I have read that a new television show is out there based on the novel, "The Handmaid's Tale", by Margaret Atwood. I've never read it. It came out after I graduated. What I know is from Wiki, and we know those posts can be altered by many. I read that it is about a dystopian near future where the USA is taken over and society is changed. Women are now looked at as only useful for human reproduction,. If their ovaries don't work, they are deemed a burden to society. My questions are: What do today's women think about this book written more than 30 years ago? How close to reality is this book to you? If you believe this is inevitable without intervention, what steps should society take to avoid this novel becoming real life?
I suggest you watch it! It was terrific. No we don’t think that this book is anywhere near reality it is satirical
I read it 30 years ago.. long after I had finished school. Its science fiction and of course a projection of "what if".. I don't think its a serious feminist commentary on anything. .. I think I would like to watch the series. When is it broadcast?
It does make one wonder. There were classes of women with a ruling patriarchy. Some women were breeders. Lots of women complain about the patriarchy and being breeders for men. It seemed just a hop skip and jump to this from the fears or maybe angry rhetoric I've read many times. I figured it might have had some bearing on feminist movements.
I don't know, this part seems to be a Republican/Conservative dream come true: Beginning with a staged attack that kills the President and most of Congress, a fundamentalist Christian Reconstructionist movement calling itself the "Sons of Jacob" launches a revolution and suspends the United States Constitution under the pretext of restoring order.[7] They quickly remove women's rights, largely attributed to financial records being stored electronically and labelled by sex. The new regime, the Republic of Gilead, moves quickly to consolidate its power, including overtaking all pre-existing religious groups, including Christianity, and reorganize society along a new militarized, hierarchical model of Old Testament-inspired social and religious fanaticism among its newly created social classes. In this society, human rights are severely limited and women's rights are strictly curtailed. For example, women are forbidden to read, and anyone caught in homosexual acts would be hanged for "Gender Treachery". The sexes are strictly divided. Gilead's society values reproduction by white women most highly. Women are categorised "hierarchically according to class status and reproductive capacity" as well as "metonymically colour-coded according to their function and their labour" (Kauffman 232). The Commander expresses the prevailing opinion that women are considered intellectually and emotionally inferior to men. Women are segregated by clothing, as are men. With rare exception, men wear military or paramilitary uniforms. All classes of men and women are defined by the colors they wear (as in Aldous Huxley's dystopian Brave New World), drawing on colour symbolism and psychology. All lower-status individuals are regulated by this dress code. All "non-persons" are banished to the "Colonies". Sterile, unmarried women are considered to be non-persons. Both men and women sent there wear grey dresses."""
That's not a refutation of his point. That aside, one doesn't have to visit or live in a country to recognize a fact.
As more Muslim women go to university and marry later the number of children they have is falling. How in hell can you compare the Arab world to the fictional Handmaiden's Tale? It ridiculous.
I know how to read. Your personal attacks are not a refutation of my point just like they were not a refutation of the point made by Hoosier.
I don't know, this part seems to be a Republican/Conservative dream come true: Beginning with a staged attack that kills the President and most of Congress, a fundamentalist Christian Reconstructionist movement calling itself the "Sons of Jacob" launches a revolution and suspends the United States Constitution under the pretext of restoring order.[7] They quickly remove women's rights, largely attributed to financial records being stored electronically and labelled by sex. The new regime, the Republic of Gilead, moves quickly to consolidate its power, including overtaking all pre-existing religious groups, including Christianity, and reorganize society along a new militarized, hierarchical model of Old Testament-inspired social and religious fanaticism among its newly created social classes. In this society, human rights are severely limited and women's rights are strictly curtailed. For example, women are forbidden to read, and anyone caught in homosexual acts would be hanged for "Gender Treachery". The sexes are strictly divided. Gilead's society values reproduction by white women most highly. Women are categorised "hierarchically according to class status and reproductive capacity" as well as "metonymically colour-coded according to their function and their labour" (Kauffman 232). The Commander expresses the prevailing opinion that women are considered intellectually and emotionally inferior to men. Women are segregated by clothing, as are men. With rare exception, men wear military or paramilitary uniforms. All classes of men and women are defined by the colors they wear (as in Aldous Huxley's dystopian Brave New World), drawing on colour symbolism and psychology. All lower-status individuals are regulated by this dress code. All "non-persons" are banished to the "Colonies". Sterile, unmarried women are considered to be non-persons. Both men and women sent there wear grey dresses.""" Any Righty/Conservative in here want to refute that those are goals of the right? I mean you do have YOUR side wanting to control/restrict/govern/rule over women's reproduction now. YOU have people who don't think women should vote. YOU have people like Ray Moore who didn't think women should hold public office. And you have a country with a history of oppressing women........ the "fiction" above doesn't seem so fictitious in view of all that....
Well, that's "physical security"......... women need more than that.....they need the security of knowing they have the same rights as everyone else...and they don't have that in this country...
Agreed women "need more than that" as do all people. Your comparison of the US to a dystopian society while you and your friends disagree that other nations, specifically Islamic, should not be compared is hypocritical at best.
You:" you and your friends disagree that other nations, specifically Islamic, should not be compared""" Where did I do that? NO where.
Here: You quickly overlook the abuses of women in other countries in order to favor denigrating the United States and specifically targeting anyone to the right of your own politics. Admittedly, the US has problem areas, but to claim they are the worst or to piss on the idea about the abuse of women in other nations in order to pursue spreading venom against Americans is wrong, both morally and factually. https://data.oecd.org/inequality/violence-against-women.htm
I stopped right here with your crap: ""You quickly overlook the abuses of women in other countries in order to favor denigrating the United States""" NO, what I posted was : FoxHastings said: ↑ Well, that's "physical security"......... women need more than that.....they need the security of knowing they have the same rights as everyone else...and they don't have that in this country...""""" NO where in that statement did I overlook anything... You can twist that all you want and you still will be lying and wrong
