale frustrates me a lot—and not only because it contains run-on sentences and needlessly abandons quotation marks. (This is no train wreck like José Saramago's Blindness, but it's bad enough.) Simply put, if you can ignore whether you agree or disagree with Margaret Atwood's ideas about politics, religion, and women's rights, the plot and setting make no sense.
The religiosity of the Reagan era inspired Atwood's dystopia, in which fundamentalist Christians have taken over society. While that premise does give me the heebie-jeebies, Atwood’s taken the idea to a literal extreme to make a point. This ruins the foundation of The Handmaid's Tale because most American fundies would balk at this world. Atwood imagines the extreme of the extreme and in the process completely misunderstands American evangelicalism.
I'm a heathen bastard and no fan of religion. Fundamentalism has hurt people, particularly women, for millennia. Extremism continues to hurt people every day, especially in some parts of the world, especially in some states. Even so, it's hard to accept Atwood's dystopia when it's set in the U.S., in the near future—and in Massachusetts, one of the most progressive states in the country, one of only sixteen states in the union with state constitutional protections for abortion (since 1981, I believe). Massachusetts is a liberal bastion when it comes to American women's reproductive rights, so it's an odd setting for this brand of nightmare. In recent decades, Massachusetts is also one of the least religious states, so it's an odd setting for a theocracy, too.
Atwood chose Massachusetts for its puritanical history. I can embrace the connection to the Reagan administration, in the same way I can embrace Orwell's fear of communism in 1984, but to imagine an unchanging, puritanical Massachusetts requires a bit too much.
Societies Don't Change Overnight
The Handmaid's Tale is told in first person by a woman who’s lived in our present day (more or less), as well as in this dark fundamentalist Tomorrowland. She’s gone from wearing flip-flops and sundresses to a full-body religious habit, color-coded red to match her subservient role. She was married once, had a child. Now she’s another’s property, one of the handmaids sent from one man’s house to another. The hope is that she will become pregnant when a prominent man’s wife cannot. Her life has been flipped and made forfeit. She lives in fear and depression and abuse. This is meant to make me unnerved, and it does.
But.
Simply because an author wants to comment on society doesn’t mean he or she can ignore important, logical story elements. The logic part should be emphasized here, I think, given this is supposed to be science fiction, not fantasy. (Although Atwood does insist The Handmaid's Tale is speculative fiction, because that further legitimizes her story...or something? Never mind that sci-fi and fantasy are types of speculative fiction.)
There’s a question I have that never gets answered, not properly at least. How did this happen so quickly? How did we go from "burning bras" to having every part of our lives regulated? Why did it take Massachusetts decades, centuries, to reject puritanism, but only a few years(?) to reject liberalism?
Rights can erode, but you don’t see it happen on such a large scale and so seamlessly, and not overnight. Nothing happens overnight, especially not governmental takeovers in relatively stable, secular societies, which is the book's scenario.
Societies evolve, one way or another, usually rather slowly. Civil, moral, and regime changes don't sneak up on you. It wasn't the case in Germany before Hitler, in China before Mao, in Afghanistan before the Taliban, in Syria before its civil war. It's not the case in 2016, with people like Ted Cruz and Donald Trump leading in GOP primary polls. The world may be disappointing and horrible sometimes, but it is rarely surprising.
If Atwood had built her dystopia on a chain of events that occurred over a longer period of time, or explained how everything unraveled so quickly, I might have been on board with the premise. That isn't how The Handmaid's Tale is written, though. The explanations for the sudden changes are fantastical, at best, dependent on evil, digitized money—be careful with the mobile payments and bitcoins, ladies!—and misogynistic, conservative conspiracies that readers are to believe could bring millions of people to a stupefied halt and change culture in the blink of an eye. (view spoiler)
I don’t buy it.
You can change laws all you want, but society, culture, has to be willing to follow the most drastic changes. (This is why the American Drug War has never worked, why prohibition of alcohol never worked, why banning abortion didn't work.) Why was modern American society so willing to enslave women?
Atwood chucks a plot point at you here or there, hinting at a larger, more complex world through her main character. There’s a vague fertility crisis (of course). There's conflict somewhere between some people about some stuff, but details are never given. Some of this can be excused, what with the limited point of view, but not all. Plot holes aren't mysterious or clever. They're just plot holes.
By the end of The Handmaid’s Tale, I feel the book is less an exploration of religious extremism and feminism than it is a narrative written for shock value. It’s an irrational feminist’s fears exposed, that the world is out to get you at every turn—especially the men, especially the women controlled and brainwashed by the men. Nowhere is safe. Overall, the summary for this book could be this: Almost anyone with a penis is mostly unfeeling and evil, deep down. (The rest are idiots, I suppose.) He doesn’t care. He will betray you at the first opportunity. Even when you're dead and gone, he will chuckle at your misfortune and demise. No, this isn’t sexist or a generalization. Of course not. Not at all.
Except it is.
Asides
- For a slightly more accurate portrayal of American Christian fundamentalism and its very awkward relationship with women, see Hillary Jordan's When She Woke . It makes several nods to The Scarlet Letter and The Handmaid's Tale—and better understands its villains and their behavior.
- Two nonfiction books, Jenny Nordberg's The Underground Girls of Kabul and Ned & Constance Sublette's The American Slave Coast: The History of the Slave-Breeding Industry , will show you what it's really like to live in a society where women are chattel.
- Some think that because I dislike this book I'm not a feminist, or am a bad feminist. I hate to break it to everyone, but Margaret Atwood is not feminism's god, and The Handmaid's Tale is not a religious text. If I must attach labels to myself, feminist would be one of them, and I'll say and think whatever I damn well please. And as a feminist, I hate how one-dimensional the men are in this book, just as much as I hate how one-dimensional women are in far more books, TV shows, and movies. Deal with it. Or don't. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Extremist Judeo-Christian beliefs have won America's culture war. Now women have no rights. They are slaves to men and the biblical, patriarchal society in which they live. The Handmaid's Tale is the first-person account of one of these enslaved women.
Massachusetts Turns Into Saudi Arabia?
More than thirty years have passed since The Handmaid's Tale was first published in 1985, but many still think of it as the go-to book for feminist fiction. It makes numerous "best of" lists, the kinds with 99 other books everyone should read before dying. Even so, The Handmaid's Tale frustrates me a lot—and not only because it contains run-on sentences and needlessly abandons quotation marks. (This is no train wreck like José Saramago's Blindness, but it's bad enough.) Simply put, if you can ignore whether you agree or disagree with Margaret Atwood's ideas about politics, religion, and women's rights, the plot and setting make no sense.
The religiosity of the Reagan era inspired Atwood's dystopia, in which fundamentalist Christians have taken over society. While that premise does give me the heebie-jeebies, Atwood’s taken the idea to a literal extreme to make a point. This ruins the foundation of The Handmaid's Tale because most American fundies would balk at this world. Atwood imagines the extreme of the extreme and in the process completely misunderstands American evangelicalism.
I'm a heathen bastard and no fan of religion. Fundamentalism has hurt people, particularly women, for millennia. Extremism continues to hurt people every day, especially in some parts of the world, especially in some states. Even so, it's hard to accept Atwood's dystopia when it's set in the U.S., in the near future—and in Massachusetts, one of the most progressive states in the country, one of only sixteen states in the union with state constitutional protections for abortion (since 1981, I believe). Massachusetts is a liberal bastion when it comes to American women's reproductive rights, so it's an odd setting for this brand of nightmare. In recent decades, Massachusetts is also one of the least religious states, so it's an odd setting for a theocracy, too.
Atwood chose Massachusetts for its puritanical history. I can embrace the connection to the Reagan administration, in the same way I can embrace Orwell's fear of communism in 1984, but to imagine an unchanging, puritanical Massachusetts requires a bit too much.
Societies Don't Change Overnight
The Handmaid's Tale is told in first person by a woman who’s lived in our present day (more or less), as well as in this dark fundamentalist Tomorrowland. She’s gone from wearing flip-flops and sundresses to a full-body religious habit, color-coded red to match her subservient role. She was married once, had a child. Now she’s another’s property, one of the handmaids sent from one man’s house to another. The hope is that she will become pregnant when a prominent man’s wife cannot. Her life has been flipped and made forfeit. She lives in fear and depression and abuse. This is meant to make me unnerved, and it does.
But.
Simply because an author wants to comment on society doesn’t mean he or she can ignore important, logical story elements. The logic part should be emphasized here, I think, given this is supposed to be science fiction, not fantasy. (Although Atwood does insist The Handmaid's Tale is speculative fiction, because that further legitimizes her story...or something? Never mind that sci-fi and fantasy are types of speculative fiction.)
There’s a question I have that never gets answered, not properly at least. How did this happen so quickly? How did we go from "burning bras" to having every part of our lives regulated? Why did it take Massachusetts decades, centuries, to reject puritanism, but only a few years(?) to reject liberalism?
Rights can erode, but you don’t see it happen on such a large scale and so seamlessly, and not overnight. Nothing happens overnight, especially not governmental takeovers in relatively stable, secular societies, which is the book's scenario.
Societies evolve, one way or another, usually rather slowly. Civil, moral, and regime changes don't sneak up on you. It wasn't the case in Germany before Hitler, in China before Mao, in Afghanistan before the Taliban, in Syria before its civil war. It's not the case in 2016, with people like Ted Cruz and Donald Trump leading in GOP primary polls. The world may be disappointing and horrible sometimes, but it is rarely surprising.
If Atwood had built her dystopia on a chain of events that occurred over a longer period of time, or explained how everything unraveled so quickly, I might have been on board with the premise. That isn't how The Handmaid's Tale is written, though. The explanations for the sudden changes are fantastical, at best, dependent on evil, digitized money—be careful with the mobile payments and bitcoins, ladies!—and misogynistic, conservative conspiracies that readers are to believe could bring millions of people to a stupefied halt and change culture in the blink of an eye. (view spoiler)
I don’t buy it.
