Story of Handmaid’s Tale becoming ‘more and more plausible’ – Margaret Atwood

[IwantToRetire]

Award-winning author Margaret Atwood has said the events depicted in her book The Handmaid’s Tale, which tells the story of an authoritarian regime, are becoming “more and more plausible”.

The Canadian writer, 86, published the futuristic novel in 1985 and followed it up with Booker Prize-winning story The Testaments in 2019, both of which inspired the dystopian TV series starring US actress Elisabeth Moss.

In the book, the US is replaced by a theocratic, totalitarian regime called the Republic of Gilead which has subjugated women, many of whom are forced to be natal slaves called handmaids, tasked with rebuilding the species amid worldwide infertility.

Atwood thought the plot was “bonkers” when she first came up with the idea and said “America was the beacon of light” at the time.

Women across the US have worn red cloaks and wings while protesting against the administration of US President Donald Trump, who has taken credit for returning the abortion debate to the agenda and helping overturn the Roe v Wade ruling on abortion rights.

Atwood added: “These kinds of regimes don’t last, partly because they become unsustainable. This particular one seems quite chaotic.

https://www.aol.co.uk/articles/story-handmaid-tale-becoming-more-000100637.html

As I mentioned, it's a much discussed case.

Some details you may have missed in this case, which are buried in the Wikipedia link...

• the family didn't have a say. The choice was made by the hospital based on their interpretation of the law. This is why it feels "Gilead" to me, the choice didn't happen, instead birth was forced by authorities due to their interpretation of the law on abortion
• this specific instance is largely understood to be "inhumane" by many different sides

@DropHopStop agreed it’s much discussed which in itself is odd as it is an incredibly rare situation (in fact a one off since Roe was overturned) and it was clear that the mother hadn’t (unsurprisingly) given any indication as to what she would want to happen in this situation. So I don’t see why it is held up as an example of anything much.

It’s curious to me why The Handmaid trope is used so often in connection to the US. There are over 20 countries globally who have a complete ban on abortion (including some in Europe) and many others which are far far more restrictive and yet many people would struggle to name more than a handful of them.

There are no restrictions on women seeking a termination in any of the US states which prohibit them from travelling to get one, indeed there are a significant number of charities specifically to help and assist in this. Whilst maternity leave etc badly lags behind in the US, it’s ridiculous to cast it as some sort of Gilead. Not when we have so many countries where women have few or no rights. I just wish these countries would get a fraction of the attention and interest that the US attracts when it comes to women’s rights.

Honestly haven't read all the comments as for some reason FWR seems to have become just about bitching.

The link I posted was because she was on Desert Island Disc

Whinging about self promotion and not the issue is absurd.

Let alone suggesting MA had given men the idea when everyone knows as she did say at the time it was published every incident she used in the book had happened to women somewhere in the world.

What happened to the F in FWR feminism.

And just to add to my irritation have seen the post about the women who was brain dead was kept alive because she was pregnant.

There's a whole thread about that situation with informed comment and updates.

Begining to think might as well be on twitter.

You might want to read the thread. If you're wondering why feminists are struggling with MA. It's all spelt out here.

Liking Margaret Atwood is not compulsory for all feminists you know.

How did you want this discussion to go? What do you want us to talk about?

So what exactly would the OP like this thread to be about? Exclusively abortion and how previously the US was a ‘beacon of light’ on this subject and now it’s a pit of darkness? The thing is, feminism is not just about abortion. It’s important, yes. Fundamental even. But it’s not a simple yes or no issue and just because you live in a yes country doesn’t mean you live in a feminist country. India and China are ‘beacons of light’ on abortion and they aren’t exactly wonderful on many other fundamental women’s rights issues. Abortion access can easily become a men’s rights platform when combined with other patriarchal interests, such as access to women’s bodies (sex work, surrogacy) and male control of inheritance (sex selection). Women who think abortion is simple and all that matters when being ‘feminist’ and ‘political’ are blind. It’s sleight of hand, and in the West at least, it’s coming from the Left.

I’m always fascinated by people who start a thread and then get cross with the way it twists and turns. @IwantToRetire do you police conversations like this IRL?

