Dear misogynist fuckwits,

Rather than being “bullshit,” the Bechdel test is the minimum fucking standard that (most) movies should be held to. It’s pretty simple: two women, who utter at least two sentences to one another during the course of 90+ minutes, about something other than teh menses. Like, seriously: two women, two sentences, not revolving around men. That’s a low bar, especially when you consider that almost every damn movie ever made in the history of the world features two+ men, talking to each other, about something other than women. And yet, somehow it’s a huge fucking ordeal for Hollywood to make a film that features two women whose lives do not revolve around men.

I say “most” because, obviously, there will be the odd exception; movies set in all-male spaces, such as an all-male school or such, can be excused for not featuring (m)any female characters, just as movies set in all-female spaces may not have equal male representation.

That said, women do make up a full half of the population – so no, I don’t think it’s unrealistic to expect to see one woman for every man in movies which take place in gender-neutral spaces, such as a public square in Spain. Perhaps our representation in traditionally male fields such as the Secret Service will be unequal, and perhaps such inequities can be forgiven inasmuch as they represent actual, real world statistics. However, I have higher hopes for films; just as our values shape pop culture, pop culture shapes our values. It would be nice to see so-called liberal Hollywood act in a forward-thinking manner where women are concerned. If you’re threatened by that, perhaps you should build a time machine and regress back to the Dark Ages.

Also, I should point out that I quite enjoyed Vantage Point – if you bother to read my post, I gave it an A. Usually, we feminists have to leave our “PC” ideals at the door when dealing with tv, movies, video games, etc., because we still live in a highly misogynist society. If I were to forgo every film that violates my feminist (let alone atheist and vegan) sensibilities, then I’d probably be stuck with feminist documentaries. So yeah, I liked Vantage Point, and in terms of action films, I give it props for being better than most in terms of female representation. It still falls short, though; doubly so when you hear from the director himself that the second-largest female lead was initially a man. Off the top of my head, I also liked Get Smart, Alien 3, Oceans 11-13 and Paycheck, even though none of these pass the Bechdel test. (Actually, Alien 3 is a good example of a film wherein the Bechdel test may not apply, as it’s set on an all-male penal colony.) Complicated concept, I know, but I can enjoy a film on its cinematic merits while simultaneously finding myself disappointed by its lack of female characters.

And please, before commenting, go here. My blog, my discretion. I pay my own web hosting fees, and I don’t do so in order to give misogynist fuckwits a platform to spew their hatred of women. You’ve got more than enough spaces of your own – this one’s mine.

- A movie-going feminist.

——————–

Last night the Mr. and I watched Vantage Point while we chowed down on our Thanksliving Day feast. (Yes, I realize that Tofurky Day was actually two days ago, but therein lies the beauty of not being married to a holiday – if you choose to “celebrate” it, you can party any mofo day you want. More on that later, though. I have FSMas decorating to do this weekend!)

Without throwing in any spoilers, Vantage Point chronicles the assassination of the US President and the subsequent series of terrorist attacks during an anti-terrorist summit in Spain. The same sequence of events is viewed through the eyes of various characters, including the media, the Secret Service, an American tourist, the local police chief, the President, and the terrorist group. Each “vantage point” offers a different piece of the puzzle, so you’re kept guessing until the final point of view is presented. Clocking in at 90 minutes, it’s a tight, action-packed film; just when the rewind-replay gimmick starts to feel repetitive, the vantage point switches to that of the terrorists, and the whole story is recounted from beginning to end. As long as I leave my feminist hat in the closet, Vantage Point earns an A.

From a feminist perspective, Vantage Point passes the Bechdel test, but barely.

While it’s largely an ensemble cast, most of the primary characters are male:

* All the Secret Service agents are men; Dennis Quaid (as Thomas Barnes) and Matthew Fox (Kent Taylor) are the main “eyes” of the Secret Service, and as the source of the Secret Service’s “vantage point” and the hero of the movie, Quaid can be considered the film’s lead. Another pair of agents share a lesser role, chasing down the local police chief after the assassination and explosions, and there are several additional agents with bit parts.

* Forest Whitaker (Howard Lewis) is the American tourist who captures most of the action on his video camera. He figures prominently in several of the character’s POVs, and is one of the “secondary” heroes of the story.

* Enrique (Eduardo Noriega), the local police chief, is a man. While a bit of a patsy, he also acts heroically, both before and after the attacks.

* Four of five of the terrorists are men. Of these, three of the terrorists have what I consider prominent roles: Édgar Ramírez (Javier), Saïd Taghmaoui (Suarez), and Ayelet Zurer (Veronica). Of all the females in the movie, Veronica is most integral to the plot (and she also commands the most screen time of all the women); however, she’s not given a backstory or her own “vantage point,” since the terrorists share a POV as a group. The only terrorist whose motivation is examined is Javier’s.

* President Ashton (William Hurt) and Mayor De Soto (José Carlos Rodríguez) are both men. (Though, to be fair, the Mayor is only seen introducing the President.) The President is a likable guy, while his staff (again, two men) is most certainly not.

Aside from Veronica, the only other female who takes center stage is Sigourney Weaver as grizzled veteran journalist Rex Brooks. It is through her eyes (representing the MSM as a whole) that we first witness the assassination of the President and several of the later explosions. After the first ten tense minutes (give or take), we see little of Rex throughout the rest of the film. Honestly, I feel a little cheated that Weaver was featured so prominently in the trailers, given her relatively small part in the film.

The movie’s IMDB listing credits 21 male actors vs. nine females. In addition to the aforementioned Ayelet Zurer/Veronica and Sigourney Weaver/Rex, lesser female roles include that of:

* Zoe Saldana as Angie Jones, the correspondent who is actually reporting from the square during the President’s speech. (Rex is coordinating the feeds from a trailer outside the square.)

* Shelby Fenner as Grace Riggs, a technician/assistant to Rex.

* Alicia Zapien as Anna, a young girl separated from her mother (Dolores Heredia/Marie?) during the attacks.

There’s also a female police officer, seemingly directing stampeding traffic outside the square in the wake of the explosions and one female agent (either Secret Service or a local Spanish officer), dressed as a maid in a nearby hotel. These parts are basically ten- and two-second bit roles, hardly worthy of a mention. Several more females are credited on IMDB, but these roles are so slight that I can’t recall the actors at all.