You can change laws all you want, but society, culture, has to be willing to follow the most drastic changes. (This is why the American Drug War has never worked, why prohibition of alcohol never worked, why banning abortion didn't work.) Why was modern American society so willing to enslave women?
Atwood chucks a plot point at you here or there, hinting at a larger, more complex world through her main character. There’s a vague fertility crisis (of course). There's conflict somewhere between some people about some stuff, but details are never given. Some of this can be excused, what with the limited point of view, but not all. Plot holes aren't mysterious or clever. They're just plot holes.
By the end of The Handmaid’s Tale, I feel the book is less an exploration of religious extremism and feminism than it is a narrative written for shock value. It’s an irrational feminist’s fears exposed, that the world is out to get you at every turn—especially the men, especially the women controlled and brainwashed by the men. Nowhere is safe. Overall, the summary for this book could be this: Almost anyone with a penis is mostly unfeeling and evil, deep down. (The rest are idiots, I suppose.) He doesn’t care. He will betray you at the first opportunity. Even when you're dead and gone, he will chuckle at your misfortune and demise. No, this isn’t sexist or a generalization. Of course not. Not at all.
Except it is.
Asides
- For a slightly more accurate portrayal of American Christian fundamentalism and its very awkward relationship with women, see Hillary Jordan's When She Woke . It makes several nods to The Scarlet Letter and The Handmaid's Tale—and better understands its villains and their behavior.
- Two nonfiction books, Jenny Nordberg's The Underground Girls of Kabul and Ned & Constance Sublette's The American Slave Coast: The History of the Slave-Breeding Industry , will show you what it's really like to live in a society where women are chattel.
- Some think that because I dislike this book I'm not a feminist, or am a bad feminist. I hate to break it to everyone, but Margaret Atwood is not feminism's god, and The Handmaid's Tale is not a religious text. If I must attach labels to myself, feminist would be one of them, and I'll say and think whatever I damn well please. And as a feminist, I hate how one-dimensional the men are in this book, just as much as I hate how one-dimensional women are in far more books, TV shows, and movies. Deal with it. Or don't. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
2826 likes · Like
∙
flag
Sign into Goodreads to see if any of your friends have read
The Handmaid's Tale.
Sign In »
Reading Progress
April 13, 2011
– Shelved
April 25, 2011
–
Started Reading
May 4, 2011
–
12.62%
"Why does Atwood insist on not using quotation marks around dialogue of the past? It's an incredibly annoying stylistic choice."
page
41
May 4, 2011
–
18.46%
"Have to love some author's attempts to come up with tech terms. Compubite? Compudoc? Because everything should have the prefix compu. You wouldn't know it's a computer otherwise! Herp derp."
page
60
May 4, 2011
–
18.77%
"Oh, shit, it's a serious moment, and I'm laughing. Never a good sign."
page
61
May 5, 2011
–
33.23%
"Don't know how to feel about this book. I'm sort of eye-rolly, I think."
page
108
May 5, 2011
–
50.46%
"There's finally some "explanation" to this dystopian world, but I'd have to be smoking weed to think it wasn't absurd."
page
164
May 6, 2011
–
Finished Reading
Comments Showing 1-50 of 67 (67 new)
message 1:
by
[deleted user]
(new)
May 06, 2011 11:46PM
lolol. A+ gif.
reply
|
flag
How is it that this review doesn't have at least 50 comments? love it every time I read it.
This review is dead-on, and hilarious!
I don't know, reading this review, it almost seems to me as if the person who wrote it is living in a bit of a bubble. Are you aware of the fact that there are in 2012, countries where women are not even allowed to drive a vehicle, let alone have an education or an income? If you think that patriarchal religions have a small following, think again. They are followed by at least 54% of the world population.
Sure, Atwood set the novel in the US, which might seem a bit more fantastical than if she had set it in an imaginary country that would have been 'safer' from a PC POV, but is setting this scenario in the US really so far out? The Hunger Games is set in the US, and that seems pretty much more far out to me, yet everyone is raving about the novel.
Kate wrote: "Overall, the summary for this book could be this: Almost anyone with a penis is mostly unfeeling and evil, deep down. He doesn’t care. He will betray you. Even when you're dead and gone, he will chuckle at your misfortune and demise."
I don't think that is what the novel is saying at all. There are many sympathetic male characters, they are not all part of the oppressor group.
I think the novel seems to be rather saying: "Beware of extremism, it's frightening how quickly an extremist ideology can become mainstream and take over a society". Communism is a good example of an ideology that established itself and changed many societies in a flash.
Also, note that Atwood is by the way she ends the novel, implying that this specific regime she painted in the novel didn't last very long.
...it almost seems to me as if the person who wrote it is living in a bit of a bubble. Are you aware of the fact that there are in 2012, countries where women are not even allowed to drive a vehicle, let alone have an education or an income?
To quote myself from the review:
To some degree, it’s a believable premise, if for no other reason than this sort of religious society is somewhat evident around the world today, not to mention in countless historical examples.
So, no, I don't think I "live in a bubble" simply because I believe Atwood left her logic at the door when writing this book, but thanks for assuming I'm essentially ignorant and don't care about the plight of women in foreign countries or my own. I mean, really, thanks for that. If only I were a real, informed woman, I'd see how brilliant this book is, I'm sure.
I wasn't a huge fan of Hillary Jordan's When She Woke (reviewed it here), but she has a much better grasp on Western, particularly American, Christian fundamentalism than Atwood does, which isn't exactly the same brand of fundamentalism seen in Saudi Arabia. Obviously. Nor would it become as such within a short period of time.
...but is setting this scenario in the US really so far out?
For it to have happened overnight or even in a few years, even with terrorist attacks? Yes. It's far-fetched to say the least. It shows a limited understanding of human psychology vs. law (e.g., Prohibition may have been on the books, but tons of people didn't abide by it, just like tons of people smoke pot daily and pirate media), as well as a limited understanding of U.S. governmental and military structure, not to mention their scope. I mean, what, the President and Congress got mowed down and all the states and the U.S. military's reacted by falling in line with the terrorists: "Oh, you want to enslave our women? Cool, man, let's do this." Yeah, that makes complete sense--if you believe 99 percent of men are dogs and at least half the women are idiots unwilling to put up a good fight. Which I don't. So the book fails for me in terms of its logic.
The Hunger Games is set in the US, and that seems pretty much more far out to me, yet everyone is raving about the novel.
The Hunger Games is also set many years into the future, probably at least a century, if one's being conservative with the estimate, so it, like all science fiction that explores the distant future or space or aliens, has some leg room for at least a few decades. The whole real-world-environments-created-on-the-fly-with-computers, gene therapy healing, and/or many other technological advancements make it obvious that THG is set far into the future.
If THG were set ten years from now, my review for it would be similar to what my review for The Handmaid's Tale is, but it's not like that, because Collins wasn't silly enough to suggest something as outlandish as THG could take place in anything very near our present time, much less essentially overnight.
There are many sympathetic male characters, they are not all part of the oppressor group.
Many? Such as? Even Offred's previous husband is scummy.
Also, note that Atwood is by the way she ends the novel, implying that this specific regime she painted in the novel didn't last very long.
Also note how she depicts a man's take on it all in the last chapter:
The superscription "The Handmaid's Tale" was appended to it by Professor Wade, partly in homage to the great Geoffrey Chaucer; but those of you who know Professor Wade informally, as I do, will understand when I say that I am sure all puns were intentional, particularly that having to do with the archaic vulgar signification of the word tail; that being, to some extent, the bone, as it were, of contention, in that phase of Gileadean society of which our saga treats. (Laughter, applause.)
We know that this city was a prominent way station on what our author refers to as "The Underground Femaleroad," since dubbed by some of our historical wags "The Underground Frailroad." (Laughter, groans.)
If I may be permitted an editorial aside, allow me to say that in my opinion we must be cautious about passing moral judgment upon the Gileadean.
Yeah, sorry, I think Atwood's full of it, sexist in her own right (unintentionally so or not), and that this book just isn't that good. That does not, however, make me ignorant of issues of gender equality.
Oops. Just want to quickly say that I meant to come back to my post and edit out the "bubble" bit because I realized afterwards that it must sound rude.Running around atmo and will come back and read your entire reply in a while, - I quickly logged on now for the very purpose of deleting that sentence, but I see I'm too late, so in any case, apologies for the first sentence of my previous post.
Kate wrote: "So, no, I don't think I "live in a bubble" simply because I believe Atwood left her logic at the door when writing this book, but thanks for assuming I'm essentially ignorant and don't care about the plight of women in foreign countries or my own. I mean, really, thanks for that..."
I apologized already for the "bubble" comment, sadly since it's now been mentioned it wouldn't make sense anymore to delete the comment as I had intended to do. Also, apologies for missing the remark you quote.
For it to have happened overnight or even in a few years, even with terrorist attacks? Yes. It's far-fetched to say the least. It shows a limited understanding of human psychology vs. law (e.g., Prohibition may have been on the books, but tons of people didn't abide by it, just like tons of people smoke pot daily and pirate media),
Yes, maybe especially with terrorist attacks.. which terrorist attacks do you mean, the ones in the novel, or the ones in real life?
Remember that this novel was published in 1985. Things were rather different back then... but I think it is more a speculative novel, it isn't really intended to predict the future.
Sorry, I've had a busy day and I'm pretty tired. I was going to reply to your post point for point now, but I've just realized I'm not quite up to it today - been rushing around since dawn. I'll come back to it tomorrow, if you don't mind. :)
In the meantime, I was wondering what bearing the fact that people drank during the prohibition, and people smoking pot and (not so much anymore since SOPA and CISPA) pirating things, has to do with my question of "but is setting this scenario in the US really so far out? " Sorry, I don't see the connection at the moment, perhaps I'm just being particularly dense because I haven't had enough sleep.
