Karl`s PC Help Forums

The Handmaid's Tale
marymary100 - 17-6-2017 at 11:32

link to article



Quote:

Since the novel’s publication three decades ago, Gilead has existed as a paper nightmare that gains or loses dimension based on the state of our national politics. Of course, we don’t divide women into classes of Marthas, Handmaids, Econowives, and Wives; we call them “the help,” “surrogates,” the working class, and the one percent. America has never forced fertile women to bear children for infertile ones, but Trump’s pussy-grabbing presidency has given cover to the sort of blatant misogyny many thought consigned to the past. “In Trump’s America, The Handmaid’s Tale matters more than ever,” The Verge declared the day after Trump’s election. In February, the book overtook George Orwell’s 1984 on the Amazon best-seller list. Texas is Gilead and Indiana is Gilead and now that Mike Pence is our vice president, the entire country will look more like Gilead, too.


John_Little - 18-6-2017 at 07:48

Seen it on the telly and hated it! We'll done, well acted, good story but unwatchable for me. For some reason, Mrs L loves it. But your point is a good one.


marymary100 - 18-6-2017 at 08:15

The TV version is shocking if you haven't read the book. I like the article as it points out what happens to women eventually if those religious sorts who advocate the "freedom" to be stay-at-home wives/mothers at the potential mercy of their spouse's whims.

Terrorism is used to bring in law changes and it is vital that we monitor the freedoms that are being swept away in an apparent attempt to keep us "safe". There is a quote from the book along the lines that "better" is never better for all. Whose lives are you willing to make worse in order to make your own better?


LSemmens - 19-6-2017 at 01:10

I take umbrage at "those religious sorts". I could be classed as one of " those religious sorts". However, "[B]Some[/B] religious sorts" might be more appropriate. I was happy that my wife chose to stay at home and raise my kids, I believe that they are better for it.

Now, to qualify my statement. I don't care which parent chooses to stay home and raise the kids. It is an awesome responsibility and one that we (pl.) have tended to belittle, to our detriment, I might add. It's easy to use religion as a whipping post for societal ills, when, in reality, it should be an example for all of how to behave. If more effort were put into obeying the directions as set out in your religious text (in my case - the Bible) the entire family would feel safe and secure. FWIW there is nothing in my Bible that says Women should be in subjugation or that their ONLY job is to stay at home and raise the kids. Otherwise some of the most important events recorded therein would have the male as the lead role. (who was the first to report the resurrection? Why did Jesus berate Martha for doing the "womanly" thing and praise Mary for sitting and listening?)


marymary100 - 19-6-2017 at 06:00

Did you read the article Leigh? You are not the "sort" the article refers to. It is the evangelical television Christian woman who advocates one thing while living in a different way herself.



Quote:

America is rich in Serena Joys. One need look no further for her contemporary counterparts than Michelle Duggar and her daughters; or Paula White, the televangelist who allegedly led Donald Trump to Christ; or his aide Kellyanne Conway, who defends him as a “great boss” to women. The character Atwood invented is an amalgam of Phyllis Schlafly and Tammy Faye Bakker with a dash of Aimee Semple McPherson. The spectacle of the female fundamentalist celebrity is not recent, and she is not an anomaly. Her existence is proof of American fundamentalism’s durability, and a reminder that it could not thrive without the enthusiastic backing of women.
When Atwood wrote her novel, Schlafly had already established herself as one of America’s most visible and influential conservative women by leading a successful campaign against the Equal Rights Amendment. A committed Catholic, Schlafly hurled herself against feminism’s second wave with all the conviction of the activists she loathed. “The women’s libbers don’t understand that most women want to be wife, mother, and homemaker—and are happy in that role,” she asserted in 1972.
But like her fictional doppelgänger, Schlafly was no homemaker. She traveled the country; she appeared on television; she influenced policy. The world she wanted to build could not coexist with the world that allowed her career. These contradictions did not, however, trouble Schlafly’s supporters. She defeated the ERA by mobilizing them; her mostly female volunteer brigades harried legislators into rejecting the bill.


LSemmens - 20-6-2017 at 01:41

I did read the article. I still take umbrage at that generalisation. It's like saying that those Muslims are terrorists. We know that some Muslims are Terrorists, but certainly, not all are.


marymary100 - 20-6-2017 at 06:11

Not the same thing at all. Not all Christians are a mix of Phyllis Schlafly and Tammy Faye Bakker with a dash of Aimee Semple McPherson. waveysmiley


LSemmens - 20-6-2017 at 13:23

Not all Muslims are terrorists, either.


marymary100 - 20-6-2017 at 15:51

Hardly any.