The Handmaid's Tale: A Manual For Gender Oppression

As I read The Handmaid's Tale by Margaret Atwood, I frequently found myself shaking my head in disbelief.  One might think that wouldn't be so uncommon in a dystopian fiction, where things are  expected to be so outrageously worse than in the world as we know it, but that wasn't the reason for the head shaking.  The head shaking wasn't because what I was reading was so unbelievable, but because so many of the "ridiculous" ideas in the book could be pulled right out of a history book, or worse, current event news; specifically in Afghanistan. Some of the connections stuck me as so eerily familiar that I started quest of "which came first?" Sadly, it was the book, by a full decade.  If a book is going to mirror abuse and oppression of women, it should at least be in a purely historical context. We've long since outgrown such idiotic ideas about women, right?  Wrong.  The Handmaid's Tale could easily have served as an instruction manual for the Taliban to oppress the women of Afghanistan.

As Offred details all of the ways that she is controlled, the first that truly struck me as familiar was the way she was dressed. "The skirt is ankle-length, full, gathered to a flat yoke that extends over the breasts, the sleeves are full.  The white wings too are prescribed issue, they are to keep us from seeing, but also from being seen."  This description, except for the color, describes fairly closely a nun's habit.  In fact, Offred calls her appearance "A Sister, dipped in blood."   But in reading the description, my first thought was the burqa; more specifically the women of Afghanistan who are forced, by the Taliban, to wear a type of burqa called a chadri.  A chadri coveres a women from head to toe, ostensibly for modesty, but the covering goes well beyond the needs of modesty.  The chadri not only covers a woman's body, but her face, including her eyes-with a netting material-which severely limits her vision.  She can neither see or be seen.  Burqas have long been a clothing choice for women of some religions, but the Taliban took that choice from Afghani women and made it a requirement.  Failure to "choose" correctly became punishable by death. The clothing had become a way to identify and control women, just as it had in Gilead.

 As I continued reading, I found more examples of oppression that were closely linked to events in Afghanistan.  Women's movement about the cities was severely limited in both, under the guise of protection: "We turn and walk together...toward the central part of town.  We aren't allowed to go there except in twos.  This is supposed to be for our protection, though the notion is absurd: we are well protected already."  Women in Afghanistan were not allowed to go out unless accompanied by a male relative or risk being beaten by the Taliban.  In the book, Moira summed it up: "They don't want us going anywhere, you can bet on that."

Another similarity between the book and Afghanistan was the immediate restriction of education.  In Afghanistan, women's colleges were closed and women were cut off from paths to education.  In the book, women were not even allowed to read signs. "...when they decided that even the names of shops were too much temptation for us."   Words were contraband because of the power they hold, the power of education.  Offred is thrilled when she finds words hidden in her room, even if she couldn't understand them; "Still, it was a message, and it was in writing, forbidden by that very fact..."

The list could go on comparing the similarities of the oppression of women in Gilead and in Afghanistan, but no matter how many more we find, they all point to a sad truth:  The Handmaid's Tale  was written as dystopian fiction- a made up story intended to show the world the problems it faces and how drastically wrong it could be.  That a full decade after the book was published, a religious regime took over a country (just like the book) and oppressed women to the point that they weren't seen as much more than livestock (just like the book) to further their own agendas (just like the book) is such a sad commentary on the human race and how little we seem to learn.  The Handmaid's Tale could have given the Taliban insights on how to take over a country.  That so many could identify with the rightousness of oppressors speaks volumes about how far we, the human race, still have to go.

Handmaid's Tale/Taliban

I just wanted to include this info about the Taliban in Afghanistan for comparison to The Handmaid's Tale.  http://m.state.gov/md6185.htm

Being Masculine and Feminine in Panem

In reading and discussing The Hunger Games, I've found myself coming back to the question "Does Katniss really display masculine/feminine traits?"  I find myself chafing at the thought that certain qualities are considered inherently male or female.  We may think that certain physical or psychological traits as such, but when we look at a definition of inherent: belonging to the basic nature of someone or something we can see that masculinity or femininity are traits are not.  These descriptors are drawn of our own experiences, but they are not necessarily inherent.  I feel it is entirely possible that in the future world of Panem, the ideas of masculine or feminine have become obsolete, as words so often do over the course of time.  This is an idea I like.

As we read and examine the book in the 21st century, we are placing our 21st century ideas of masculine and feminine onto the characters.  I feel that, perhaps Suzanne Collins' writing brings us to a future where traits are attributed more on a person's class or experiences than gender.  In the book, traits that we would consider more feminine aren't displayed only in females, nor displayed by all females. While this is often true of people in the 21st century, the difference lies in that in Panem, it is not viewed as unusual.  

Peeta is a gentle soul with a tender, empathetic side who yearns for love, but Katniss isn't unnerved by the fact that these emotions are coming from a male.  She is unnerved that they are there at all because she is simply uncomfortable with them because her life experiences have taught her to be hard to survive.  The Capitol citizens all seem to be frivolous and obsessed with appearances.  Today, these traits are almost always attributed to females and/or labeled as feminine or effeminate-a word that is generally an insult-when it is a man displaying these traits.  But in Panem, they are simply indicators of a class that has not had to struggle.  Prim is a kind and seemingly delicate person, but again, this is not attributed to her being a girl.  Katniss wants Prim to remain this way and works hard to protect Prim from the ugliness of the world not because she wants Prim to be girlish, but because her love for Prim means Katniss does not want Prim to have to suffer as she did.

 Conversely, Katniss displays a number of traits that we would call masculine today, but it appears she does not think of herself this way, nor does she think of other traits as feminine.  Katniss is strong, not masculine. It is offered that her station in life creates a need to act this way.  I believe she didn't want to grow up closed off and distrusting, but she had no choice if she wanted to survive and protect Prim.  Career girls Glimmer and Clove are both skilled fighters, as are all of the tributes from Districts 1 and 2, but neither is ever described as being masculine. This is another example of how nobody in Panem seems concerned with whether someone is male or female-or even with physical size-but seem to all know that it's a person's knowledge and training that determines a person's personality and even physiology, since the larger stronger tributes are the ones who are well fed and trained, not exclusively the male tributes.


All of these instances of different people of Panem showing traits that are typically assigned a gender in our world today,are not given a gender in Panem.  Displays of strength or weakness, emotional dependency or being closed off, even afraid of emotion, are all presented at traits that a person has come to develop over their lifetime, not stamped on their psyche at birth.  People may still be judged in Panem, but they are not given the stigma or status of gender.  For me, Suzanne Collins has created a world that, in one aspect, has reached equality.  For me, feminism isn't about gaining acceptance for women to be masculine or men to be feminine, but where gender neutrality puts us all on a level playing field where we can develop ourselves as people.  As we can see with all of the problems that plague Panem, removing gender stereotypes would not remove all of the issues of equality, but perhaps in this one aspect, Panem has gotten something right.