Right Wing Fantasy? Give me a Break! - The Handmaid's Tale (1990) Discussion

[–] jdhcm2006 16 years ago

You're forgetting about the time that this book was written. When this book and screenplay was written, women were still oppressed (and they still are to a degree). When this was written there wasn't a woman running for president, or a black secretary of state. So think about the time period before you go criticizing it.

reply

[–] lem15 14 years ago

>> You're forgetting about the time that this book was written. When this book and screenplay was written, women were still oppressed (and they still are to a degree). When this was written there wasn't a woman running for president, or a black secretary of state. So think about the time period before you go criticizing it. <<

LOL...the book was published in 1985!!!

A woman ran for Vice-President of the United States in 1984.

Unbelievable....

reply

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] whitespirit26 12 years ago

Still oppressed, my as*. I find this book interesting because patriarchy HAS been stifling before, but it sure as hell isn't now and wasn't in the 80's.

reply

[–] lacqua86-1 16 years ago

I don't think this book is so much about current oppression as it is a reminder for why we continually have to fight for our rights so that this will never happen. Remember that although we're allowed to own property and keep jobs, there was a time when we really weren't. And it wasn't that long ago. I think the fact that you have your head in your ass has made you miss some of the story.

reply

[–] donald-garon 16 years ago

Is this really the best you folks can come up with? It amazes me how the lefties always veer off the path of reasoned debate when confronted with a dissenting view. Head up my ass? What kind of response is that? As for owning property, you're dead wrong - try not paying your taxes and see what happens, or own a house where someone wants to build a mall. No, property ownership is a myth as the government can come and take it from you if it wants. But what does any of this have to do with the premise of the movie or the points I raised? The fact of the matter is that a largely Christian West has progressively and throughout history been the trendsetter as far as women's rights are concerned. Pick any time in the last 500 years (just as an example) - would you say a woman, comparatively speaking, was more free in say, Saudi Arabia, or France? How about today?

reply

[–] adamchall 16 years ago

It's funny how you associate progress with 1st century superstitions as if Science and progress are anything but diametrically opposed in many critical points with religion. Christianity (and the other 2 monotheistic religions) were never a friend of women and have been used to suppress them for centuries including the suppression of the suffrage movement for women (perhaps your own grandmother could not vote, how is that for recent?). The lessons of the superiority of men over women are taught verbatim in American churches today as they are taught in other religions around the world. If they follow the Bible, it is displayed in many cases (as I am sure you know). Many of the points you make about freedoms, womens rights especially are protected in the U.S. as you truthfully say...But not because of right wing policies, in fact the opposite is true. A SECULAR constitution helps to protect them and many right wing associations with religious doctrines mixed in have the POTENTIAL of many males to believe that they are superior to women by divine right. The particular brand of Christianity that proposes a literal translation of the Bible is something the U.S. does have a certain number of the population enthusiastically promoting (minority but LOUD) for the last 100 years or so. They pick and choose (they still eat shrimp, which is an abomination according to Leviticus just like homosexuality). Hypocrisy is displayed in the movie too. This film is simply a dramatic portrayal of what fundamentalist Christianity could lead to in the right environment (sorry for the pun). It's like 1984 warning against Facism. It is a warning, about unquestioning faith in anything despite acts that would seem wrong without the faith. Liberals are wrong sometimes (many times) and the Right is wrong occasionally as well. Following something as if it is a team to be supported no matter what (your comments about "you liberals") is borderline fanatical and just as crazy as the most nutty Berkley rants.

reply

[–] jonothemono 16 years ago

1984 was not a arning against facism, it is a warning against totalitarianism whehther it be a fascist or comunist party in control.

I would like to point out that your are an atheist bigot which ignores positive actions and teachings of the monotheistic religions and and their controbution to the secular society we live in at the moment.

reply

[–] laikinasemail 14 years ago

monotheistic religions are by definition TOTALITARIAN religions.

reply

[–] stunells 16 years ago

France? What fantasy world are you spinning in?

reply

[–] KMPINTJ 16 years ago

Sorry, but the themes and "warnings" in Atwood's original book (forget the movie adaptation, which sucks) are still frightfully relevant today, maybe not so much with women's rights of ownership, but with women's BODIES.

