Today I’m participating in Everybody Draw Mohammed Day, albeit not without some reservations.

Originally conceived by cartoonist Molly Norris (who later disassociated herself from the event), Everybody Draw Mohammed Day began as protest against Comedy Central’s self-censorship of the South Park episode 201, which included depictions of and references to the prophet Mohammed. (Reportedly, the episode is not airing in reruns – which would explain why my DVR recorded the wrong episode at the 12:00 hour – nor is it available on Comedy Central’s website.) Nevertheless, the episode resulted in thinly veiled death threats against South Park creators Trey Parker and Matt Stone on the website Revolution Muslim.

As envisioned by Norris, Everybody Draw Mohammed Day is a means of standing up for freedom of expression (and showing solidarity with Parker and Stone) by “watering down the pool of targets.” This is to say, it’s easier to silence one voice, or two or twenty; an international chorus, not so much. Rather than being anti-Muslim, Everybody Draw Mohammed Day is pro-free speech (ditto: pro-free though and pro-secularism, at least to me). And ethical consistency: “if you want to live in a Western society and use the system to protect your rights [attn: Revolution Muslim], you have to be willing to allow others to have theirs as well,” explained Mimi, one of many event organizers. All of which this heathen vegan feminist is totally down with.

Unfortunately (though unsurprisingly), many of the submissions I’ve seen on Facebook and elsewhere are not just anti-Muslim, but also virulently racist, as well as sexist, xenophobic, homophobic, sizeist, speciesist, and the like. Common themes include Mohammed’s head Photoshopped onto the body of a nude/semi-nude woman (women’s sexuality is gross!); Mohammed’s head Photoshopped onto an obese woman’s body (fat women are gross!); Mohammed engaged in various sexual acts with another man (dude, gay!); and Mohammed raping nonhuman animals (appropriating animal suffering, yay!), to name but a few.

Unoriginal and juvenile, yes, but even more so, these images manage to mock and ridicule people instead of ideas, and largely for irrelevant personal characteristics, at that. Just as I abhor this sort of behavior when it comes from those in the animal rights movement, neither do I condone racism, sexism, etc. when employed in defense of the First Amendment. You can poke fun at and criticize religion – even religious fundamentalists – without denigrating entire groups of people, particularly those who already bear the brunt of discrimination and prejudice. I sincerely hope that my eleven submissions (none of them actual drawings; I could hardly draw a stick figure to save my life, and anyhow, the stick figure thing is played out) are a decent enough illustration of this.

Finally, I invite all participants to join the Center for Constitutional Rights, the ACLU and Amnesty International in supporting the civil and human rights of the millions of Muslims, Middle Easterners and people of color who have been marginalized and oppressed by the “War on Terror.” Likewise, if you’re a member of the Facebook group Everybody Draw Mohammed Day!, please also join me in Time to Arrest the Pope.*

The bottom line? Don’t be a hater, mkay?

Now let the blasphemy commence!

First up is this riff on Dumb & Dumber, wherein Mohammed appears as Jim Carrey/Lloyd Christmas and Jesus manifests as Jeff Daniels/Harry Dunne (so chosen solely because of his hippie stoner haircut).

“I’m with Mohammed”:
Jim Carrey and Jeff Daniels, dressed as Lloyd Christmas and Harry Dunne from the movie Dumb & Dumber, stand side by side, arms slung around one another’s shoulders. Their t-shirts read “I’m with Jesus” and “I’m with Mohammed,” respectively.
(Original image taken from the film’s soundtrack.)
——————————

The message? Religious pissing matches are a waste of time; in the end, there are no winners, and all participants are equally dumb, yo! So just grab a doobie and let’s all just get along, kay? (For what it’s worth, I absolutely loathe this movie.)

“Mo Hammed, Mo Problems” is all about word association; “Mohammed” tends to remind me of this Notorious B.I.G. album. Plus, I like the artwork!

“Mo Hammed, Mo Problems”:
The Notorious B.I.G.’s face has been replaced by that of the prophet Mohammed on the the cover of the album Mo Money Mo Problems. Here, Mohammed is surrounded by paper bills, and the album title has been changed accordingly.
(Mohammed’s image courtesy the Mohammed Image Archive.)
——————————

After the “Mo Hammed” album, I kind of veered in a retro/pop culture direction (with no small amount of help from fd’s flickr toys, which I experimented with ad nauseum). Take, for example, the Mohammed Pop Art Poster:

“Mohammed Pop”:
Using the Pop Art Poster tool from fd’s flickr toys, I created a montage of nine identical images of Mohammed’s face and torso, each colored a different hue. Voila!: Insta pop art!
(Mohammed’s image courtesy the Mohammed Image Archive.)
——————————

Then there’s the Mohammed Puzzle, which takes us from the kitschy to the mundane:

“Mohammed Puzzle”:
Using the Jigsaw tool on fd’s flickr toys, I transformed a 17th century painting of Mohammed addressing his followers into a mass-produced tabletop puzzle – with a few pieces missing, natch.
(Mohammed’s image courtesy the Mohammed Image Archive and Wikipedia.)
——————————

I also sent Mohammed on vacation, to – where else!? – Utah:

“Vacation Photos”:
Using the Hockneyizer tool on fd’s flickr toys, I made a Polaroid collage (“in the style of the artist David Hockney”!) comprised of different portions of a 1625 Parisian portrait of Mohammed. The photos bear various notations – only parts of which are legible – including the following: “Utah is awesome!”; “…she said!”; “Those Mormons crack me up.”; “He…”; “lol my…”; “…xoxo”; and “Wish u were here!”
(Mohammed’s image courtesy the Mohammed Image Archive.)
——————————

Here’s the same piece of artwork, this time with a ’60s/’70s retro vibe (as opposed to the Polaroid’s late ’70s/early ’80s feel):

“Retro Bonus Mohammed”:
With a little help from the Framer at fd’s flickr toys, I also made the 1625 portrait of Mohammed into a ’70s retro-style ColorCraft Bonus Photo.
(Mohammed’s image courtesy the Mohammed Image Archive.)
——————————

I also made Mohammed a nifty little badge for next year’s CPAC gathering, where he’ll have the chance to hobnob with like-minded conservative, misogynist, power-hungry religious fundamentalists (“conservatives,” as they’re called here in the U.S. of A.):

“Mohammed’s CPAC ID”:
Again with fd’s flickr toys! Using the site’s Badge Maker, I created a name tag that will help Mohammed gain admittance to next year’s CPAC convention. Red and white, the badge screams “HELLO!” and introduces the wearer as “Muhammed.” At the bottom, a tag line reads, “Ask me about my latest revelation!” The badge bears a black-and-white sketch of Mohammed preaching to his followers.
(Mohammed’s image courtesy the Mohammed Image Archive.)
——————————

The next several images feature cartoon stills from South Park. Again, we’re back to the banal with a cheesy custom postage stamp:

“Wish You Were Here”:
A cartoon of the Super Best Friends – Buddha, Moses, Joseph Smith, Krishna, Lao Tzu, Muhammad and Sea Man – posing for the camera alongside Stan Marsh, while the Flying Spaghetti Monster hovers above. The “photo” has been made into a postage stamp with fd’s flickr toys.
(Cartoon via South Park / Comedy Central.)

