Handmaidens

AAK
I’m conserving my blood pressure

It is, actually. Because it is behavior which is specific to women.

It's impossible for it not to be a behavior women can engage in because the patriarchy exists! Men can't collude in men's oppression because men are not oppressed. If you want to use the existence of the patriarchy - for which no woman alive today is responsible - to find a super special slur word to describe behavior that can only exist because the patriarchy exists, I don't think that's great tbh.

If you want to insult a woman for her perceived relationship with the patriarchy by all means do so. I just don't see why any feminist went out of their way to come up with its very own slur word, just to describe other women.

I do think there is a element of “woman, be nice” running through this thread.

But that's not what "handmaiden" refers to, is it. It's certainly not those that it refers to in the book.

Oh, now you're insisting that words have proper meanings, and that we stick to tried and tested definitions

(Hands out snacks to those currently entering "dammit I can't not respond" circular argument hell.)

But when a man is misogynistic, Rat, he is not being a traitor. He may be being many nasty things, but a traitor to the women he shares the feature of being a woman with is not one of them (for the avoidance of doubt MN "he" in this context refers to a man who is quite happy with his "identity" as a man).

I repeat - every oppressed group has a derogatory name for the people within its ranks who are traitors, and often those derogatory names ironically reference the attitudes of the class doing the oppressing. Women are allowed to partake of this long political tradition too in naming traitors to their class.

I don't engage or take seriously anyone who uses the term. It is just a cheap shot to try to belittle some one who doesn't agree with you.

But in this context “traitor” would be sex specific too. A man supporting the patriarchy isn’t a traitor.........

Women do not "collude" with the patriarchy; women are subjugated by the patriarchy. If a woman goes against it that is commendable, but when she doesn't that is not mean she is traiterous.

I think it would be unusual to not find collaborators within subjugated groups who are willing to burn bridges with their group in order to curry favour with the oppressors. Case in point, the Jüdische Ghetto-Polizei

There's a difference between those who don't actively resist, and those who choose to be a mouthpiece for a regime which is actively seeking to remove women's rights and sex based protections.

“So if you're going to insult her for it, I would suggest a non-gendered insult would be appropriate, because the behavior you're insulting is not a behavior you don't like on account of her gender”

It is, actually. Because it is behaviour which is specific to women.

Why do some people seem to struggle to understand that women can also be misogynistic?
Isn’t that completely obvious?
And completely unstandable that women might collude for personal gain or out of fear or just unwittingly and unthinkingly.. when all women live under sexism and misogyny every day?

Who would want to be chucked under that bus? But doesn’t mean they should be applauded or condoned or not objected to when it’s deliberate.

None of this means that the real anger isn’t already directed at those pulling the strings of power of course. Handmaidens by definition aren’t those people.

Why do people think "handmaid" is referring to actively, willingly engaging "traitors"?

Does it not come from the Atwood novel?

FWIW I think traitor is a perfectly non-gendered insult if you really want to band it around. No need to come up with a sex-specific name for something that already has a perfectly good word to describe it. Feeling it needs a particular word for women who display that behavior is, in my mind, misogyny.

I was brought up in a very religious environment, so handmaiden means something very specific to me: it recalls those stories in the Bible where a female servant/slave is used as a means of furthering the patriarchy by bearing the patriarch's children. The woman has no choice in the matter, and if she stands up for herself she gets expelled, with no means of support (apart from God).

But those old stories were written by men for men. Hagar can't refuse Abraham. Mary can't say no to the angel. Instead she sings this song about how great it is to be chosen to become a teenage mother. 'Thanks for the unexpected fetus, God - how wonderful. Now I can fulfil my purpose in life, as determined for me by men.'

So when I see it in the trans debate I read it not so much as a woman who undermines other women for her own advantage, but a woman who can't see any other way to respond to the patriarchy. Or a woman who expresses gratitude to men for using her, because she believes her self worth depends on her investment in the patriarchy.

I don't think handmaiden is a sexist slur. I think it means a woman who has unfortunately not found enough freedom from patriarchal influences to do her own feminist analysis.

And it is also contradictory to claim the term hand maiden is insulting because it suggests that women are just bending to male will with no thought of their own, and also to say that it is offensive to use derogatory terms to women who act like hand maidens because they have no control over their actions because they are just subjugated by the patriarchy. A direct contradiction, but I think it was a different poster who said the former (don’t have time to check or quote, I should be working!)

I find pomo-addled to be a good alternative to handmaiden if you're instinctively against using gendered pejoratives against particular women or groups of women. It's more accurate of the world view, can be applied to both men and women, and gets a good snotty insult in to boot!

