Friday, April 28, 2017

- Who Enslaved Atwood's HandMaids?

I’ve always liked sci-fi, especially of the dystopian future variety. And from that perspective Margaret Atwood’s 1985 Novel “The Handmaid’s Tale” is actually a pretty good story. I’d recommend it. I think it’s well written, and raises a lot of serious questions about the nature of the sexes and the effect of tyranny on a populace. It’s not particularly groundbreaking in that respect. And I like the Hulu series that’s based on it, and is making such a fuss right now. It’s well shot, well acted, and engaging.

But our culture’s representation of the lessons it ‘should’ be teaching us, are typically laughable.

Here’s the basics. Infertility has struck humanity. 90% of all women cannot have any children, and for those that can, the chance of a healthy birth has fallen to one in five. Into this culturally shattering event, Atwood imagines that men would effectively enslave all the healthy childbearing women and subject them to authorized ‘rape’ by the powerful as breeding stock. The women are denied all rights in the decision of who will impregnate them. Those decisions are made by the state. They are treated as nothing more than ‘walking wombs’ and are denied all agency in their own breeding. This means, of course, that men are horribly evil tyrants.

But Atwood was dead wrong about that. In a future culture dominated by men that had to deal with that kind of drop in cumulative fertility, reproductively viable women wouldn’t be reduced to slave status, on the contrary. They would be elevated to godlike status. There would be parades in their honor after every birth, and statues would be erected to them. They would become the ultimate ultimate status symbol, and the ability to attract a fertile woman would be fought over tooth and nail among men. Imagine Bill Gates vs. Elon Musk duking it out with their best technological toys in some future-tech version of the thunderdome. That’s how men see female fertility, and how it would be treated if men were in total control.

Which isn’t to say that Atwood’s dark fantasy couldn’t happen. But if it did, the people who made it happen wouldn’t be the men, it would be the infertile women.

In effect, all the imagined Misogyny of third wave Feminism is just the psychological projection of Feminists. It's a reflection of the hatred that undesirable women feel for their more desirable sisters. That's why, apart from some occasional adolescent flirtation, you don't meet many desirable Feminists. It's a cult of rationalization for women who are ugly on the inside, outside, or in many cases both. And Atwood's entire chilling vision is based on that same sort of projection rather than a reflection of how men really feel.

Just imagine the women in your circle. Imagine their reaction if suddenly all the things that make a woman attractive to men today were suddenly reduced to irrelevancies compared to whether or not a woman was capable of giving birth. Imagine that physical attractiveness, intelligence, charm and grace have all become utterly irrelevant for women compared to breeding health. How do you imagine they would react when the fat, stupid, slovenly, uneducated and bad smelling mess of a woman is able to out command the attention of handsome billionaires with six packs, while all they can get is the fat, ugly, bad smelling and dim witted men.

How do you imagine today's actresses, models, and members of the women’s elite would react?

I’ll tell you what I think. I think their cruelty and brutality to those women would be total. They would immediately demand that their men impose deep restrictions on those women, not too different from what Atwood’s story imagines. There would be some rationalized justification for it, maybe in the form of biblical references and deference to tradition. But if that didn’t work, their rationalization hamster would find some other excuse.

There is simply no way that the 90+ percent of infertile women would allow the small percentage of fertile women to usurp their status, simply by virtue of being able to have kids. The National Organization of Women would DEMAND that they be enslaved. They would lobby for it. It would be considered as 'essential' as the abolition of slavery. If men did it at all it would only be to shut them up so we could get on with other things, and god help the man who resisted. They would make Antifa look like the mormon tabernacle choir.

Atwood doesn’t actually mention that. Instead she imagines the flip side of the Feminist coin where all women are considered ‘the same’ as men, and assumes that all men are ‘the same’ as women. But that isn’t how the world works either.

Nothing would make men happier than to have a woman deserving of the kind of love that men can have for each other. Give us a woman from whom we can expect the same kind of loyalty, devotion and mutual self sacrifice that men in combat (as the best example) typically feel for each other, and not only would the man consider himself lucky, he’d be considered lucky by all other men.

Unfortunately, women like that don’t exist. Even the very best of them are solipsistic narcissists, who compared to the best of men’s nature, are capable of thinking only of themselves. That doesn’t make them bad women. Women are as they should be. But it does make them terrible men.

Atwood didn’t understand this. And neither do the laughably hysterical reviewers who are ranting and raving about what “A Handmaid’s Tale” should teach us as a “Warning to Women”. Women in that circumstance have nothing to fear from men. The only thing they really have to fear is themselves.


ikaika said...

I don't see western civ's (occidental) potential dystopian response akin to your view or Atwood's.
What I see and what we have seen in the eastern (Oriental) world is exactly what Atwood has painted onto white european males. The islamic world herds women like cattle for similar reasons. The hijab and burka clad women of the 21st century protected class are the handmaidens. The islamic world is a dystopian reality complete with barbarism coupled with obscene wealth and SOTA technology. China's failed 1-child policy is another reality conveniently ignored.

Tom said...

Meh ... I don't think Atwood's vision is likely. If you got that then I've gone too far. All I'm saying is that as presented the vision is illogical, and the rantings of the reviewers are even more illogical. Male Misogyny doesn't really exist (it might for gay men, but I wouldn't know). That's really just the low value women projecting their hatred of high value women onto men, by the mistaken assumption that they are 'the same' as men, and therefore men are 'the same' as them.

I have yet to meet a single man who 'just hates' women like Emily Ratajkowski or Bella Hadid, but I meet women who truly despise them all the time. And that's nothing compared to how they feel about someone like Stacey Dash who is both very attractive and has rejected Feminism. You wanna see real Misogyny, ask a Lena Dunham looking Feminist about her.

Blegoo said...

As far as I remember (read the novel years ago), Margaret story is about the dangers of theocracy - the Gilead and less about reproduction of human species.
I have to side with ikaika on this - seen thru islamic world filter... the novel looks copied from that.
Seizing bank accounts of women is just a modest exaggeration. Not permitted to drive cars? Heh, happens now. Killing unbelievers? Every day...
The novel described an "muslimized" christianity, as a matter of fact.
Movie series, as usual, divert from original story to push current liberal dogma, I suppose.
Still, I enjoyed the article, even though it's slightly off of Atwood message - imho.