@Kate I thought your review was a pretty accurate (and funny) description of the book. The story and lead character lacked dimension. I kind of felt like I was in a time-warp, and somehow ended up back in my high school Creative Writing class (the one where you had to read and review each others really really bad stories lol). It was like deja vu reading The Handmaid's Tale. There are waaaay better dystopian novels that tackle the issues of women's rights. I still can't believe the hype around this book. Weird.
Mia wrote: "@Kate I thought your review was a pretty accurate (and funny) description of the book. The story and lead character lacked dimension. I kind of felt like I was in a time-warp, and somehow ended ..."Hmm, I again thought she captured the "feel" of the moment pretty well; - the isolation, the fear that people must feel under a military dictatorship.
I had a similar conversation with the Review Man, here, http://www.goodreads.com/review/show/... who had similar sentiments about the novel (though rather more mellow) than Kate.
@ Traveller I'll agree on the isolation aspect. I did feel the character's loneliness, and her despair. But she lacked personality (I liked Moira much better as a character).My main disappointments were the lack of explanations (which can be mind blowing if execueted well), and the plotholes. This made her fictional world undeveloped, and hard to focus on. Which is too bad. I love dystopian novels, and perfer female leads with stories that address social injustices.
Mia wrote: "@ Traveller I'll agree on the isolation aspect. I did feel the character's loneliness, and her despair. But she lacked personality (I liked Moira much better as a character).My main disappoint..."
I'm actually not saying that I enjoyed the novel's style, as you can see by my short little, very badly written little review which I really should re-write sometime, and which actually makes me embarrassed to link to it, http://www.goodreads.com/review/show/... .
What I would like to debate with Kate about though, are some other aspect's of her review, more regarding the setting and the fact that I don't think that Atwood was exactly painting mainstream Christian fundamentalism, but rather fanatical fringes, who do every now and then in history, manage to actually take over an entire country, and manage to stay in power for long enough to destroy people's lives.
I must admit that, for the moment I am still puzzled by this remark:"Prohibition may have been on the books, but tons of people didn't abide by it, just like tons of people smoke pot daily and pirate media.
No hard feelings on the bubble comment. I probably take it more personally than I should, seeing as I grew up in a radical Christian family in the Deep South (who sang "Happy Birthday" to Jesus last Christmas and argued with me about gay teen suicide, oh, joy; I am the black sheep atheist) and know very, very well how warped the thinking is ("The Earth is 5,000 years old." "Atheists are antichrists."), how oppressive it is for women ("Well, she shouldn't have been raped, but she was wearing that dress."), etc. Even so, even at its most radical fringes (in which my family definitely takes part), I would argue American Christian fundamentalism is quite different to fundamentalism seen in the non-Western world. Not because it is different in its type of passion or in its absurd religious notions, but because of the separation of church and state that exists to varying degrees in the West; it may not always work (far from it, especially since not everyone votes), but it does keep a lot of the fanaticism from becoming law for long, if at all. And it's very rarely successful on a national level. (Realistically, for example, Rick Santorum never stood a chance because people like contraception, porn, and partying sans baby Jesus.) State level? That's a different story. I'm from Mississippi, the Garbage Dump of the U.S. Absurd, damaging laws do get passed and upheld there because the majority are all in agreement with the ideas.
In the meantime, I was wondering what bearing the fact that people drank during the prohibition, and people smoking pot and (not so much anymore since SOPA and CISPA) pirating things, has to do with my question of "but is setting this scenario in the US really so far out? "
My point is that unrealistic laws don't make people behave like the powers that be might want or expect them to--in the U.S. or otherwise, but probably especially in the West where people expect to have some personal rights and also don't like for things to be uncomfortable. I know Atwood gives examples of people not abiding by her world's laws, but they're such incredibly tame examples that they can almost be disregarded. I just think, along with it being unrealistic for something so radical to happen over night, it's equally unrealistic that so many men and women would fall in line with this new lifestyle so wholeheartedly and obediently. If I'd seen more conflict in the book, physically or verbally, I could have respected it more. Otherwise, this is one of the smoothest regime changes, ever.
I love speculative fiction, and some people can suspend disbelief entirely to simply enjoy the story that's been given to them, but I'm not one of those readers, for better or worse. I feel like I have to overlook far too many plot holes and paper-thin characterizations in The Handmaid's Tale for me to enjoy it.
Kate wrote: "No hard feelings on the bubble comment. I probably take it more personally than I should, seeing as I grew up in a radical Christian family in the Deep South (who sang "Happy Birthday" to Jesus last Christmas"LOL, no offense but that is kinda sweet and.. um.. yeah, I know what you mean. [Btw, thanks for forgiving me on the bubble thing, -it did sound rude, I even realized that myself, before you even said anything]
..but I don't think Atwood was thinking of that kind of "radical". Sadly I don't think that really represents radical fanatical fringes, as much as it represents the heart and soul of the Bible belt. ..and I know only too well how deeply sexism is entrenched; this kind of fundie thought they were being extremely liberal and enlightened when they told my little daughter on some kind of "woman's day" celebration that "women are also important, you know..- although the man represents the "head" of the family, the woman represents the neck, and so where would the head be without the neck?" Seriously.
Anyway, I think she more meant a militant sect like this one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waco_siege .
Granted such a sect would very unlikely garner enough support to take over the entire US, but remember she does paint in a situation of instability caused by natural and economic disasters as a result of humans abusing the eco-system, and how could she have foreseen the global economic collapse of 2008;- it's almost as if she had.
Everybody seems to be feeling depressed and angry these days; it's not hard to imagine what a few more disasters might do - if some militant sect staged a coup in such a climate where there is already unrest, and said they were going to fix up the economy and get rid of all the corruption, I think quite a few people may bite on that bait, may even cheer it. ..and such regimes always lie at first - I think Atwood even mentions that they didn't initially mention how far they were going to go with the suppression of women thing, they just gradually worked it in, only revealed their plans in bits and pieces just like Hitler did in Nazi Germany.
Do you really think Hitler would have gained power if he said before the elections that he was planning to incinerate millions of people in ovens, and gas millions more in gas chambers? No, they always start off with what they think the populace would like to hear.
Remember that they took over with a staged terrorist attack (blamed on Islamic extremist terrorists - how the heck did Atwood know back in 1983 what would happen in 2001? Points to her on that alone!) that kills the President and most of Congress, a movement calling itself the "Sons of Jacob" launched a revolution and suspend the United States Constitution under the pretext of restoring order. Supposedly they were acting in an ideologically driven response to the pervasive ecological, physical and social degradation of the country. (Think how unhappy people are about these issues currently - not to mention the economy!)
My point is that unrealistic laws don't make people behave like the powers that be might want or expect them to--in the U.S. or otherwise, but probably especially in the West where people expect to have some personal rights and also don't like for things to be uncomfortable.
Well, like I've said before, I do think some of the scenario in the book is rather over the top, but actually the change in regime isn't as much over the top, I don't think, as one would think. People don't get hung or torn to pieces for smoking pot or for downloading porn or for having drunk alcohol during the prohibition. In fact, the 'punishments' for such small 'crimes' are pretty mild.
Have you seen the 1987 movie "The Untouchables"? Hey, even policemen were still sneaking in drinks here and there - they were mainly just coming down on the big guys, the big smugglers of contraband, not on the man on the street- same with pot; it's mainly people who deal drugs and are big importers/manufacturers of drugs that get into big trouble.
But during the French revolution or the Russian revolution, or Nazi Germany or the Spanish Civil war, or Stalinist Soviet Union, etc, you got your head chopped off, or you and your family shot, if you were lucky to escape being tortured first. (Note that I made a point of using only modern Western regimes here,after the advent of humanism, which espouses human rights; if I were to include earlier Western examples, and or non-Western examples, the list would expand hugely. I include Russia, because Russia was pre-revolution essentially a Western nation; was deemed part of Europe as far as culture and philosophical tradition is concerned.
So yeah, while I agree that most men and women wouldn't voluntarily fall in with such a regime, they would basically not live very long if they in any way showed their dissent; that was the point of the people continuously being hung and displayed on the wall for all to see; and the ceremony at the 'hearing' where the women got free license to tear that guy apart.
Anyway, perhaps you and I don't disagree about the above completely, perhaps just in matter of degree, because this is Science Fiction after all, and I've seen a lot of more improbable stuff taking place in SF (Aliens taking over the World by the year 2000, anyone? Dinosaurs coming back to terrorize us? Some terrible bacteria finding it's way into our air/water that turns people in to raging zombies? Us humans having an intergalactic empire by the year 2020? The list goes on.), so I'm being lenient with it in comparison to other SF.
Perhaps, besides wanting to remind you that such regimes could be possible, even if they lasted only a few short years, the main beef that I had with your review was the bit where you say that : Overall, the summary for this book could be this: Almost anyone with a penis is mostly unfeeling and evil, deep down. He doesn’t care. He will betray you. Even when you're dead and gone, he will chuckle at your misfortune and demise. No, this isn’t sexist or a generalization. Of course not. Not at all.
Once again I will grant you that maybe such total mistreatment of women is not customary anymore in the West; (even though it once was, which is why feminism even exists in the first place), that this seems to be a dictatorship run by a few men, the fact that so many men get killed for dissent seems to prove how many men disagree with the system, even if it would be to their own benefit.
Btw, I'm not too sure why you feel that Offred's husband is scummy? ..after all he did try and help Offred, he did try and escape the regime, taking Offred and his daughter with him, I mean, it's not his fault they got captured.
I quote from a summary of the book: "Luke (Offred's husband) had (before the revolution) divorced his first wife to marry Offred, and since all divorces have been retroactively nullified by the Gilead government, Offred is considered to be an adulteress and her daughter a bastard. On that pretext, Offred is forced to become a Handmaid and her daughter is given to a family who is faithful to the party. Luke, Offred, and their daughter try to escape to Canada, but are captured. Offred knows nothing about what happened to Luke and alternatively resigns herself to his death and searches for him among the men in Gilead."
