Are there any bad men in the Handmaid's Tale

[Pratchet]

Nick: lovely rescuer
Commander: offered friendship, acted pained, tried to explain
(Wife: narsty caah)
Van driver: lovely rescuer
Pilot: lovely rescuer
Econohusband: lovely rescuer
(Econo wife: mean and didn't wasn't to help)
Those foreign visitors at the end of season one - man tried to help, woman refused
Clinic assistant male: gave her key to escape

Anyone who is surprised at the role of women as complicit oppressors has only to look at the women who are pro the GRA 'reforms' to see that there are women complicit with men in doing stuff that damages women.

I do not see it as women turning against women as a whole or complicit, more that there is few choices. Wife, handmaiden, aunt, servant/slave and death. Fall in line, dehumanise and do as you are told and above all self preservation until a glimmer of hope that a fight back or escape is possible. Which for whatever reason not all viewers are getting. Even here I am assuming most posters are women, does this tv show have the same impact on men and women who don’t see the patriarchy or is this to them a fantasy like the walking dead.

I watched the first series with DH who's never read the book and I was pointing out exactly the same sorts of things to him as you OP (surprisingly, it didn't ruin his viewing - the opposite in fact - but that's because I largely managed to constrain myself to post-viewing, non-ranty, discussion over a glass of wine).

I had completely missed the point that the Handmaids are adulterous, lesbian, somehow "othered" women. Has that been explicit since the start?

I think it was implied but I’m not sure I got that entirely either. Econowives were a new concept for me anyway, unless I missed it. I didn’t realise they were grouped like that.

I pointed out we already have women in front of Sharia courts in this country where their testimony is only 50% of a man's

Sharia courts is a misnomer. The Muslim Arbitration Tribunal is a form of alternative dispute resolution which operates under the Arbitration Act. It is one of a range of services where Muslims can use ADR to resolve civil matters - the Islamic Sharia Council is another.

The decision to refer a civil issue to them must be voluntary, as with all ADR, and at any time a party can withdraw and refer matters to the civil courts.

The Muslim Arbitration Council is an arbitration tribunal operating under English law and the rules of arbitration apply but agreeing arbitration can't be forced. The Sharia Council isn't a tribunal and has no legal authority whatsoever. It is basically the same as agreeing to go before Judge Rinder.

None of the Sharia Tribunals have any right to deal with criminal matters nor can they affect the legal status of a person. A Sharia "divorce" is not a divorce for purposes of UK law. It merely dissolves the religious marriage but if a couple were married in accordance with the civil law of the UK only a civil court can grant a divorce. Sharia Tribunals cannot say they do not recognise a UK divorce.

or is this to them a fantasy like the walking dead.

To be fair, it is a fantasy like The Walking Dead.

It isn't happening, it's a fictional view that is loosely based on issues that are prevalent today.

It's the same as 1984 - the author has cleverly mixed just enough reality in there to make it believable that it could happen very easily. It's not true.

Until women start becoming infertile & there's a massive population crash, I don't think there's anything to worry about....

SleepIsForTheWeek Not really, its more that there used to be a theme in books and films that certain actions have negative outcomes. Like a kind of modern morality tale.

So for example, one theme is that children that raise animals and become attached to them end up having to kill them - Old Yeller and The Yearling being 2 examples.
Boys that tame a wild animal can expect a happy ending - The Black Stallion.
And in horror films, women who have sex are the ones killed by the serial killer or monster.

Today 10:25 AnyFucker

^Tbh, even without reading the book if you watch this show and don't "get it" then really you are the type of person thst potentially never will*
Disagree. Think that comment comes from a point of superiority. This doesn't give that picture of patriarchyvtajen to extremes which it should. And mixed messages coming from those who disagree.
1 that the aunts are acting out of fear
2 that the aunts have agency and why shouldn't they be sadistic just like men because they're invested in gilead's future

The message that I think gets put, to most of the viewers who think patriarchy is a rather ridiculous notion, is not nuanced at all. It's of a dystopian future where evil women are in charge and men are doing what they have to do in an infertile world without being evil about it.

So yes that means people don't 'get' the book's message. Because they aren't being given it. They're getting a different message. hardly their fault.

I think it’s super clear that aunt Lydia is a sadist but she’s not one of the old white men in suits making plans, having meetings and signing laws. She’s not in charge. The men made this world. It’s been crystal clear to me and I’ve never read the book.

I don’t think anyone thinks the men aren’t evil lol to think that is ridiculous to me. No way does anyone think they are trying to combat fertility. Fs they could try ivf or different male partners because let’s face it, medically they aren’t fucking stupid and know that men can be infertile. It’s religious based oppression using fertility to get people on board. To think anything else is stupidity. And if you’re that stupid you won’t get it anyway.

