Our Shared Shelf discussion

Hi readers,
Similar to George Orwell's 1984, it's noted that The Handmaid's Tale is a satire of its time.
Although published in the 1980s, I feel that a lot of the issues Atwood is addressing are still present today. I've picked up on some, and I'm wondering if anyone else found any others? Or what do you think about these?

Satires are aimed to promote change. Here are some of the issues I feel the author was addressing in her novel:

1. Of course, the overall oppression of women. She satires this message with, I feel:
- women being unable to read
- women being unable to own property

2. The objectifying of women. She does this by complete elimination of identity belonging to women and changes them into objects of child bearing or parenting.

3. Government control over women's body choices. She does this with the aftermath of abortions. With doctors being murdered, birth control being considered murder, etc.

4. Churches having its members pay money. She does this with the concept of the soul scrolls and having to pay for your prayers.

5. The societal or government beliefs that women are at fault of their being raped, by "asking for it" or being drunk, etc. She does this by having the fellow Handmaid's mock Janice and blame her for the gang rape.

Lastly, the sexual representation of women throughout this novel is astounding. Women are completely stripped of their previous identities and turned into objects of child bearing or raising. There is no affection, nor can there be. The Wives have to be in with them during the ceremony's. No one is allowed to enjoy it, except for the Commander (?). Does this give a satire to the idea that men can do whatever they want, but women get the double standard? Or are men also oppressed in this situation? Of course they do have some strict regulations, but there is clearly more room for them to be .. rebellious.

What do you think? I like the quote that I saw somewhere on here saying that this isn't a women's book, it's a human's book, or something like that.

Another thing I thought of is the satirical approach to the idea of how people, (or in this case, women), can and will conform themselves to societal standards. Social norms. Etc..
I noticed this when Offered mentions that she is who is is now (as a Handmaid) after being sculpted and molded into that.

I'm not sure that I would call the book satire. For me, satire has to include some elements of mockery. It's not just an exaggeration of an issue - it's exaggerating it so that you can see how ridiculous it is and laugh at it. So far example, in Gulliver's Travels when Lilliputian society is deeply riven by which end of the egg you crack, it highlights how stupid and ridiculous many reasons behind war often are. Laughing at warmongers takes away their power.
In Handmaid's Tale I felt the opposite effect. The exaggeration of religious misogyny was chilling and sinister. It was like a warning about how much worse things could be if we aren't vigilant.
My idea of satire is maybe too narrow?

Nick wrote: "I'm not sure that I would call the book satire. For me, satire has to include some elements of mockery. It's not just an exaggeration of an issue - it's exaggerating it so that you can see how ridi..."

I think it's open to discussion, but I mostly agree with you in that satire implies a certain degree of humour. There is very little, if any at all, humour in this book. In fact, I would compare it more to one of those good horror films -the ones where you aren't necessarily seeing anything, yet with each minute it gets scarier.
Being the former video games player that I am, sometimes Gilead gave me major Silent Hill vibes. I wonder if anyone here who has played the saga would agree with me.

Ana wrote: "Being the former video games player that I am, sometimes Gilead gave me major Silent Hill vibes. I wonder if anyone here who has played the saga would agree with me."

And poor Offred is the player without any bullets!

There does not have to be humor in satire. Over-exaggeration or ridicule of political or social issues is also included.

I saw the use of Gilead as a place to be satirical - it seems to be used as a symbol of a utopian biblical society but the Balm of Gilead is a plant which has been associated with seductive perfumes and abortive properties, which I can't help but feel is a touch of satire and irony on Atwood's part.

Emma in terms of your original post and questions about whether men are oppressed in this world - I would say of course they are. The TV show does a great job of illustrating this if you are watching it. The ceremony is institutionalised rape, but I got the impression that it was also an obligation on the part of the commanders - can they refuse to do it? I assume not as that would be treacherous/blasphemous. Men aren't sex robots so they can't just be excepted to want to have sex with every woman put in front of them, but that seems to be expected in this society. Furthermore what if a commander is gay? There are any number of different reasons why the men in this situation could be just as oppressed. I think it shows that at the end of the day, sexism benefits no-one at all.