Right-Wing Fundamentalists are getting louder and louder against a woman's right to choose. More and more of them are even speaking out against contraception, and more and more pharmacists are being allowed to refuse to prescribe "Plan B" or even birth control if they say it "violates their beliefs". All of these contribute to the ideal, shared by many Right-wing reliegions, that a women's #1 duty is to bear children, lots of them, and that NOTHING else in her life should trump that. That is the ultimate message of The Handmaid's Tale--that a Religion-based authoritarian state can decide that women's reproductive organs are the most important part of their bodies, and that it might be in the "interest of the state" that their wombs be controlled not by them but by the law (and men in power). This of course already happens in some theocracies in Africa and the Middle East, but some far-Right religions would like to see it happening here, too.

I'm a man, BTW.

reply

[–] zeta1983-1 15 years ago

Although religion has done many positive things it's done many more worse things. Almost universally the world's religious texts were written by men and expouse extreme forms of misogyny as central teachings. The belief that Eve and by extention all women were the root of the world's evils is a central tenet of the major monotheistic faiths. Western society has advanced largely in spite of religion than due to it. If the religious right gained total control over the country women could easily see most of their rights eliminated with a few acts of legislation. I'm a man and find the prospect terrifying, if I was a woman I'd be even more so.

reply

[–] JoeB131 15 years ago

of course, KM, you have the opposite aspect, which is Communist atheist China, which forces women to have abortions if they exceed their quota of one baby, or where girl babies are frequently pawned off on foreigners for adoption so they can try again for a boy. So pawning this off as "Man, religion is oppressive to women" is a bit much.

My problem with the story is that Atwood has to create this unreasonable background to get an unreasonable result. If 90% of women became infertile, then, yes, there would be enormas pressure on the remaining 10% to have as many babies as possible to make up the difference to continue the society. It's the simple law of supply and demand.

reply

[–] Dragonfly-lvr 15 years ago

Supply and demand! I think you just proved the point. It does not matter if there are only 10% of women who can bare children, it should still be their choice who they want to do it with and when. You just blew the whole idea of free will out the window. There will be pressure but never should a woman be forced!

reply

[–] aeternus_proeliator 14 years ago

The religious nut job comes in and immediately starts spouting nonsense about "dem commies!"

Newsflash: The red scare is over.

China doesn't force it's women to have abortions. It just doesn't provide any State sponsored benefits, including paid-for education, health care or welfare for the family for that child. Which tends to happen when you have a population of OVER a BILLION. You can have as many children as you want in China, the Government however will not support you. Which is kind of hilarious listening to Americans (don't pretend you are not), especially religious fanatic ones, b!tch about "damn commies" when they don't supply any help for even one child.

And in China, if the child ends up malnourished or harmed, it is removed.

Though I absolutely love that you end your post with an agreement with the society in a Handmaids Tale and why they did it.

You are truly and ignorant Christian nut job.

reply

[–] pogostiks 15 years ago

Donald-garon states: "a largely Christian West has progressively and throughout history been the trendsetter as far as women's rights are concerned."

You seem to be suggesting that the West has advanced women's rights BECAUSE it is Christian. In fact, it is quite the contrary.. it has done so DESPITE Christianity. Best example: the Vatican and the Catholic Church in general, which still tries to stop any possibility of abortion (after all, why should a woman have a right to her own body?). They also don't agree with women in the priesthood... or in any way that could give women any real SAY in Church matters.

donald-garon also seems to have a problem with the Left... well, if The Handmaid's Tale is a projection of certain Right-Wing attitudes into a distant future, I would say that it is only necessary to take a look at the PAST to know what the Right-Wing would have done if the Left hadn't been there to oppose them.

Blacks and the Right: all you have to do is look at which States and which groups voted against Barack Obama to get an idea of what is going on in America. The Right-Wing - especially the lower-class (read: less educated) Christian Right-Wing - specifically in the Southern states - did not vote for him. Especially the white males, but not only.
This is not surprising. Which people tried to stop the advance of Civil Rights for Blacks? I'll give you a hint. It wasn't the Left! Add to that the "religious" nuts who tried to use the Bible to explain their bigotry - "God made us black and white for a reason. We shouldn't mix, we shouldn't marry. It is all part of God's plan" blah blah blah.
Well, that was the Right-Wing Christians (often members of the KKK by the way)... again, NOT people on the left.

In other words, the main progress in America on a social level has been almost totally from the Left since the Sixties: the Civil Rights movement, the feminist movement, the gay movement, the sexual revolution - all of that came from the Left and has been fought tooth and nail by the Right.

