fandomsecrets | [ SECRET POST #3774 ]

[ SECRET POST #3774 ]

⌈ Secret Post #3774 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.

__________________________________________________

02.

__________________________________________________

03.

__________________________________________________

04.

__________________________________________________

05.

__________________________________________________

06.

__________________________________________________

07.

__________________________________________________

08.

__________________________________________________

09.

__________________________________________________

10.

Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 01 pages, 13 secrets from Secret Submission Post #540.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

03. http://i.imgur.com/N5lgUH2.jpg

The show is more similar to Muslim countries imo

Yeah, I've always been under the impression the novel was heavily inspired by the conversion to an Islamic Republic and subsequent backsliding into conservatism that happened in Iran in the late 70s/early 80s.

While at the same time, I don't think that was the novel's only inspiration by any means. It seemed to be a pretty thorough and deliberate blend of influences, with Christianity and the West weighing in perhaps equally as much.

It's been years since I read the book, but didn't they need the handmaids because the wives were barren?

Well: in that world, women were either barren or fruitful, and "there is no such thing as a sterile man"; i.e. they "outlawed" the word sterile, and put infertility entirely on women. Of course, that was bullshit. In fact, many things hint to many men being sterile - especially the Commander. Plus, they all faced the same pollution and STDs, which supposedly caused the low birth rates.

I was about to come here and say that. I started reading but stopped for whatever reason and need to pick it back up again.

Sex with a servant/slave for the purpose of procreation happened in the Bible, though. Can't get much more fundamentalist than that...

Old Testament. And every fundamentalist I've ever known talks about that as something God didn't approve of but allowed. And they certainly believe that post-Jesus that wouldn't be acceptable.

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2017-05-05 01:45 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2017-05-05 01:48 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2017-05-05 08:42 (UTC) - Expand

This is true, but that doesn't mean it applies to fundamentalist modern-day Christians. (I mean, part of why they're such loonies is their beliefs are only loosely based on the Bible.)

I think it's supposed to be based on Jacob (I think?) having a baby with his wife's handmaid in the Bible. I do agree that it doesn't fit with modern American Christian fundamentalism. But I guess this situation was supposed to be more directly based on stuff in the Bible.

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2017-05-05 01:33 (UTC) - Expand

You do realize that the book is not based on your particular religious upbringing, right?

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2017-05-05 01:37 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

diet_poison - 2017-05-05 01:51 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2017-05-05 02:32 (UTC) - Expand

Plus, it's Biblical, isn't it?

from Wikipedia entry on handmaid:

In the Hebrew Bible, the term handmaid is applied to a female slave who serves her mistress, as in the case of Hagar being described as Sarai's handmaid, Zilpah being Leah's handmaid and Bilhah as Rachel's handmaid. In each of these cases, the mistress "gave" their handmaid to their husbands "to wife", to bear his "seed" (children). The use in the Torah of the prefix "to", as in "gave to wife", may indicate that the wife is a concubine or inferior wife. The text repeats that these people remain handmaids (i.e., slaves) of their mistress though they are also the mistress's husband's concubine.

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2017-05-05 01:35 (UTC) - Expand

Aren't the handmaidens just a conceit of the mass infertility? So its just an excuse to round up all the fertile women and make them breeding slaves that they justify with a random part o the bible.

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2017-05-05 08:45 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

alexi_lupin - 2017-05-05 14:15 (UTC) - Expand

The main handmaid has bad resting bitchface.

just wanted to point that out.

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2017-05-05 01:44 (UTC) - Expand

Margaret Atwood has said that she didn't put anything in the book that hadn't happened somewhere at some point.

LOL at OP trying to come for Margaret Atwood. You come at the queen, you best not miss.

It's not based on any specific existent Christian cult in the real world -- the book is not set in the real world. The book is "speculative fiction" (Atwood's term for her brand of soft sci fi) and involves a contagious plague that has rendered most women infertile. The handmaid situation is the way that this culture has adapted, twisting religious rhetoric to keep everyone (but most of all women) in line.

I have not seen the show, but I did read the book and see the original movie.

Based on that, the handmaids were simply there to have babies. Nothing else. If the wives of the elite were barren (and most of them were), the couple would get a handmaid to have children for them.

I remember the scene in the movie- the wife lay on the bed, fully clothed, the handmaid lay between her legs, also fully clothed. Her skirt/dress was lifted enough by the husband (also fully clothed) who only had undressed enough to do the deed. The handmaind was only there to be the wife's womb.

Also, remember the handmaids's names, at least in the book and the movie. All of them started with "Of", "Offred" was meant as "Of Fred". His property.

I haven't watched the show and it's been like five years since I read the book, but wasn't the whole point of handmaid's because the wives were barren? Like, sex for the sole purpose of reproduction is pretty fundamentalist.

Infertility's part of the concept, both where the handmaids are concerned and the reason the society is shaped the way it is. The handmaids either have had children before or have been proven fertile. The wives haven't/can't.

It might seem that simply forcing the fertile women into heavily controlled marriage would be less complicated. But I think it serves as a dark satire on how far a culture will go in separating the dirtiness of sex from sacred marital love.

Edited 2017-05-05 04:14 (UTC)

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2017-05-05 04:21 (UTC) - Expand

Er, sex for the sole purpose of creating offspring is pretty damn fundamentalist,and as others have pointed out, also appears in the Bible. I get why someone might object to Atwood's version of dystopia and how unflatteringly reminiscent of fundamentalist Christianity it is, but i don't think you can pretend like Atwood is barking up the wrong tree.

I think it's very naive of you - current fundamental Christians in your area of the world would not condone this one thing (officially)? Ok. That's one thing. But I don't understand what makes you so sure that if there was a huge fertility crisis their opinions wouldn't conviniently shift and get reshaped into something different (also theoretically Bible-based). It's not like religions don't change their dogmas in response to social changes. They do. And it's not that far-fetched to believe that such a giant social shift (majority of women becoming infertile) would result in a shift of mores.

One of the (many) ideas that book was supposed to express was Women As Property. Men control the women to such a degree that they put the still-fertile ones in servitude.

I doubt Atwood was addressing solely Fundamentalist Christianity in the book. That woman always has a larger thread going, she's known for it and extremely successful for it. If the show doesn't express that properly then oh well, but before you develop "feelings" about what the author does and does not understand properly you need to read the book first and then see how it goes for you.

I can't get over the stupid hats.

You don't really have the context of a nationwide fertility crisis to compare it to.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only