——————————

Also boring: vacation photos stuck haphazardly to a cork bulletin board:

“Super Awesome Memories”:
Another cartoon of the Super Best Friends (this time Joseph Smith, Buddha, Jesus and Mohammed), tacked onto a faux cork billboard using the Framer tool on fd’s flickr toys.
(Cartoon via South Park / Comedy Central.)
——————————

But wait! Mohammed doesn’t leave the house without his Super Best Friends badge:

“Super Best Friends Badge”:
Mohammed’s Super Best Friends badge. Top to bottom, the badge reads, “SUPER BEST FRIENDS | Muhammed* | Prophet/Messenger | Patriarch/Patriarchist | Pimp Daddy | Member Since: 610 | Expiration: Never | Birthdate: 570 | *Blessings and peace be upon him/me.” On the badge, Mohammed is shown in cartoon form, South Park style.
(Cartoon via South Park / Comedy Central.)
——————————

(“Pimp daddy” because Mohammed’s patriarchal, multiple-wives-for-everyman vision of Islam most definitely transforms women into chattel to be exchanged at will – as do the more conservative branches of Christianity, Mormonism, etc.)

Last but not least is my favorite of the batch:

“On Notice”:
Using The Stephen Colbert “On Notice Board” Generator, I generated a special Islamic On Notice Board, replacing Stephen Colbert’s head with that of Mohammed. Top to bottom, the prophet has put the following phenomenon On Notice: Comedy central; Kahlua cupcakes; Harry Potter; “Business Casual”; Stephen Baldwin; Mondays; Bacon Bras; and Revolution Muslim.
(Mohammed cartoon via Kurt Westergaard.)
——————————

a special, Islamic themed On Notice board, wherein a relatively moderate Mohammed expresses his anger at Revolution Islam for their extremist asshattery.

Also: Kahlua cupcakes. So yummy, but so very taboo. Damn you, beverage-foodstuff hybrids!

* Updated to add: It looks like, in the time it took me to finish this post, Facebook deleted the Everybody Draw Mohammed page. And yet.

Meh. IBTK.

As I said in Thursday’s Blog for Choice post, I had hoped – fervently – that Obama would repeal the Global Gag Rule that day. Instead, he chose to do so a day later. What’s one day, right? Practically speaking, not much. I don’t imagine that much money was distributed to international NGOs between Thursday the 22nd and Friday the 23rd, so most likely Obama’s slight delay didn’t have a negative impact on any family planning organizations. And yet.

Had he chosen to take action on the anti-abortion rule on the anniversary of Roe v. Wade – like the two administrations before him – he would have sent a strong message to anti- and pro-choicers alike: Women are humans, and I respect their right to privacy and bodily autonomy unequivocally – no matter how popular such a stance may or may not be. Period. The difference is one of symbolism – and symbolically, Obama seems reluctant to align himself too closely with the pro-choice side.

Of course, he also chose to repeal the rule on a Friday – the slowest of all news days. Consequently, I’ve seen little-to-no coverage of the Gag Rule on the cable news shows. Seriously, Sully Sullenberger has received more air time. The more cynical part of me (which is to say, 99%) can’t help but think that this was Obama’s plan all along.

Of his rescinding of the Global Gag Rule, Obama wrote:

It is clear that the provisions of the Mexico City Policy are unnecessarily broad and unwarranted under current law, and for the past eight years, they have undermined efforts to promote safe and effective voluntary family planning in developing countries. For these reasons, it is right for us to rescind this policy and restore critical efforts to protect and empower women and promote global economic development.

For too long, international family planning assistance has been used as a political wedge issue, the subject of a back and forth debate that has served only to divide us. I have no desire to continue this stale and fruitless debate.

It is time that we end the politicization of this issue. In the coming weeks, my Administration will initiate a fresh conversation on family planning, working to find areas of common ground to best meet the needs of women and families at home and around the world.

I have directed my staff to reach out to those on all sides of this issue to achieve the goal of reducing unintended pregnancies. They will also work to promote safe motherhood, reduce maternal and infant mortality rates and increase educational and economic opportunities for women and girls.

In addition, I look forward to working with Congress to restore U.S. financial support for the U.N. Population Fund. By resuming funding to UNFPA, the U.S. will be joining 180 other donor nations working collaboratively to reduce poverty, improve the health of women and children, prevent HIV/AIDS and provide family planning assistance to women in 154 countries.

Common ground? What common ground? Either you think that women are full and equal human beings, or you don’t. It’s that simple.

There is no “finding common ground” with nutbags like this:

Listen. Forcing women to carry and birth fetuses, whether they’re 8 weeks or 8 months old, elevates the lives and value of potential humans above those of actual humans. Any restrictions on abortion – any! – necessarily subjugate the rights of women, whether it’s to that of the fetus, her parents (as in parental notification legislation), her husband (spousal notification/approval legislation), or the church, community or state.

The only way to reduce the need for abortion (and the number of abortions performed, legally or not) is to reduce the number of unplanned pregnancies through comprehensive sex ed, readily available contraception, and empowering women so that they can control their own sexuality. Time and again, we’ve seen that those on certain “sides of [the] issue” have zero interest in doing so.

So let’s stop playing. Enough with the pandering. No more rhetoric. You can’t have it both ways, President Obama. Either you favor a woman’s right to choose what happens in her own body, or you don’t. If you do, please stop signaling your willingness to compromise my rights away in the name of “unity.”

And yeah, maybe these are “just words,” catch phrases to placate those who’d rather women remain subservient members of the sex class. But, as then-Senator Barack Obama said, words matter.

———————-

Tagged: feminism misogyny sexism sexist women’s rights reproductive rights gag rule global gag rule president obama barack obama blogging for choice carnival blog swarm pro-choice abortion contraception intersections parallel oppressions animals animal rights animal welfare

On whether women can divorce an abusive spouse (question #32):

I’d always rather choose a short-term pain and find God’s solution for long-term gain than try and find a short-term solution that’s going to involve long-term pain. … [In scripture] adultery is one [reason for divorce] and abandonment is a second. I wish there were a third in scripture. Having been involved as a pastor in situations of abuse there’s something in me that wishes there was a Bible verse that says if they abuse you in this and such kind of way then you have a right to leave them. … If you’re in this kind of situation I strongly recommend that you take advantage of our lay counseling ministers. Go in and talk to someone and let them minister to you. And the advice that we give is not divorce but separation.

