Back when I had my other blog up and running - which I started to be private! Private from my family! Oh how that backfired, because some people can't stay out of other people's business! (I'm not going to stop mentioning that. Ever. Especially since said individuals still lurk on this blog and I want them to know that I won't be forgiving them for that. Ever.) - I joined a book club, as hosted by the amazing leader Mel. Mel is like the Statue of Liberty for the infertile masses. She lifts her lamp beside the golden stirrups.

The book club is great - we read a book a month or so, and then ask each other questions. I'm still a part of it, and this month we read The Handmaid's Tale. It took me a damn long time to read this one, not because I didn't like it but because time is something I don't have a lot of. I used to read 2-3 books a week, now one book takes me a while to finish. I've even got two book on the go right now, but that's because one of the books (from the lovely Lisa) is fraught for me, and not possible to read in one go. I don't dick around with books anymore either - if I don't like it, I stop reading it. No more of making myself finish them. I just stopped reading the new Alice Sebold, because I hated it. Hated hated. And I LOVED The Lovely Bones. I'm hoping she's not like Helen Fielding, for whom I loved the first Bridget Jones book and hated absolutely everything else Fielding wrote.

Now, I love Margaret Atwood but for some reason had never read this book - once I started reading it I didn't want to put it down (but, you know, with babies and all putting the book down was pretty much compulsory). The book is so engaging - set in a future-ish society run by a hardcore Christian militant society that took over America after overthrowing the government and started a new country, called Gilead, it's about one woman's struggle in the new society. The new environment is patriarchal and hierchical, whereby it's run by people called Commanders who have docile, "whatever you say dear" Wives that have zero say in anything, most of whom are barren (apparently due to chemical over-exposure and nuclear accidents). Enter the Handmaids, who wear red and are for reproductive purposes only. They live only to try to get impregnated by the Commanders (in a bizarre ritual whereby the fully dressed Handmaids lie between the Wives' legs while the Commanders root away, all in an attempt to be "one family". Bizarre.

In this society, women are truly abused. Rape is something that is the woman's fault. Women cannot own property or have a say. No one is allowed to read, as that gives too much power - even stores no longer have signs on the outside of them. The Handmaids get placed with Commanders who need/want children. The Handmaids' real names have been taken away, they have no names except the name of the Commander's home they take. If they do give birth, the babies are taken away from them, given to the Wives, and the Handmaid is moved to another home to keep trying to have more babies.

This Handmaid, Offred (Of - Fred, who is the Commander in whose home she lives) is the narrator of the story. She remembers life before the new government. She was married and had a daughter, but as her husband was married to someone else when she embarked on an affair, she gets pressed into Handmaid duty. Her child is taken away from her and placed with a Commander and Wife. Her husband, she fears, is dead. She has to try to have a baby with this Commander, as reproduction above all else is the crux of their society.

So - my questions:

In the beginning of the book, the Aunts discuss two facets of freedom: "freedom from" and "freedom to". While the old government's laws provided both types of freedom, the new government limited women's freedom to "freedom from". Do you think that "freedom from" is truly a freedom, or is it just the government's way of subtly taking away rights?

"Freedom from" is the perfect kind of argument. "Why can't you pick up your underwear off the bedroom floor?" He of course can reply :"I am excercising my freedom from being forced to touch my grundies." It has endless possibilities of being the ultimate rebutall. "Freedom from" is the answer to all of our argument needs.

"Freedom from" is a freedom, yes. In modern society we have freedom from having our phones tapped or our homes searched without a warrant. Oh no, wait. That right was revoked. Lemme' see...we have the freedom from being held in jail without hearing what the charges are or without a trial or for an undue amount of time. Oh, crap, no, that right is gone, now, too. Those pesky Amendments, it's about time something was done about those.

Subtly taking away rights? Yes. And isn't that the thin end of the wedge?

One of the things that struck me about the book was how the women managed to find ways to express themselves and be creative, even though so much was denied them & their roles were very rigidly defined. For example, Offred improvises pats of butter in lieu of hand cream. In particular, I was struck by Serena Joy, the Commander's Wife -- she (like me) cannot create life (a baby) -- she no longer has a television career as an outlet -- so she knits. Besides your blog, do you have a creative outlet that helps you cope with your infertility and other life stressors?