Add the Christian Right to that and what you end up with is... Sarah Palin, who thinks that the world was created 6000 years ago, who doesn't want sex ed for kids in the schools (no wonder her own daughter ended up as a pregnant teen - when you don't give kids the right information they find themselves in situations that they would have preferred not to be in...)who dares to call herself "Christian" after running the nastiest, uncivil campaign imaginable...the hypocrisy is overwhelming.

The Handmaid's Tale is a wonderful story - and a not-that-unimaginable idea of what the future would be like if these people ever really got in charge. Hell, if the Right Wing TODAY had their way - blacks wouldn't be able to marry whites, women couldn't get abortions - not even after being raped (Sarah Palin again!) and gays would be so far back in the closet we wouldn't even know they existed. Many books and films would be banned... need I go on?

reply

[–] Lilith-Luna 15 years ago

The scariest thing about this theory, Pogostiks, is that you´re right. Some Christian fundamentalists together with unscrupulous adoption agencies manipulate young, pregnant teenage girls to become breeders for white, rich people, all in the name of faith (or money) by not respecting their right to choose and making them give their babies up for adoptions. Some girls stay with the couple and "their" baby and breastfeed it. I find it so disgusting because I was a pregnant teen and Christian fundamentalists tried to manipulate me.

This film really shows how life could be under Christian fundamentalist regime. It very nearly happened in America and it could still happen with a Christian right-wing government.

reply

[–] JoeB131 15 years ago

Lilith- "The scariest thing about this theory, Pogostiks, is that you´re right. Some Christian fundamentalists together with unscrupulous adoption agencies manipulate young, pregnant teenage girls to become breeders for white, rich people, all in the name of faith (or money) by not respecting their right to choose and making them give their babies up for adoptions. Some girls stay with the couple and "their" baby and breastfeed it. I find it so disgusting because I was a pregnant teen and Christian fundamentalists tried to manipulate me.

This film really shows how life could be under Christian fundamentalist regime. It very nearly happened in America and it could still happen with a Christian right-wing government."

Me- You mean that these mean old Fundementalists thought it might be better to give your child a good home instead of sucking it into a sink or having it raised in poverty by a teenage parent? Those bastards!!!!

I consider myself not terribly religious, (Brought up Catholic, haven't set foot in a Church since the 1980's) and yeah, some of these thumpers can be a little goofy. But honestly, I would rather live in a country run by someone with a moral code than someone without one.

reply

[–] ciprianl 10 years ago

A country where there is order and and proper respect for one's betters? Sieg Heil!

reply

[–] drgreenthumb1001 7 years ago

Its sad that people like you are brought up with no moral base.

How incredibly selfish you are

8 years later I hope your child found a loving home

reply

[–] johnykbr 15 years ago

I hate to be the one to shatter your little fantasy world but here are couple of things I need to point out. The south has a higher level of military involvement and therefore place a higher emphasis on their leaders also having that military history. And why necessarily does the fact that they didn't vote for Obama make them less educated?

Also, it was the Republican party, which was conservative in the 60s, that 100 percent approved the civil rights movement. The democrats/liberals did not. And what party in office currently has a member who was a former member of the KKK? Ohhh right...the liberal democrat party. Let's keep going, more women and minorities have been given positions of power by which party? Oh yes, those conservative republicans that are so evil.

Also Palin only wished that sex ed was not taught to kindergarten and 1st graders as was promoted by those on the left. Somehow the media took that and rolled with it so that she wanted no sex ed taught whatsoever.

Also the league of women voters which started the suffrage movement? That was a conservative religious group that got the law passed.

Learn your history before your start spouting party mantras. Religion sure isn't perfect which is why I am not religious but I recognize the good it has done as well and I'm not going to define conservatives and liberals as evil and good.

reply

[–] sliptdisk 15 years ago

Why don't you go down to the post office and salute a flag, johnykbr? I guess I should give you some credit, though. Most Republicans can't manage to refrain from name-calling as their first line of offense. And, you did manage to string complete sentences into actual paragraphs. By the way, it's the "South", not the "south" when you're referring to the region. Neither you, nor Fox News, nor the Republican party is going to fool me into voting for the party of the rich and powerful, by parading a bunch of attractive women across the screen.

Your points are somewhat valid, but the Republican party has changed alot sonce the good ol' days. And, you're right about religion. What right do we have to criticize organized pedophilia when they're handing out all of those Bibles to children who are starving to death?