Elle- that's an interesting insight and I agree with you. In the story and film though, gay men were killed if found. So, I assume you'd meant gay men who haven't come out?

I didn't think about that part. Yes, men were definitely oppressed in the same society because of needing to perform the ceremonies. I absolutely agree with you.

I think this reflects the idea that this isn't just a feminism book, it's for all humans.

Perhaps that idea could be a satirical approach to something going on today? What could that be? Maybe the social norm and expectations within our culture for men to be a specific way-dominators, high libido, educated, etc... Atwood oppressed them by government/social regulations for a reason. What else might this reflect?

Emma wrote: "Elle- that's an interesting insight and I agree with you. In the story and film though, gay men were killed if found. So, I assume you'd meant gay men who haven't come out?

I didn't think about th..."

Yes apologies, I did mean gay men who weren't out - in a society like that people would probably become very cautious about revealing anything that might be considered deviant.

In response to your other question about Atwood oppressing them by government/social regulations, I think this reflects that power at the expense of another is limited and oppressing within itself. I also see it as a commentary on the capitalist structure of Gilead, even the commanders and wives in privileged positions are limited by the regime and are compelled to use the handmaidens as commodities. Perhaps this can be read as a satire on the lack of maternity pay and leave in the US - women and mothers are only valued for their commercial productivity, alternatively in Gilead, they are valued for their ability to procreate - Atwood is from Canada which first developed maternity leave laws in 1971, so her choice to place this society in the US must be significant.

Ellen - that's a very interesting insight! I never thought of the maternity leave.

Can you elaborate a little on Gilead? I don't know what that is. Is it a biblical reference?

Sure Emma, there's more info in this thread (towards the bottom) if you want to have a proper look https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...

Briefly I think it has been taken as an idealised biblical location. Someone else in that thread noted that is the last place where Jacob and Laban (the father of Rachel and Leah) met in the bible. The balm of Gilead is something which has been seen as a 'cure-all' but it also has conflicting connotations as I mentioned above.

This is very open to interpretation as there is little info on it really but I hope it helps!

Emma, what is so blunt about it? Do you think it reflects having to pay part of your income to churches or something else? Or more?

Emma wrote: "Hi readers,
Similar to George Orwell's 1984, it's noted that The Handmaid's Tale is a satire of its time.
Although published in the 1980s, I feel that a lot of the issues Atwood is addressing are s..."

I was just flat out infuriated by all the injustices in all 5 issues when I read the book!

1. The no reading rules is just ridiculous in my opinion. The no property and no money aspect is unfair in the restriction of a woman's rights.

2. I wanted to cry out that Offred's name isn't really her own and the handmaids should have just stuck with their own. I am curious as to how they even agreed to change their name.

3. I do not believe that a woman's decision to have a baby has to be controlled. She should not have to be forced to give birth. And honestly, it was legal for the doctors to perform abortion. They shouldn't have been punished for it.

4. Praying should not require payment!

5. Victims of rape should never be mocked or blamed when they are innocent!

In other aspects...does the forced uniform and colors count as an issue? Everyone, even the Commanders, have to wear clothes of a certain colour, to define their rank. I found it stifling, really, the idea of wearing the same colour every day. There's no freedom in even how you choose to appear.

There's definitely humour in The Handmaid's Tale! It's just incredibly dark but it does exist for sure. When I get a chance I'll find some examples. I have about 100 pages left of my reread but it's definitely made me laugh a few times. Although it is bleak I find that sometimes Offred pokes fun at her situation in quite a wry kind of way.

Emma wrote: "Emma, what is so blunt about it? Do you think it reflects having to pay part of your income to churches or something else? Or more?"

I think you're referring to tithing? 10% must go to the church?