What I had meant by the way the book ends, is that it is made clear that the Gileadean republic had firstly not existed over the entire US, and secondly hadn't lasted very long, since it is viewed as archeological evidence of a not very well-known regime (to the archeologists/anthropologists) at a point not very far in the future.
EDIT: Mmm, but maybe I'm being too serious over this. If one assumes you meant this in a humorous, sarcastic way, like Mia says, it is rather funny. After all, Atwood does inject some rather sarcastic black humor of her own into the narrative.
Still, I felt I had to come up to some extent for the novel, because upon reflection, I liked a lot of the ideas, but overall that Atwood had the guts to make this overall cautionary statement via extremism, fundamentalism and sexism, and just all the isms back in the 80's already.
...she does paint in a situation of instability caused by natural and economic disasters as a result of humans abusing the eco-system, and how could she have foreseen the global economic collapse of 2008;- it's almost as if she had.
As far as psychic powers go, predicting nature and the economy will fail on occasion isn't that impressive. Nature's been out to get us since the Big Bang, and economies and the concept of money have failed us probably as often as they haven't. Radical groups pop up accordingly throughout history; their success depends on a lot of other elements, though.
Everybody seems to be feeling depressed and angry these days; it's not hard to imagine what a few more disasters might do - if some militant sect staged a coup in such a climate where there is already unrest, and said they were going to fix up the economy and get rid of all the corruption, I think quite a few people may bite on that bait, may even cheer it. ..and such regimes always lie at first - I think Atwood even mentions that they didn't initially mention how far they were going to go with the suppression of women thing, they just gradually worked it in, only revealed their plans in bits and pieces just like Hitler did in Nazi Germany.
I've read reviews that talk about how "it could happen now," but I think that's bollocks. A problem with this book, as with many older speculative fiction novels (even some I enjoy), is that almost anything written before the wide accessibility of personal computers and the World Wide Web, not to mention mobile technology, can't at all accurately portray how Western societies, the most connected societies, would react to disasters such as coups now. Even 9/11 wouldn't work quite the same now with the growth of citizen journalism, Twitter, Wikileaks, etc. I'm not saying how people would react would be entirely different, but it would not operate in the exact same way.
In the past, it was very difficult for people to organize against oppressive powers or even to be made aware of their coming into power at all. (After all, most authoritarian regimes take hold in places where there is a long history of oppression already and little or unequal education.) It's much easier for people to get information and organize now; you can see it beginning to happen in places it hasn't been able to happen in ever before. Even the Chinese government grows increasingly on edge as more tools enable people to share information and organize (and this is with only a third of Chinese people, mainly the young in cities, with internet access). Many speculative fiction writers have predicted this technological change and added it to their stories as an extra layer of plot complexity (or have at least worked to explain what made it fail); Atwood isn't one of them.
Also, Hitler never hid his antisemitism. He campaigned on it. At the time, many Germans liked him precisely for that reason.
I think when tragic events have passed, we often want to pretend the people had no say in how these things went down, but that's rarely the case in the last couple of centuries, if not well before then; people are part of the whole, even in violent, totalitarian regimes. We see the same thing going on in other nations now, with the West concerned that more radical Islamists may come into power in the Middle East, and yet they may do so because people want them to. And that's rather unsurprising at times when at least some of these places have illiterate populations (especially the women) with little access and few rights to begin.
That's part of my point with this book. Unless the people are somewhat willing and/or incapable of fighting back (not the case in the U.S. historically), there's no reason a regime such as this would ever be successful in so little time in U.S. society, particularly to the degree Atwood writes it. It wouldn't just take a handful of natural disasters or another economic depression; it would take a near-collapse of education and infrastructure and a fundamental, long-term change in cultural opinions.
But during the French revolution or the Russian revolution, or Nazi Germany or the Spanish Civil war, or Stalinist Soviet Union, etc, you got your head chopped off, or you and your family shot, if you were lucky to escape being tortured first. (Note that I made a point of using only modern Western regimes here,after the advent of humanism...
All of these events took place after significant cultural shifts that had built up over time and/or a laundry list of nearly never-ending problems. The Handmaid's Tale makes it clear that there was a fair amount of stability in Offred's life into her adulthood, her marriage, her career, her motherhood. And then suddenly it's all gone. It just really doesn't work that way. Two years from now, Canada isn't going to be like North Korea, for example.
Btw, I'm not too sure why you feel that Offred's husband is scummy?
He wasn't that concerned when her autonomy was taken away, and if he didn't care much about her independence, he's not that great of a guy. If I was suddenly fired and locked out of my bank account, merely for being a woman, my husband and I would be leaving the country that night; land, air, sea, it wouldn't matter. We would be gone. My husband would not hug me, tell me it'd be all right, and that he'd take care of me. It'd be GTFO time. Either Luke was a little too uncaring until it was too late, or they were both really, really stupid. Either's possible in this story.
What I had meant by the way the book ends, is that it is made clear that the Gileadean republic had firstly not existed over the entire US, and secondly hadn't lasted very long, since it is viewed as archeological evidence of a not very well-known regime (to the archeologists/anthropologists) at a point not very far in the future.
I could never decide how large Atwood had made Gilead, but generally, throughout the book, she seemed to suggest it had taken over most of the U.S., I felt; I mean, the President, Congress, and the Constitution are all changed, so the federal government collapses, at least. She seemed to change her mind on it a bit, though, and since she wasn't fond of giving details of any conflict surrounding the regime change, there's no way of knowing.
The story takes place in Cambridge, MA, and Offred attempts to flee to Canada, so apparently one can assume other parts of the Northeast have been taken over by the regime or she'd simply cross a state line; it's also probably safe to assume that if the Northeast--a modern stronghold of civil rights and agnosticism, compared to some other regions--gave in so easily to something like this, other parts of the U.S. would have, too. The Midwest is where African Americans are sent, so it's taken over, too.
The thought of a state like Vermont falling in line with all this is hilarious to me.
...Atwood had the guts to make this overall cautionary statement via extremism, fundamentalism and sexism, and just all the isms back in the 80's already.
I don't know that I would call this book brave. Sure-to-sell due to controversies of the time? Yes. I don't like the book, but it was smart marketing is what I'd call it.
I myself wondered why she decided to choose the North US, since that wouldn't seem a very logical place for such a coup to take place and succeed. It's part of the plotholes I was talking about in my own review.Hitler was of course upfront with his antisemitism, but he was not upfront with his methods of disposal, the actual nitty-gritty of exactly what was happening was kept under wraps pretty much until the extermination camps were discovered when WWII was basically over already.
Two years from now, Canada isn't going to be like North Korea, for example.
..but Atwood's scenario takes place in the US, not in Canada. It doesn't actually really matter where it takes place, I don't think, since she was giving us a window on what such a scenario would look like, not so much on exactly how it would come about.
I still don't think that her premise is any less plausible than other award-winning SF out there. I don't remember George Orwell explaining in any more detail the "how did it happen?" of his dystopia - though admittedly he was astute enough to simply leave little details like those to the imagination, IIRC.
I completely disagree with you that the :"how did it all come about?" was better explained in The Hunger Games", which was published in 2008, mind, whereas THT was published in 1983/4. So the US gets taken over by a central government that is sitting smack bang in the middle, who divides the rest of the US into 11 districts who each have only a certain type of industry going, and it subjugates the outlying 'districts' by having a Roman Circus type of TV show where kids get to kill one another for the amusement of the ruling city's inhabitants. ..and not one single person in that entire city thinks the whole thing is heartless and decides that this isn't the type of entertainment for them? Uh... really. Extremely believable, that. ;)
...and I still don't agree that her husband was scummy; - after all, they did have their daughter's safety to think about. One becomes a lot more cautious in your actions once you have children to worry about.
However, if we carry on with rebuttals and counter-rebuttals, we could argue until the cows come home.
In any case, it is obvious that you really hate this book and that the two of us will never completely agree, and maybe that's a good thing in itself, since smart independent people can agree to disagree and no harm done. *wink*
At least I have expressed some of my thoughts on your views, and you have replied, and, well, it's been nice chatting with you.
This review was a billion times more engaging and amazing than the book itself.
For starters, the review is great. If that sounds hollow, it probably is. It was very well written and I agree with all your points and opinions wholly. The use of visual aids was both amusing and appreciated. It's not often i can see a representation of a writer's attitude in their writing, so one tends to presume.Personally, I liked the book. No particular reason that would effectively counter your argument, but I was entertained whilst reading it, and that's good enough for me. As far as a "science-fiction" is concerned, logic and thought-out premises is a must, but a work of fiction can put it's own version of pseudo-logic in as much as it wants, in the end it's still bollocks - the value os which is determined by how entertained the reader is.
The best part about your review - in my opinion - is you observation of the time it took for the events of the novel to take place.
Let's say that, due to the first-person narrative - Offred was simply unaware of the following: it is likely that it didn't happen suddenly, but was instead plotted over an indeterminate but certainly lengthy space of time, and that there is a power higher than the Commanders that instigated it all. Proof? Well, again, Offred knows comparatively little. But take the Commander for example. If he and the other Commanders really were behind the whole thing, why should he have to hide his actions with Offred from the rest of Gilead and his Wife, and why would he be in trouble with the Eyes if he was caught? It likely because there are a group of people higher up than him, and indeed the other Commanders. If there weren't, it would stand to reason that the Commanders could probably do whatever they liked without fear of consequences, which is untrue.
Anyway. With that said, it wouldn't be entirely unrealistic to suppose that, once all the pieces were in play, that all of this could happen - not overnight, but over a period of at least a decade, which would put Offred anywhere between her 30's and 40's, being somewhere in her 20's prior to the hostile takeover.
However.