On whether a woman has to stay in a “miserable” marriage (question #31):

The Bible answer is yes. Does God expect me to stay in a miserable marriage, and why would he do that to me? I often say to people when they’re facing this decision, really, you’re choosing your pain in this moment because it’s going to be painful either way. If you stay in your marriage there is the opportunity for reconciliation and for the loss of pain, but there is going to be short-term pain on the way there. … There is lifelong pain in divorce. … I wish there was a way to say there is a choice here where you’re not going to have pain but there is pain in relationships. Now, God understands that… He can be with us in our pain and he can comfort us, he can strengthen us, he can give us perspective. He can also give us wisdom. Does God expect me to live with this pain? No. I think he expects us to ask for wisdom to do the things that would cause the pain to begin to be solved. … The Bible says the husband is to sacrifice for his wife and the wife is to respect her husband and if that doesn’t happen you have the right to keep pushing for that.

According to Warren’s teachings, abused women have no right to divorce their abusers.

For inviting this misogynist shitstain to give the opening prayer at his inauguration, Ms. Magazine has devoted a special “inauguration issue” cover to Barack Obama – who, apparently, is now the face of feminism.

But wait! It gets better! This quarter’s issue even comes with a 18″x24″ pull-out centerfold poster of Mr. Super-Feminist Himself!

I shit you not.

Again, all I can say is ::RAGE::

(Partial transcripts pieced together via The Stranger and The New Agenda. Hat tip to The Reclusive Leftist for both stories.)

—————–

Tagged: barack obama rick warren glbt homophobia homophobe misogyny misogynist abortion reproductive rights inauguration religion godbags divorce saddleback church ms. magazine feminism flickr photos

A few weeks ago, I received a thank you card in the mail, from the last woman to pick up a load of apples. “What a nice gesture,” I thought, “I’ll have to keep her in mind for next year.” The sentiment lasted all of 30 seconds, until I actually opened the letter, only to find a Christian tract tucked inside.

Incidentally, the pamphlet was well-worn and even had a stain on the inside panel. Um…way to represent your God?

My initial inclination was to ignore the incident, but it was still bugging me last week. You see, I own the freecycle list in question, and proselytizing is strictly against the rules. I could have given her the boot, but I didn’t really think that kicking her out of the group would help her to better understand just how intolerant, intrusive and presumptuous her proselytizing is.

So instead, I grabbed some “propaganda materials” from www.venganza.org – two brochures and three flyers – stuffed ‘em in a festive green envelope, and mailed them without comment.

The packet went out Wednesday; I expect the army of missionaries to arrive any day now.

——————–

Tagged: fsm flying spaghetti monster pastafarian godbags proselytizing proselytize christian born again tract flickr photos

Spoiler alert: Danger ahead, oh the horra! Plot spoilers abound! If you haven’t yet read the book, consider yourself warned. In fact, back away from this blog asap, go borrow The Handmaid’s Tale from your local library, and come back when you’re done. We’ll still be on the internets, promise.

The Handmaid’s Tale, The Dramatization (BBC Radio 4, 2000)

The dramatization of The Handmaid’s Tale produced and aired by BBC Radio 4 in 2000 is more than a direct reading of the novel. Rather, it’s a full-cast performance, complete with sound effects, that puts the film version to shame.

In direct contrast to Volker Schlöndorff’s 1990 film effort, the producers of the 2000 BBC 4 radio dramatization of The Handmaid’s Tale succeed in creating a moving reenactment of the novel – without sacrificing any of Margaret Atwood’s vision. Granted, the BBC audio recording is a bit lengthier than the film; it spans three CDs, totaling no more than 4.5 hours (the film clocks in at 109 minutes), allowing extra time for Kate’s narration to unfold. Still, even the producers of the BBC dramatization had to cut several prominent sequences in order to condense the story. Unlike Schlöndorff and company, they chose wisely, and also reworked other aspects of the dramatization to compensate for the lost pieces of the novel.

The most obvious scene missing from the BBC recording is the Birthing Ceremony, in which Ofwarren (Janine) gives birth to her Commander’s baby. In the dramatization, we do learn that Ofwarren is pregnant; however, this information is presented through an invented scene wherein Ofwarren and her Wife visit with Serena Joy and Kate, presumably to rub their noses in the “good news”. While it’s a particularly horrific and heartbreaking scene, the missing Birthing Ceremony doesn’t fundamentally alter the story or tone of the dramatization.

And this is typical of the BBC dramatization – the producers were so adept at paring down the novel into a theatrical script that I never really felt as though anything was lost in the transition. Some scenes are missing, truncated or even invented, but overall it works. Would I have love, love, loved to have heard the entire novel reenacted? Of course! But. This is Margaret Atwood’s The Handmaid’s Tale.

Aside from those scenes which found their way to the chopping block, very little else is changed in the BBC dramatization. In fact, most (if not all) of the narration and dialog is taken directly from the book. Best of all, the ending stays intact (though the scientific notes are sadly truncated).

As for the cast, the acting is excellent all the way around. The actor who gives voice to Kate is wonderful; she has a sweet, almost childlike voice, perfect for a submissive Handmaid. She reminds me of Glenne Headly, who played Dr. Abby Keaton opposite a younger Noah Wyle on ER. The BBC dramatization was my first exposure to The Handmaid’s Tale; I listened to the recording before actually reading the novel, and I will forever picture Glenne Headly as Kate when watching, reading, listening to or otherwise reflecting upon The Handmaid’s Tale. The actor (whose real name escapes me) is both that talented and sounds that similar to Ms. Headly. Also worthy of special mention is Serena Joy’s vocalist. Although it’s hard for any woman to outshine Faye Dunaway, Law & Order’s Leslie Hendrix makes for a chilling Serena Joy.

In sum, if you’re yearning for a dramatic version of The Handmaid’s Tale, but are weary of the butchered Hollywood adaptation, the dramatization from BBC 4 Radio is the next best thing (after reading the novel, of course!). Five stars!

———————–

The Handmaid’s Tale(s): Table of Contents

1. The Handmaid’s Tale, The Book (Margaret Atwood, 1985): Intro & Plot Summary

2. Misogyny & the Oppression of Women

3. Race, Ethnicity and Sexual Orientation: Gilead is a Society of Isms

4. The Patriarchy Hurts Men, Too (or, “But What About Teh Menz!!!1!?”)

5. A Theocracy is Harmful to Believers and Infidels Alike

6. Hypocrites, Egotists & Apologists: Who’s Sorry Now?

7. Dear Dystopian Deniers

8. The Handmaid’s Tale, The Film (Volker Schlöndorff, 1990)

9. The Handmaid’s Tale, The Dramatization (BBC Radio 4, 2000)

———————–

Tagged: margaret atwood the handmaid’s tale books book review literature fiction dystopian scifi science fiction politics theocracy christian fundamentalist godbags feminism religion misogyny racism homophobia classism oppression patriarchy ibtp sex reproductive rights flickr photos bbc radio dramatization

First of all: Sunday, Sunday, SUNDAY!? What are they doing, advertising a monster truck show? Ahem. Anywho.

