Pam’s Comments (group member since Dec 29, 2016)

Pam’s comments from the Our Shared Shelf group.

Lynn wrote: "The ending was the worst for me. It tried to wrap up the story as if it was the past, but it used a clinical setting to do that.."

So I wanted to address this because it really annoyed me as well. And that is what I imagine Atwood wanted. Even after her publisher raised a quizzical brow.

(view spoiler)[ There are two things at play here that I felt pulled on the themes of the book
- Voice
- Acceptance

Voice: It was a MALE professor who gave the lecture, right?
- So you as a reader have to decide... did things actually get better? Are we in an equal society once again? OR Do men still have most of the positions of power?
- Atwood takes us out of the fantasy world of Gilead into a setting that is eerily familiar. So you begin to squint and question it, looking for traps. You just came from a dystopian-sick-to-your-stomach-no-hope-world... that you have to be a bit trigger shy and wonder what is the catch. What's wrong with this one? And because it was such a familiar setting, you hopefully begin to question where are all the female professors? Will you begin to wonder about hiring practices or demographics in your own actual job? Start to wonder where are all the female leaders: CEO's, presidents, Chief Scientists are in our world. etc.
- And because it was a male professor, we have to question: Did he do a good job at interpreting and honoring Offred's point of view - and/or - did he add some bias to it? He mentioned that the handmaid's tale was one of the only verified account. Either they were silenced or their tales did not survive; only cheap knock offs exist. "We were the people who were not in the papers. We lived in the blank white spaces at the edges of print. It gave us more freedom. We lived in the gaps between stories"

The whole book was trying to explain that those in power can take away your livelihood, your future, your body. But the one thing they couldn't stop were your own thoughts.

But by having a male professor be the one to uncover and interpret her thoughts, Atwood flips that premise and asks if that is actually true. Because once put down your own thoughts could be misinterpreted or discredited by those who read it.

So while you are squinting at this future world, are you also squinting/ questioning those who are giving you information, too?

The second point is acceptance.

I am glad that you did not like this ending. I am glad that you didn't even like the beginning because you couldn't and wouldn't accept it. NOR SHOULD YOU. Atwood is screaming in the pages about how awful it is to just accept. Ordinary, said Aunt Lydia, is what you are used to. This may not seem ordinary to you now, but after a time it will. It will become ordinary or It has taken so little time to change our minds, about things like this...

The sad thing is that Atwood reveals that is exactly what happened. The professor reports that the tale was part of the EARLY GILEAD PERIOD and then goes on to say that there was a middle ----and one could only assume a late period as well.

Gilead society, save for Mayday and a few other resistance leaders, was successful in eradicating all free thinkers. Those in power removed the wild women, those who looked different, those who prayed differently. And it did so in a way that allowed it's own people to become the jailers. Setting up petty issues and classes between the wives and the handmaids and the Marthas. The differences between Guardians, Commanders, and Angels.

There was so much infighting that society continued for at least three periods before it could come to the professor's talk.

So yeah, she didn't explain exactly what happened. She hinted at it. But I think she did so to make you question instead of blindly accepting. (hide spoiler)]

Kelly wrote: "As such, to have an abortion you need two doctors to sign a legal declaration that you will suffer severe mental damage by continuing the pregnancy. this means that women who require an abortion for any reason then forever more have this on their medical record.."

Oh wow. That... that is... mmmhmm. I thought it was bad here where you need an ultrasound and the birth father's approval. I had no idea. Thank you for sharing.

the existence of these laws leaves the door open for them to be enforced as an initial step to a more restrictive society

To be sure. But, I am hopeful, that as we peer behind these open doors to see how far they can really open, the more we will push back to narrow the gap.

Which leads to Britt's comment. Yes the world is scary. It is like a dark place that we are fumbling around in and getting scared about the noises we here. But books like Handmaid's tale, organizations like OSS, or just the push of feminism do create light by which we can see.