Even a space of ten years is a relatively short amount of time for this to happen, even if the rest of the countries around the world decided to stay out of it for whatever reason. America is a massively influential country (which, being proudly British, is something I choke a little on saying) and it is unlikely that such a massive and radical change like that wouldn't affect the rest of the world.
Indeed, there is something off about the time it took for all this to occur, and the suddenness of which it did. A decade is a long time, but not long enough for something like this. Perhaps it would be, if the major insitutions were in the super-secret organisation of doom's pocket, but then the businesses and corporations would undoubtedly have something to say about it. Like I said, there's no way it wouldn't affect the world economy, certainly not enough to seriously worry the international conglomerates.
So yes, it's ultimately a flawed premise. But even so, I enjoyed it. It is rather amusing to think that feminists went so far as to instigate a reaction like that, even in a far-fetched story. Plus, I support selective breeding. A controversial standpoint, yes, but i support it anyway.
However, i doubt it was Extremist Christians behind all this. I can believe that some unbelievably manipulative person would use the religion to twist the arms of many Americans, particularly all the annoying Bible-thumpers, but being a Catholic i know that the Church certainly wouldn't have supported Gilead at all. It's absurd. Instead, it's probably some Right-wingers who noticed that Caucasian whites in America weren't as supremely numerous as they wanted, and decided to do something about it with plenty of "God-approved" violence and propoganda. Y'know, 'cus them Koreans is gonna get teh drop on us otherwises.
Summary if you got bored and skipped to the end of all that text -
Agreed with the review, very well done.
The premise is flawed, and up for speculation, but i enjoyed reading it so i don't give a ffffff...
Not the Christians' fault. Stop blaming us for everything that the idiots who take the Bible literally do.
Have a wonderful day.
Thanks for the comment, Charles. :) Glad you enjoyed the review--and book, even if I didn't! Still......being a Catholic i know that the Church certainly wouldn't have supported Gilead at all. It's absurd.
...have to strongly disagree with you here.
As a Catholic, you personally may think Gilead was absurd and something no good Catholic would ever support, but the Church itself has rather frequently supported measures that have enslaved and killed people throughout history. Just a few months ago, a woman died in Ireland due to a hospital's refusal to give her proper medical treatment during a miscarriage because Ireland's a "Catholic country." I also seem to remember a rather large scale cover up of child sex abuse in the Church; Cardinal Roger Mahony, who helped hide one child abuser, voted in the latest conclave. So that's swell.
There is certainly a difference between radicals and moderates, particularly from country to country (Catholics are mostly moderate/liberal in the U.S., too), but let's not kid ourselves about where the Catholic Church, the Vatican, stands time and again. To say the Church would never support something like Gilead would be like my saying, "The U.S. would never support slavery." Both my country and your church have effectively supported crimes against humanity on a large scale before, and they could again. I just don't believe it would happen so quickly on such a large scale in the modern, developed world, without much else going on to support it. At the very least, the internet would probably need to be censored into oblivion, but then Atwood didn't even know the WWW would exist, haha.
Anyway, none of this is to say religion is the only problem, just that it can't be let off the hook. Really, the bigger problem is usually when religion and government combine, which is the case in this novel. Could have been a good story for me if Atwood had thought about it more and not made everything so black and white between men and women in the book. Also would have helped if she'd written a good ending...
I have to concede to your point there. Even I questioned whether or not i can support the Catholic Church in this respect, but did it anyway. It mostly because i have yet to meet a Catholic, or even a Christian who is as restrictive and puritanical/fundamentalist as many people seem to know of. It's true that the Church has supported horrible things in the past, but modern Church is different these days. The majority of Christians are much more Liberal and understanding. However, this is not really the point.
The point is that it's not the Church that was behind the change from America to Gilead, rather it was a group of right-wingers who used God to curry favour with the masses (at least, the masses of people who take that stuff literally. The Bible is up for interpretation for each individual reader like it always has, but some people are just idiots).
Plus, the Commander isn't exactly a puritan Christian, and from what i gather from what information that one can glean from the book, neither are any of the other Commanders.
I'm only quick to defend my religion because it's attacked so much. Most people seem to think that every Christian thinks and acts like the extremists, when it's quite the opposite. Personally, my religion doesn't have much of an impact on my life, and i have no real reason for being a part of it. And yet I am. I acknowledge the facts of science - evolution and the like - but i never did understand Athiests. Agnostics, sure. But not Athiests.
This is becoming a religious debate. Sorry :/
The ending was okay. I hear a lot of people think it's never clarified what happened to Offred, even though it's explained in the Historical Notes at the end. So it's not really a mystery. But then, i never thought for a minute that it would end well or with clarity. It's written in first-person, and from the viewpoint of some random woman who knows absolutely nothing about anything it seems... where's the good ending going to come from? Unless Atwood used some sort of Deus Ex Machina, there was no way out the corner she'd backed herself into...
I think the most entertaining part of this book is to watch feminists make asses of themselves over it. Many times when reading this in class, it was more interesting to see the girls and the teacher go off on one than it was to read the book, although i still liked the book.
The majority of Christians are much more Liberal and understanding.
Depends on the region, I think. Christians in the UK are much less extreme than Christians in the U.S., in my experience, and Christians in the U.S. vary in their how extreme they are depending on location. (About 25-30% of Americans identify as extremist evangelicals, though--not an insignificant minority.) I am from the Bible Belt. I can tell you for certain that there are millions of Christians who are pretty cruel in the name of God.
Most people seem to think that every Christian thinks and acts like the extremists, when it's quite the opposite.
I definitely don't believe that. At the same time, I do believe moderate Christianity gives cover and legitimacy to fundamentalism, which is part of what enables extremism to take root in mainstream areas (as in the case of the Republican Party in the U.S.). It should infuriate moderate Christians that they get lumped in with extremists as simply all being Christian, but instead most moderates are more concerned with the secular community's "attacks" against fundamentalism and how it inconveniences moderates. Seems we should be able to work together to eradicate extremism, but so far many moderates don't seem to be that concerned, other than to say, "I'm not like them!" Which, while understandable, but doesn't really get us anywhere.
I acknowledge the facts of science - evolution and the like - but i never did understand Athiests. Agnostics, sure. But not Athiests.
I don't know. Unless you believe in all the other gods, you're an atheist in every single case other than when it comes to the Christian god. That's a lot of atheism! Atheism is just not believing in god(s). I know very, very few atheists who believe there's no chance of a creator; they (and I) just think it's highly improbable, given that everything we learn always points in a direction that suggests there isn't one.
I like Dawkins' spectrum of theistic probability. Under it, I consider myself a de facto atheist (many refer to that as "agnostic atheist"). Mostly, I just say I'm nonreligious or a humanist, precisely because many religious people think I worship Satan otherwise, whom I don't believe in, either, haha.
But then, i never thought for a minute that it would end well or with clarity.
My problem with the ending of this book is that it's just lazy. There's nothing wrong with a vague or abrupt ending, if done well, for instance, and I'd have much preferred that over Atwood dabbling in metafiction.
I think the most entertaining part of this book is to watch feminists make asses of themselves over it.
Well, I am a feminist, but I also like good, logical speculative fiction.
Even though I actually kind of like the book, your review is amazing. That gif of the dude turning into a jet pretty much blew my mind.
@ Charles -- atheists are just people who don't believe gods exist. You can be both an atheist (not believing) and an agnostic (unable or unwilling to definitively state whether gods exist or not) at the same time -- most people who describe themselves as atheists are also agnostics. Atheism addresses personal belief while agnosticism addresses knowledge.
No offense intended, however it's a little late and i'd like to wrap this up relatively quickly."I can tell you for certain that there are millions of Christians who are pretty cruel in the name of God."
Yes, there have been and are Christians who are cruel and sometimes violent, not that they should be. I always thought it was ever-so slightly hypocritical that Christians who take the Bible so literally would then proceed to stretch it's meaning so far as to believe that they should do the judging for God. I don't think i need to tell anyone, Christian or otherwise, that that's a dumb idea if there ever was one.
"It should infuriate moderate Christians that they get lumped in with extremists as simply all being Christian"
Indeed it does. It infuriates me more than anything when the class Athiest comes up to me and talks to me like i'm in the same crowd as the extremist people, and frankly they only ever use the Reductio Ad Absurdum method of arguing, which i am just so tired of dealing with. Honestly, i don't really understand the practical difference between being a Christian or an Athiest. I believe everything they do, plus a bit extra, and I don't understand why that instigates a confrontational attitude from so many people automatically. I never felt dumb for believing that a creator existed as well, and for the sake of arguement we call him a handy three-letter name.
"I don't know. Unless you believe in all the other gods, you're an atheist in every single case other than when it comes to the Christian god. That's a lot of atheism!"
Using that kind of logic, then God-damn that's a lot of Athiesm. However, I am Christian, and therefore not classified as an Athiest. Use conjecture all you want, i cant say i'm an Athiest. Personally, I like to think that the 'chief god' of most religions is likely the same one, represented differently throughout the different cultures. Assuming that they are Omnipotent, it's plausible.
And no, if you believe in Satan, then you aren't an Atheist. You're a Satanist. Which is all well and good, it's not my place to judge anyone. That's a job for someone better than I. Atheists don't believe in any kind of religious figure, higher power, afterlife, etc. That sort of thing.
"My problem with the ending of this book is that it's just lazy"
Meh, i've seen lazier. Nick as as close to a Deus Ex Machina as the book gets to one, and it's STILL not as bad as it gets. In the end, it all comes down to whether or not you were entertained, and I was. yay for meeeeee....
"Well, I am a feminist, but I also like good, logical speculative fiction"
I'm not making a stab at feminists. Though i have a lot of proverbial knives for doing so, I save those for the type of feminists that everybody hates (not that they seem to know that they're bleeding of course - all a continuation of the stabbing metaphor).