Pratchet - I'm surprised people who know the book didn't see issues with the first series (though I enjoyed watching it despite of them).

Woke young blokes on Twitter calling radical feminists (aka TERFS) "Aunt Lydia" or whatever after the TV series came out, alongside gifs of the stoning scene says something.

I presume the commander knows he can’t havd children. The whole society is an act. Of course he knows the handmaidens have to find another way to get pregnant. It just clearly not his problem. Does he think it’s nicks baby? He doesn’t appear to care one bit.

infinitesheldon, not to mention that this book came out in 1985 when the US religious right had a LOT more powerful and some didn't think it very far fetched that the US would tear up women's rights to abortion and usher in a theocratic regime. The RR in the US still have power, but they're not as much of a threat as they were in the 80s. Women's bodies are still being controlled - vis Ireland on abortion, access to contraception etc. If this were a US forum you'd have a lot more comments on that but 100% agree on Sharia - I was telling DD the other day there are still countries where girls can't go to school because they're either needed for domestic labour, or their families don't believe girls should be educated.

i can't watch the TV series though - too sad and grim for me, I can't stand rapes being dramatized, I found the book to be brilliant, but like 1984, it's not one I could re-read for enjoyment.

To be fair, it is a fantasy like The Walking Dead.
No, no, no how can you be so blind? This has and is happening. Listen to the Radio 4 book program with MA on it. Every part of this story has an actual historical basis. This novel is terrifying because it pulls together so many different strands of the Patriarchy and it's abuse/use of religion when a cataclysmic event rocks society. In this case the collapse of fertility leads men (and compliant sterile women) to subjugate 'othered' women; adulterers, lesbians, divorcees. Women will comply when the option is mutiliation, beating, death pretty much all of us will tbf.

Women with little power and limited language are often unaware of their legal rights that paragraph may make you feel better LassWiADelicateAir it makes me feel ashamed. Sharia courts have no place in our society

The problem with it is that it has a very "but women do it too" vibe, which is pretty prevalent in today's TV pantheon of sexist tropes.

I've just been watching a garden-variety murder mystery. At the beginning there was a "feminist" flavored character who made a bit of a flouncy statement that statistically the murderer was likely to be male. I correctly predicted that the murderer would indeed be female because you know "women do it too".

Not only was she female but she was jealous, emotional and a career woman to boot. There's something about women in power that makes us profoundly uncomfortable. Men in power can be nasty or benevolent or any shade in between (as JF's character is). Women in power can only be power hungry bitches.

HT definitely has that vibe.

And yet the truth is of course, that patriarchy serves men. Yes it hurts those men who choose not to comply but mostly it serves them . The women, not so much. As a woman in a patriarchy the most you'll end up is second place. They haven't shown that dynamic of complicity and lack of choice at all.

Men in power can be nasty or benevolent or any shade in between (as JF's character is). Women in power can only be power hungry bitches.

That's simply not true. Although the "power hungry bitch" may be a common fiction trope, it's not exclusive. There's plenty of fiction where women in power are somewhere inbetween, or benevolent.

I know I should be confident enough to stand alone in my opinion, but I am very reassured that other women have the same sense of deep unease.

Re: Aunts in THT - Dworkin talks a lot about right wing women with religious beliefs and is enlightening.

www.feministes-radicales.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/Andrea-DWORKIN-Right-Wing-Women-The-Politics-of-Domesticated-Females-19831.pdf

The vibe I take from the TV is that the wives took control but then relinquished it to the husbands. And the handmaids bear the brunt of their actions.

The vibe I take from the TV is that the wives took control but then relinquished it to the husbands. And the handmaids bear the brunt of their actions.

Really? The vibe I get is that the men capitalized on growing fears about infertility and constant international conflict to seize control. The Handmaid idea came from Serena, but that's only one part of the whole that is Gilead (like whatever radioactive crap they are digging up in the colonies?).

No, no, no how can you be so blind? This has and is happening.

No, no, no.

It's really not....

I must admit with all the shots of Serena making speeches in the past, plus looking always discontented now AND all the scenes of her gardening, I'm starting to get a real "you reap what you sow" vibe regarding her which is a bit disappointing. Yes she was involved in the whole thing but setting her up as taking all the BLAME for the whole thing while the men all bop around happily seems a bit off.

this book came out in 1985 when the US religious right had a LOT more powerful and some didn't think it very far fetched that the US would tear up women's rights to abortion and usher in a theocratic regime. The RR in the US still have power, but they're not as much of a threat as they were in the 80s.

Have you not seen the news on what's been happening with abortion rights (or the lack of them) in some US states? It isn't far-fetched that they'll tear up rights to abortion, because it's happening right now.