For example;
- Malala- working all over the world to promote education for women and girls
- Kiva Fund / World Bank - with their microloans specifically targeted to help women in entrepreneurial roles. https://www.kiva.org/
- Work by countless organizations like Thorn that helps end child sexual exploitation or child prostitution rings

The point is, that it may seem like a lot of bad things are going on right now - and there are - but that's because we are finally seeing the awful truth. We are finally able to see what is happening in the dark because we have feminism, this book club, and countless other areas that affords us the opportunity and visibility to constantly review "the way things have always been."

Keith wrote: "Melodramatic? - maybe, but if you remove a woman's name, her identity can soon follow and she can then be removed from history. "

So very true. I turn to Iran or Afghanistan for details on that.

Keith wrote: One of the other themes in the novel is damage to the environment and how ultimately this affected birth rates and birth defects. It is one of the background themes that ultimately led to the creation of Gilead. .."

Darn you're good! So many wonderful ideas to chew on here.

Bhopal Gas Tragedy December 1984: Have not heard of before! I am seeing traction on two items here in the US: Clean Air Act - specifically as it's on the chopping block and then with Urban Tree Canopy.

And it's really an interesting issue, right? Because we can measure this. Things have become so visible now with Smog especially. Beijing Summer Olympics in 2008 comes to mind. The smog was so bad that athletes feared for their health competing in the area. To answer it, the government shut down factories and only allowed driving on even/odd days! And low and behold they say a 50% reduction in air pollution. Such a large percentage to me means that we all know what is causing this and affecting it to such a degree. http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/asiapcf...

And that the solution is rather simple! Plant more trees! Having trees within 100 ft can help to filter and clean the area. So planting more trees by highways and by around the city can dramatically help people suffering from asthma or other respiratory issues.

Nuclear - yes. A good resource, dangerous, but a good one.
Oil Spills... yes...the Gulf of Mexico is still cleaning up after the Event Horizon BP oil spill...
Pesticides: yup, yup. Good news is that there is a push for a) organic aka grown without pesticides and b) top soil revival. (Great podcast on it: https://www.cityclub.org/events/why-a...). Othernote... I saw a push for soil conservation (cover crops, etc) on a Chipotle bag the other day... so movement is happening!

Drugs: thalidomide - this is on my to-research list. Thanks!

Keith this is brilliant! Thank you very much for putting it together.

Keith I could talk about this with you for hours! So to anyone out there who is visiting this page, please, please please add your thoughts, too, before I monopolize it all!

Keith wrote; We in the UK cannot wave our so-called superiority flag either"... link to the guardian: "A controversial proposal to ask new mothers who have been raped for verification if they wish to claim tax credits for more than two children has become law without any debate or vote in parliament" shudders That's awful!

I am watching what Ireland is doing on this debate intently. Especially given the religious connotations.

Emma wrote: "I never knew that "Stark" means "strong", but that helps so much with my understanding of the series! That totally helps. Arya Stark is one of the strongest, most badass characters on HBO..."

So I am curious as to your thoughts on Sansa Stark. Given the title Strong as a birth rite, does she embody this, too?

Ok. So Eternal has a couple of points here.
1) Emma, in his opinion, is not a good actress.
2) Award ceremonies often push an agenda, they are not 100% unbiased.

I don't think Emma is that amazing of an actress myself. I always see her as Hermione and have a hard time adjusting to the plot. (Wallflowers she was Badgirl Hermione, Noah she was If-Hermione-Lived-Before-Magic.) IMPO: she is a cerebral actress and sometimes comes off as reactionary. Don't shoot me! Love her UN work, love this book club, but I do not rush out to movie because she is in it.

That said, I did not watch Beauty and the Beast. I heard it's good, but I'm waiting for it to come down in cost to $1.50 for a rental instead of $15 a ticket.

And number two you all addressed so no need to add to it.

Now my initial reaction to this Actor item is this... the separation between Actor / Actress was created to make sure that there was a way to allow female thespians a moment to shine and offer recognition for their own hard work. Now, while it is true that the Academy Awards (Oscars) has been awarding female thespians since the award show's inception, can we say that actresses are seen as equal to their male counterparts?

