The difference in societies

[S.]

While reading I couldn’t help but think about the difference in the society that Margaret Atwood has created, and the one that all of us are actually living. In one chapter Offred is taking a bath when she starts thinking about how strange her naked body seems even to herself. Then she starts talking about how strange it was that women actually wore swim suits and exposed both their bellies and their backs. It's funny how in our society now we would never think exposing our backs and stomachs was strange. Offred also talks about how their hair must always be covered and it has to be long. In our society our hair is allowed to be as long as we decide, and it does not have to be covered unless that is what your religion calls for. I just think it's funny that the government puts rules on things that don't really matter, like hair. I guess I just think it's stupid that these handmaids do the most for the world by giving birth to children, but still have virtually no rights.

[Mary]

My husband, children and I lived in Saudi Arabia for 5 yrs. I'm a California girl, born and raised, but after a year or so, I began to react with a little uneasiness when we returned to America in the summer and saw girls with shorts etc. That kind of repression is alive and well in our world today. It's very sad and causes all kinds of problems for both sexes.

[Harlow]

I read The Sparrow which also takes place in a different culture (and on a different planet). In Other Rooms, Other Wonders and novels like The Handmaid's Tale(which I read many years ago) and their exploration of different societies is thought provoking.

[Holly]

This scared me more than 1984 or Brave New World or Clockwork Orange or any other dystopian novels. In this book the woman have lost control, and it appears that technology is to blame just as much as religious extremism.

[Vanessa]

Great comment Holly! When we stop reading books, searching for truth, and questioning the authority, whether it be religious or political, we endanger our freedoms. I am what many would call a religious person, but it is important to call my own beliefs into question. Often what we hold as "truth" has nothing to do with what we have discovered and tested against other truths, but what we have been told and we accept based on our emotion. It doesn't bother me that a woman based on cultural experience would feel uncomfortable exposing parts of herself, what bothers me is that a society would oppress a woman to such a degree that she cannot question the morality of her exposed flesh or hair. In the US, it is accepted that we can question moral authorities and government controls, however, there is a notion that all science and technology is good- and that is something we never question but should. Science without humanity was on of Gandhi's principles on the the path to violence, and so, I agree that our dependence on technology without ethical discussions and controls can lead to societal harm.

[Melissa]

I have to say, intelligent, well thought-out discussions like these are why I came to Goodreads and they are sadly rare, so this thread has been a delight to read.

Something so intimately terrifying about the book and the change from the "progressive" to the restrictive lifestyle was that it happened so very quickly. Offred at one point even mentions that it took very little time to slip into the habits and thought patterns of her new role and the new government, finding her body and sexuality alien and taboo. Within that lies a spark of truth that is horrifying to think about, especially when we look at the current debates over women's health and rights not only in the United States but all over the world. It is very easy, when you are told you must think and act one way to slip into that habit as if you had always done it. I think that was something I appreciated about this novel; things didn't happen over a really long period of time, but a rather short period.

[Moonlight]

The universal problem that lead to Offred's situation was not science or technology nor even religion. It was the belief that other people's behavior needs to be controlled, that we have the right to control other people's behavior, and that those rules do not apply to us. In this book, the tools were technology and, in fact, religion. Technology was the mechanical tool used to track women but the tool used to get people to accept the draconian laws in regard to women was religion.

The same pattern played out in the US during the Prohibition era. Americans didn't want those morally lax, irresponsible immigrants (Irish, German, and Italian) to be able to drink. Those people would become drunkards and their wives and children would starve and become a burden on society. Real Americans were more than a little shocked when they discovered that the law would be applied to them as well. And thus began the era of the speakeasy, and the waiver issued for religious and medicinal purposes. Socialite hostess' often had concealed pantries in their homes to store liquor which was usually served at social events. In the end, it was an upper class Republican socialite who spearheaded the repeal of prohibition because she found it just ridiculous to be forced to serve alcohol to the same people who were enforcing the law against others.

[Mary]

I'm sure the women in Post-shah Iran or Taliban ruled Afghanistan can attest to just how fast your perception of self can change.

[Vanessa]

Mary- I don't know that those women's sense of self changed as much as their sense of security and fear changed. Our emotional state always affects our perceptions. Women in Iran have burned themselves in the square in protest because they cannot bear the oppression, having once been doctors or other professionals. The inability to express the self and be the self are two different things. Perhaps Offred never gave much thought to the self until her freedoms had been taken.

[Fatin]

Moonlight wrote: "The universal problem that lead to Offred's situation was not science or technology nor even religion. It was the belief that other people's behavior needs to be controlled, that we have the right..."

THIS.

[Huw]

At some point, technology allowed man to kill his fellow man without any longer having to look into the eyes of his victim whilst he was perpetrating the barbaric act. It may have been the invention of the slingshot, it may have been the bow and arrow - or it may have been the discovery of gunpowder, and it's application to cannons that could kill from beyond the brow of a hill. Whatever and whenever it was, mankind didn't stop and think about the moral implications of the technology we had just "invented" - or more saliently, had just applied to kill our fellow man.

And that is one of our fatal flaws as a race - the yearning to produce more, better, quicker, cheaper without fully thinking through its full moral implications - being able to "control" other people whether that's socially, morally, emotionally and/ or economically seems to be all the justification we need as a race to "move forward". One day, we'll realize too late that we moved forward too often in the wrong direction. I think this is one of the main warnings, for me at least, in this wonderful book.

[Harlow]

Appreciate reading these thoughtful posts and agree with the sentiments Melissa expressed.

I'm thinking about China's one child rule in response to overpopulation as I consider the opposite situation in The Handmaid's Tale. The Handmaid's Tale might not be that far from reality with 20 countries experiencing negative or zero natural population growth. I wonder what these governments are doing to deal with birthrates below replacement rate? How will the culture and society in China adapt and change where there are so many more males than females? Will we see mail order brides? Or a reality more like the Handmaid's Tale?

Finally, with Banned Book Week (www.ala.org) just around the corner, I'm thinking about my freedom to read and speak.