The Handmaid’s Tale
question
Why didn't they just use the turkey baster method?
Lily
(last edited
Nov 30, 2011 09:20PM
)
Nov 30, 2011 09:16PM
I am copying this from my review of this book because I really don't feel like typing it all twice. Also, I am not sure if this will be a spoiler or not, if it is please let me know and I will edit accordingly.
There is something I really don't understand, a fundamental "But wait"...
In the story, Handmaids are basically surrogate mothers, using their own eggs, to carry babies for old people or people who can't otherwise have their own. Only the elite are allowed to have Handmaids. In the book, the insemination is done with what they call "A Ceremony" which is basically where the Handmaid lays on top of the wife while the husband basically has sex with the Handmaid trying to get her pregnant.
In the book, all the wives hate the necessity of the Handmaids (and they have to repopulate the world so they can't say no) and the Ceremony is done so that there is no romance or anything like that, the Handmaid even keeps her dress on, etc. So what I don't get is, if it's such a big deal, such a necessary evil, why the hell didn't they all just use turkey basters and squirt the sperm in?? What was the point of the Ceremony? I mean, you know... I know that maybe the author needed it to add interest to the story or something. But it just doesn't make sense. She explained a lot of other things in the book, but not that.
Any ideas?
There is something I really don't understand, a fundamental "But wait"...
In the story, Handmaids are basically surrogate mothers, using their own eggs, to carry babies for old people or people who can't otherwise have their own. Only the elite are allowed to have Handmaids. In the book, the insemination is done with what they call "A Ceremony" which is basically where the Handmaid lays on top of the wife while the husband basically has sex with the Handmaid trying to get her pregnant.
In the book, all the wives hate the necessity of the Handmaids (and they have to repopulate the world so they can't say no) and the Ceremony is done so that there is no romance or anything like that, the Handmaid even keeps her dress on, etc. So what I don't get is, if it's such a big deal, such a necessary evil, why the hell didn't they all just use turkey basters and squirt the sperm in?? What was the point of the Ceremony? I mean, you know... I know that maybe the author needed it to add interest to the story or something. But it just doesn't make sense. She explained a lot of other things in the book, but not that.
Any ideas?
reply
flag
The powers-that-be are trying to recreate an Old Testament biblical society. They are patterning 'The Ceremony' on handmaids from the Bible (who did not use a turkey baster or any other more modern method).
I believe there are several passages in the Old Testament calling men who 'spill their seed' outside of traditional sex sinful, so they could not extract the sperm for other methods for fertilization.
I don't think Atwood portrayed the society as being men's ultimate fantasy of dominance over women.
I believe there are several passages in the Old Testament calling men who 'spill their seed' outside of traditional sex sinful, so they could not extract the sperm for other methods for fertilization.
I don't think Atwood portrayed the society as being men's ultimate fantasy of dominance over women.
View all 4 comments
The baster would have been to introduce science between God and his action through men of procreation. The ceremony, like the absence of the baster, is for the leaders (men in this case) to successfully use ideology to justify the power structure.
It is also about how easy ideology can trump reason, and how fragile is a society built on ideology - in this case religious, but by inference it could be any ideology. In this role the book is a cautionary tale about the religious turn America and its politics have taken.
For example, in an interview with BBC correspondent Jeremy Paxman (March 2011), Noam Chomksy said:
What has been most chilling for me in having read both Handmaid's and 1984 is how far we have moved towards their described societies: thought control through propaganda, constant war, religious zealotry openly idolized in even high ranking political figures, lotteries and the expansion of totalitarian measures including mass imprisonment of a population in no small part due to unemployment and poverty.
It is also about how easy ideology can trump reason, and how fragile is a society built on ideology - in this case religious, but by inference it could be any ideology. In this role the book is a cautionary tale about the religious turn America and its politics have taken.
For example, in an interview with BBC correspondent Jeremy Paxman (March 2011), Noam Chomksy said:
@19:47minutesHere's the link to the entire interview:Paxman/Chomsky.
NC: ... Take a look at the new Congress, for example. Just about every new congressional representative that came in last November is a climate denier. In fact the congress has already moved to ban funding for the most mild environmental efforts, and furthermore, unfortunately many of these people are true believers. The head of one of the congressional sub-committees, new Republican, explained that global warming can't be a problem because God promised Noah that there wouldn't be another flood. Others are supported —
JP: But why do you care about stupid people?
NC: Stupid people?! These people have power. And they're carrying out actions! They're carrying out the actions which are defunding possible efforts to do something about these crimes. Furthermore they're backed by major concentrations of power. The major business lobbies for example, have announced that they're funding big propaganda campaigns to convince people that this doesn't matter. These are serious issues. Incidentally if you want to look at stupid people we find them all over the place. For example we happen to be right in the middle of a huge financial crisis. People have noticed. You can trace that back. A lot of it comes from a fanatic religious belief in what's called the efficient market hypothesis. It's pure fanaticism. Dominated the economics profession. Dominated the federal reserve. The one consequence was that when an eight trillion dollar housing bubble developed totally unrelated to any fundamentals; completely off the hundred year history of housing prices, the profession — the feds the central bank — say it wasn't necessary to pay attention because of efficient markets. Is that very different fromwhat God promised Noah?