Now, correct me if I’m wrong, but – isn’t that Coldplay’s “Viva la Vida” playing in the background?

(Word to the wise: listen to this video, don’t watch it. It’s absolute dreck.)

Like, WTF FRC / VV08?

I’m not a big Colplay fan, but I do lurve this particular song. (Maybe because it reminds me of Lost, what with the British accents, fallen Catholics and wanna-be island kings. But that’s neither here nor there.)

And it doesn’t take a music critic to detect its anti-establishment undertones. Just check the lyrics:

I used to rule the world
Seas would rise when I gave the word
Now in the morning I sleep alone
Sweep the streets I used to own

I used to roll the dice
Feel the fear in my enemy’s eyes
Listen as the crowd would sing
“Now the old king is dead! Long live the king!”

One minute I held the key
Next the walls were closed on me
And I discovered that my castles stand
Upon pillars of salt and pillars of sand

I hear Jerusalem bells are ringing
Roman Cavalry choirs are singing
Be my mirror, my sword and shield
My missionaries in a foreign field

For some reason I can’t explain
Once you go there was never
Never an honest word
And that was when I ruled the world

It was the wicked and wild wind
Blew down the doors to let me in
Shattered windows and the sound of drums
People couldn’t believe what I’d become

Revolutionaries wait
For my head on a silver plate
Just a puppet on a lonely string
Oh who would ever want to be king?

I hear Jerusalem bells a ringing
Roman Cavalry choirs are singing
Be my mirror, my sword and shield
My missionaries in a foreign field

For some reason I can’t explain
I know Saint Peter won’t call my name
Never an honest word
But that was when I ruled the world

I hear Jerusalem bells are ringing
Roman Cavalry choirs are singing
Be my mirror, my sword and shield
My missionaries in a foreign field

For some reason I can’t explain
I know Saint Peter won’t call my name
Never an honest word
But that was when I ruled the world

Ostensibly, it’s about a corrupt, fallen king whose reign on earth has been so tainted by sin that, upon death, he’s not fit to cross the gates of Heaven. No?

Yes, explains bassist Guy Berryman:

It’s a story about a king who’s lost his kingdom, and all the album’s artwork is based on the idea of revolutionaries and guerrillas. There’s this slightly anti-authoritarian viewpoint that’s crept into some of the lyrics and it’s some of the pay-off between being surrounded by governments on one side, but also we’re human beings with emotions and we’re all going to die and the stupidity of what we have to put up with every day. Hence the album title.

And, while I don’t claim or even care to know much about Coldplay’s politics, singer Chris Martin is married to Gwyneth Paltrow – who, along with her mother Blythe Danner, has campaigned on behalf of Planned Parenthood (in a Mother’s Day fundraising push that threw the anti-choicers into quite the tizzy). So I very much doubt that the guys in Coldplay consider themselves “Values Voters” – or rather, they don’t share the “values” of the evangelical crowd. (Hey, just because I don’t swing right, doesn’t mean I don’t have “values.”)

And yet the Family Research Council, with all their woman-hating, gay-bashing, war-mongering, nation-building, stone-throwing authoritarian spitefulness, chose this song to promote their “Values Votes” Summit. Oh, sweet irony!

I wonder if Coldplay will have the dubious honor of inclusion on the Reich Wing’s next conservative song roundup? (Fortified with unintentional irony, natch!)

———————

Tagged: frc family research council vv values voter values voter summit 2008 elections coldplay Viva la Vida music video youtube irony conservative right wing uncool evangelical pop culture

*shudder*

By the by, how did the phrases “safe sodomy subsidies” & “the Homosexual Gestapo” never catch on? Pure nutbag awesomeness, those are!

Via PFAW, whose YP4 / PAO Countering the Right course I’m currently enrolled in.

——————-

Tagged: youtube video religious right countering the right pfaw people for the american way pf4 pao progressive academy online godbags politics first amendment

Spoiler alert: Danger ahead, oh the horra! Plot spoilers abound! If you haven’t yet read the book, consider yourself warned. In fact, back away from this blog asap, go borrow The Handmaid’s Tale from your local library, and come back when you’re done. We’ll still be on the internets, promise.

The Handmaid’s Tale, The Film (Volker Schlöndorff, 1990)

If you’ve never read Margaret Atwood’s The Handmaid’s Tale, the 1990 film adaptation by Volker Schlöndorff might seem an interesting enough movie. Set in a future in which Christian fundamentalists have overthrown the government, the film paints a terrifying picture of an American theocracy. Women, homosexuals, religious minorities, people of color, political dissidents – all suffer under the oppressive thumb of The Republic of Gilead.

Those familiar with the 1985 novel will see that much of the basic story remains the same in Schlöndorff’s on-screen adaptation. The former United States is in the midst of a Civil War; The Republic of Gilead holds much of the East Coast, while dissenting religious and secular groups wage war to the South and West. Within the Republic’s borders, a strict social structure is enforced. Men are ranked according to prestige and merit (Commanders, Eyes, Angels, Guardians, and businessmen and professionals), while women are grouped according to social function, which is primarily determined by their reproductive health and racial makeup (Aunts, Wives and Daughters, Econowives, Handmaids, Marthas, and Unwomen). While no Gileadean citizen is truly free, it is the females who bear the brunt of Gilead’s religious tyranny.

It is in this context that we meet Kate (Offred), a Handmaid who has been assigned to Commander Fred (“Of Fred”) and his Wife, Serena Joy. The Handmaid’s Tale is Kate’s tale, told in her very own voice, through a disjointed series of flashbacks and present-day narrations. Through Kate’s eyes, we reflect upon “the days before”; we learn how the Sons of Jacob were able to destabilize and eventually topple the American government and institute their own patriarchal theocracy; and we get a glimpse of what daily life in the Republic is like.

Overall, the film retains the tone of the Atwood’s story. It’s all there: Kate’s re-education at The Red Center; the Birthing Ceremony, Prayvaganza, and Women’s Salvaging and Particicution; trips to the gynecologist; illicit visits to the Commander’s office; the night out at Jezebel’s; and, of course, the monthly rape Ceremonies. The acting is solid enough: Natasha Richardson (as Kate), Faye Dunaway (Serena Joy), and Elizabeth McGovern (Moira) are the cast’s standouts, though Aidan Quinn (Nick) and Robert Duvall (the Commander) leave something to be desired. The visuals really steal the movie; it’s incredible to see Atwood’s story take form on-screen. (My favorite prop is a livestock trailer used to transport women to and from the Red Center.) Altogether, it makes for a terrifying dystopian sci fi film…that is, if you haven’t yet been “spoiled” by the novel.