Action is the enemy of thought.

reply

[–] mizbara 15 years ago

I just had to roll my eyes at the "most Republicans can't manage to refrain from name-calling as their first line of offense." The interesting thing is that the people who have personally treated me the worst in my life have all been liberal Democrats. An entire group of them. If I wanted to, I could make silly assumptions with no basis in reality that all Democrats must all be nasty people, just because a small group of people treated me badly. But I don't happen to believe that. All Democrats and Republicans have reasons for believing what they do; sometimes they are well-researched ideas, sometimes they are based on personal assumptions and beliefs about the world at large, and sometimes they are based on what a person was told by their family members, peers, friends, co-workers, and the media.

I find it interesting that the conservatives all say that the media is biased and that only Fox News tell the unbiased facts, while all the liberals say that only a few networks, including Fox News are biased, with the rest being unbiased. My theory is that the truth is somewhere in the middle.

About abortion: The bottom line about the abortion argument comes down to a choice between the two lives involved: the mother and the fetus. Pro-choicers believe that the mother's life is more important that the fetus's, and that because the fetus relies on the mother for life within the mother's body, it is the mother's right to choose whether or not to terminate the pregnancy. Pro-lifers believe the opposite. They believe the fetus has the right to live, no matter what the circumstances it was conceived under, nor what circumstances it might be born under. There is no reconciling these two opposing views, because they both claim moral superiority. One that a woman should have the right to do her body whatever she wants with it; and the other that a baby should have the right to live. One side pats itself on the back for giving women freedom over their own bodies, while the other pats itself on the back for believing that life is sacred. These are two very different and irreconcilable points of view.

Now, about this book: while I've never read it, I'd like to someday. But from what I understand, other Christian groups within this world (such as the Catholics and other Protestant off-shoots) all had a choice: to join the new group in charge or be destroyed. In the movie, a group of nuns were taken away by the same bus transporting Offred/Kate and the others. Then, we saw them hang themselves rather than betray their vows. I think this book was more speaking about the ultimate consequences of fundamentalism. I think fundamentalism of any kind is wrong. It does not allow room for free-thinking, questioning, or personal freedom. It dictates strict dogma to people, forcing them into boxes. The world-view is very narrow, and anyone who is different from this worldview is seen as the "enemy." From what I understand, Margaret Atwood did a good job of showing this. Other classic dystopic novels are "Brave New World" by Aldous Huxley, "1984" by George Orwell, and my personal favorite of these three "Farenheit 451" by Ray Bradbury.

I do not agree that religion has done far worse things than it has good. Religion by itself is not a bad thing. It's what people have done with it that's the problem. I don't understand people who believe all wars are caused by religion. Religion has been the sounding call for a lot of wars, but it is not the reason that they happened. I think people who believe that without religion, we wouldn't have war are just fooling themselves. I think there will always be war, becaus there will always be leaders who will take their people to war, for whatever reasons they think they can sell to the people to get them to follow. But that's just my opinion.

"When you lie down with dogs, you come up with fleas."

reply

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] JoeB131 14 years ago

Miz,

I have read the book. It is actually pretty awful. The Movie version is one of the few examples I can cite where the movie was better than the book.

Atwood's major concern was that in the 1980's feminists were alligning themselves with Christian fundementalists in the war on pornography, and thereby making a Faustian bargain with the enemy. In reality, Feminism got hijacked by radical Lesbians and the Abortion industry and became completely irrelevent to most women, to the point where my 20-something old niece says she 'hates' feminists.

The underlying problem is that you had a future were fertility was threatened and they treated fertile women like a resource. Yes, pretty radical, but extreme times call for extreme measures. A society, like an organism, reacts when threatened...

reply

[–] hmelanso 12 years ago

It's much more likely that you're 20 year old niece says she "hates feminists" because she has no idea what women have had to go through, and are still going through to gain the freedoms that she takes for granted. As well as the fact that the media has led her to believe that any woman who considers herself a feminist is a cranky, ugly, butch woman whom no man would want. And of course, the most important thing for a woman is to be hot, sexy, and desired by men.

reply

[–] dolores_medina 11 years ago

I am a Christian. I am also a Liberal. And I agree with a lot that you are saying.

While I will not debate Roe v Wade here, or whether a fetus has rights, ( these could take forever), all I can say is that the core argument is not a scientific one..( when life begins) but a religious one. ( does the fetus have a soul, and does it attain it, at conception or at birth?).

As such, we find everyone has their own beliefs.

The way I see it, we live in a country where no religion is imposed on anyone else. The core belief used by those that say they are pro-life is a religious one. Unfortunately, to deny a woman the right to choose something which ultimately should be decided by 3 individuals, ( herself, her doctor, and her God, if she has a relationship with said God.), is to impose a religious belief on a person that is guaranteed the freedom to practice any religion they wish, or no religion, and the right to not have any religion imposed on them by the state.