Relatively speaking, Vantage Point offers greater opportunities for female actors than do most action/adventure films. With the exception of Howard Lewis’s wife (whom Whitaker speaks to on the phone; the actress is uncredited), none of the females simply play “…the girlfriend of…” While the cast is by no means balanced to a realistic 50/50, the approximate 30% representation of female characters is better than usual.

And it passes the Bechdel test, but barely:

1. It has to have at least two women in it,

2. Who talk to each other,

3. About something besides a man.

Vantage Point satisfies these conditions early on, when Rex chews out newbie idealist reporter Angie Jones for offering political commentary on the protests (the “sideshow”) instead of dispassionately covering the president and summit (the “main event”): “Save the punditry for someone who’s paid to have an opinion.” This scene includes maybe a dozen lines of dialogue, between two women, about something other than a man. (Or not, if you consider that the dialogue was about a V.I.M., i.e., the President. But that’s a little too cynical, even for me.)

The second conversation, between two women, about something other than a man, also involves Rex; here, she and her assistant Grace talk to one another, again about the news cast.

Other than these two snippets, none of the other six females interact with one another. In contrast, the men discuss a range of subjects with one another: their terrorist activities, personnel matters, the assassination and bombings, their well-being, war and peace, politics, etc. (As her status as a child removes her from the category of “woman,” Anna’s interactions with her mother and the traffic cop don’t count.)

So while Vantage Point does pass “the test,” it by no means aces the exam. Everything considered, I give it a C+. It’s interesting to note, then, that the director mentions in the DVD extras that Rex was initially conceived as a man – which would have resulted in one primary female character (Veronica), and no interaction between any of the women in the film. As they were working on the script, the writer (Barry Levy) and director (Pete Travis) realized – duh! – that they had almost no female characters, hence their re-sexing of Rex.

While I certainly give Travis props for recognizing and remedying his mistake, I’m still amazed that Hollywood makes such mistakes to begin with. Women comprise roughly half the population; no doubt, Travis and Levy (and the like) have mothers, sisters, daughters, girlfriends, wives, etc. And yet.

Are we really that invisible? Where are all the women in these (non-chick) flicks? Confined to the home, barefoot and pregnant, chained to the sinks or draped in burqas? Do they not realize that Hollywood World, with its preponderance of penises, would quickly go extinct?

For once I’d love to see an action movie (or similarly masculine genre) featuring five female cast members for every man. Where men are only allowed representation as boyfriends, husbands, or extras. A film which takes place not in an all-female college, a beauty salon, or some other female-only space, but in the Real World – a world in which you’d expect to see the sexes evenly represented. For once I’d like to take the husband to such a film and show him how absurdly ridiculous films play when they exclude or minimize half the gorram population.

Because Hollywood already does so – but as it’s in favor of men, such slights go largely unrecognized. Not unnoticed, exactly, but unnamed, unchallenged, unchanged. Whether we detect these inequities consciously or not, we all pick up on the underlying message: that women are only useful as wives, girlfriends, secretaries and extras. If we’re good for anything (allowed in the movie) at all.

And so it is that I get all excited when movies like Vantage Point pass the Bechdel test – nevermind that they’re still wildly unbalanced in their depictions of females.

We deserve better, dammit.

——————–

Tagged: vantage point pop culture feminism movies the Bechdel test Dennis Quaid Matthew Fox Forest Whitaker Eduardo Noriega Édgar Ramírez Saïd Taghmaoui Ayelet Zurer William Hurt Sigourney Weaver Zoe Saldana action adventure conspiracy flickr photos

Spoiler alert! – Namely, for Peter Jackson’s King Kong (2005). Don’t say I didn’t warn you!

OK, so perhaps this post is six days late, but I’ve been busy enjoying the last throes of warm, sunny weather here in the Midwest. Plus, there was this minor matter called the presidential elections on Tuesday…maybe you’ve heard of it?

As I mentioned previously, Shane & I have a longstanding (three years now?…maybe four?) Halloween tradition: namely, we spend the day watching horror movies and scarfing junk food. This H-day was no exception, although we didn’t get though as many scary movies as we usually do; we watched three flicks, compared to the normal five or six. Probably because the first film, Peter Jackson’s King Kong, ran three and a half hours! Also on the roster were Identity and Untraceable.

Aside from some dreadful “primitive tribal heathen” stereotyping early on, King Kong is an incredible film. There’s definitely a strong (albeit most likely unintentional) animal welfare message underlying Kong’s story, and it’s handled beautifully by director Peter Jackson and actor Naomi Watts. Jackson’s Kong is the last of his (her?) kind, living a life of solitude and loneliness on Skull Island – that is, until Carl Denham (Jack Black) and crew arrive in order to film a movie. Leading lady Ann Darrow (Naomi Watts) is kidnapped from her ship by the island’s natives and sacrificed to Kong (cue awful stereotypes), presumably to keep the “beast” happy, content, and out of their camp. Kong, instead of devouring Darrow, initially keeps her as a sort of “pet.” (Kong is taken with her comedic vaudeville stylings, it seems.) Darrow soon escapes, but finds herself lost on a prehistoric island filled with rampaging dinosaurs and giant bugs. Kong, distraught at his only companion’s disappearance, tracks Darrow down, just in time to save her from two raptor-like dinos. Once Darrow is safe, Kong skulks off, injured both physically (from the battle) and emotionally (at Darrow’s desertion). Whether from fear or compassion (or, most likely, a combination of both), Darrow rejoins Kong.

Meanwhile, in the face of stampeding brontos and an angry Kong, Denham’s crew has abandoned their search for Darrow. Instead, they leave Jack Driscoll (Adrien Brody) to continue the search for Darrow (with whom he’s fallen in love), while the crew heads back to the ship in order to set a trap (unbeknown to Driscoll) for Kong, who’s sure to pursue the pair. Driscoll manages to find Kong’s den, which is littered with the bones of Kong’s long-dead relatives. Darrow is asleep in Kong’s palm; the two, who have formed a reciprocal, interspecies bond, watched the sun set and then nodded off together. Driscoll wakes Darrow, and the two attempt to sneak away without rousing Kong. Kong awakes in time to see the two creeping away together, and in the ensuing scuffle, a hoard of bats stir from their cliffside perch and attack the trio. Driscoll and Darrow manage to hitch a ride on one of the bats’ backs, and Kong runs after them in frenzied pursuit.