There are some women who make active choices to ollude with the Patriarchy. It is naive and patronizing and denying agency to say there aren’t.

But that's not what "handmaiden" refers to, is it. It's certainly not those that it refers to in the book.

And those who collude actively with the patriarchy, they are also stepping out of their "woman" role, because it is not usually for women under the patriarchy to exercise much agency. So if you're going to insult her for it, I would suggest a non-gendered insult would be appropriate, because the behavior you're insulting is not a behavior you don't like on account of her gender, rather it is simply a behavior you don't like. You'd like it just as little if it were a man. Why save a special insult just for a woman?

So when a very wealthy, comfortable female Telegraph columnist (naming no names) writes endless columns about efforts to improve conviction rates for rape, all of which centre round her repeated theme of "this feminism gorn too far makes me fear for my sons... I mean, how are they supposed to know when they've stuck their dick in an unwilling woman? And now someone wants to punish them for normal male behaviour. The world's gorn mad, I tell you..." she's doing so because she's subjugated by the patriarchy?

Not buying it.

Some people decide, willingly and in the absence of coercion, to be traitors. They are scum. They deserve a word which conveys the fact that they are scum.

Rat I do see where you are coming from but I agree with Bertrand. It is gender specific because feminism is gender specific, so to be a woman who essentialy rejects feminism in favour of the patriarchy is different to a man who thinks the same thing. The oppressor (the man) and the hand maiden (the woman) both have different roles but ultimately are both misogynistic.

I don’t know exactly how I feel about whether you can say it is so much worse to be a hand maiden because you are a woman, because I do understand your point about subjugation. But at the same time, I do believe in accountability strongly even if you have reasons to supposedly justify the way you act. Especially in our modern western society, I don’t think women could claim out right day to day fear of being strongly acted against by oppressors for not agreeing with the hand maiden ideology- in other words, it’s not under great duress or universal societal stigmatism (anymore) that makes women reject feminism. It is at least in part a conclusion that a woman comes to on her own.

Ann Coulter, unwilling slave of the patriarchy rather than eager collaborator. Ayn Rand, same.

“And yet when a woman - the one with the least power over the patriarchy - does not resist it you have a special word to insult her in her womanhood“

There are some women who make active choices to ollude with the Patriarchy. It is naive and patronizing and denying agency to say there aren’t.

“Handmaiden is an slur only a woman can suffer”

A handmaiden is something only a woman can be. Only a black person can be an Uncle Tom. Only a union member can be a scab.

Anyway has anyone watched it ?

Yes, and I clocked that one of her resources for further information is none other than Riley Dennis of lesbians are transphobic if they won't accept dick fame.

One of the comments under the video is good.

----------
Dackjanielsmeup

"If you include sterile women why not also include trans women?"
Sterile women are not equivalent to male bodied people (aka trans "women"). I don't understand how you can't see that this is sooo offensive.
Your reasoning is flawed:
"There are rams and ewes. But some sheep are born with disorders of sex development (DSDs). Some ewes have hysterectomies. Therefore, there is no such thing as a biological ram or ewe. In fact, fully developed rams can actually be ewes!"
Do you see the problem with that logic? You are saying that because some people have female-specific fertility issues, there is no such thing as a female! If there is no such thing as male or female, how are people even claiming to be male or female? Because they follow male / female social roles?? Utter nonsense.

Meh, I've never said TERF in my life. Gendered insult, I really hate them.

The thing with handmaiden is that if a man behaved in the same way he would not be subject to the same vitriolic insult. A woman suffers more for her being a woman, when her behavior may be no different from that of a man. And yet because she is a woman there is a special word to tear her down.

Women do not "collude" with the patriarchy; women are subjugated by the patriarchy. If a woman goes against it that is commendable, but when she doesn't that is not mean she is traiterous. Because her default position will be what is imposed upon her. And yet when a woman - the one with the least power over the patriarchy - does not resist it you have a special word to insult her in her womanhood.

That's not my feminism.

This young woman says she was brought into sex work by her momentum partner and is now HIV positive.

You know those moments when you feel like if climate change took the entire human race out it might not be such a bad thing?

What worries me is do these young women genuinely think it’s ok to be uncomfortable with a sexual partner? And why do they think that?

I have seen tweets from someone I vaguely know, she is middle-class, heavily in momentum labour youth and has an unnatural hair colour, full on TRA under graduate. This young woman says she was brought into sex work by her momentum partner and is now HIV positive.