The Handmaid's Tale is porn for women. Lit porn is what women use while men use imagistic porn. Women claim these are 'historical novels' or 'romance novels.' They are just porn novels.
I never read it but I do know about its main themes, having been around when it made a splash in the late 80s and disappeared (so we thought) into Women's Studies reading lists. (How wrong we were.)
But I always thought that the ritual fucking stuff was lame because even then there was artificial insemination, so why didn't she take that to the next level?
Now I know why. It was titillating. Lesson learned. I stupidly wrote a dystopian novel with some of the same themes and none of the porn.
I think the idea of not using artificial insemination is related to her view of religion. They’ve embraced a theocratic state, and may not be big on the whole science thing.
IIRC, the Handmaids were only for the rich & politically connected. There was also a subculture of working-class folk who were able to breed without the ceremony and who were despised and demeaned. (I haven’t read the book in years, so my memory may be faulty.) There was also a group of women called “Aunts” responsible for training the Handmaidens in correct behavior. The Aunts were older women, perhaps menopausal and too old to conceive.
Odd how none of these cosplayers see themselves as a breeder or an Aunt. /sarc
LOL I have read that three part series of 50 Shades of Grey though I never saw the movies of it. It's set in modern times which was back then around 2010 or so. A mysterious billionaire has a chance interview with the heroine, whose most redeeming qualities seem to be that she's still a virgin somehow despite our depraved hyper sexual culture and that she has no political identity or affiliations. He's fascinated by her as she reminds him of his drug addicted birth mother and his traumatic young life, which had led to his top secret hard core BDSM fetish as an adult. He wants her to sign a contract to be his six month bondage servant under some type of corporate secrecy agreement like all of his other sexual slaves had, but she's too old fashioned for that to really work. Kinky sex results, but always in the context of an actual monogamous relationship between the two of them. She breaks down Christian Grey's walls, she gets pregnant they get married and live happily ever after. There's some corporate sabotage and the bad guy knows about Christian Grey's dark early childhood past before he was adopted. There's one line thrown in by his adopted doctor mother regarding misguided parents who don't vaccinate their children. The entire book reinforces the idea that these billionaire executives are at their core just good guys who got into their position through hard work and maybe some boring ass mergers and acquisitions and stuff but nothing more sinister.
Something that I find fascinating there is that sexual purity is not a strong suit of the left....
Me too, Frank. All I wanted to be was a mother. The feminist screwed us all, women, men, and especially children. I’ve known this for 40 years. Not enough people have woken up yet, but I pray every day that they do.
Interesting. Haven't read THT yet and don't intend to. But I've always been put off by the fan gurlz who have turned it into some kind of holy demonstration, usually used to attack men.
The concept of the book as described above reminds me of the Pussy Hat mass hysteria time. Trump made some kind of locker room comment, and the Pussy Hat gals hit the streets. I would be willing to bet that half the women wearing the pussy hat as part of that mob also helped make Fifty Shades of Grey a best-seller. Maybe they went out with their gal pals to see the Chippendales.
The world has been turned upside down. Titty bars for men have been eliminated or else forced underground. Or maybe they only exist now as lesbian clubs.
This is an interesting topic. I have two daughters and would feel bad for them losing the vote but on the other hand, it definitely altered our politics and not in a good way. If it was supposed to reduce the incidence of war, as I believe some suggested at the time, it failed in that regard. But since we can’t rerun history with different parameters, who knows what a world without a 19th amendment would have been like.
It’s been a while since I read this but my take was that Ms Atwood picked two historical trends that were top-of-mind at the time (Cold War and the rise of Christian Fundamentalists) and extrapolated the curves into the future. Great idea, except they both subsided shortly afterwards.
It’s surprising, therefore, that the book has remained so relevant. Perhaps the man-hating aspects kept it fresh.
Christian fundamentalists were only on the rise in the 80s if your knowledge of American history and fundamentalism started in 1960. All but the most aggressive “fundamentalists” of the 1980s would have been thrown out of the most progressive church in the 1940s and would have been thrown out of the average church in the 1950s. Almost no woman had her head covered or was advocating for it in the 1980s, even the Catholics quit pushing it in 1983. Meanwhile if you had walked into a church without a hat or scarf in 1953 you would have been run out.
The Handmaid's Tale is porn for women. Lit porn is what women use while men use imagistic porn. Women claim these are 'historical novels' or 'romance novels.' They are just porn novels.
💯 and unfortunately, the man of the 80s failed.
Feminism is a giant shit test.
Blyat!
I never read it but I do know about its main themes, having been around when it made a splash in the late 80s and disappeared (so we thought) into Women's Studies reading lists. (How wrong we were.)
But I always thought that the ritual fucking stuff was lame because even then there was artificial insemination, so why didn't she take that to the next level?
Now I know why. It was titillating. Lesson learned. I stupidly wrote a dystopian novel with some of the same themes and none of the porn.