- Patricia Arquette, in her award speech for Best Supporting Actress sent shock waves decreeing "We need equal pay and we need it now." And despite push from J-Law, Meryl Streep, and others leading their voices has this happened?

- Viola Davis, also recently commented on the lack of diversity in roles. That Hollywood is both an ageist community and a racist community in the sense that meaty rolls (aka where characters are given a name and more than 4 lines of dialogue) are not given to women over a certain age and even less to women of color. And even worse that persons of color have been regulated to specific stereotypical roles like the Mammy / Matriarch's or Hottentots archetypes.

So, my question to all the wonderful people here is that given that there are still many issues that need to be addressed... do you really want to combine the best actor / best actress platform into one award? And thereby increasing the number of applicants for the role?

Does the best person win? Or does one group get pushed to the side because of human bias?

The King issued a statement that women do not need a guardian to work or study in Saudis Arabia. See link below

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wor...

Lauren wrote: "What is interesting in a lot of dystopian fiction is that when a country experiences an ‘economic crisis', governments tend to revert back to 'tradition'..."

More scary is that in real world it doesn't always follow that pattern. I.e. President Trump was elected after President Obama and his staff (and the fed and ...) worked to end The Great Recession.

Reagan created a problems with fighting the Cold War. Etc.

I also want to keep an eye on Japan via your second point. They are currently dealing with a population bust, I.e the younger generation aren't occupied with marrying and having children. I am curious what the government is doing to do to manage the situation.

Keith wrote: Offred speaking of Luke - "We are not each other's, any more. Instead, I am his.""

Yes!

"Better never means better for everyone, he says. It always means worse for some."

And, not really a quote but a fantastic point

"..., As Aunt Lydia said, who was in love with either/or."

Keith wrote "In all three cases, the decision to choose a name is initially taken out of the hands of the person affected. We then get situations, as in point three, where it is enforced by the very people affected. Is this the patriarchy in action"

I'm not married to my SO (significant other) and I receive letters stating Mr. And Mrs. John Smith. I laugh while I throw it into the trash.

I used to work in development where you send out massive annual appeals for donations. We had a donor list hundreds strong. It became a process to go through and rearrange those who specifically identified differently. Those that needed the wives to be listed first bc she was the main contributor or making sure you that the separate last names were correct and that you didn't miss it up to Mary Smith and John Sue instead of Mary Sue and John Smith. So very time consuming!

And that's the point. It's conveinant to establish a way of doing things. It's easy. It shows exactly where the priorities lie. ( And thus more meaningful when asking for donations when you correctly align your message to what your donor wants)

The latter points you listed in today's world may not be as sinister as Offred naming traditions, but they all have a common root of ownership and censorship to some points.

But Is it wrong? Can we still have a letter addressed to Mr and Mrs John Smith? Can we still allow a father giving away his daughter to a new husband in a wedding ceremony? Sure...But you're not going to see me to it or bat an eye lid if others do it too. ( I just have to reign in feelings about whatever the next generation thinks up)

Saw this link pop up on my feed this morning, thought I would share with this group. Real laws that are straight out of the Handmaid's Take.
- living together before marriage
- the parental rights of rapists
- Denying permeant birth control based off of the age and number of children a woman has
- requiring fetuses to have funerals
Are more of the sinister ones in my opinion. Then the next two...
- permits for high heels
- being fired for sexually arousing your boss

But the whole list just twists my stomach. Read more here: http://io9.gizmodo.com/10-real-laws-s...

And this is why this thread is so important to me. I was born during the Regan / Thatcher years. Their words / actions influenced my life but in means that I could not directly pin point. Nor the Romanian birth requirements nor the AIDS scare. In one aspect my ignorance and blind acceptance of "that's just how things are" is exactly how these movements become ideologies

Now this is the context I love. Thank you so much Keith for researching and putting it together.