While the movie does follow the basic plot of The Handmaid’s Tale, the filmmakers change a number of small, seemingly insignificant details. Upon closer examination, many of these minor points are actually quite important, and their alteration impacts the story in unanticipated ways, both on an individual and collective level.

The most drastic change comes from the costume department. The citizens of Gilead are all required to wear uniforms which reflect their place in the social hierarchy. Men largely don military-type uniforms, while women wear dresses of various colors: brown for Aunts, blue for Wives, black for Widows, and white for Daughters; dresses striped red, blue, and green for Econowives; red habits with white headresses (“Wings”) for Handmaids; green smocks for Marthas; gray dresses for Unwomen; and revealing vintage contraband (think Playboy bunnies and cheerleaders) for Jezebels. These outfits can be seen in the film, but with modifications.

Take the Handmaid’s uniform, for example. As envisioned by Atwood, the Handmaid’s habit (a type of sack-like dress) is almost as concealing as an Islamic burqa: it covers the Handmaid from her wrists to her ankles. She also wears red gloves and stockings, so that the only pieces of flesh that are visible are her neck and face – and even those are somewhat obscured, what with the red veil and white headdress. Underneath her scarlet red habit is a white cotton underdress and bulky, oversized underwear. During the hot summers, she switches to a habit made of lighter material, but it’s no more revealing than her winter wardrobe.

In comparison, the uniform worn by Natasha Richardson is relatively immodest: the hem of the habit ends mid-shin, revealing precious inches of the Handmaid’s legs to hungry, sex-starved men, while the thin material gives an outline of the womanly shape beneath. Scandalous!

Worse still, there are no Wings atop Richardson’s head! The Handmaid’s headdress conceals her face from the prying eyes of the world – and the world from her prying eyes (much like a horse’s blinders). The Wings keep Handmaids ignorant, innocent, submissive. They’re an essential part of the uniform, and yet they are completely absent in the movie. I understand why; blinders must make filming an actor’s facial expressions quite a difficult task, natch. Still, that’s the point of the Wings – they’re a tool of subjugation, keeping the wearer unaware of her very surroundings.

Even the visual difference between a Handmaid-with-Wings and a Handmaid-without-Wings is striking:

The Handmaid’s isn’t the only outfit that’s been fiddled with. Serena Joy, too, can be seen wearing a dress that’s much more revealing than Gilead’s strict, Puritanical, anti-sex dress code would ever allow. While the Wives don’t seem to have a singular uniform – any modest blue dress will do – it’s a given that the dress shouldn’t show too much skin. Yet, at one point, you can actually catch a glimpse of Faye Dunaway’s cleavage – as if!

Casual filmgoers might not place much importance on these changes – but they are significant. The Republic of Gilead is an oppressive, misogynistic, uber-conservative society. Every aspect of the culture feeds into this Biblically-based repression, right down the the mandated uniforms. Given the many functions of clothing – separating citizens into rank and social function, concealing the female form, further subjugating the Handmaids in particular – you might even say that the clothing is an uncredited star of The Handmaid’s Tale. Or rather, it should be; in altering the clothing, the filmmakers have undermined its importance. Consequently, they have removed an especially oppressive aspect of Gilead’s regime. (See Misogyny & the Oppression of Women for a discussion of how the Handmaid’s habit alienates Kate from her physical body.)

These “minor” changes only begin with the costumes. Like the clothing, many of these details implicitly or explicitly speak to the treatment of women, and in so changing these minutiae, the filmmakers detract from the feeling of stifling oppression faced by Gilead’s female population.

* Women move about (relatively) freely, belying the government’s actual constraints on women described so starkly in the novel.

* Commander Fred’s Bible isn’t secured under lock and key, but is kept out on a podium, where any uppity woman might find it.

* In the film, Commander Fred is Kate’s first placement, not her third, thereby reducing the pressure on her to succeed in bearing a child.

* When Kate visits the doctor (gynecologist), the sheet separating Kate’s face from her torso is gone, thereby allowing the doctor to (gasp!) look her in the eyes (and otherwise interact with her on a personal level) as he pokes and prods her naked body.

* During the initial Ceremony/rape scene, it is Offred who is crying, while Serena remains stone-faced and silent. In Atwood’s version, the roles are reversed; consequently, the fundamentalist Serena is shown regretting at least one aspect of the society she fought for, while Kate once again appears detached from her body.

* The Birthing Ceremony is short one Birth Chair and, even more glaringly, Ofwarren is allowed to handle the baby afterwards. This is in contrast to the novel, where the Wife is the center of attention, to the point where her fellow party-goers act as though it is she, and not her Handmaid, who gave birth to the baby. (This sequence is quite the spectacle.)

The initial sitting room scene between Kate and Nick also undergoes a seemingly small change that in actuality alters the entire dynamic of the sequence – and their relationship throughout the film. In this scene, Kate sneaks out of her room late one night and steals away to Serena Joy’s sitting room. She wants to explore her surroundings, taste a scrap of freedom, maybe even steal a small keepsake, something that won’t be missed. Nick, meanwhile, has been sent by the Commander to find Kate and arrange for her to meet the Commander the following night in his office. The two interlopers, having stumbled upon one another in the moonlight, share a brief but hungry kiss.

Where the novel and film differ is in the following exchange. While Nick explains the Commander’s wishes to Kate, they remain in a furtive embrace. In Atwood’s imagination, Nick strokes Kate’s arm as he talks; Schlöndorff has Nick groping Kate’s breast. Schlöndorff’s version throws off the power balance, making Nick seem more like a creepy pervert, taking advantage of his Commander’s Handmaid. Correspondingly, Kate as played by Richardson seems less like a willing participant in the exchange and more like a victim of sexual assault, so submissive and subjugated that she’s been conditioned to accept the manhandling of strangers. (Which may very well be the case, but it’s not indicative of the kiss, nor of their subsequent relationship.)

In reality, this is a mutually desired interaction (and, later, a mutually desired relationship). Kate and Nick both suffer under Gilead (though Kate more so than Nick), and their relationship is a brief respite from the stifling oppression of their daily existence. The affair also offers them a small sense of control in a world in which they have none. They are dissidents, deviants, criminals, brought together by lust and loneliness. Unlike most of Gilead’s arranged and prescribed human relationships, theirs is genuine – a sentiment that Schlöndorff fails to convey.