I thought it was mostly satirical because of Indulgence (you pay to go to heaven)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indulgence

and more currently, the prosperity gospel, where you give money to prayers. John Oliver made one up, Our Lady of Perpetual Exemption to criticize the practice.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7y1xJA...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prosper...

Megan wrote: "Emma wrote: "Hi readers,
Similar to George Orwell's 1984, it's noted that The Handmaid's Tale is a satire of its time.
Although published in the 1980s, I feel that a lot of the issues Atwood is add..."

I think the point of wearing the same outfit day after day is to enforce uniformity. They may be less inclined to think for themselves if they are unable to wear what they want and express their individuality. To your other points, I think your reaction to all these concepts is the reaction Atwood wants. By having the reader feel outrage on behalf of Offred and all the other citizens of Gilead, it could help to avoid finding ourselves in that future, or a similar one.

the econowomen that the low status men have

Megan, I think that they did not have a choice to change their names.
I think another aspect to the uniforms are to lose sense of identity. For example: You wear the outfit prescribed to your role and that is all you are now. Your name is changed because you are no longer you.

I went and looked up the name thing because while I recognized many names as being biblical (Aunt Lydia, Aunt Elizabeth, Rachel and Leah red center, etc...), the handmaid's names are not.

And it's definitely about ownership... "Offred" = "of Fred", her commander's first name. Their names aren't theirs, their body isn't theirs, their past isn't theirs, their babies aren't theirs... it's pretty brutal.

Janine is a very satitical character

Jackie, I never put two and two together!! You're so right! Off-red .. Of.. Fred.. That makes sense now as to why all the handmaiden have Of..(name). That's horrendous! Such a satirical element.

Emma, I had the EXACT same thought. Now every time I think about it I get chills. Ugh.

Ana wrote: "Nick wrote: "I'm not sure that I would call the book satire. For me, satire has to include some elements of mockery. It's not just an exaggeration of an issue - it's exaggerating it so that you can..."
I agree fully in this description of the book as not-so-much satire. The 'humor' is not present according to my understanding of it. It is very stark and the narrative style reinforces this. I found that as I read it, it became more and more disquieting and bleak. I ended up speed-reading just to get to the end-point. Then I needed to go back and give the writing its chance to 'flesh out' the story.

The Stepford Wives was a 70's dystopian story of a suburban area that redefined the roles and behaviors of women in a similar way. The biblical overtones were not present in it, but the mind control issues were.

In any society or story where one group of the social structure is under the control of another, the information about the oppressors as well as the oppressed is on display. The intrigue comes in understanding the rationale for decision making that leads to the situation and then the subtle (or not so subtle) adjustments that have to be made to serve an ethical notion of 'doing what is right and good.'

It is all terrifyingly possible.

A satire doesn't have to have humor present. It can be an over exaggeration. Similar to Orwell's 1984, there wasn't much to laugh about in there, but the novel is still considered a satire of its time.

You are right its satire, sadly less as it moves towards prophecy as contemporary history in the US suggests it might.

Eileen, I agree with you! No one benefits from this sort of society, not even the babies born because they grow up to be put into handmaid schools, or work for the government, or are sent to the colonies to work in factories.
What do you think this could represent in today's society?

It's funny you mention the soul scrolls. In Mexico recently was published in the newspapers that the catholic church was complaining about receiving counterfeit money as alms. So, you have to pay back for their prayers during mass!

Emma wrote: "Lou wrote: "It's funny you mention the soul scrolls. In Mexico recently was published in the newspapers that the catholic church was complaining about receiving counterfeit money as alms. So, you h..."

Yep! Definitely... As we can tought about planned parenthood's budget cuts as a kind of control in reproductive rights... I was thinking of that in the part that mention that the ones who supported abortion in the old days ended in the wall... It's scary to think, even the author belive is not a prophecy, some of the changes in the rights that the past generations that gained for us as women, are jeopardized by actual governments, not only in US.