Naturally, this is where the story becomes a tearjerker. Kong is tranquilized, captured and caged during his attempt to retake a regretful Darrow. Back in NYC, Kong becomes part of a grotesque monster display, wherein Darrow’s sacrifice to the beast is reenacted for the entertainment of “horrified” audience. Darrow, who during her time with Kong had come to recognize his humanity, intelligence and sentience, wants nothing to do with the circus act, so director/showman Denham hires a Darrow lookalike to play the part. Kong begins the show partially sedated; as he comes to, he initially starts at the blond actress: I know her! Kong reaches out to Ann – only to become enraged when he realizes that it’s an impostor. Now furious, he rips free of his shackles and storms New York in search of his Ann. On the streets, he scoops up any and every thin blond he can find, only to toss the women aside when he realizes they aren’t the ones he wants.

Performing in a small, low-budget vaudeville hall, Darrow hears the commotion and runs towards Kong while throngs of flee in the other direction. Once Kong is reunited with his Jane Goodall, the two enjoy a few brief moments of reconnection. Kong, who hails from a tropical island, has never before seen ice or snow, and he delights in skidded across a pond in Central Park with Darrow perched safely in his hand. This playful scene is interrupted by a hail of gunfire; Kong, though he hasn’t intentionally harmed anyone (and is in fact a captive slave in the city, there against his will), must be destroyed! You probably know the rest: Kong is pursued by the police and military to the top of the Empire State Building, from which he is eventually gunned down.

Kong dies for our stupidity, greed, selfishness and speciesism.

Like Planet of the Apes (and even Transformers), I wouldn’t classify Jackson’s King Kong as an overtly animal rights movie; however, the underlying messages are quite animal friendly: imprisoning wild animals, keeping exotic pets, ignoring the unique needs and characteristics of animals other than ourselves, elevating human animals above all else, hubris and greed – these are unethical states of being with dire consequences.

Looking at Kong’s body lying dead in the street, a reporter remarks that he was “just a dumb animal.” Yet, it’s clear to everyone who looked into Kong’s understanding, intelligent eyes that he was anything but a stupid beast. The animals involved in Kong’s destruction – well, that’s another matter.

While searching for a movie poster to illustrate this post, I noticed a rather stark dichotomy between how the movie marketers portray Kong in the film’s adverts – versus the humanity and compassion with which Jackson paints him.

For example, Kong primarily appears as a roaring, animalistic menace:

Yet, he is quite gentle and loving towards Ms. Darrow, who (notably and singularly) takes the time to empathize with and relate to him as an individual. Their bond is honored in just one of the posters in the series (at least as far as I can tell):

Here you see Kong regarding Ann with curiosity, interest and affection – a far cry from the rabid beast depicted above.

My favorite images, by far, are stills of Kong and Ann taken from the movie:

Love, beauty and mutual understanding, shared across the species “barrier.” Is there anything more wondrous in all the world?

After watching Kong, I was basically reduced to a sniffly, blubbering mess. (This is why I never watch movies like Harry and the Hendersons, The Water Horse, or Cujo – they break, rather than entertain.) Even though it was a “monster movie” – and technically appropriate for our Halloween movie marathon – King Kong didn’t much scare me. So we moved on to two genuine horror/suspense movies.

Identity…well, it’s a good enough movie with a big twist at the end. And no women were objectified in its making! So two thumbs up and a hearty recommendation from this humorless feminist.

I was even more impressed with Untraceable, which passes The Bechdel test, namely, that a female friendly (read: not sexist) movie must have 1) at least two women, 2) who talk to each other, 3) about something other than a man. I don’t want to drop a spoiler, so let me also just hint that the strong female lead doesn’t need a man to save her. She can escape just fine on her own, thankyouverymuch. And, no objectification of women here, either – even though you’d expect as much from a film about a serial killer. Mad props all around for Untraceable.

Now on to the Halloween feast!

Breakfast was a boring bowl of bran flakes (my usual), but for lunch I had some mouth-watering potato onion pierogies, while Shane downed vegan “egg” rolls. Later on, we made pizza for dinner: homemade sundried tomatoes, mushrooms, black olives and Lightlife faux pepperoni for me; homegrown green peppers, mushrooms, black olives and Lightlife faux pepperoni for Shane.

As far as snacks go, we had Halloween Oreos, of course, which are delish (though a bit disconcerting – the neon orange filling looks absolutely nucular:

as well as some potato chips with onion dip (made with a dip mix and Tofutti Sour Cream) and home-dried fruit leather.

After dinner, I delighted in a shiny bowl of soy ice cream – Turtle Mountain Purely Decadent Cookie Dough with Coconut Milk:

I think Shane picked up the “Coconut Milk” line by accident last time he was at Whole Foods; the labeling doesn’t look all that much different from the “regular” Purely Decadent line. The flavors sweetened with coconut milk are just as yummy, but you can definitely detect a hint of coconut under the primary ingredients. It’s an expected undertone in the Coconut flavor; not so much with the Cookie Dough. Not bad, just…unexpected.

And…that’s Halloween. I snapped some shots of our main courses, but they came out awful, so there you go.

As for VeganMoFo reflections – I’ve got a few.

I was a bit apprehensive about meeting the post requirement when I signed up for the carnival, but in reality, I thought up more than enough post ideas. So many, in fact, that I’ve got a ton in the bank. Plus, the near-daily posts forced me to cook more (instead of forever gorging on leftovers) and try new recipes (instead of the familiar go-tos). As a result, I’ve discovered a number of new recipes that will become standards in the kitchen, no doubt. I even learned how to prepare such strange and unusual veggies as…spaghetti squash! (Oh my!) And I loved, loved, loved reading my fellow bloggers’ entries, and was wowed by the level of culinary artistry in the vegan community. (Wing It Vegan, I’m so looking at you!) I’ll have to step up my game for next year.

That’s a wrap, peoples! Let’s do it again next October, shall we?

(Crossposted from.)

————————

Tagged: veganmofo vegan veganism vegetarian vegetarianism blog swarm october food carnival halloween food junk food oreos pizza purely decadence soy ice cream king kong movies speciesism horror movies untraceable identity peter jackson animal rights animal welfare animal friendly sentience great apes pop culture

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

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

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.