Logical speculative fiction is the best kind of fiction. However, a work of fiction can apply it's own pseudo-reality laws as much as it wants, and contain as many references, metaphors and deeper meanings as possible, it's still practically bollocks and it can be about whatever the hell the writer wants when it comes down to it. And yes, I am exaggerating for effect.
@ L.M
Correct. However, i can understand Agnosticism, but not pure Atheism. I just can't see the point of it. When they ask my "Why do you believe in God", these days i answer "Why not?". I know this will make me sound like a Bible-thumping numbnut, but i have yet to see how Science has or could ever disprove God. Not that it bothers me too much.
This is rapidly turning into one of those unsolvable religious debates in which nobody wins because everybody thinks they're right and that everyone else is wrong...I'm all for religious debates, or debates of any kind even if I lose, but I'm conscious that this is an attitude that isn't shared by many others :/
I don't think it's a case of science disproving god; it's a case of there not being enough scientific evidence to prove god. A subtle but important distinction for those of us who rely on concrete evidence more than emotional evidence to dictate our beliefs. For example, nearly all the atheists I know personally, and myself included, would absolutely believe in god if sufficient evidence came along.And I don't think it's a debate -- just a friendly discussion. :)
Okay, think of it this way.You can't think of God as something that requires proving. If there were solid and undeniable evidence of a Creator, then we'd rely on them too much.
Look, you know those fall-backwards and i'll cath you trust tests? It's kinda like that - from your perspective there is no sufficient evidence to sugest that you won't fall painfully onto your back, you just have to trust that someone will catch you. That's similar to how faith works.
Besides, why do you need to prove his existence? Would it affect your life much? No good could possibly come from proving that God "exists", because then all that stuff about "if he exists, why isn't he solving all of our problems for us?" would show up.
That's another thing - you assume that God is something that has to 'exist' in the sense that we know, when it's possible that he doesn't exist as we might know it.
I think relying on concrete evidence to dictate your beliefs is a little hollow. You have a mind capable of abstract, higher thought and yet you limit it to only what you percieve.
Personally, believe that God is like a perfect parent, and humanity is in an angsty teenager stage. God is only going to help us when we need it, and not always because we want him to. We're supposed to figure things out on our own, but obviously we make mistakes. When things go wrong, we blame the parent, and wonder why they aren't fixing it for us. I don't believe that God would put an end to natural disasters, disease, war or death, because there'd be no point to life otherwise. If everything was solved and there were no more problems, what kind of existence would that be?
Eventually, Humanity will succeed God. That's my belief. At some stage, Humanity will transcend mortality and succed our creator, and this belief opens a whole 'nother can of worms concerning how God came into existence as well, and would suggest the existence of previous sentient races who went through similar processes, etc. It's just a belief of course, and it doesn't really dictate how I interact with the world around me. I make my own way, i don't rely on stuff like the Bible to make it for me. The Bible was written by people, not God himself, and it's the same for every other religious Book.
I digress a lot...
I love a good discussion! :)"Okay, think of it this way.
You can't think of God as something that requires proving. If there were solid and undeniable evidence of a Creator, then we'd rely on them too much."
But why believe in something at all if there is no evidence for its existence? That just seems pointless to somebody like me.
"That's similar to how faith works."
I have been a person of great faith in the past, and I understand the concept and the analogy. For me, eventually my critical thinking just became so prevalent in all areas of my life that I could not longer prevent myself from applying it to my faith, too. I reasoned that until I came across evidence that it was in fact there -- evidence that did not require me to blindly fall backwards and trust that it would be there, for that is no evidence at all -- then there was no point in believing it was there, or wasting effort worrying about it.
"Besides, why do you need to prove his existence? Would it affect your life much?"
I need proof of any assertion before I will believe it. That goes for "the big questions" like whether God exists and the mundane questions like whether I've got money in my bank account. No, it would probably not affect my life much whether God existed. But I see no reason to assume he does if I haven't got any evidence for it. Therefore, I am an atheist.
"No good could possibly come from proving that God "exists", because then all that stuff about "if he exists, why isn't he solving all of our problems for us?" would show up."
Yes, well, if he does exist then he's certainly got a lot of explaining to do!
"That's another thing - you assume that God is something that has to 'exist' in the sense that we know, when it's possible that he doesn't exist as we might know it."
It's possible. If that is the case, then why waste time believing in something the existence of which we cannot even comprehend? Seems kind of silly to me.
"I think relying on concrete evidence to dictate your beliefs is a little hollow. You have a mind capable of abstract, higher thought and yet you limit it to only what you percieve."
I have discussed belief vs. non-belief with enough people in the past to not be surprised or offended by claims that my worldview is "hollow." Frankly, I think believing in fairy tales because it makes you feel warm and fuzzy is hollow. I'm not saying that to pick a fight, and I have no ill feelings toward you for saying that reliance on evidence and reason is hollow. As I've said, I've heard it a dozen times before. I'm merely illustrating that hollowness is in the eye of the beholder, and I have never felt a lack of awe, wonder, or amazement while living this life which is dependent wholly on perception and concrete truth. It's all in the experience of the individual. For myself, my life is far more fulfilling, poignant, and precious now, as an atheist relying on my perceptions and eschewing comforting myths, than it ever was as a devout god-believer.
"Personally, believe that God is like a perfect parent, and humanity is in an angsty teenager stage. ... If everything was solved and there were no more problems, what kind of existence would that be?"
I'm sure those personal beliefs of yours bring you great comfort. You seem like a reasonable enough man to understand why I can't get onboard with them. Were I to see any evidence for any of it -- starting with establishing the fact that God is an actual entity that actually exists, I might go along with you, because it seems like a pleasant and comforting proposition.
"Eventually, Humanity will succeed God...."
What I am getting from your comments is that you believe in God because you want to. It is as reasonable an excuse as any for belief in any kind of supernatural phenomenon. However, "I believe because I want to" seems much more hollow from my perspective than "I don't believe because I see no reason to."
Don't assume that a lack of belief in God or gods or in any other unproven assertion leaves a person somehow bereft of a meaningful life. I found all my meaning when I realized that "because I want to" wasn't a good enough reason for me.
"I digress a lot..."
That's okay; they're interesting enough digressions. ;)
Decent debates like this are rare. My local Athiest is a bit of a dick, so i don't get the impression that he presents his argument very well...Anyways!
"But why believe in something at all if there is no evidence for its existence? That just seems pointless to somebody like me."
I'm just going to throw that right back at you and ask: Why not?
"then there was no point in believing it was there, or wasting effort worrying about it."
Whilst I concede to the rest of the paragraph, since ultimately i can't try to change someone's attitude and personality, i personally don't waste any effort worrying about it anyway. What's to worry about? A higher power probably had an influence in how everything ended up. great. Awesome. What's for lunch? Why should it worry me, or anybody for that matter?
Also, you keep going back to this "evidence". I imagine if God knew that if people were to be undeniably certain of his alleged "existence" upon finding proof of it, he would most likely get rid of the evidence, otherwise what would the point of free will be? If you don't want to believe in him, then that's all well and good, but doing so because there's not sufficient evidence seems a little hollow to me.
"But I see no reason to assume he does if I haven't got any evidence for it. Therefore, I am an atheist."
Imma gonna throw that right back at you again: I see no reason to assume he doesn't, because there's no solid evidence that proves or disproves him, not that I really care. It fits my way of thinking to believe in a higher power, therefore I am a Catholic.
"Yes, well, if he does exist then he's certainly got a lot of explaining to do!"
Missing the point a little bit...
Why should he fix all of our problems for us just because he can? If we can fix it ourselves, why should he do it for us? This is standard parenting tactics. They don't call him "Father" for nothing.
"If that is the case, then why waste time believing in something the existence of which we cannot even comprehend?"
Again, why not? We can't comprehend the vastness of the Universe, yet we still try to.
"It's all in the experience of the individual. For myself, my life is far more fulfilling, poignant, and precious now, as an atheist relying on my perceptions and eschewing comforting myths, than it ever was as a devout god-believer."
Fair enough. In the end, i can't force you to believe in anything that you don't want to.
"I'm sure those personal beliefs of yours bring you great comfort"
They do. Which is why i don't feel like I have to think about it at all.
"You seem like a reasonable enough man to understand why I can't get onboard with them"
I am, and I do.
"Were I to see any evidence for any of it -- starting with establishing the fact that God is an actual entity that actually exists, I might go along with you, because it seems like a pleasant and comforting proposition"
Well, from where i'm standing it's pleasant and comforting without any requirement for evidence, but that's just me. I don't really feel I need evidence to validate anything in my existence. Evidene is just proof of the limits of what we know, and i'm all about surpassing limits.
"I don't believe because I see no reason to."
One more time: I believe because I see no reason NOT to.
"Don't assume that a lack of belief in God or gods or in any other unproven assertion leaves a person somehow bereft of a meaningful life. "
Of course not, i'm just quick to defend my religion. Not because i feel like I need to, i just like doing it. You can get meaning in your life however way you want, just don't mock my way. I'm not saying that's what you're doing though.
"That's okay; they're interesting enough digressions. ;)"
Oh good. :3
"I'm just going to throw that right back at you and ask: Why not?"Because I see no point.
"Also, you keep going back to this "evidence". I imagine if God knew that if people were to be undeniably certain of his alleged "existence" upon finding proof of it, he would most likely get rid of the evidence, otherwise what would the point of free will be?"
Free will is a totally fallacious construct in a universe that has an omniscient god anyway. Free will and omniscient deities are mutually exclusive. If God knows what you will choose to do with your "free will," then free will is just an illusion and God is cruelly hoaxing you. If we have truly free will, and God allows us to choose any behavior we want and has no foreknowledge of what we will choose, then God is not omniscient. If God is not omniscient, then why worship him?
That aside, though, you are most certainly not speaking of the God of the Bible (you already said you aren't into him anyway; bear with me as I make a point) because the God of the Bible was all bout proving his might to everybody. He was not the kind of god to whisk his evidence away for the sake of testing adherents' faith.