Everyone has a right to follow any religious belief they wish. But our first amendment not only protects our right to hold any religious belief we wish, or to hold no religious belief. It also protects us from having any religious belief imposed on us by others.

while both side claim religious superiority, the issue is.. those that are pro-life are trying to impose those beliefs on everyone, by forcing women, to bear children against their will, out of some form of belief that only pro-life views are moral.

Pro-choice believers On the other hand are not seeking to impose abortions On anyone. We simply wish to allow each woman, to make that decision for herself.

reply

[–] Oblivion14 11 years ago

That's hilarious. Johnykbr, it's YOU who needs to learn your history.

You are correct in that the Republicans were the abolitionists. In fact, Republican membership was originally restricted mostly to the Yankee north. They were the original liberals. The Democrats on the other hand, also started out in the north, as a breakaway splinter group of the Republicans. By changing their platforms, they (the Democrats) managed to secure the votes of the South after the Civil War. The South were disgruntled by Republican corruption during the carpetbagging years and still angry at the abolition of slavery. They voted so consistently for the Democrats that they became known in American politics as the "SOLID SOUTH" (hint: google it).

During the period when the southern states supported them wholeheartedly, Democrats were the conservatives. They had KKK and openly white supremacist leaders. They strongly opposed desegregation and intimidated blacks into voting Democrat or not letting them vote at all through the use of roving mobs during election years. And yes, they were the party of the Bible Belt and the ones most vocal against women suffrage.

But, shortly after World War 2, Truman (Democrat), started to support the beginnings of the Civil Rights Movement. Perhaps it was due to seeing just how utterly inhuman Hitler's fully segregated society had become. This, of course, threatened the southern states. They still voted Democrat for a a couple more decades but were already becoming more and more disgruntled with the shift in their party's stances on racial integration.

Enter, Nixon (Republican) during the 1970s. Seeing how disenchanted the South have become (remember this was a volatile time when MLK and Kennedy were both on the media spotlight), he devised a plan to secure their votes. He led the ailing Republican party into shifting to more conservative platforms, while Democrats in contrast were beginning to adopt more progressive ones. Nixon called this tactic, the "SOUTHERN STRATEGY" (hint: google it). And it was a glorious success. The South quickly switched allegiance, from Democrat to Republican. Nixon and the Republicans won landslide victories.

This is the modern situation. Republicans - formerly liberals, became conservatives in the 1970s. Democrats - formerly conservatives, became liberals in the 1950s. If you only based your assumptions on American politics on party platforms, you would get a very wrong impression, as you already did above.

But, if you actually take a look at the states that voted them, you'll get a better idea of what actually happened. The South have always been the conservative states. The party affiliations may change, but the racists, the sexists, the fundies, and the homophobes have always been right where they are. They neither changed their minds, nor moved away.

reply

[–] JoeB131 15 years ago

Pogo- First, I was wondering when Abortion became the ultimate expression of feminism. Many early pioneers in women's rights, such as Susan B. Anthony, opposed legal abortion. Planned Parenthood was founded by a racist Nazi named Margaret Sanger, who wanted "inferior" people limited in their population growth. Somewhere along the line, Abortion became the sacrement of feminism, that you cannot truly be "free" unless you can suck your baby into a sink.

As far as your diatribe about who didn't vote for Obama, I think if four years, we'll all be sorry we did. I mean, the guy isn't in office yet and he's knee deep in the Blago scandal. I should also point out that (since you brought up Gays) Proposition 8 won in California because 70% of African Americans supported it.

I should point out that the SAME states that voted for Mccain were the same states that voted for Bush both times, Bush's Dad both times, Bob Dole, and of Course, the great one, Ronald Reagan. So for you to say that because they didn't embrace the Obamessiah they must be racist, is just disingenuous. I didn't vote against Obama because he was black (or half black, or whatever) I voted against him because he has no real experience, embraces goofy socialist ideas and comes from a political machine which is as corrupt as any third world dictatorship.

Incidently, the vast majority of people in this country believe the world was created by God. Polls show that about 50% believe in the Bible version and another 35% believe that God had a hand in guiding evolution.

reply

[–] BPerci 15 years ago

Wow...you listen to a LOT of talk radio, don't you.

Every straw-man, specious argument, red herring, logical fallacy and mischaracterization trotted out by moonbat blowhards on right-wing hateradio is in your post somewhere, I think.