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

This blamer was just a wee little babycake when Margaret Atwood was penning The Handmaid’s Tale. Yet twenty-plus years later, the characters and political climate still ring true. Has our society progressed so little?

Serena Joy, who receives relatively little attention in The Handmaid’s Tale, is perhaps the most engrossing character aside from Kate. She bears an uncanny resemblance to Beverly LaHaye, Ann Coulter, Phyllis Schlafly (she of “it is legally, morally, and technically impossible for husbands to rape their wives, because women have consented to a lifetime of sex-on-demand through marriage” fame) and the like. In “the days before”, Serena Joy was an evangelical preacher on the teevee. The type of woman who made a living by scolding other women for working outside the home. In other words, a hypocrite:

She put her cigarette out, half smoked, in a little scrolled ashtray on the lamp table beside her. She did this decisively, one jab and one grind, not the series of genteel taps favored by many of the Wives.

As for my husband, she said, he’s just that. My husband. I want that to be perfectly clear. Till death do us part. It’s final. [...]

It’s one of the things we fought for, said the Commander’s Wife, and suddenly she wasn’t looking at me, she was looking down at her knuckled, diamond-studded hands, and I knew where I’d seen her before. [...]

Serena Joy was never her real name, not even then. Her real name was Pam. I read that in a profile on her, in a news magazine, long after I’d first watched her singing while my mother slept in on Sunday mornings. By that time she was worthy of a profile: Time or Newsweek it was, it must have been. She wasn’t singing anymore by then, she was making speeches. She was good at it. Her speeches were about the sanctity of the home, about how women should stay at home. Serena Joy didn’t do this herself, she made speeches instead, but she presented this failure of hers as a sacrifice she was making for the good of all.

Around that time, someone tried to shoot her and missed; her secretary, who was standing right beside her, was killed instead. Someone else planted a bomb in her car but it went off too early. Though some people said she’d put the bomb in her own car, for sympathy. That’s how hot things were getting.

Luke and I would watch her sometimes on the late-night news. Bathrobes, nightcaps. We’d watch her sprayed hair and her hysteria, and the tears she could still produce at will, and the mascara blackening her cheeks. By that time she was wearing more makeup. We thought she was funny. Or Luke thought she was funny. I only pretended to think so. Really she was a little frightening. She was in earnest.

She doesn’t make speeches anymore. She has become speechless. She stays in her home, but it doesn’t seem to agree with her. How furious she must be, now that she’s been taken at her word.

Serena Joy squandered her freedom; she wasted her rights and liberties (hard won by actual feminists before her) to fight for the oppression of her own kind. Now that she’s gotten her wish, it’s a hollow sort of satisfaction: confined to the home with little else to do but knit, garden and gossip with the other Wives, she’s not even allowed an opinion on how her own Biblical vision has played out. She is powerless, voiceless, speechless.

Are you listening, Beverly LaHaye, Ann Coulter, Phyllis Schlafly, et al.?

While Serena Joy’s own success in mixing church and state eventually made an honest woman out of her, the Commander is a Gileadean hypocrite of the highest order. Like his Wife, he fought hard to outlaw everything deemed sinful by The Sons of Jacob and other like-minded evangelicals: unchaste, immodest and insufficiently pious magazines, newspapers, books, television shows, movies, clothing, cosmetics, furniture, even. All prohibited items were supposed to have been burned, destroyed, annihilated. Yet, like many high-ranking men, the Commander has a secret stash of contraband; stored in his home office, natch. (So much for the “sanctity of the home”, eh?)

The Commander entices Kate with forbidden games of Scrabble, retro issues of Esquire and Ms.; books, even. While he ostensibly does so in order to buoy Kate’s spirits (the previous Offred hung herself from the chandelier), the Commander also derives a perverse sense of pleasure from watching Kate engage in prohibited, “deviant” acts:

While I read, the Commander sits and watches me doing it, without speaking but also without taking his eyes off me. This watching is a curious sexual act, and I feel undressed while he does it. I wish he would turn his back, stroll around the room, read something himself. Then perhaps I could relax more, take my time. As it is, this illicit reading of mine seems a kind of performance.

In forbidding even mundane acts such as reading, Gilead has endowed them with erotic undertones. Here, the Commander derives sexual pleasure by “corrupting” Kate intellectually. Given his views on men, women and social structures, this is a fairly blatant case of hypocrisy.

More blatant still is the “field trip” to Jezebel’s, which is undertaken specifically for the Commander’s pleasure. The Commander, you see, isn’t the only man in Gilead to violate his own social rules; everyone who’s anyone does it (well, everyone who’s anyone butnotwithavagina). Jezebel’s is a “whorehouse”, a secret “boy’s club” located within Gilead’s borders; it’s a way station for the uppity women (the pretty ones, that is) before they arrive at their final destination, The Colonies. Some were “working girls” in “the days before”; others were professionals, social workers, lawyers and the like. At Jezebel’s, they entertain the Commanders, as well as foreign dignitaries and investors, both sexually and intellectually. After all, they rarely receive either type of stimulation from their own Wives. Yet, this was of the men’s own choosing, was it not?

After a few months of secret rendezvouses in his home office, the Commander ferrets Kate away to Jezebel’s for the night. While most of the women are in-house residents – Jezebels – a few are “rentals”, temporary dates “imported” by Commanders for an evening. Kate masquerades as a rental, donning a “glittering and theatrical” number, “an old theater costume, or something from a vanished nightclub act”, a handful of mauve and pink feathers, purple sequins. A garish approximation of what women wore to “go out” in “the days before.” All the women at Jezebel’s are wearing these outfits: cheerleaders, Playboy bunnies, French maids. They are sin, forbidden, as are the drugs and liquor given to the Jezebels in order to keep them submissive and dependent.

After dressing Kate up like “The Whore of Babylon” and showing off his “date” at Jezebel’s, the Commander rapes her in one of the rooms above the club. He’s not supposed to have sex with rape her outside of the Ceremony.

I guess rules are made to be broken, no? If you have a penis, that is.

Pen Is Envy.

Upon their arrival at Jezebel’s, the Commander justifies his unequal, gender-biased standards to Kate thusly:

“I thought this sort of thing was strictly forbidden,” I say.