So who is this God you believe in, and how did you determine his attributes -- such as, for example, that he is a god who doesn't want people to have evidence of his existence? I think it's worth identifying the source of one's beliefs rather than just adhering to them without any examination, whatever those sources may be.
"If you don't want to believe in him, then that's all well and good, but doing so because there's not sufficient evidence seems a little hollow to me."
Since we have already established that you are not referring to the Abrahamic God, nor, based on the descriptions you've provided for the God you posit, are you referring to any other God I know of from mythological writings, then why on earth would I believe in the God you posit? His attributes seem to be entirely created based on what you find personally appealing. Why would you assume such a God would look like an appealing target for worship to anybody other than you?
You haven't got sufficient evidence for leprechauns living under your bed, but never the less you do not believe that leprechauns live under your bed. Isn't that a little hollow you, to not believe in the leprechauns living under your bed? It's the same thing.
"Imma gonna throw that right back at you again: I see no reason to assume he doesn't, because there's no solid evidence that proves or disproves him, not that I really care. It fits my way of thinking to believe in a higher power, therefore I am a Catholic."
Ah -- so you are a Catholic, and yet your image of a God is not anything like the God in the Bible. I find that fascinating (though not uncommon; most people are far more moral than the religions to which they subscribe.)
To answer the question you threw back at me: my not believing in God because I don't have any evidence to support the existence of God is exactly the same as you not believing in leprechauns under your bed because you do not have evidence that leprechauns live under your bed.
"Missing the point a little bit...
Why should he fix all of our problems for us just because he can? If we can fix it ourselves, why should he do it for us? This is standard parenting tactics. They don't call him "Father" for nothing."
Why would a loving God cause such problems in the first place, or allow them to happen, if you don't believe he specifically causes evil? If God loves innocent babies, why does he allow them to get cancer? To teach the parents a lesson? What a breathtakingly cruel and arrogant being you are positing here. Why worship such a being, if you had any evidence for its existence? That's what I mean by "God has a lot of explaining to do."
"Again, why not? We can't comprehend the vastness of the Universe, yet we still try to."
We can try to comprehend the vastness of the Universe without bringing any supernatural silliness into it. I could ask you: why waste your time assuming God exists, even though the only proof you have for him is the existential thrill you get by imagining yourself falling backward into the arms of faith? :) Or, if you like, why not spend your time worrying about whether leprechauns exist under your bed, even though you see no evidence for them?
"Fair enough. In the end, i can't force you to believe in anything that you don't want to."
True that. And I did once believe. It's not as if I'm unfamiliar with the standard arguments, or even the standard religious experiences. ;)
"One more time: I believe because I see no reason NOT to."
I know. You already established that, and then grilled me on why I don't approach belief in the same way you do. I guess my answer is still "because my brain doesn't work that way anymore."
"Of course not, i'm just quick to defend my religion. Not because i feel like I need to, i just like doing it. You can get meaning in your life however way you want, just don't mock my way. I'm not saying that's what you're doing though."
It's all good. :) Now I am going to go bake a cake -- something we can both believe in.
The cake is a lie. It had to be said sorry :DIt feels kinda like you're beginning to use Reductio Ad Absurdum to counter my points. That I do not appreciate, especially how you stretch 'believing in God' to 'believing in Leprechauns'.
Onwards.
"Because I see no point."
Fair enough. I already know that there's no point in trying to convince people when it comes to religion, and Christians and Catholics aren't meant to convert people anyway. You can come to whatever conclusion you want. Just bear in mind, that I do see a point.
"Free will is a totally fallacious construct in a universe that has an omniscient god anyway."
Well, i don't mean free will in that kind of sense. It's hard to explain what i think of it, but it's like you have an infinite number of predetermined paths to choose from. You are both dictating the course of your own life, and having an unimaginable effect on the rest of the universe by doing so. Whichever proverbial path that you choose, it's part of a greater plan that is so many steps ahead that there's no way we could begin to understand it, and it's planned for whichever path you choose. Besides, if God were to exist, not believing in him would also be part of his plan, and according to your argument, you'd still be under his influence whether or not you beieved he existed.
"If we have truly free will, and God allows us to choose any behavior we want and has no foreknowledge of what we will choose, then God is not omniscient. If God is not omniscient, then why worship him?"
Okay, remember what I said about God being a perfect parent? Parents can pretty much guess what you'll do before you do it, mostly because they've been through the same thing and understand perfectly. God does know what you're likely to choose several steps in advance, but he's not forcing you to do anything.
Why do you assume that free will means that God can't at least predict what you will choose? If a normal person could do it, then surely a creator could.
"God of the Bible was all bout proving his might to everybody"
Firstly, it's important to note that the Bible was written by people, not God, and furthermore, they didn't know much about the world compared to what we know now, and an awful lot of the Bible is metaphor. They might interpret natural disasters and such as proof of God's might, but then again they didn't know any better. It's pretty much all subjective. For instance, if Noah was actually in a 40 day flood, I imagine he'd be pretty f*cking terrified. You've seen Life of Pi right?
"So who is this God you believe in"
He's the God that I want to believe in. Why should I adhere to a preset model made by humans, when I can interpret it however I wish?
As for why he'd cover up his existence, if I were him, looking at the bigger picture, i'd probably want to lay low as well. I mean, he's sort of a celebrity, and those guys hide stuff all the time. If he doesn't want us to know for sure, then we won't Part of beieving in God is having a hell of a lot of trust that he knows better than you. Personally, that belief takes a lot off of my shoulders.
"Why would you assume such a God would look like an appealing target for worship to anybody other than you?"
I don't. I believe in him however I want to because I can, and I encourage anyone else to do the same (figuratively of course, you can believe in whatever you want). I interpret it in whatever way suits me, and there's nothing to say I can't or shouldn't.
"Isn't that a little hollow you, to not believe in the leprechauns living under your bed? It's the same thing."
Aside from the fact that this is incredibly insulting, Reductio Ad Absurdum is cheating in a religious debate. Don't compare Leprechauns to God, it's not the same thing, and i'll be damned if that stupid Irish bastard ISN'T under my bed.
"my not believing in God because I don't have any evidence to support the existence of God is exactly the same as you not believing in leprechauns under your bed because you do not have evidence that leprechauns live under your bed."
Again, don't compare Leprechauns to God. It's not a valid point, it's just insulting. Also, just because there is no evidence for something does not mean that it doesn't exist or hasn't happened. You find that often enough in court cases, why is it so hard to apply that to faith? Murderers have gotten away with it before because of lack of evidence, but the guy's still dead. Not a great analogy i know...
"Why would a loving God cause such problems in the first place, or allow them to happen, if you don't believe he specifically causes evil?"
Why do you assume he causes it? Would you blame your parents for birthing you, because everything that went wrong in your life is a result of being born?
Parents allow their children to suffer all the time, often on purpose, because it helps them learn. You have to understand, he isn't doing it because he wants to, he's doing it because he has to.
"We can try to comprehend the vastness of the Universe without bringing any supernatural silliness into it. I could ask you: why waste your time assuming God exists, even though the only proof you have for him is the existential thrill you get by imagining yourself falling backward into the arms of faith? :) Or, if you like, why not spend your time worrying about whether leprechauns exist under your bed, even though you see no evidence for them?"
Reductio. Ad. Absurdum.
"True that. And I did once believe. It's not as if I'm unfamiliar with the standard arguments, or even the standard religious experiences. ;)"
I'm aware that I'm not actually using standard arguments here. I'm not a standard Catholic.
"I know. You already established that, and then grilled me on why I don't approach belief in the same way you do. I guess my answer is still "because my brain doesn't work that way anymore.""
You're assuming an awful lot, but fair enough about the brain part.
Charles said:"Well, i don't mean free will in that kind of sense. It's hard to explain what i think of it, but it's like you have an infinite number of predetermined paths to choose from. You are both dictating the course of your own life, and having an unimaginable effect on the rest of the universe by doing so. Whichever proverbial path that you choose, it's part of a greater plan that is so many steps ahead that there's no way we could begin to understand it, and it's planned for whichever path you choose....."
Beautifully descriptive reply! I am discussing another book "Cloud Atlas" for a book group next week; do you mind if I borrow that? I think it is also very applicable to 'Cloud Atlas'.
(notice I carefully used quotation marks, as so many people on this 'Handmaid's Tale' thread seem pretty freaked by a lack of them in the book, and I'm fairly new here at GR, so pretty chuffed wit'-m'self for replying in the appropriate "Charles said..." format.) ;)
Uh, yeah i don't mind at all :/ Use it for whatever you want, it's just words. I'm happy to to be of use to people :3
You said it best: zero conflict. And I know jackshit about Offred's personality 70 pages in, which doesn't help. Gotta love ideological tracts posing as novels! *ironic thumbs-up*
You said it best: no real conflict to speak of, at least not where I'm at, but you'd think something would develop 70 pages into a 300 page novel.
Sorry about the accidental double post.
Consider what happened in Nazi Germany in World War II. Millions of people were killed and while it wasn't considered acceptable by most, there were many people who did and this regime did last many years, so I don't think your conclusion that these changes in society couldn't ever happen is too accurate because it has happened in the past.
Nazi Germany came about from decades of growing nationalistic socialism and antisemitism, a World War (the first one), and the largest concerted propaganda effort known to man at the time. To at all compare Atwood's imaginings and sloppy world-building to an actual historical event that took millions of lives is to do a great disservice to history.If you want to compare apples to apples, you could perhaps bring up Saudi Arabia, not Nazi Germany, but then Saudi Arabia's policies come with the continued problem that they could not exist in most of the developed and largely secular world overnight (or over a lifetime) because (1) there would be very little support for them, particularly in Massachusetts, which Atwood chose as her setting simply because once upon a time Puritans (who did not live this way themselves), and (2) there are too many methods for people to be aware of what's going on and to be able to freely and quickly organize an opposition.