"Abortion is the sacrament of feminism..."

"african-americans caused Prop 8's defeat"

"Obama is involved in the Blago scandal"

"socialist"

"obamessiah"

"the majority of Americans believe the world was created by god, therefore it must be true..."

You badly need to learn some critical thinking skills.

The first step to cure this is turn off these ignorant, partisan, sanctimonious gasbags and learn to think for yourself. You may be surprised how different the world seems, and how you see your place in it, once your head is extracted from your ass. Not listening to the liars and propagandists who quietly brainwash you daily will make you a better person and a better citizen.

Certainly one with more empathy.

reply

[–] JoeB131 14 years ago

"Wow...you listen to a LOT of talk radio, don't you."

Well, I did, but I'm probably a lot more liberal than you think.

None of the statements I made were untrue, they are matters of opinion...

But obviously, a weak arguer, you attribute to me things I didn't say.

"the majority of Americans believe the world was created by god, therefore it must be true..."

Well, I didn't say that. I don't know how the world was created, and neither do you. There are theories. Probably ones that will be laughed at in 100 years.

Now, it's been a year and a half since I originally posted, but now we know, Obama WAS DEEPLY involved in all things Blago. That isn't even a matter of dispute. We now know that Obama's people were trying to get Blago to appoint Valerie Jarret to the position, and Blago was out for himself, largely because he resented the fact that this "community organizer" skipped up to the Presidency while he was doing it the hard way by paying his dues...

And I don't think Obama's a bad guy. Just a horrible president who will only serve one term.

reply

[–] TheWanderingFish 14 years ago

(What does "right wing" mean anyway, other than "I don't like it?" I digress....)

It amazes me how the lefties always veer off the path of reasoned debate when confronted with a dissenting view.

What does "leftie" mean anyway, other than "I don't like it?"

You can get anything you want at Alice's Restaurant

reply

[–] Nova_UB313 14 years ago

What does "leftie" mean anyway, other than "I don't like it?"

Good observation, I like this.

More science, less fiction.

Karlrobert Kreiten--http://tinyurl.com/n938vj

reply

[–] lavenderspirit2005 12 years ago

The fact of the matter is that a largely Christian West has progressively and throughout history been the trendsetter as far as women's rights are concerned. Pick any time in the last 500 years (just as an example) - would you say a woman, comparatively speaking, was more free in say, Saudi Arabia, or France? How about today?

In Margaret Atwood's book, it is not really Christianity itself, or a belief in God, that suppresses the female population, deprives them of their rights, and reduces them to breeding stock--it is a hateful, untruthful, self-serving and misogynistic interpretation of it devised by the ruling powers to keep women in perpetual socio-political subservience.

And as for that, it is alive and well in Western society. Look up the FLDS cult and the autobiography of a woman called Elissa Wall.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamentalist_Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_ Latter-Day_Saints

Stolen Innocence

http://books.google.com/books?id=pO7GhA-xLLEC&printsec=frontcover&; amp; amp;dq=elissa+wall&hl=en&src=bmrr&sa=X&ei=l5XYT-q9MoKW 8gSK69HyAw&ved=0CDQQ6AEwAA

This religious cult, hiding behind a false interpretation of the Bible, has been in the practice of forcing women to marry men they barely know and do not love, at insanely young ages, [placement marriage http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamentalist_Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_ Latter-Day_Saints#Plural_marriage_and_placement_marriage] has reduced their personhoods to being little more than breeding stock (as in Atwood's book), effectively has stripped away basic rights and freedoms that the typical American woman takes for granted, and keeps them in a world of quiet subjugation.

These aren't people on the other side of the world--they're American men right here on our soil.

Even outside of cults such as this, there are self-professed "Christian" men who believe that women are inferior and should take a position "below" men. I've encountered them, myself. They take belief in a loving God, something I and many others hold, and attempt to twist it around in a knot.

These men use the Bible and faith for their own selfish purposes, like the men in The Handmaid's Tale and these were the people Atwood was thinking of when she wrote the novel.

If there are a significant number of men who believe in these "principles" NOW, imagine if they held positions of power and took the opportunity to enforce these beliefs on others, in case of catastrophic disaster. This is the situation Atwood envisioned for the novel.