“Well, officially,” he says. “But everyone’s human, after all.”

I wait for him to elaborate on this, but he doesn’t, so I say, “What does that mean?”

“It means you can’t cheat Nature,” he says. “Nature demands variety, for men. It stands to reason, it’s part of the procreational strategy. It’s Nature’s plan.” I don’t say anything, so he goes on. “Women know that instinctively. Why did they buy so many different cloths, in the old days? To trick the men into thinking they were several different women. A new on each day.” [...]

“So now that we don’t have different clothes,” I say, “you merely have different women.” This is irony, but he doesn’t acknowledge it.

“It solves a lot of problems,” he says, without a twitch.

Though conservatives like to slur feminists as man-hates, it is the Commander’s anti-feminist philosophy which is truly misandrous: men cannot control their libidos, so all of society must suffer. (And suffer it has; aside from the oppression of women, non-whites, homosexuals, liberals and religious minorities, Gilead is in the midst of a Civil War, complete with food shortages, economic woes and countless needlessly dead soldiers.)

Also of note is how women’s supposed biological roles as mothers tie them to Gilead’s strict social rules, while men’s procreative imperatives free them from these same rules. Why even pretend to constrain the menfolk with rules in the first place?

Because, in addition to the myriad “isms” already mention, Gilead is also a classist society; only the upper-class, privileged men are granted leave from Gilead’s oppressive laws:

Why do you have this? I asked him.

Some of us, he said, retain an appreciation for the old things.

But these were supposed to have been burned, I said. There were house-to-house searches, bonfires…

What’s dangerous in the hands of multitudes, he said, with what may or may not have been irony, is safe enough for those whose motives are…

Beyond reproach, I said.

Again, the Commander’s hypocrisy shines through, as does the damage done to men at the hands of The Patriarchy.

———————–

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

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.

A Theocracy is Harmful to Believers and Infidels Alike

Just as the patriarchy hurts men as well as women, so too does a theocracy hurt believers and non-believers alike.

Although Atwood never identifies Gilead’s sect, we do know that it’s a Christian theocracy. We can eliminate Catholics, Quakers and Baptists, for Gilead forces young Catholic nuns to either renounce their religion and become Handmaids, or else face exile to The Colonies; fights against the Quakers, many of which are helping Gilead’s women escape via the Underground Femaleroad; and is engaged in open warfare with the Baptists. Given the state of current American religion and politics, Southern Baptist seems the best bet, however, all we can say about Gilead’s religion is that it is a fundamentalist Christian sect that is vehemently opposed by most of the other American religious sects – Christian or otherwise.

In fact, Gilead considers every religious sect other than its own the enemy, and demands that their adherents submit and convert – or die. The only believers which were spared during the Civil War were practicing Jews, who could either convert or immigrate to Israel. (Not as lucky a fate as it sounds; according to our future scientists, Gilead “privatiz[ed ] the Jewish repatriation scheme, with the result that more than one boatload of Jews was simply dumped into the Atlantic.” KBR, anyone?)

Gilead’s fundamentalist reading of the Bible, coupled with their brute force and religious zealotry, proved harmful to believers and non-believers alike, who were forced to submit to Gilead’s dogma or die. Nor did being “Christian enough” placate the Sons of Jacob – all citizens must follow Gilead’s religiously derived laws, to the letter, or face draconian punishments. A woman caught reading, for example, might lose a hand. No matter whether that woman agrees with Gilead and views “reading while female” a Biblical sin; she must abide by her government’s reading of holy doctrine either way.

In a theocracy, there’s no guarantee that the government will share your interpretation of the Bible. Better still to enshrine strong civil liberties protections in the Constitution, along with a healthy respect for the separation of church and state – that way, no one can force their religious beliefs on others, or have their own religious beliefs taken from them.

While many conservative American Christians claim that America is “founded on Christian principles” (or Judeo Christian, if they’re feeling generous and/or pandering) to which we should return, they don’t clearly specify which Christian edicts we should enshrine in law. After all, this coalition (which primarily consists of conservative/fundamentalist Christians, orthodox Jews and Catholics) only shares the most general of values; thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not steal, thou shalt not bear false witness. What about those doctrines which differ between these three religions, not to mention those which differ between sub-sects of each? Would the Catholic religion’s contempt of birth control mean that it should be prohibited, by the state, for Catholics and non-Catholics alike? What of those other seven commandments – will the state make working on the Sabbath and dishonoring one’s father crimes, punishable by…what? Jail time? Loss of a hand? Even the day of the Sabbath is up for debate: Is it Friday? Sunday? Once a month at new moon?

A state founded on religious principles – and, more to the point, that seeks to impose religious dogma on its citizens – is harmful to everyone. As each religion (and every subset of that religion) has different doctrines, a theocracy will necessarily violate at least some of its citizens beliefs (including their own personal religious beliefs). Even if the state’s religion is identical to that of a majority of its citizens’, imposing religious ideology on others, even a small minority, is still a gross human rights violation.

This doesn’t mean that the state shouldn’t enforce any sort of morality; that anything goes. Quite the contrary – justice, order and a sense of morality are necessary for a free, open, functioning society. But all rules and policies must have a secular basis and rationale. If a religious edict cannot be justified from a secular standpoint, then it should not be forced on anyone. Nor is this to imply that citizens, of their own free will, cannot follow any religious practice they wish. Indeed, as long as they are not violating anyone else’s rights in so doing, then they should be free to follow their religion as they see fit.

Do to others what you would have them do to you. Though America is a “Christian Nation” inasmuch as a majority of its citizens self-identify as “Christians”, there may come a day when they are in the religious minority. Would it then be acceptable for Muslims, Hindus, Orthodox Jews or Pastafarians to force their respective religions on the minority believers – with the full force of the government? As Gilead did to all other Christians-who-were-not-them? Of course not.

Do to others what you would have them do to you...because one day, you will be the “other”.

We are all atheists about most of the gods that societies have ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further.

So, too, are we all infidels, in at least one other religion’s eyes.

———————–

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

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

While the women of Gilead bear the greatest burden of living in a patriarchy built on a misogynistic religion – after all, they are property – most of Gileadean men don’t fare well, either. The patriarchy hurts men, too.

