Misogyny in The Handmaid’s Tale and the Wrinkled American Dream

by Nicolette Westfall

Imagine you are oh, say, 28, and your boyfriend is, say, 81, and you have come to the realization that in just a few short years (when you turn 35 or thereabouts), your biological clock is going to slow down, according to examples of research . Though the reasons are complex , you’ve invested everything you have into the relationship; breast augmentation, fake nails, perfect hair, the right bikinis—well, you’ve done just about everything to become the breathing Real Life Doll (not to be confused with Real Dolls (warning: adult site)) that he wants!Hugh Hefner and his mansion of willing, youthful gaggle of sex objects (women) is exactly what The Handmaid’s Tale character, Offred, encounters when she is sexually enslaved for reproductive purposes to a powerful grey haired man. Unlike Holly Madison, though, she does not want sexual relations with a much older man, and would, if she could, spit on him (71). Unfortunate for Offred, silly woman, Fred is the man on top, just as Hefner, but it isn’t fantasies of money and fame–treating men like Hefner as “success objects” that keep her on a leash, it is the far-right Christian fundamentalist colonization of women’s bodies realized . Although the rules indicate he is only supposed to sleep with her for breeding purposes, he wants her for intimacy as well, and forces her to fake sexual enjoyment (264, 321).

Offred, an enslaved woman, presents an opposite to Holly in her apprehension about having sex with a much older male, the only similarities between the two women being that they are both enslaved to misogynist men who are well past their productive prime. While Commander Fred is able to mechanically get off without the aid of drugs (116), Hefner admittedly relies on Viagra . Though they may be the wealthiest men, with all the girls, they no longer have what it takes to breed successfully. For Holly, it is sad to note that Hefner suffers from the same affliction that every other man out there does, aging, which alters the motility of their sperm, negatively influencing the sperm’s ability to do such things as travel properly when released. As males age, chances of mutations such as Apert syndrome in offspring increase .

Regardless of ability to breed, both misogynists, Fred and Hefner, have an endless supply of flesh, which leaves little time for worrying about the trivial lives of their women. On Holly’s desperation to have a baby with him, Hefner, notes , “I think ‘probability’ is probably an overstatement.” It is Holly’s worry, not his.

Being a misogynist can be a lot of work, as both men indicate. Hefner admits to focusing a bit more on a few select women rather than many by slimming down his “herd” to please his No. 1 gal, Holly. In similar fashion, Fred discovers that he’s lonely for something else, and forces Offred to engage in Scrabble games with him (174). It is a forbidden pleasure that arouses him. He forces her to kiss him (175). It is not unlike Hefner forcing Holly to enhance her physical appearance because he was not happy with the woman until she looked like his ideal . While plastic surgery and breast implants are illegal in Fred’s Gilead, he does manage to attempt his own version of a Real Doll with Offred. He dresses her body up like a whore and takes her out to a club to have excitingly forbidden (289). For both men, it is a game and women are the toy pieces.

Fred justifies the Gilead regime’s complete control over women’s bodies (excluding suicide, of course) by arguing that it’s better than the “Meat Market” and women no longer have to mutilate their bodies with things like plastic surgery (274). Hefner asserts that Playboy gives women sexual freedom, but former Girlfriend Izabella St. James argues that it simply makes it easier for men to score with women.

It isn’t that Hefner and Fred don’t care about their sex objects; it’s just that, as Fred admits to Offred, men naturally need a variety of women. Instead of making them wear different dresses in the pre-Gilead period, powerful men simply possess more than one woman (298). Offred and Holly can’t argue against the very nature of the misogynist man.

Works Cited

Atwood, Margaret, The Handmaid’s Tale. Doubleday, Canada. 1998.