*******************************************************************************
My dream cast for the remake of "It"!
http://www.imdb.com/list/idQ7VpdEs6E/

My Twitter
https://twitter.com/#!/MyVintageSoul

reply

[–] jnatch 15 years ago

what in god's name are you rambling about? Duvalls character clearly says we had to get rid of the blacks, jews, people on welfare and put women in their place because it is ruining the country. Did you go to the bathroom and forget to pause the dvd?

reply

[–] apocolypsejunkie 15 years ago

I'm suprised no one has commented on the theme of enviromental catastrophe. That was the catalyst for the whole story. When food,clean water, fuel and other resources become scarce things get.....not nice. Scapegoats must be found. Sacrifices must be made. It just depends on who grabs the power first as to who gets sent to a colony, the bottom of the ocean (which will be in Kansas at the rate we're going) or on a breeding farm.

I saw an interview with Margaret Atwood about this novel and she made that point very clear. And the scary thing about her novels (Oryx and Crake, anyone?) she bases it all on the headlines in the news right now.
If my answers frighten you then you should cease asking scary questions.

reply

[–] zeta1983-1 15 years ago

"Incidently, the vast majority of people in this country believe the world was created by God. Polls show that about 50% believe in the Bible version and another 35% believe that God had a hand in guiding evolution."

Truth is not statistical. Centuries ago nearly 100% of people believed the Earth was flat and the sun revolved around it. Perhaps it sounds undemocratic but looking at history the majority opinion is more often wrong. It's no wonder our country is falling far behind the rest of the world in science. On a related topic about the environment I once read a good website that showed links between matriarchy, religion and human rights as being linked to environmental changes. I know I saved it somewhere, I'll have to look for it.

reply

[–] emncaity 15 years ago

Does the OP actually not know what "right wing" is, or where the term originated? If not, it seems odd to veer into political commentary. If so, it seems odd to pretend not to know, as if this were just another term invented by those all-conspiring "lefties."

Beyond that, it's actually pathetic to see yet another deluded person railing against "lefties," after the past eight years of Bush and the past three decades of Reaganomics have left us completely belly-up in a ditch. Sure, let's listen to more of what these people have to say. More of their advice on foreign policy. More of their recommendations about how to handle the economy. You bet. Please, give it out. What else do you have for us?

reply

[–] htraudt 15 years ago

It is not the Reagonomics that has put us belly up. It is the "lefties" that have been in power in the past 10 years that have ignored all common sense and the economy and have been funneling money in the wrong places. While we might have had a right wing president, the "lefties" have had control of congress for a long time. Why didn't they do something about everything before. The president does not make all the decisions. Our government is set up so that we have equal power amongst the different branches so we cannot put all of the blame on any president.

reply

[–] emncaity 15 years ago

Wow. That is truly delusional. But then, it's becoming more and more necessary to believe in all these myths and fictions to stay a Reagan-Bush Republican.

Since Reagan took office--or more accurately, I guess, since his first Supreme Court nominee--Republicans have had control of two to three branches of the federal government for essentially the entire past three decades. And if you call Democrats in Congress "lefties"--the ones who went along with deregulation, the ones who signed off on Reaganomics, who supported the Iraq war, etc.--you really _are_ delusional. The run-of-the-mill Democrat in the U.S. would be considered center right to solid right, some of them even far right, in any other nation in the world. For three decades, we've been governed partially to fully by people who assent to the "government is evil" proposition, and then they get into office and prove it. It'd be like having a church pastored and staffed by a group of atheists. Or maybe a Boy Scout troop led by a group of child haters and molesters. If you don't even believe in the concept of the thing, of course you're going to prove how "inept and inefficient" it can be. Or whatever.

As for the "equal power" thing, you are aware that we just went through eight years of a presidency--six of those with a Republican Congress--that did everything it could to formulate itself as a unitary executive, with essentially the powers of kingship?

Talk about revisionist history. Man. It really is hard to believe there are people who believe this garbage.

reply

[–] mmw_rocket 15 years ago

Thank you!!!

reply

[–] narnia4 15 years ago

I don't really get the who anti-right-wing thing in the book. Conservatives today would be the last people to make "unbabies" disappear.

I'm sorry, weren't the Salem witchcraft trials in the 17th century?

The "no sex for pleasure" thing is so Puritan. No real, rational Christian has believed that for centuries. Please.

Why are so many feminists against housewives? Seriously, there's nothing wrong with staying home and taking care of your kid. I don't get it. Also, no rational Christian has said it's wrong for women to work for herself in the past 50 years.

Christianity is not anti-feminine. Jesus is the one in the New Testament who told Mary to stop preparing the meal and come and chat with him, protected the prostitute from stoning, etc. etc. In Judges Deborah was one of the judges of Israel. Whether you think these stories are fairy tales or not is not the point, the point is that the religion of Christianity is not anti-feminist, and very few rational Christians are anti-feminist.