Like women, men are ranked according to Gilead’s rigid social structure: Commanders, Eyes, Angels, Guardians, common working men, and dissidents. Those who helped form Gilead, the original loyalists and its founding fathers, sit at the top of the social ladder. Next come the newly converted True Believers ™, and then down the line until you have the political dissidents, religious and ethnic minorities, and those who sinned in “the days before”. Some of the “troublemakers” are executed, while others may be sent to work in The Colonies alongside the Unwomen. Such an intractable hierarchy only benefits those few men lucky enough to sit atop the pyramid.

(Interestingly, Gilead does not have a corresponding term for men; there are no “Unmen”. Perhaps this can be attributed to Gilead’s cult of mother worship in a time of rampant infertility? Here, all women are expected to aspire to motherhood as their greatest, indeed their only goal. So the worst thing you can call a woman is not-a-woman, an Unwoman. What does this say about the value of men in Gilead?)

All men are expected to obey their superiors unquestioningly. Though they have greater access to knowledge than the women, their freedom is severely limited. The government controls the media: the television only broadcasts religious programming and propaganda-disguised-as-news. Printed material must also submit to government regulations. Subversive materials from “the days before” – books, magazines, CDs, VHS tapes, etc. – is banned by the government. Citizens were instructed to destroy these sinful possessions, and to ensure complicity, Gilead conducted house-to-house raids in which all “contraband” was confiscated and destroyed. Ditto for other insufficiently pious items such as unauthorized clothing, blasphemous knickknacks and any items with written words that the womenfolk might read on accident.

In Gilead, all new marriages are arranged, usually by the Wives (i.e., the mothers of the Daughters). Men have no say in who they may date (indeed, there is no dating allowed in Gilead!), who they may love, or who they may marry. The greater a man’s rank, the more desirable a wife he will receive. Men’s sex lives, too, are dictated to them by the state: no recreational sex, no protected sex, no extramarital sex, no gay sex, no masturbation, no pornography.

Many men who were married before the Civil War and the formation of Gilead saw their families broken up by the state. According to Gilead, the Bible frowns upon divorce and thus second (and third and fourth) marriages. Thus, every marriage involving a divorcee was annulled by the state. If children were involved, they were seized from the couple and placed with more “deserving” families. Later on, all marriages not performed by Gilead were declared illegal. In a world in which women and children are property, men can dominate, abuse and mistreat their property – and so can other men, particularly the state. (A modern-day example of this is the FLDS Church; here, the Church leadership routinely “reassigns” a man’s wife(s) and/or children as a form of punishment.)

Even Gilead’s highest ranking Commanders are not safe from the patriarchy they’ve built. We learn from the scientists of 2195 that Kate’s Commander was executed in a government purge after her escape. His high rank notwithstanding, Commander Fred’s peers suspected him of aiding in Kate’s getaway, and of possibly feeding her state secrets to boot. When they searched his home, no doubt they discovered all that contraband – retro issues of Vogue and Cosmo, women’s clothing circa 1976, etc. – that was supposed to have been destroyed on his own government’s orders. Off with his head! (The patriarchy devours penises too, dontchaknow!)

Under a fundamentalist dictatorship’s thumb, we are all victims. “But What About Teh Menz!!!1!?”, indeed.

———————–

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

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.

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

In addition to being a misogynistic society, Gilead is also a racist and homophobic society. Unlike misogyny, however, The Handmaid’s Tale is notable for what it does not say about race and homosexuality.

In her narration, Kate very rarely mentions race. When describing people, skin color is almost never explicitly referenced. Through subtle clues, we can discern that many of the main characters in The Handmaid’s Tale are white: Kate describes her brown hair, the Commander’s silver hair, Serena Joy’s blond hair, Nick’s angular French facial features, Ofglen’s pink, plump face, Janine’s pink nose. Nameless Guardians have peach-colored mustaches and pale faces. Gilead is overwhelmingly white – except for its laborers. Rita and Cora, Commander Fred’s Marthas, are women of color. We know this of Rita because Kate describes her “brown arm”, but can only assume this of Cora.

Kate describes Marthas as women whose previous work in the domestic sphere has instilled in them a compliant, subservient nature. Wiki defines Marthas as “infertile women whose compliant nature and domestic skills recommend them to a life of domestic servitude.” (I’m paraphrasing Kate’s description, as I was unable to locate the exact quote.) While there’s some speculation as to whether Marthas are African Americans – thus conjuring America’s history of slavery – it’s unclear whether all the Marthas share the same race and ethnicity, or if any women of color who are appropriately subservient and compliant are given the option of working as Marthas as opposed to dying in The Colonies. It is my impression that Rita and Cora are Latinas, based on Rita’s “brown arms” and their first names. Additionally, while I was unable to locate the demographics of domestic workers in the U.S., Diana Vellos claims that “Latinas today constitute the largest category of women entering the domestic labor force in the United States. Many of these women are undocumented workers.”

Whatever their heritage, it seems as though Marthas are the only people of color living in Gilead. Most likely, any other non-white Americans were killed or sent to The Colonies as manual laborers.

Even though they are the only WOC in Gilead – and must stick out in the sea of otherwise white faces – the Marthas remain remarkably invisible in Gileadean society. Take, for example, this comment from Kate:

Rita is in here, standing at the kitchen table…She’s in her usual Martha’s dress, which is dull green, like a surgeon’s gown of the time before. The dress is much like mine in shape, long and concealing but with a bib apron over it and without the white wings and the veil. She puts on he veil to go outside, but nobody much cares who sees the face of a Martha.

Unlike the oversexualized Handmaids, Marthas are viewed as asexual; fit for lives of domestic servitude and little else. Like ovens, blenders and other assorted household appliances, Marthas are part of the background, objects to serve a purpose. They share this quality of objectification and property status with the Handmaids, but because they are non-white and/or infertile, they are not considered as valuable pieces of property as the Handmaids.

We do not see any men of color in Gilead, perhaps because they have all been doomed to a life of backbreaking labor in The Colonies.

Homosexuality receives more attention in The Handmaid’s Tale, most likely because modern-day Christian fundamentalists spend a disproportionate amount of time wringing their hands over the specter of gay sex. Homosexuality is strictly forbidden in Gilead. This stands to reason, as all non-procreative sex is against the law, but there’s also a great deal of Biblically justified homophobia in Gileadean society. Homosexuality is a crime, and “gender traitors” may be executed or sent to The Colonies. (Although it’s unclear whether the prohibition is on homosexual sex or a homosexual orientation.)

