Sheila’s comment > Likes and Comments

"Men at the highest levels (probably extremely bright and well-meaning) made a decision to force their views on society, and religion became the tool they used to both enforce and justify the means"

If they were "well-meaning", why did the say that their biggest mistake was allowing women to read and that that mistake would be remedied with the future generations of uneducated girls/women?

Sheila, what is your view on why they chose to inseminate via the physical act of sex versus just using a turkey baster method?

The Ceremony, as someone mentioned earlier, can claim its origin back to the story of Rachael and Leah, thus, in the minds of those seeking to control the public through Biblical tradition, is a "legitimate" means of ensuring fertility, especially among the "power elite", who avail themselves of the resource of female fertility in a time of declining birthrates. At least that's what I got from it. Atwood certainly doesn't portray it as an enjoyable act for either male or female participants.

Dionna - I'm not trying to justify the thoughts of those in power, I'm just trying to see what I think they saw going on around them. Porno-marts(or carts, sex crimes, and most frightingly, declining birth rates for various reasons). What happens to a society that has no youth to support the system?

So they took action to put in place a means for ensuring there would be more of their own to continue a way of life? Women are the key to ensuring it all goes on. They can't count on voluntary cooperation among the small amount who continue to be fertile, so these must be FORCED by any means to do what is deemed necessary by Society (or the ones currently controlling it). Keeping women uneducated would of course be in Society's best interest.

They cared only about the declining birth rates of among White people, which explains the mass murder of Black people at the time. They were concerned about wealthy Whites first, who got the pick of the litter among the young attractive fertile females, then about the rest of the White population. They maintained the secret brothels in order to continue pornography, prostitution, alcohol, drugs, homosexuality and all the other vices available only for the wealthy White men. There was nothing well meaning about a the founders of this society.

The Ceremony was just another way to further subjugate and demean all of the women involved. The systematic rape of the enslaved handmade in the presence of the barren wife which makes the wife hate the handmaid even more. It was a clever and purely evil plan.

Whites? Where does Atwood really write about the "white" population in contrast to the non-white population? I don't remember her making that distinction in the book. Did she ever discuss color?

Not that I remember, the closest she came to it was describing one of the Marthas as having brown skin. But that was about it.

African Americans, the main non-white ethnic group in this society, are called the Children of Ham, and one state TV broadcast mentions them being relocated en masse to "National Homelands" reminiscent of Apartheid-era South African homelands, in the Midwest. The narrator wonders what they're supposed to do up there, thinking "farm, supposedly." Jews are called Sons of Jacob, which is also the name of the fundamentalist group that rules the Republic of Gilead. In the body of the novel, it is explained that the Jews were offered a choice of converting to Christianity or emigrating to Israel, and that most chose to leave. But in the epilogue, Professor Pieixoto says that at least some Jews who chose to leave were dumped into the sea on the way to Israel in boats, as a result of privatization of the "repatriation program" in order to maximize private profits. The narrator also reveals that many Jews who chose to stay were caught practicing Judaism in secret and executed.

The sexes are strictly divided. Gilead's society values reproduction by white women more than reproduction by other women: 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 makes it clear that women are considered intellectually and emotionally inferior. Women are not permitted to read and girls are not educated.

All non-persons are banished to the 'Colonies' (usually forced-labor camps in which they clean up radioactive waste, becoming exposed and dying painful deaths as a result). Sterile, unmarried women are considered to be non-persons. Both men and women sent there wear grey clothing. Only rare civilians (who are increasingly persecuted) and Commanders seem to be free of sumptuary restrictions.[

~*B*~ (AKA Lily) wrote: "Not that I remember, the closest she came to it was describing one of the Marthas as having brown skin. But that was about it."

If I am correct the Martha's were servant's?

Yeah the Marthas were the maids and cooks and stuff. (I wonder if supposedly the name came from Martha Stewart somehow lol)

~*B*~ (AKA Lily) wrote: "Yeah the Marthas were the maids and cooks and stuff. (I wonder if supposedly the name came from Martha Stewart somehow lol)"

LOL! I was thinking the same thing!

That would be perfect! Alas, it is most likely not the case, but just a serendipity. From Wikipedia:

The title of "Martha" is based on a story in Luke 10:38–42, where Jesus visits Mary, sister of Lazarus and Martha; Mary listens to Jesus while Martha is preoccupied "by all the preparations that had to be made".

Guy wrote: "That would be perfect! Alas, it is most likely not the case, but just a serendipity. From Wikipedia:The title of "Martha" is based on a story in Luke 10:38–42, where Jesus visits Mary, sister of La..."

Just trying to add a little humor. lol

Dionna, you DID add humour, as I LoLed at the thought. When I checked I suspected a biblical reference, but was ever so hopeful you were right - Atwood can be very creative in her hidden references and allusions.

What is also funny is that Martha in our time has become the epitome of her biblical namesake!

Dionna, well, I just learned something new, I guess. While I remember reading the reference to the Children of Ham (as well as the Sons of Jacob, a reference I DID immediately understand and assumed was religious persecution rather than racial) I let that term go rather than research it. Wow. Thanks for that info. :)

THough I agree that maybe men suffered too, as Paolo Freiere said "even the oppressors need to be liberated." I do not agree that you can excuse someone for being well meaning if they choose to oppress people. That's contradictory and illogical.