Sorry, theocracy is not going to happen in free countries. I believe that the world is much more secular than many Christians and non-Christians believe. Even Christians don't want a theocracy. Bush used religion to get votes, that's all, and frankly, I don't consider him a conservative at all.

This book was outdated when it first came out. It should have been written in the 17th century if it wanted to address some of these "issues". I have a feeling it was written just so that extreme liberals and extreme feminists could have someone to hate.

Finally, I would like to mention that the way that some Islamist countries treat their women is appalling, but those countries aren't free in the first place, and they aren't getting the book. It's poorly written and irrelevant.

reply

[–] robb6788 14 years ago

The idea of fear of a group of people who are crazy getting into power after some cataclysmic disaster is the only idea still relevant from this book and or movie. The rest of it you cant relate to anything happening today because this is plain and simple not how the United States exists. Its still the U.S. not Gilead. People can express any idea they want in this country and last time I check they are not being executed in public for it. Nor did anyone dump all the jews into the sea. Or send the blacks all to south africa. Its a very interesting story but its not a prophecy of things to come.

reply

[–] bl333 13 years ago

Haha... that post and this thread is starting to look pretty silly now isn't it?

Republicans are trying to dive into the end zone with all their legislation aimed women's reproductive rights, legislation that softens language on rape, fighting legislation that protects women from rape.

You can never believe their PR... They say what they need to to avoid scaring off the moderates, but they're still the same as they ever were. Eager to clamp down control on people's lives while letting giant corporations run wild.

Control, money, and Jesus. Those are Republicans' priorities... in order. And Jesus is only there as a means of control.

reply

[–] hmelanso 12 years ago

"Christianity is not anti-feminine."

Talk about delusional.

reply

[–] lavenderspirit2005 12 years ago

"Christianity is not anti-feminine."

Talk about delusional.

Well, no...not actually "delusional".

I am a feminist and women's rights advocate and I have some belief in God (but not in organized religion).

There are harmful interpretations of religious faith used by a great many individuals throughout history for socio-political gain but it doesn't invalidate religious faith.

If I remember Bible stories correctly, there were examples of strong women who represented themselves equally, like the prophet Deborah and Queen Esther who saved her people from genocide at the hands of anti-Semitic Haman.

There is an entire field of study devoted to women and their historical position within religion and their representation.

Then there were famous women like warrior, Joan of Arc, who most certainly did not take a subservient position and is a Catholic saint>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joan_of_Arc

Also, check out books like Bad Girls Of The Bible by Liz Curtis Higgs
http://www.amazon.com/Girls-Bible-What-Learn-Them/dp/1578561256

It's best not to judge an entire group, or in this case, set of spiritual beliefs, by the hypocritical actions of some.

********************************************************************************

My dream cast for the remake of "It"!
http://www.imdb.com/list/idQ7VpdEs6E/

My Twitter
https://twitter.com/#!/MyVintageSoul

reply

[–] Madhaxman 11 years ago

Finally, I would like to mention that the way that some Islamist countries treat their women is appalling, but those countries aren't free in the first place, and they aren't getting the book. It's poorly written and irrelevant.

Except, that was, you know, the whole point of the book. To transform modern America into a theocracy in order to get us empathize with the suffering of the woman in the past and woman in modern theocracies.

And considering this book predated the Taliban rise to power, it was the exact opposite of 'outdated and irrelevant'

Its just like Orwell in 1984, who transformed England into Stalin ruled Russia.

reply

[–] gsspecialist 13 years ago

Have to say, this book is coming true in 2011. The insanity of the Teabaggrs, birthers, religious fanatics who mistakenly claim America a "Xtian" nation, the hysteria against Mexicans, Muslims, the poor. And now the stripping of financial programs which benefit the poor and Americans impoverished by the loss of jobs. We have never been closer to a religious Oligarchy. It's as though the crazed Conservobots have never read Matthew 25.

reply

[–] florin_andrei 12 years ago

I'm pretty sure Santorum, if given unlimited power, would love to change USA into the Republic of Gilead.

--
Florin Andrei
http://florin.myip.org/

reply

[–] goodnightmoon 12 years ago

Are you familiar with Rick Santorum?
Also, do yourself a favor and read "American Fascists" by Chris Hedges, The Family & C Street by Jeff Sharlet.
In 2012, this scenario is not so far-fetched.

reply