Just my blog, actually, which is why I am so furious that my privacy was invaded by people who knew not to invade. My blog(s) is/were the one place I could go to shout it out. So now I just have this site, I censor myself a bit, and I go on.

And there's always alcohol.

Sweet, loving alcohol.

One thing that continually struck me as I was reading was exactly how easily and smoothly the Giliadean government robbed women of their economic power and, ultimately, any semblance of freedom. All it took was a few keystrokes and (implied) threats to their employers to throw women back into chattel status. I kept wondering, where was the opposition? And what about the men? Offred mentions that even her partner was initially unbothered by what was happening to her. One gets the impression that a well of misogyny lingered below the surface of Offred's society, waiting for an excuse to be released. Do you think this aspect of the novel rang true? How might the citizens in Offred's culture have fought against the Gileadians' plans? Or was the takeover inevitable once it began?

Not to be bra burning about this, but aren't all societies misogynistic? Incuding ours today?

I thought about this question a great deal, and I assure you I'm not here to man bash, but I truly think that the men in this book (and were this to happen in real life I think the same is true) were just relieved that their rights weren't taken. I don't think that the men in the world want women's rights removed (OK some do, but let's not include the general nutcases and assholes, yes?) but if faced with the choice of "Her Rights Taken" versus "My/All Rights Taken" they would breathe a sigh of relief knowing that it was just Her Rights Taken. In the book I got the sense that the men were just so pleased to have escaped the purge, they didn't think twice about fighting for the woman's rights. The book mentioned there were a few small uprisings, but for the most part this was how the cookie crumbled.

You don't have to look too far to see men that still honestly believe the woman is best placed at home as the child rearer and the man is the one who works. I know a few such men myself (*cough*brother-in-law*cough*). How much of a stretch is it to imagine many men breathing a sigh of relief that we have to stop our irritating bitching about fair pay, that we have to throw out our girlie magazines with those exasperating quizzes like "Is He Still Smoking In Bed? Find Out Now!", or that we can no longer nag and moan and question their judgement, we just have to do what they say? And that's not even including the idea that the menage a trois becomes a government sanctioned activity and alcohol is just for the boys, the girls can sneak the cooking sherry. Please - I truly that's the dream of many (not all, just many) men.

I think men find the lack of control more terrifyign than women, on a whole. For every man who is abusive or terrifying, it's due to control. Men need/want/crave control (I'm not having a go at men, here, I think it's environmentally programmed into men this way - men historically must provide for families, ergo men must have control for themselves.) Women haven't been in control of a whole lot for nearly all of history. Men have always been the caveman/wage earner/household runner. The idea of losing that control for women, while horrifying and scary, also generally leads us to think something along the lines of "Gee this is familiar. No say, no rights, no recourse. Guess I just get to say if we have brown gravy or white gravy with dinner. Deja vu, anyone?" Whereas for men being 100% subservient, while the stuff of female porn audiences, is a new concept. So no - not surprising that in the book the men looked the other way while women became chattel. I think that's about how it would roll should something like that happen in reality, too.

Pesky amendments again.

It was at one time hard for me to put myself in the Wife's shoes, but having dealt with infertility on a more personal sense, I find that I can sympathize with her and her role in this society. If you had to be in this society, how could you cope with your role in it? Would you be a Wife or a Handmaid? Could you sympathize with your counterpart?

As I'm infertile too, I couldn't be a Handmaid. As I'm with Angus as a divorcee and alleged homewrecker, that whole Wife bit is out, too. I'd be like Offred's friend Moira. I'd be working in the illicit whorehouse.

Hop along to another stop on this blog tour by visiting the main list at http://stirrup-queens.blogspot.com/. You can also sign up for the next book on this online book club: The Jane Austen Book Club by Karen Fowler (with author participation!)

-H.

Posted by: Everydaystranger at 12:03 PM | Comments (22) | Add Comment
Post contains 1847 words, total size 11 kb.

1 I remember reading that book, and the movie was partially filmed here in Raleigh, at was was then St. Mary's College. It was unsettling, and that thin wedge bothers me.