These are but a few of the many changes foisted upon Atwood’s novel during its metamorphosis to screenplay. Others are equally puzzling but don’t fundamentally alter the tenor of the story. Moira, for instance, is introduced as Kate’s newfound friend from The Red Center rather than her best friend from college. Later, Kate is shown aiding Moira in her escape from The Red Center, even though she was as surprised as everyone else when Moira turned up missing. During Kate’s assignment to Commander Fred’s household, he leaves town, and so Serena sends Kate back to The Red Center during his absence (so poor Serena won’t have to suffer the Handmaid for naught). This struck me as an especially odd invention, since it was also somewhat unnecessary.

Even the casting is a little puzzling. I found it odd, for instance, that a brunette Faye Dunaway was cast as the blond Serena Joy, and a blond Natasha Richardson plays a brunette Kate. The significance of the characters’ hair color isn’t in stereotypes about blonds and brunettes, but it does go to Serena Joy’s character (and hypocrisy therein): in noting Serena’s hair color, Kate comments that, in “the days before”, she naturally assumed that Serena’s blondness came from a bottle. Because, well, that’s the type of Christian Serena Joy was/is: do as I say, not as I do. (“Women who work outside the home are selfish, except for me; I’m making a sacrifice for the greater good. Women should not be vain and overly concerned with their looks, but hey, I’m on teevee!”) Seriously, could they not have dyed the actors’ hair?

The most substantial change comes at the film’s end. The novel is presented as a series of disjointed flashbacks and seemingly present-day narration; we later learn that it’s all a series of recollections. The Handmaid’s tales are just that, a series of tales, with no apparent beginning (just the vague “the days before”) and no real end, since we don’t know what became of Kate (or Gilead, even, just that it eventually fell). In contrast, the film is told as a story, with a discrete beginning and end. And what an end: before her escape, Kate kills the Commander, and then is whisked away to the Western frontier by the May Day group. At film’s end, we see a very pregnant Kate hiding out in a camper in the mountains, riding out the Civil War. As far as Hollywood endings go, it’s not completely wrapped up, but when you compare it to Atwood’s grim conclusion, the movie ending looks downright rosy.

Cumulatively, the “minor” changes represent a significant deviation from Atwood’s story – and the sanitized Hollywood ending is an abomination. Consequently, The Handmaid’s Tale is a dark film, but nowhere near as terrifying, oppressive and believable as the novel. If it had been crafted from an original script, I’d probably quite enjoy it – four stars, maybe? But knowing what it could have been, I’m somewhat disappointed in the on-screen outcome.

Which leaves me hoping that Joss Whedon will soon shoot a remake. (Hey, it’s been nearly two decades!)

Swoon.

Love him.

———————–

The Handmaid’s Tale(s): Table of Contents

1. The Handmaid’s Tale, The Book (Margaret Atwood, 1985): Intro & Plot Summary

2. Misogyny & the Oppression of Women

3. Race, Ethnicity and Sexual Orientation: Gilead is a Society of Isms

4. The Patriarchy Hurts Men, Too (or, “But What About Teh Menz!!!1!?”)

5. A Theocracy is Harmful to Believers and Infidels Alike

6. Hypocrites, Egotists & Apologists: Who’s Sorry Now?

7. Dear Dystopian Deniers

8. The Handmaid’s Tale, The Film (Volker Schlöndorff, 1990)

9. The Handmaid’s Tale, The Dramatization (BBC Radio 4, 2000)

———————–

(An edited version of this review was cross-posted on Amazon.)

Tagged: margaret atwood the handmaid’s tale books book review literature fiction dystopian scifi science fiction politics theocracy christian fundamentalist godbags feminism religion misogyny racism homophobia classism oppression patriarchy ibtp sex reproductive rights flickr photos movie film Volker Schlöndorff Natasha Richardson Faye Dunaway Aidan Quinn Elizabeth McGovern Robert Duvall

Spoiler alert: Danger ahead, oh the horra! Plot spoilers abound! If you haven’t yet read the book, consider yourself warned. In fact, back away from this blog asap, go borrow The Handmaid’s Tale from your local library, and come back when you’re done. We’ll still be on the internets, promise.

Dear Dystopian Deniers

Perhaps the most widespread criticism I’ve seen of The Handmaid’s Tale is that it is improbable, unrealistic, a stretch of the imagination.

To wit:

Not Realistic Enough to be Scary; [A]lthough there were a great deal of things about this book that touched me and made me think, I found it simply unbelievable that anyone, male or female, would have tolerated this social system for very long.

Handmaid Tale…; Atwood made this society where it is supposed to be the future, yet women are still being repressed by male dominated society. Theocracy should have been eliminated by this point in time.

Trite and unrealistic.; This book in no way convinced me that American society would end up in the bizarre ’1984′-like ripoff presented here. To even suggest this as the logical future is completely shortsighted and ignores all advances women have made towards equality in the past hundred years or so.

…and my personal favorite, from “a female conservative”:

Intriguing, but Unlikely; Several of the other reviewers argue that Atwood’s vision is not at all farfetched because of the state of women in Islamic countries. Exactly! I had the same thought in the back of my head the whole time I was reading this book. It is so-called Islamic countries in the Middle East and not Western nations where women are limited to lives as wives and mothers and where the sanctity of the individual is not respected. Had Atwood set her novel in present-day Iran or Iraq, it would ring true in a way that setting it in near-future-day America does not. We have a centuries-old tradition of respecting individual rights in America.

Shorter female conservative: It’s the darkies who are bigots, silly!

Or: What slavery?

Granted, these criticisms are all from regular schlubs on Amazon, so maybe I shouldn’t take them so seriously. (One reviewer name “Brittany” pats herself on the back for hunting down Offred’s real name, which she incorrectly identifies as “June”, while another dismisses it as a “chick book”, and there’s also quite a bit of whining over the book’s “loose ends”…I guess they’d prefer the same sanitized, feel-good Hollywood ending that effectively butchered the movie.)

But it’s a fair point, and one that’s especially pertinent if you’re viewing the 1990 film adaptation which, in its pared down form, didn’t offer much of a back story. So, a refutation for the dystopian deniers. First, I’ll discuss the Republic of Gilead, including their rise to power and how they managed to sustain a dictatorship for as long as they did. I’ll also consider The Handmaid’s Tale in a global context; could it ever happen here?

Given the disjointed flashback/real time/flashback structure of the book, the story of Gilead’s formation is told piecemeal; we never fully grasp how the godbags managed to grab the east coast until the end of the book, in the “Historical Notes”. Rather than being a sudden, violent revolution, it was a slow, gradual erosion of individual rights and civil liberties.