What has been most chilling for me in having read both Handmaid's and 1984 is how far we have moved towards their described societies: thought control through propaganda, constant war, religious zealotry openly idolized in even high ranking political figures, lotteries and the expansion of totalitarian measures including mass imprisonment of a population in no small part due to unemployment and poverty.
How were they to subjugate women if they used the turkey baster method?
The way I see it, there were men in charge who were worried about the way society was going (the very real problems of pornography, crimes against women, falling birth rates, etc.). They decided they were going to change society to the way they thought it should be, and they were going to use the Bible to justify the means and methods (thus making it a little more acceptable to a complacent public). So, they dug up pieces of the Old Testament to use (i.e. the Ceremony, the dress of the women) and slapped it on willy-nilly.
I don't believe it was for the active "subjugation" of women. That it very often affected women was just a side effect of a general subjugation of all those not in the power elite. Many men also suffered in this new society.
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. And then, of course, being at these highest levels of power, they created ways to circumvent the very rules they imposed on everyone else.
I don't believe it was for the active "subjugation" of women. That it very often affected women was just a side effect of a general subjugation of all those not in the power elite. Many men also suffered in this new society.
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. And then, of course, being at these highest levels of power, they created ways to circumvent the very rules they imposed on everyone else.
The whole point of the book was to describe the type of society it was and the handmaid and ceremony method was a part of this dominating society so artificial methods would probably not be considered, no control over the people there. The fact that the book is disturbing is because those in power had enough control over the people to demand that that was the way things were done. They took something as personal as ones own body, love and procreation and turned it into an almost unendurable situation. Why it is so disturbing to many people is the fact that it is not that far of a leap to imagine our society could follow in the footsteps of this one.
I think they stay away from the baster for the same reason they don't have ultrasounds even though they had the tech for them. The narrator mentions that she is surprised they aren't used, but at the same time acknowledges that if they found anything wrong with the fetus they couldn't do anything about it. ART (artificial reproductive tech) is all around seen as bad. Maybe they saw ART as a gateway to birth control which would have been a bad idea in their view. I also think that maybe how the ceremony was done in that house may not have been how it was done everywhere. His wife comes across as really cold and distant maybe it was his once a month chance at sex. It would explain why he drags her to the brothel. Maybe it was more his decision he just used the situation to his advantage?
The fact that the bible specifically frowns upon the act of masturbation which would have been required in order for the turkey baster to be us. Also they were recreating a scene from the bible in which the woman was the reason for the lack of procreation.
By humiliating both the Handmaids and the wives, the men are able to keep them under control through shame in this highly patriarchal dystopia. As mentioned above it also upholds the theological doctrines upon which their society is founded.
The dumbest thing I thought was that they only (if I remember correctly) is did the ceremony once a month? Shouldn't it have been ALL the time? Like every other day? And in the Biblical passage was Abraham's wife there when he was having sex with the other girl? It's like it was made even harder on the women... If my husband needed to have sex with another woman so we could have a kid, I sure as heck wouldn't want to be there...
Turkey baster? Wouldn't that lead to a bastriarchy (rule by baster)?
"Why didn't they just use the turkey baster method? "
Because it would have been a bit of a crap book.
I think the whole Human interaction and ceremonial aspects of it is at the core of it -- it just wouldn;t work with a mechanical method
Because it would have been a bit of a crap book.
I think the whole Human interaction and ceremonial aspects of it is at the core of it -- it just wouldn;t work with a mechanical method
It's been quite some time since I read this book, and have been wanting to read it again to see if it sparks the same feelings/thoughts as when I previously read it. However, as someone stated earlier, the ideology for the society in this book happens to be based on a religious one, but any ideology that focuses too narrowly is dangerous.
I am a Christian and proud of that fact. I don't agree however, that America has become a more 'religious' nation. On the contrary, it's because this country has moved away from any absolute moral code, that society has gotten more out of control. Agree or disagree, but it's not my place to demand you believe the way I do. Instead, I should be encouraging you (society) to live better because I try to live a moral and upstanding life.
I am a Christian and proud of that fact. I don't agree however, that America has become a more 'religious' nation. On the contrary, it's because this country has moved away from any absolute moral code, that society has gotten more out of control. Agree or disagree, but it's not my place to demand you believe the way I do. Instead, I should be encouraging you (society) to live better because I try to live a moral and upstanding life.
all discussions on this book
|
post a new topic