I read HMT around the same time as I read Persepolis and the parallels were clear.

This. I used to admire her, but when she failed to stand up for women against trans ideology, I had to reevaluate. She's obviously too comfortable in her position of privilege to rock the boat against her own side.

I'd have more respect for her if she put women first and spoke up against all of it.

It matters because it proves her to be a hypocrite who is not motivated by concern for women. She built her career warning about the very kind of slow-burn assault on women's rights we witnessed during the rise of the trans movement. She warned American women not to be complacent, warned that even in America it could happen.

And then when we said "Look, it's happening! They're stripping us of the right to name ourselves as a sex class, the foundational right from which all our other rights flow! Help us, Margaret!" . . . where was she? Seriously. Where the fuck was she? Handmaidening for the other side, with no apparent awareness of the irony.

A feminist who doesn't stand for women's rights is not a feminist. Margaret Atwood may have been a powerful feminist voice once, but she isn't anymore. If she makes a frank apology for her failures, I might consider giving her the time of day again. But until then, I have no interest in playing into this self-mythology she's building around herself. You know, the one where's she's the great tragic Cassandra lamenting how the world won't heed her warnings. Oh, woe to the women of America, aren't I wise, etc, etc . . .

She stuffed her own ears with wax when women were begging her to listen to us, and now she wants the world to fawn over her wisdom. Don't make me laugh. There are American women far braver than her, who are doing grassroots work up and down the country in service of women, and who deserve to be hailed as feminist heroes far more than Margaret Atwood.

I must have had a past life experience similar to this as I can't even say it or listen to the theme music or think about it without getting traumatised. I just could not watch it.
Strange reaction but very true. Only read first couple of posts and the fear started!

No, you're not. What you want is neither here nor there.

What are you on about “ right wing” women? Don’t be so foolish.
she is TWAW and turned out to be a huge disappointment

Chimananda has had children by a surrogate

Atwood seems to view everything through the prism of the demise of Roe v Wade. As if that, and only that is a sign that her holy prophesy of the Handmaid’s Tale is being realised.

There are so many interesting real life analogies happening that she doesn’t comment about, because if she does, her tribe won’t give her cookies. Issues like the proliferation of international surrogacy, the selling of poor women’s hair for rich women’s wigs, the refusal of so called liberal politicians to stand up for young girls (children) forced to wear hijab, the forced incarceration of women with men, the distortion of sex based language, the promotion of only fans and other types of prostitution as legitimate sources of income generation for unemployed women, the normalisation of cosmetic surgery on healthy bodies. There are so many and they could all be connected in interesting ways to Atwood’s fiction, sparking truly interesting discussions that transcend political silos of Left and Right.

It seems though, that Atwood just wants cookies. And the only permitted topic on the Left when it comes to the rights of menstruating people and womb havers, is Roe v Wade. So that’s all she dares draw attention to. And then not even in an interesting or critical way. Just ‘aren’t I clever, RoevWade = Handmaid’s Tale, I told it, can I have a cookie?’. That other stuff? Do it to Joanne.

I used to love ‘Handmaids Tale’ but it’s ideas do seem a bit dated now.
.

White men are only 5% of the global population and this will decrease to 3% in the next century but Atwood’s book is typical of the Left’s exaggeration of the threat from white Christians and their traditional values but never says a word against the treatment of women in the Muslim world.

The ‘Canada good America bad’ paradigm. Plucky Canada goes to war with Gilliad and eventually wins.
Wouldn’t Gilliad have inherited the USA’s weaponry, and Canada be living next to a well armed Fascist state with the post war consensus breaks off? What chance would they have.

The book ends with no solutions to the civilisational collapse caused by infertility and so presumably humans will die out within a few generations.

@Wetoldyousaurus I totally agree with your post. As an aside Roe Vs Wade was a flawed ruling which would inevitably be overturned one day. Even the most ardent pro choice legal minds saw that. It’s beyond ridiculous that successive Democrat administrations did nothing about it.

From what I’ve read the Handmaid’s Tale was inspired by the Islamic revolution in Iran.