Posted by: kenju at December 09, 2007 03:43 PM (TiGru)

2 I found that book extremely depressing. Like Orwell's "1984" and "Brave New World", "Fahrenheit 451" etc., good books all, but disturbing. Whenever I read a book about the government taking total control of individuals' lives, it just scares the crap out of me. Especially since the messages in these books seems to be actually coming true on certain levels today. For decades, ever since my teens, I was so sure we were heading in a direction of more freedom and more enlightenment; not just our society/culture but eventually *all* societies/cultures/governments and yet, these past few years it seems everyone, including us, are gradually starting to go backwards. Giving away freedoms we take for granted, letting our lives become more and more controlled and limited. I don't care for reading books like these anymore. I get it, I understand their point and it scares me. It no longer seems to be science fiction or "futuristic" but now. As for all societies being somewhat misogynistic, I suppose you could say that but you could also say all societies are misandrist as well. Both genders tend to harbor quite a bit of hostility towards the other for various reasons. I suppose it depends on which part of society you query; the male or female side.

Posted by: The other Amber at December 09, 2007 05:41 PM (zQE5D)

3 We read this book in Women's Studies 101 my first year of college. I wasn't a huge fan of the class, but this book has stayed with me for the last five years. It's such a powerful novel. I really enjoyed your q & a. Makes me need to read the book again!

Posted by: Julia at December 09, 2007 07:27 PM (so0CP)

4 My blog started off as being private from family also. Now I don't have any place to complain about my husbands side. My side is a bunch of country hicks that don't even have computers so I am safe there.

Posted by: Lukie at December 09, 2007 09:32 PM (WXIEq)

5 I think you'll find this book imprinted on your psyche for a long time. I read it in high school, and saw the movie somewhat later when it came out. As usual, a lot of the nuances you get in the book are missed in the movie, but the movie wasn't bad. I actually like a lot of Margaret Atwood's writing - it's kind of sandpaper for your brain - it chafes enough that it keeps you thinking about it long after you finish the story. Her short story "Rape Fantasies" stuck in my head for a long time too.

Posted by: Tracy at December 10, 2007 05:22 AM (zv3bS)

6 Interesting answers, especially the last one.

Posted by: DDrodrDDDG at December 10, 2007 07:40 AM (ZT512)

7 Interesting answers, especially the last one

Posted by: Drowned Girl at December 10, 2007 07:41 AM (ZT512)

8 I've started to comment 3 or 4 times now, but when I do i get overwhelmed by all I want to say. So let me keep it simple and say that I read the book as well, and I saw the movie. For both mediums one of my primary measurements of it's quality is how long it stayed with me. If I am still thinking about it days later then it was good.

Posted by: ~Easy at December 10, 2007 12:01 PM (WdRDV)

9 Thanks for your interesting analysis. I think you are right that men were feeling simply relieved not have been denied their rights as well, they failed to comprehend the bigger picture. If you look at history, you can see a similar situation arising in Nazi Germany, where the average German citizen was able to accept the loss of rights of others, perhaps because they do were in the "just glad it's not me phase." The ugly elements of human society lurk not far beneath the surface. While I can see some elements of Gilead coming true, in some ways it seems more allagorical to me because there was just no one in that society who had a good time of it. While the men may have been in charge, they didn't seem to be enjoying themselves too much either.

Posted by: Samantha at December 10, 2007 01:42 PM (mIlZw)

10 Awesome answers, and good thought to summarize the book. Thankfully I don't live with any men of the type you described, but yeah, I see them around. You describe what happened in the book as men looking the other way. I'm sure that's (fictionally) true in some cases - but I was wondering who set up the restrictions then? Men like "Offred's" Commander, who was also corrupt. But perhaps the ending was a sort of message - not even he could control the "Eye."

Posted by: beruriah at December 10, 2007 01:59 PM (Ph7zl)

11 Punishing women for being raped. Allowing/encouraging adultery. Doesn't sound like Christianity to me. Of course I'm biased in that area. How does the book end? Could you give a spoiler alert and give those of us who haven't read it the Reader's Digest version? Do people revolt? Do they adapt? Ben Franklin said, "Those who trade freedom for security deserve neither." I think those who trade freedom for security will end up with neither as they did in Nazi Germany and Cold War Soviet Union. Speaking from a Christian perspective: if a man doesn't stand up for his wife's rights (and, as a result, women's rights), he's not a real man.