Through Kate’s flashbacks, we learn that her childhood years – the 1980s, roughly the time Atwood was writing The Handmaid’s Tale – were similar the ’70s in terms of the radical feminist activism taking place. Kate’s mother is a prominent feminist activist (I picture her as Gloria Steinem), a single woman raising a daughter on her own, trying to mold Kate into a radical blamer. Kate (then and now) is your (stereo)typical “third-wave” “sex positive” “fun” feminist. As in, not especially. Kate finds many of her mother’s ideas antiquated, particularly when it comes to equality (or lack thereof) in intimate male/female relationships. Kate is sometimes presented as a retrogressive character; during one flashback to her college years, she even admits to temporarily withdrawing from Moira (her BFF) when Moira outs herself as a lesbian. By the time Kate has reached her teen and early adulthood years, the cultural backlash against “second-wave” “radical” feminism is in full swing, and Kate’s even buying into a bit of the hype – despite (or perhaps because of) being raised by a radical activist.

The Sons of Jacob, described as a “top secret…think tank..at which the philosophy and social structure of Gilead were hammered out”, was probably active during this time, if not earlier. The Sons of Jacob planned to take advantage of the current social unrest in order to overthrow the government and install their own theocracy. By “current social unrest”, I don’t mean to imply that a backlash against feminism and women’s liberation was the only contributing factor. There were also declining fertility and birth rates (both voluntary and not), coupled with immigration and xenophobia; environmental catastrophes, including pollution from pesticides and nuclear spills (which also contributed to declining fertility and birth defects); and scientific mishaps, like the “sterility-causing virus…developed by…gene-splicing experiments with mumps”.

Neither was the social instability confined to North America; although Atwood doesn’t elucidate the specific social issues affecting other countries (food shortages, oil, the diamond trade, desertification, climate change, declining fish populations, etc.), it is clear that unrest was widespread and at times, quite violent. For instance, before the Sons of Jacob was formed, world governments “recogniz[ed] the superpower arms stalemate and…sign[ed] the classified Spheres of Influence Accord, which left the superpowers free to deal, unhampered by interference, with the growing number of rebellions within their own empires.” Such an agreement suggest that many world governments were dealing with social unrest. (The Accord also helps to explain why the other global superpowers did little to challenge Gilead’s human rights abuses.)

In an America already distracted by “culture wars”, looming environmental catastrophe and possibly the specter of terrorism, the Sons of Jacob plotted their revolution.

For example, the scientists describe one Son of Jacob thusly:

Judd, on the other hand, seems to have been less interested in packaging and more concerned with tactics. It was he who suggested the use of an obscure “CIA” pamphlet on the destabilization of foreign governments as a strategic handbook for the Sons of Jacob.

Far from a rushed, half-assed affair, the Sons of Jacob seem to have planned and plotted Gilead for quite some time. They managed to infiltrate the government, including Congress and possibly even the President’s close personal circle. The group also includes security experts, who compromised security systems, including those protecting prominent politicians. Some Sons wormed their way into financial institutions, natch; how else to explain the freezing of all bank accounts marked “F”? Still others militarized, armed themselves to the teeth, created their own, alternate army. (Leaving this admittedly paranoid blamer to wonder if that’s the real reason why so many conservatives lurv their guns so much.)

Once all the True Believing ™ fundie operatives were in place, they disabled the American government.

Kate recalls,

I guess that’s how they were able to do it [freeze the women's bank accounts], in the way they did, all at once, without anyone knowing beforehand. If there had still been portable money, it would have been more difficult.

It was after the catastrophe, when they shot the president and machine-gunned the Congress and the army declared a state of emergency. They blamed it on the Islamic fanatics, at the time.

Keep calm, they said on television. Everything is under control.

I was stunned. Everyone was, I know that. It was hard to believe. The entire government, gone like that. How did they get in, how did it happen?

That was when they suspended the Constitution. They said it would be temporary. There wasn’t even any rioting in the streets. People stayed home at night, watching television, looking for some direction. There wasn’t even an enemy you could put your finger on. [...]

Things continued in that state of suspended animation for weeks, although some things did happen. Newspapers were censored and some were closed down, for security reasons they said. The roadblocks began to appear, and Identipasses. Everyone approved of that, since it was obvious you couldn’t be too careful. They said new elections would be held, but that it would take some time to prepare for them. The thing to do, they said, was to continue on as usual.

From there, the situation kept deteriorating, though some changes – such as the disappearance of the Pornomarts, Feels on Wheels vans and Bun-Dle Buggies – were seen as positive. Soon afterwards all females were fired from their jobs and their bank accounts were frozen. As Kate described it, their feet were cut off, literally and damn near figuratively: with no money, women couldn’t leave the country on their own. Later, after Gilead was officially established, no one was allowed to leave. The borders of Gilead were patrolled regularly, and potential refugees were either captured and returned to Gilead or murdered. (The women, some of whom were considered valuable property, were more likely to be captured alive and returned to Gilead against their wills.)

The Republic of Gilead continued to enforce more and more stringent rules. At first, unmarried men and women were allowed to cohabitate; in time, such things were (presumably) outlawed, and all “illegitimate” marriages were annulled. Even the definition of a “legitimate” marriage changed; while at one point Gilead accepted all heterosexual unions in which neither spouse had previously been married, eventually only those marriages performed by Gilead were recognized. Families were torn apart, but gradually. And not just physically, by the government itself, but also by the mutual distrust fostered between the sexes by the government’s misogynist policies. (See, for example: “But What About Teh Menz!!!1!?”)

Once established, Gilead ensured obedience and conformity in a number of ways. Most significantly, they created a police state which was teeming with spies, and not just the Eyes: friends, neighbors, acquaintances, employees, associates, strangers on the street – all are encouraged to eavesdrop and tattle on one another. Through Kate’s narration, you see that her every move is carefully choreographed, down to the greetings she uses when she meets with her paired Handmaid. Speaking of which, Handmaids are sent shopping in pairs with the understanding that they’ll keep one another in line. Though government propaganda claimed that it wanted a society in which women – and men – are all “Comrades”, in truth no one is to be trusted. The slightest misstep could get you killed, as with the Martha who was gunned down by Guardians when she fumbled for her Identipass in her robe. (The Guardians took her for a dissident suicide bomber in drag.) Even in the early days, after the President’s Day Massacre, citizens were already highly distrustful of one another, to the extent that Kate and Luke killed their pet cat before attempting to flee the country, lest she hang around and arouse the neighbors’ suspicions.

Dissidence is dealt with swiftly and brutally. Many nonconformists – gays, lesbians, liberals, religious minorities, people of color, feminists – and “worthless” (i.e., infertile) women are sent to The Colonies to either labor in the fields or clean up radioactive waste (a sure death sentence). If you’re lucky, the state executes you straight away and hangs your corpse on The Wall for all to see. Otherwise, you may be tortured first, or perhaps killed in a public ceremony: a Salvaging, maybe, or a Particicution. Both ceremonies are horrific in their own right.