Ole Margaret was smarter than I thought.
I think the idea of not using artificial insemination is related to her view of religion. They’ve embraced a theocratic state, and may not be big on the whole science thing.
OK, but I don't find it very convincing in terms of dystopianism. How could you possibly ignore that? At least refer to it.
IIRC, the Handmaids were only for the rich & politically connected. There was also a subculture of working-class folk who were able to breed without the ceremony and who were despised and demeaned. (I haven’t read the book in years, so my memory may be faulty.) There was also a group of women called “Aunts” responsible for training the Handmaidens in correct behavior. The Aunts were older women, perhaps menopausal and too old to conceive.
Odd how none of these cosplayers see themselves as a breeder or an Aunt. /sarc
Compare and contrast with “50 shades of Gray”.
LOL I have read that three part series of 50 Shades of Grey though I never saw the movies of it. It's set in modern times which was back then around 2010 or so. A mysterious billionaire has a chance interview with the heroine, whose most redeeming qualities seem to be that she's still a virgin somehow despite our depraved hyper sexual culture and that she has no political identity or affiliations. He's fascinated by her as she reminds him of his drug addicted birth mother and his traumatic young life, which had led to his top secret hard core BDSM fetish as an adult. He wants her to sign a contract to be his six month bondage servant under some type of corporate secrecy agreement like all of his other sexual slaves had, but she's too old fashioned for that to really work. Kinky sex results, but always in the context of an actual monogamous relationship between the two of them. She breaks down Christian Grey's walls, she gets pregnant they get married and live happily ever after. There's some corporate sabotage and the bad guy knows about Christian Grey's dark early childhood past before he was adopted. There's one line thrown in by his adopted doctor mother regarding misguided parents who don't vaccinate their children. The entire book reinforces the idea that these billionaire executives are at their core just good guys who got into their position through hard work and maybe some boring ass mergers and acquisitions and stuff but nothing more sinister.
Something that I find fascinating there is that sexual purity is not a strong suit of the left....
Thank you for the post. The Handmaid's Tale is yet another aspect of the cancer that is feminism, in my humble opinion.
Me too, Frank. All I wanted to be was a mother. The feminist screwed us all, women, men, and especially children. I’ve known this for 40 years. Not enough people have woken up yet, but I pray every day that they do.
Interesting. Haven't read THT yet and don't intend to. But I've always been put off by the fan gurlz who have turned it into some kind of holy demonstration, usually used to attack men.
The concept of the book as described above reminds me of the Pussy Hat mass hysteria time. Trump made some kind of locker room comment, and the Pussy Hat gals hit the streets. I would be willing to bet that half the women wearing the pussy hat as part of that mob also helped make Fifty Shades of Grey a best-seller. Maybe they went out with their gal pals to see the Chippendales.
The world has been turned upside down. Titty bars for men have been eliminated or else forced underground. Or maybe they only exist now as lesbian clubs.
Good article, Andy!
And the idiots are still wearing white because 120 years ago they couldn’t vote
I think the 19th amendment should be repealed ASAP actually if they want to bring it up so much
This is an interesting topic. I have two daughters and would feel bad for them losing the vote but on the other hand, it definitely altered our politics and not in a good way. If it was supposed to reduce the incidence of war, as I believe some suggested at the time, it failed in that regard. But since we can’t rerun history with different parameters, who knows what a world without a 19th amendment would have been like.
About time someone turned that meme into a full article.
She once put on cannabilistic puppet shows. She's a vegetarian.
It’s been a while since I read this but my take was that Ms Atwood picked two historical trends that were top-of-mind at the time (Cold War and the rise of Christian Fundamentalists) and extrapolated the curves into the future. Great idea, except they both subsided shortly afterwards.
It’s surprising, therefore, that the book has remained so relevant. Perhaps the man-hating aspects kept it fresh.
Christian fundamentalists were only on the rise in the 80s if your knowledge of American history and fundamentalism started in 1960. All but the most aggressive “fundamentalists” of the 1980s would have been thrown out of the most progressive church in the 1940s and would have been thrown out of the average church in the 1950s. Almost no woman had her head covered or was advocating for it in the 1980s, even the Catholics quit pushing it in 1983. Meanwhile if you had walked into a church without a hat or scarf in 1953 you would have been run out.
It is VERY poorly written.
I disagree. It’s a page-turner dystopian sci fi novel. For what it is, it’s perfectly good. It’s just not Great Literature.
You are entitled to your opinion.
Sounds like this is basically The Story of O but for "modern audiences."
It also sounds like the womxn-protagonist spends most of her time thinking about or discussing men - does this story even pass the Bechdel Test? ;)
Broads and homosexuals have rendered lit 100% gay and retarded
Would you say it's a Bodice Ripper LARPing as a political screed?
Never read it, am glad I did not waste my time…
Lots of leftists were fans. Never had interest myself