Moira, Kate’s best friend during college and a recurring character during Gilead’s reign, is in fact a lesbian. She came to The Red Center after she was apprehended by the Gileadean government and charged with “gender treachery”. Her choice of punishment? Become a Handmaid, or work in The Colonies.

Moira is perhaps the single most likable character in The Handmaid’s Tale. While Kate is timid, fearful, a self-preservationist, Moira is the rebellious nonconformist, the likely hero of the story. Moira makes several escape attempts, even finding her way to the Underground Femaleroad before she’s captured and sent to work as a Jezebel. Kate, on the other hand, withdraws from Ofglen when she’s asked to spy on her Commander for the May Day rebels. There are several points in the story when Kate has the opportunity to help bring about Gilead’s destruction, if even in a minuscule way, yet she always loses her nerve. In the end, it is Kate who escapes, but only through the graces of others, while a drug-addled Moira remains at Jezebel’s, resigned to her fate.

It hardly seems fair, yet little in The Handmaid’s Tale is.

———————–

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

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.

Misogyny & the Oppression of Women

By far, the most pervasive theme in The Handmaid’s tale is misogyny and the oppression of women; in fact, female oppression The Republic of Gilead is so ubiquitous so as to suggest that the nation was founded for the sole purpose of reinstating a true theocratic patriarchy. Every facet of society works in concert to control Giliadean women; their subjugation is total.

Women are segregated into groups based on their social functions, as are men. However, unlike the men, women have no chance for upward mobility, only down. A man, for example, may move up in rank from a Guardian to an Angel. There is no such opportunity for women. Wives (and Econowives) may only become Widows; Handmaids, Marthas and Jezebels may be cast off as Unwomen should they fail to fulfill their roles. And Unwomen become laborers or are sent to die a gruesome death in the polluted Colonies. To add insult to injury, a woman’s status is largely determined by her birth, loyalty and reproductive function. In contrast, Gilead does not so much as acknowledge that a man’s reproductive function may be lacking, theoretically or in practice.

Women, with the exception of the Aunts, are not allowed to read or write. Women do not have access to books of any sort, including the Bible. Every household has a Bible, of course, but this is kept under lock and key. Nor do females have writing implements – neither pens nor paper – at their disposal. The no-reading edict is so strictly enforced that the neighborhood markets advertise their wares with graphic signs as opposed to written store names: Lilies of the Field, which sells habits, sports a golden lily on the sign out front; Milk and Honey has “three eggs, a bee, a cow”; and All Flesh “is marked by a large wooden pork chop hanging from two chains.” When the Handmaids are sent out on errands, they are given small cards (similar to tokens) with which to purchase groceries and other necessities. These, too, are decorated with pictures.

The prohibition of reading and writing for women is obviously done to keep women ignorant, unaware, dependent; Knowledge is power. Though Gilead is a pious nation, women aren’t even allowed to read the state’s holy book. If they wish to pray, they must either recite the verses from memory, or ask their husbands to read to them from the family Bible. As Gilead uses Biblical doctrine to justify their draconian rules, permitting women to read – to investigate and hold their government accountable – most likely would lead to widespread discontent, if not outright rebellion.

For the Handmaids, the ban on all things cerebral has an added dimension. Handmaids exist solely to give birth, nothing more. They are but mere vessels, empty until filled with child. In order to be “good” Handmaids, they must empty their minds as well, so that they remain open to “the Lord’s gifts”. Thus, a Handmaid’s life is especially barren, vacuous, boring. Kate finds Gilead so devoid of intellectual stimulation that she’s pleased to discover a small seat cushion in her room – apparently overlooked during Gilead’s sweeps – that has the word “faith” embroidered on its face. Finally, something to read, to study, to digest! A subversive kind of pleasure, at that.

While the different classes of women have differing degrees of freedom of movement, no woman is free to come and go as she chooses. The borders of Gilead are ferociously guarded and few Gileadeans – women or men – are allowed to leave. Within Gilead’s borders, women’s movements are tightly restricted as well. The nation is saturated with checkpoints, guards, spies, nanny-cams, and searchlights. Aside from the Aunts (who still must answer to men and sometimes require Guardian escorts), Wives and Econowives have the greatest freedom of movement, while Handmaids are only permitted a daily shopping trip and the occasional ceremonial “field trips”. Oh, and monthly doctor’s visits for a fertility check that’s simply livestock-esque in nature. Marthas, Jezebels and Unwomen appear chained to their respective posts, almost never leaving the job.

Women’s bodies, too, are the source of myriad rules and regulations. This begins with the clothing that women are told to wear. Every woman, Aunts included, has to don a uniform identifying her social function. Aunts wear brown dresses; Wives, blue dresses; Widows, black dresses; Daughters, white dresses; Econowives, dresses striped red, blue, and green; Handmaids, red habits with white headdresses (“Wings”); Marthas, green smocks; Jezebels, revealing vintage contraband from “the days before”; and Unwomen, gray dresses.

Women do not have a right to privacy or bodily autonomy. Young, pre-menopausal women undergo extensive medical testing in order to determine whether they’re fertile; if so, they become Handmaids and are subjected to a litany of probing, poking and prodding throughout their tenure. Because they must be in peak physical health, Handmaids are subject to a rigorous health regimen: no smoking, no drinking, no sweets. Even their three square meals are regulated by the state; Handmaids must eat whatever meal they are served, and they must eat it all – otherwise, the Marthas are required to report the transgression to the Commander’s Wife.

Presumably, Wives and Econowives must submit to medical exams as well, particularly if they and their husbands wish to request a Handmaid (i.e., to prove that they are strerile and “in need”). Jezebels, of course, must maintain a certain weight, lest they lose their sex appeal and get shipped off to The Colonies (no one likes a fatty, dontchaknow!). Otherwise, it’s unclear whether Aunts, Widows, Daughters and Marthas receive mandatory medical care, or any medical care for that matter. It’s safe to assume that Unwomen do not; wading in radiation and nuclear waste, they are effectively the walking dead.