Oh boy or boy. The thing that chills me is that this book was first written in 1985.

1985.

32 years ago!

I stress this because this wasn't someone building off of current events or trying to make a commentary on today's world. But a comment about a world an adult life ago.

And I know in my circles, we have started debating what this feels more like - 1984 with Fake News and big brother watching or that of a Brave New World where we are so deadened and paralyzed by too much information that we seek the solace of the sensational and/or the entertaining.

But darn, you could put Handmaids Tale right there and it also works!

Hmm. So a couple of things to comment on. And fair warning, I am about 2/3 finished with the book - myself an Atwood Newbie.

1) until a tv show is immensely popular, most networks and the casts and crews of shows would merely be smart to not label a new program with anything that is remotely controversial at the time. Completely agree Samantha.

I do not see this as bad practice. To me, I see it as parallel to Emma's books in the subways. Sneaky feminism, the kind that inspires you to learn more without hitting you over the head with it.

2) From
"It's not a feminist story, it's a human story."
To
"“It’s not only a feminist story, it’s also a human story.”

I love this. Especially as in the States are constantly trying to one-up other parties. i.e. the Black Lives Matters vs All Lives Matter debate.

It doesn't need to be an either / or statement, It can be an AND story.

3) Moving on from that, this crosses into the hyphenation practice. Asian-American, Female-Doctor.

Is it wrong to say American or Doctor only?
Does hyphenation detract from the message?
Does hyphenation compartmentalize? I can see how this helps with categorizing it for easy recollection later, but can we leave it as a Science Fiction? Is this story something that can sit easily next to "Fahrenheit 451" or "Clockwork Orange"

And then completely off the rhetoric...
4) It's fascinating to see the age of the people involved. I feel that the TV show is playing up on the sexualized tone more so than the dissonance / enforced ignorance. I.e. the age of the Commander / Serena Joy. They are young! 30-40, not someone going silver or using a cane!

Does this make the virility and fertility issues more important than the power struggles?

Yeah, why Sundays? Jewish faith dictates that the Sabbath is from sun down Friday to sundown Saturday. So I suppose it depends on your community /family choice.

I've tried to instil something of an electronic Sabbath. But only for Sunday morning. From the moment I wake to noon I dont allow electronics. I read, make breakfast, walk the dog, meet friends for brunch, clean etc. Its really nice! Its self imposed, but following some ideas above it does help to reconnect and slow down.

Also, -apologies for forgetting my source- but ive read that women transitioning to men are taken aback by male hormones - aka testosterone. The compulsion to fight and fuck where so completely forign that it really astonished them.

Again, i would argue that we dont know nearly enough of the other gender (s) . And the littlethat we do is forcefed upon all sides.

Jason wrote: " Water can become fire, because women completely understand men.

Urp. Nope.

This is a huge misconception that leads to us vs them mentality that helps keep misogyny in place. This is right up there with women are better caretakers bc they come equipped with the right biological parts.

I would argue that women understand men better simply bc we have been living in a world where men are the dominate "rulers" aka its a" man's world". We have had to understand men in order to function in this world. This knowledge isnt a biological inheritance but rather a learned skill.

See: women raping men and those who laugh it off bc men cant be raped, etc

James wrote: "Long story short: Money"

And those that have the money already control the message through certain platforms that already generate tons of content to a general base. i.e. Fox News, Huff Post. Why pay for an advertisement when their content already is 24/7 skewed to one direction? And not to tip my tin-foil hat, but those with the money are quite happy with how things are going now - the masses stay uneducated and pliant, the masses buy what they tell them to buy, and stay the heck away from looking too closely at their business dealings.

(Side note: which is why I am just fascinated with the developments with Bill O'Reiley as well as Tomi)

Now, there are some advertisements out there that do help the world. Check out the UN Women Google Search Ad (http://www.adweek.com/files/adfreak/A...)

or the invisible child campaign to end Child Abuse. http://osocio.org/message/neglected-c...

Awesome~ Thanks Paul!