I think it might be worth pointing out: Offred didn't come from 1985 America the way it really was into a sudden and unexplainable martially controlled speculative society. The history was slightly different to begin with. Before the takeover even happens, there have been diseases and man-made disasters contributing to the reduction of fertility. Society is already in a state of confusion and dread. In additon to this, everyone is apparently already required to live completely "on the grid," as evidenced by Offred's (and everyone else's) inability to help themselves or even escape once the new laws are enacted, and, even earlier, the inclusion of paper money, no longer legal tender, as a curiosity in Offred's mother's scrapbook. This seems to be a culture dangerously at risk to any regime offering safety and surety and solutions, even under the most horrifying consequences. People are willing to sacrifice a lot, even their freedom, for the illusion of security.
I read this soooo long ago, I don't remember a lot of the details, but good points Milanie. Upthread, another commenter (so sorry, I am far to lazy to go through them all again to point out which one) questioned what the heck kind of crisis could possibly spur THIS kind of extremist sexual marshal law. Reduction in fertility, Drastic reduction in fertility. Yup, that'd do it, I'd think.
"This seems to be a culture dangerously at risk to any regime offering safety and surety and solutions, even under the most horrifying consequences. People are willing to sacrifice a lot, even their freedom, for the illusion of security. "
So well said, but, now are you talking about the book or real life or both?
Interesting review. My two comments are:1) It's fiction. I don't mind it being far out, fiction is license to do what you like with the real world. Doesn't mean you have to like it of course :)
2) The real world can be stranger than fiction. The Berlin Wall suddenly got built, people didn't believe it would do much, and then it stuck around and ripped a nation in two. I doubt Germans would have predicted that one 5 years earlier.
Lisa:Good points, especially #2.
I can understand a reader's concern that a fictional story makes sense, holds together, at least within the parameters it sets up for itself. I don't think that's too much to ask of an author.
I read this book many years ago, but I do remember being skeptical and rereading some sections, looking very closely at the details to see if Atwood had slipped up and not provided plausible reasons for the strange world she'd built, the leap she expected us to take; and "I" did not find any.
I had to jump in and thank you, Kate, for your excellent review, and for the tone and timbre of the conversation and comments that followed. In this time of negativity and personal attacks, the intelligent and well-measured comments from everyone are a breath of fresh air. Kudos to all of you. I will not read The Handmaid's Tale, as the entire premise would reduce me to a screaming mess of liberal outrage, but I did very much enjoy your review.
I love your thumbs down clip - thank you! I have just reviewed a book I could not stand and this really made me smile!
i liked it because we don't seem to understand in the US that these things do happen in the world. Perhaps your comments were written before the Vaginal Probe scandal in Virginia. I felt that reading this helped me understand what it is like to live in a free society and then have all of your rights taken away. There were women in say, Egypt, who had all the rights in the world and slowly lost them all, including the right to drive. also, I heard a while back that men in Egypt of a certain income are basically cut out of the possibility of ever marrying. What happens with their pent up frustration? It is manipulated into hatred in other directions. My mother and a friend were told by their parents that they couldn't go to college because it was a waste for girls. Also there were shadows of the Inquisition in the book, when Jews could convert, but if they were found to be "faking" they would be tortured to death. I found this world interesting and think Attwood has a very interesting brain! My biggest complaint is, why wouldn't they have just used turkey basters?? But even that has an answer -- because the men in power made the rules ;-).
Perhaps your comments were written before the Vaginal Probe scandal in Virginia.
I was living in Texas when I wrote this review. I assure you that for every batshit-crazy, conservative anti-choice law Virginia passes, Texas passes ten. A lot of people don't know that Texas passed such a law before Virginia did. In fact, things are bad enough in Texas that some women cross the border into Mexico.
However, as deeply concerning as that is, it doesn't change my comments about this book. They are two separate things, with one being a reality that can be changed and another being a fictional, extreme slippery slope that is more than a little absurd, no matter how many times people mention the title whenever regressive legislation is passed.
I strongly dislike anti-choice legislation and will never vote for anyone who supports it, but it's a stretch to say such legislation has a connection to this book.
There were women in say, Egypt, who had all the rights in the world and slowly lost them all, including the right to drive.
You are confusing Egypt with Saudi Arabia. And I assure you the women there never had "all the rights in the world." Actually, I'm not sure anyone, male or female, outside of the absurdly wealthy has ever had "all the rights."
My mother and a friend were told by their parents that they couldn't go to college because it was a waste for girls.
That sucks. I've definitely been told I couldn't do things, or wouldn't do them well, because of my gender. However, there are plenty of things in modern, Western culture to counteract such negative messages. That's part of the reason more women graduate from college now than men. We haven't achieved equal pay in all or even most industries yet, but it will happen if we continue to vote in the right people. Of course, it'll probably take a while, given that so few Americans outside of the typically conservative, elderly demographic vote in elections.
I agree that the dystopia seems to have happened too quickly. From history, going from bikinis to burkas appears to take one or two decades. Assuming our main character was a young mother, she'd be nearly too old to have kids by the time something like this could be successfully established. Germany was able to set up birthing camps in a few years after the far right took over, however, the economy had been trashed and democracy dismantled before that happened (a total process that still took a few decades).
I think the whole specificity of groups like feminism or events such as Black History week create wedges between people, people fight for female rights but people tells boys to "man up and stop being a sissy", one can have black pride but white pride is racist.The reason feminism exists is because women have not achieved equality in most parts of the world, even in developed nations, much less in more subtle parts of each society. I don't think drawing attention to that fact at all takes away from men. Nor do I believe whites suffer when there is a black history month. Every other month is white (and often male) history month. In an ideal world, there would be less need to draw attention to inequality and to the impressive successes of minorities because there would be no inequality to draw attention to, and all impressive successes would be given their fair share of airtime. That's not the case yet. If you don't know why white pride conjures up all sorts of dismay, I seriously (and nonjudgmentally, if text can't communicate this well) suggest further reading on the topic of race through history.
As for sexism toward men, something a lot of people, men and women alike, do not understand is that when men are told to "man up and stop being sissy" or that they can't be nurses or that being a stay-at-home father is "weak" that is rooted in hatred for women. Yes, it's awful, and it's being directed at men. Yes, it can be directed at men by women or other men. But no matter how it's delivered, being "sissy" or any of those other things -- supposedly feminine and supposedly weak -- is wrong. This is why effeminate gay men have always been targeted more than traditionally masculine gay men. It is the supposed femininity that is wrongest of all. This is why not all women consider this sexism toward men because at the end of the day, when you really dig into the comments, it's less about men than it is about women. I'm somewhere in the middle with that. I think something can be sexist toward men while still obviously being rooted in patriarchy.
I think this is why most people who care about gender issues cannot see how poorly Atwood fleshes out her male characters. The desire among women and some men to have inequality recognized and written about is great, partly because recognition has been so rare until recently, and when all-male panels are deciding women's reproductive rights in the U.S., The Handmaid's Tale is a tried-and-true text to pull off the shelf. It's unfortunate. I think this could have been a better story if it was written over a longer period of time, placed in a more appropriate setting, and had more fleshed out male characters. As it is, though, Atwood treats her male characterization in the very way that many writers treat female characterization, and that irks me to no end.
To end things like sexism or discrimination we need to stop dividing ourselves first...
This sounds nice, but it's impossible. Yes, we are all human, some of us share some languages and demographics, etc., but similarities pretty much stop there; beyond any similarities, we have to either embrace or eliminate differences. Elimination has been problematic in the past, to say the least, so embracing diversity is usually, though not always, the way to go.
There is too much inequality in a multitude of socioeconomic areas not to draw attention to certain divisions. Not drawing attention to groups is impossible when inequality is a problem for those specific groups. For example, the War on Drugs in the U.S. disproportionately affects young black men, not young white men; mentioning that fact does not at all diminish that young white men have been affected, too, at a much lower rate.
When your appendix is about to burst, you don't go to the emergency room and say, "I'm just here for a physical." You focus on the largest specific, immediate problem, and only after that is fixed can you move on to the next issue. It is not wrong to look at subsets of people, to check on them, to see what they need, to ask them what they need. I think it's worth noting that it's usually only people who enjoy a majority, privileged status that think it's inappropriate to draw attention to groups because their personal groups are rarely disenfranchised in a way that causes actual, long-term harm.
And sorry for going on such a rant :)
I don't always get around to replying, but rants are generally welcome. :P
"As for sexism toward men, something a lot of people, men and women alike, do not understand is that when men are told to "man up and stop being sissy" or that they can't be nurses or that being a stay-at-home father is "weak" that is rooted in hatred for women. Yes, it's awful, and it's being directed at men. Yes, it can be directed at men by women or other men. But no matter how it's delivered, being "sissy" or any of those other things -- supposedly feminine and supposedly weak -- is wrong. This is why effeminate gay men have always been targeted more than traditionally masculine gay men. It is the supposed femininity that is wrongest of all. This is why not all women consider this sexism toward men because at the end of the day, when you really dig into the comments, it's less about men than it is about women. I'm somewhere in the middle with that. I think something can be sexist toward men while still obviously being rooted in patriarchy."A thousand times, this! I agree with all you said, but the above can't be stressed too much, I think.
I've just finished the book and was thinking of how to review it. Having read this I should just stop before I start! Great review, I probably give it more than 1 star but agree with so many things you have said.I just signed up to Goodreads to give your review a standing ovation....!
Your review is wonderful. However, I would like to point out that societies can change fairly quickly. Look up pictures of Afghanistan in the 1970's right before the Russian invasion. Women there dressed much like women of the Western world at the time. Only those who chose to for religious reasons wore traditional garb. Many women had careers. All of that changed in just a couple of years. This book was written during that time period. So might that have had some influence on her writing? Just a thought.