Women’s Salvagings (we never do get a glimpse of Men’s Salvagings) involve the hanging of sinful women – Handmaids who have had sex with men other than their patriarchs or Wives who have harmed fertile, functioning Handmaids, mostly. Instead of a Hangman, however, all the women collectively participate in the execution: at the other end of the noose is a long, winding rope, with room enough for each woman’s hands to pull, pull, pull! until the “criminal” takes her last breath. In this way, they are all murderers; no woman is innocent. They are co-conspirators in their own oppression.

Particicutions are also a collective effort, though just for the Handmaids. In addition breaking down the women’s sense of morality and ethics, Particicutions provide a scapegoat on which the Handmaids can unleash their anger and frustrations. Here, the Handmaids are literally set loose on a man, usually one who has ostensibly been convicted of raping, murdering or otherwise harming a Handmaid. Most of these so-called misogynists are actually political dissidents, as we see when Ofglen mercifully knocks a fellow May Day member unconscious so that he’s not awake and suffering as the Handmaids rip him apart.

Aside from corporal punishment, Gilead also makes use of propaganda to control its citizens. The media is all owned and operated by the government, and as such, the programming is a mix of Biblical shows and news programs. The religious content conforms to and reinforces Gilead’s specific sectarian ideology, while the “news” shows show proper laudatory deference to the government. Most of the news coverage focuses on the Civil War, and only reports on Gilead’s victories. This feeds into the sense of hopelessness that most Gileadean citizens must surely feel – there’s no one to help free them of this oppressive regime, not other world governments nor guerrilla fighters or rebels. Resistance is futile, and self-preservation is the only solution.

Gilead’s propaganda takes many forms. In fact, the government is rarely truthful with its citizens. They omit, add to and intentionally misrepresent Biblical verses, in order to support whatever unjust new law they’ve devised. (The Bibles are kept locked up, so the women folk will never know otherwise!) Social interactions such as greetings and farewells are highly scripted, thus encouraging a sort of mindless fugue state; religious phrases repeated ad nauseum start to take hold here, when a person’s defenses are down. “Blessed be the fruit.” “May the Lord open.” “We’ve been sent good weather.” “Which I receive with joy.” “Praise be.” “Under His Eye.”

Simply put, Gilead is a cult: citizens are broken and brainwashed, and those which cannot be forced into conformity are killed or sent away. These changes weren’t introduced all at once, but piecemeal. Once one egregious policy gained widespread acceptance (or tolerance), another was introduced, and so on. By the time it became obvious what was happening, Gilead was already a carefully patrolled police state, within and without. Those who wanted to leave, couldn’t.

(For a more in-depth discussion of how Gilead controls women, see: Misogyny & the Oppression of Women; for men, see: The Patriarchy Hurts Men, Too.)

Not all of Gilead’s citizens readily accept their new lots in life, however. We see through Ofglen, Nick and Moira that there’s a highly secretive and organized resistance movement active within (and without) Gilead’s borders. Several hundred years later, it becomes clear that they – and possibly others – did succeed in toppling Gilead.

As for the realism (or, more accurately, lack thereof) in Atwood’s story, the only aspect of Gilead’s story I find questionable is the President’s Day Massacre. With 435 Representatives and 100 Senators, the U.S. Congress is quite large. Could the Sons of Jacob assassinate 537+ people (some of them, including the President and VP, tightly guarded) in a single day? Personally, I find it improbable, but not impossible.

Even so, that’s really the only suspension of belief required in The Handmaid’s Tale – the rest is quite believable. The ways in which Gilead controls its citizens are nothing new; indeed, our scientists of the future observe, “[T]here was little that was truly original with or indigenous to Gilead: its genius was synthesis.”

In addition to bolstering the believability of Atwood’s story (i.e., not only did Gilead come to power, they did so using proven strategies, employed by similarly oppressive governments in the past), our future scientist’s remarks also go to the questions of whether such a thing might happen in the here, the now, on American soil, even. The answer is a resounding YES!

Looking to the past, human history is littered with oppressive regimes and movements: the Crusades of the 11th to 13th centuries, the European witch hunts from 1450 to 1700, Nazi Germany, Stalinism. Today, we see theocracies in Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, Turkey; military juntas in Myanmar and Zimbabwe; genocide in Sudan.

Even America, in its brief life, is guilty of heinous human rights abuses – slavery, segregation, prohibitions against interracial and gay marriage, relegating women and people of color to varying degrees of property status, the denial of women’s and POC’s suffrage, genocide (e.g., Native Americans, among others), the internment of Japanese-, German- and Italian-Americans during WWII…the list is painfully long.

Even today, (particularly though not solely) under the Bush administration, there’s a palpable but gradual erosion of civil liberties, to the point where vegan potluck-goers are identified as “the number one domestic threat”. Much of this is done under the guise of fighting terrorism…and so is tolerated, even accepted and encouraged, by many Americans. Meanwhile, Christian fundamentalists, in their quest to enact religiously-based laws, mourn the secularization of America…all the while decrying “Islamofascism”. Ironic, dontchathink?

While this blamer generally considers herself a pessimist, I do believe that human progress is lurching forward, albeit slowly and erratically. Life in America is better today for most (all?) marginalized groups than it was at America’s (“New World”) conception. Yet, complacency is dangerous. Without continued vigilance, there’s the ever-looming risk of falling backwards, into regressive, oppressive modes of being. The specter of terrorism (or socialism, atheism, “loose” morals and the like) must never be used – or, more to the point, accepted – as a justification for the government to curb our civil rights and liberties. And yet, it’s happened many times in our past – and it’s happening in our present.

A Republic of Gilead in Northeast America? Totally believable. Not in spite of all the progress we’ve made, but because of it. Because, the further we move away from our history (especially in memory) – the more we romanticize and dismiss it – the more we doom ourselves to repeat it.

So thank you, “female conservative”; thank you for your willful ignorance, your xenophobia and racism, your blind nationalism and unquestioning patriotism. When I find myself imprisoned as a Handmaid, you’ll be partially to blame.

———————–

The Handmaid’s Tale(s): Table of Contents

1. The Handmaid’s Tale, The Book (Margaret Atwood, 1985): Intro & Plot Summary

2. Misogyny & the Oppression of Women

3. Race, Ethnicity and Sexual Orientation: Gilead is a Society of Isms

4. The Patriarchy Hurts Men, Too (or, “But What About Teh Menz!!!1!?”)

5. A Theocracy is Harmful to Believers and Infidels Alike

6. Hypocrites, Egotists & Apologists: Who’s Sorry Now?

7. Dear Dystopian Deniers

8. The Handmaid’s Tale, The Film (Volker Schlöndorff, 1990)

9. The Handmaid’s Tale, The Dramatization (BBC Radio 4, 2000)

———————–

Tagged: margaret atwood the handmaid’s tale books book review literature fiction dystopian scifi science fiction politics theocracy christian fundamentalist godbags feminism religion misogyny racism homophobia classism oppression patriarchy ibtp sex reproductive rights flickr photos