Posted by: Solomon at December 10, 2007 02:48 PM (x+GoF)

12 Privacy...sometimes we don't even notice it until it's gone. Sorry about your snoopy family members. I loved your first answer. I hadn't thought of bein Moira. I'm afraid I might turn out more like Janine -- a sad and broken thing without form.

Posted by: Lori at December 10, 2007 03:18 PM (7SeYM)

13 I really liked your answers to question 3.

Posted by: Rachael at December 10, 2007 05:13 PM (krIPm)

14 I liked your take on the men feeling relieved, that they were not the target of the rights infringements. I suppose that's only a natural, human response when something dreadful happens to someone else. Even with this in mind, though, I was Furious at Luke for being so complacent. I don't think it's an exaggeration to say that even progressive men sometimes feel threatened by modern, liberated women. It's the reason that even the best of men usually cringe at the prospect of their wife making more money than they do. If you pinned them to the wall about it, they would probably have a tough time explaining why it bothers them. But, it bothers them all the same.

Posted by: deanna at December 10, 2007 05:27 PM (PEn1U)

15 I read the book in school, and still am haunted by it. I really liked the book, it makes you think, and it's well written, in my opinion. However the world which it describes frightens me, especially when you consider some Eastern cultures, and while they may not be as outwardly misogynisitc, are very much so behind closed doors. It's not a culture I would enjoy, nor one I would survive. On a side note: Solomon, I am definately giving you kudos for your response :-)

Posted by: Angela at December 10, 2007 06:17 PM (DGWM7)

16 I agree with your answer for #1 - and the slow disappeaarance of rights. Enjoyed reading your comments.

Posted by: lisa at December 10, 2007 07:19 PM (puinV)

17 Three cheers for the illicit whorehouse and its inhabitants. Of course, after four years, you're sent to the colonies regardless. Sigh. The life of a Jezebel.

Posted by: Mel at December 10, 2007 08:02 PM (Qpll4)

18 Too be too simplistic about it, a quick glance at any "Girls Gone Wild" commercial ought to convince you on the misogyny thing. Infuriating. But I agree with The Other Amber - both sexes seem to have a bash at the other with regularity. It's the INTENT that is key. In fact, I'd hazard to guess that with human beings, if you put more than three in one room, two will gang up on the other one for whatever makes them different. Now you know why in a town full of old shut-ins I'm referred to as The Recluse. *sigh* Very thoughtful take on a very interesting read. I also liked the "brain sandpaper" comment. It's too true.

Posted by: Margi at December 10, 2007 09:20 PM (KF0g8)

19 I liked reading your take on it. I agree with you, I would be Moira.

Posted by: Erica at December 11, 2007 12:46 AM (D6tE/)

20 Solomon— you don't actually see the end of Gilead, though there is a postscript of sorts set a century or two later at an anthropologists' convention, where they are discussing the record of Offred, its reliability (given events in the novel, it is likely to be recorded after her escape) and its implications. I actually found this part to be rather chilling because the anthropologists were joking about how since Gilead was another culture, everything they did was okay (cultural relativism at its most extreme.) I've seen a political analysis of the novel that looked at Gilead and its profiled citizens and the upshot of the analysis is that the society was highly unstable* and probably couldn't have survived for more than a decade or two— but then, look at the Soviet Union. That thing should have crumbled long before it actually did. *There were continual wars over the border (expansion being a common solution to unrest) and its highest citizens obviously believed nothing in the ideals of Gilead. Though the latter is not always a problem, they were blatantly disregarding their own precepts in a way that was likely to bring them to the attention of their own internal police forces. Think of what happened to the initiators of the French Revolution.

Posted by: B. Durbin at December 11, 2007 02:06 AM (tie24)

21 About freedoms from - you have to be careful, don't you? Anything can be phrased as such. (Same can be said as freedom to.) I guess there's often a tradeoff between the two (freedom to swing your fist vs freedom from getting punched in the nose). Emphasing the dubious side of the equation is the ultimate civil rights spin-job. Bea

Posted by: Bea at December 11, 2007 05:44 AM (YQWiY)

22 Great answers!!

Posted by: loribeth at December 11, 2007 11:49 PM (kX7Z7)

Hide Comments | Add Comment