Gilead wouldn’t be a theocracy without much pearl-clutching and hand-wringing over sex – and when it comes to sex, Gilead about as fundamentalist as a theocracy can be. Sex is only acceptable when it’s done for reproductive purposes; Just lie back and think of Gilead. Thus, husbands and Wives (or Econowives) may have sex, but only if conception is the goal. Aunts, Widows, Daughters, Marthas, Unwomen – all are effectively celibate. So too are Wives, if they have been assigned Handmaids. To rub salt in the wound, a Wife’s presence is required at the monthly Ceremony; a Wife must hold her Handmaid’s hands while she watches her husband rape the Handmaid. (Yes, despite Kate’s protestations, this is rape. A choice between life as a “vessel” or a radioactive death in The Colonies is not a choice freely made at all.) It goes without saying that the Ceremonies are carefully timed with the Handmaid’s menstrual cycle so that they only take place on her most fertile days. (Wouldn’t want to have any pointless rape-sex now, would we?) Only Jezebels may have sex for pleasure; some “pleasure”, the life of a sex slave must be. (Jezebels are routinely raped as well, as their “choice” is similar to that of the Handmaids.) Masturbation is strictly forbidden, as is contraception and abortion.

Gilead’s subjugation of women is so complete that the government is able to control a woman’s behavior, her thoughts, her will – even her personal connection to her own body. A continuous theme throughout The Handmaid’s Tale is Kate’s disconnect from her physical body. This split is both physical and psychological, and is achieved through various methods.

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, both of which further conceal her body – from everyone, herself included. At night, there is scant relief from the stifling uniforms. In bed, a Handmaid must cover herself head-to-toe in a long white cotton nightdress; nevermind that she always sleeps alone. During the hot summers, she switches to a habit made of lighter material, but it’s no more revealing than her winter wardrobe. Consequently, a Handmaid almost never experiences her own naked body. The only time she’s completely nude is when she’s allowed to bathe. Even during the Ceremony, only her torso is exposed.

Thus begins the alienation Kate feels from her physical body. Mentally, she sometimes curses it, for it alone determines her fate. After three unsuccessful postings, a Handmaid is assumed infertile and sent to certain death in The Colonies. Serena Joy and Commander Fred are her second assignment, and Fred is almost certainly sterile. Such a shame, The Republic doesn’t recognize male sterility.

Her body, too, is the reason for much of Kate’s suffering: Blessed are you, Lord, our God, ruler the universe who has not created me a woman. Because she just so happens to possess a vagina, she cannot read, write or even think freely. She is hated, despised and abused for the mere fact of her sex. A roll of the dice: XX or XY, submission or dominance, what will it be? Had she been born a man, Kate’s lot in life would be marginally better. At least she wouldn’t be property, livestock, a vessel – figuratively and literally.

Kate’s physical body also serves as a reminder of “the days before” – of a time when she once used it with abandon, as an agency of change or simply pleasure. Those days are gone now, and she can only recall them in short bursts, ration them out, lest she use them up too quickly. Lest they use her up – her sanity, that is – betray her, ensure her exile to The Colonies.

The disconnect Kate feels from her body is so profound that she cannot bear to look down at herself on those few occasions when she is free of the habit. While bathing, she takes care to look straight ahead. She doesn’t wish to be reminded of “the days before”, of the freedoms she took for granted, of her husband Luke, or the daughter whom she nurtured with that very body. Only after she begins her affair with Nick is Kate able to reflect on her body and enjoy the pleasures it can impart. Through Nick, Kate also faces the all-too-human needs that she still has, needs which Gilead’s social engineers have sorely underestimated – namely, companionship and love.

In a way, Nick becomes Kate’s vessel. Ironic, that.

In addition to concealing her from the outside world, Kate’s clothing also serves to conceal the outside world from her. Kate’s headdress – her “Wings” – act as blinders. Literally “blinders” – the type you might see on a horse. The headdress is a hat, of course, that covers the head and hair; but it also has extra appendages, wings, that wrap around the Handmaid’s head and obscure her peripheral vision. She can only see straight ahead, and even then, she’s usually expected to look down, at the floor, in yet another show of subservience.

See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil.

One of the most memorable (heartbreaking, chilling, infuriating) passages in The Handmaid’s Tale is Kate’s recollection of the day American women were so deftly stripped of their rights. In one morning, women were summarily fired from their jobs and their bank accounts were frozen. Money equals power, and the state turned it all over to the men, creating an unequivocal patriarchy:

I went to pick my daughter up from school. I drove with exaggerated care. By the time Luke got home I was sitting at the kitchen table. She was drawing with felt pens at her own little table in the corner, where her paintings were taped up next to the refrigerator.

Luke knelt besides me and put his arms around me. I heard, he said, on the car radio, driving home. Don’t worry, I’m sure it’s temporary.

Did they say why? I said.

He didn’t answer that. We’ll get through it, he said, hugging me.

You don’t know what it’s like, I said. I feel as if somebody cut off my feet. I wasn’t crying. Also, I couldn’t put my arms around him.

It’s only a job, he said, trying to soothe me.

I guess you get all my money, I said. And I’m not even dead. I was trying for a joke, but it came out sounding macabre.

Hush, he said. He was still kneeling on the floor. You know I’ll always take care of you.

I thought, Already he’s trying to patronize me. Then I thought, Already you’re starting to get paranoid.

I know, I said. I love you.

That night, after I’d lost my job, Luke wanted to make love. Why didn’t I want to? Desperation alone should have driven me. But I still felt numbed. I could hardly even feel his hands on me.

What’s the matter? he said.

I don’t know, I said.

We still have…he said. But he didn’t go on to say what we still had. It occurred to me that he shouldn’t be saying we, since nothing that I knew of had been taken away from him.

We still have each other, I said. It was true. Then why did I sound, even to myself, so indifferent?

He kissed me then, as is now I’d said that, things could get back to normal. But something had shifted, some balance. I felt shrunken, so that when he put his hands around me, gathering me up, I was as small as a doll. I felt love going forward without me.

He doesn’t mind this, I thought. He doesn’t mind it at all. Maybe he even likes it. We are not each other’s, anymore. Instead, I am his.

Unworthy, unjust, untrue. But that is what happened.

So Luke: what I want to ask you now, what I need to know is, Was I right? Because we never talked about it. By the time I could have done that, I was afraid to. I couldn’t afford to lose you.

IBTP.

———————–

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