North America’s Obsession with Babies and The Handmaid’s Tale

Hollywood is awash in babies, from the recently birthed (Helena Bonham Carter and Nicole Ritchie) to many, many others. Adoption advocates Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie may be in that precious way again, if industry wide commentary on Angelina’s multi-coloured “sack” gown and the possibility of twins is any indication. One guaranteed high profile pregnancy is highlighted by the “delighted” Gwen Stefani family, as they rejoice over the anticipated arrival of their second child sometime later this year. Added to the swelling joy is music celeb Dixie Chick Martie Maguire, who notes that’s she’s “very excited” . Not to be forgotten, Fred Savage and his wife, Jennifer Stone, are pregnant again, and want everybody to know it! Lesser known celebs, like Mary Lynn Rajskub, are expecting. Even younger Hollyrude celebrities like courageous Jamie Lynne Spears are baking up offspring. Last, but not least, celebrity Arkansas breeding couple Jim Bob and Michelle Duggar spewed forth their 17th child in August, and immediately noted their eager anticipation in conceiving number 18. The positive outlook on pregnancy is mirrored with recent Hollywood films such as Knocked Up, Waitress, Bella, and Juno.The joyous list goes on. However, in Margaret Atwood’s The Handmaid’s Tale, and elsewhere in present day society, there are scores of women who are desperately busy trying to conceive in order to lay claim to biological (or surrogate) motherhood. In Gilead, women are so hungry for babies that the heroine, Offred, describes scenes in which women size up each other’s bellies, noting that jealousy can often get pregnant women killed. Offred’s very survival depends on whether or not she can breed successfully. Acceptable children in pre-Gilead America are so scarce that Offred recalls a memory of someone stealing her young daughter from her grocery cart. The eager anticipation of a household pregnancy is so powerful that Offred’s master’s Wife encourages her to illegally sleep with a man (Nick) other than the polygamous Commander. The anxiety Offred and the other breeders (handmaids) suffer as they wait to successfully conceive is a mere echo of women across the industrialized world today who can’t breed without assistance, but who are, nonetheless, determined (at any cost) to do so. The temptation of a baby, as Elizabeth Ruth notes, is akin to a candy dangling in front of women’s noses. She deals with the trauma of callous fertility clinic physicians who coldly treat her like a number. From costly fertility drugs (second mortgage, anyone?), to winging it, she and her partner try everything until they finally conceive and carry beyond the first trimester. Ruth’s negative experiences are highlighted by the exploitation of other couples in pursuing pregnancy. Dr. Charles Rodeck, head of fetal medicine at London University College Hospital, notes that for clinics, it is not so much about patient care as it is competition for clients, and the resulting lack of information they receive. Women such as Ruth and IVF patients are willing to spend diaper bags full of money on any treatment they are lead to believe is effective. Regardless of whether a woman is pregnant, trying, or not even remotely considering the possibility, the temptation is everywhere in today’s American baby boom propaganda. Likewise, in pregnant women show off, and those waiting for the same glory get the privilege of riding in the birth mobile to witness the wondrous birthing event of a fellow handmaiden . In present day America, even the mere thought of the “love of ruffles and lace” is enough to send Michelle Duggar into an orgasm about conceiving yet again.

For Duggar and Hollywood women, there is a consumer plus to expecting—they can shop until their waters break. Newsday recently reported that J. Lo, you’re average mother-to-be, is buying little things like sleigh cribs and silk sheet sets. If women think shopping is exciting pre-pregnancy, imagine searching for the perfect personalized embroidered crib sets! The glamorous task of buying Baby everything He or She needs (or Them, if you’re even more blessed) is furthered by such acts as Elizabeth Hasselbeck giving all members of The View’s audience their very own “Celebrity Bump Bag,” (which is valued at $1,500+ and contains brand named Baby lines). Glam consumption starts with Baby! The current cultural trend, if Hollyrude is any example, according to Virginia Rutter, is that making reproductive choices appears to be quite effortless. The only real worry is deciding over which designer diaper bag to buy.

It isn’t just Celeb moms and moms-to-be that are creating a rose-colored pregnancy lens through which the rest of us salivate on. “Babies” is one of People Magazine’s Top Ten news categories. We, the consumers, are lapping up the rabbit Hollywood baby bump.

While the far Christian right currently relies on such seemingly innocent Hollywood movies and celebrities to place an ultra-distorted view of pregnancy and all of its realities, it has a much darker ace up its sleeve. The lack of education and access to contraceptives and other methods indicates that America is headed down the path to excessive breeding. Approximately 750,000 American teens will conceive in 2008. Goodman has stated that abstinence only education, to the tune of $1 billion, just doesn’t work. Lack of education coupled with skewed information is a disastrous combination. Some women blame abortion for drug problems and most other women’s psychological issues, and Christians like Rhonda Arias encourage carrying through with unplanned pregnancies instead of considering the alternatives. Compared to Europe, Canada, Australia, and Japan, the US has the highest fertility rate .

Following right along in the view that abortion is responsible for an assortment of women’s ills, men who want more control over the female body, have chimed in with a new attack. Men like Jason Baier adds his two cents by claiming that men suffer from a variety of gripping psychological problems and addictions that stem directly from the act of abortion. Though there is no valid research proving that men are severely traumatized by abortion, these men continue on in the movement to dissuade women from having that choice. Contrary to these male assertions, Post-Abortion Syndrome is not a recognized disorder, nor does male sadness and regret concerning abortion translate into life-paralyzing devastation. Whether women choose to abort or keep the unborn is often influenced by accessibility to different services, not male paralysis. Ann Friedman notes that abortion providers have been dropping in numbers for the past 2 decades, and while it has leveled off somewhat, numbers are still declining. Although some doctors provide medical abortions, these numbers are small.

With all signs pointing towards more pregnancies in America, the next logical step is what Atwood portrays in Gilead. Offred, against her will, gets to ride in the “red” car once a month to visit a nameless doctor for her reproductive examination. The physician never sees her face, for she is just a human broodmare, the lower parts of her body being the only essential elements of her existence. Her teacher, Aunt Lydia, argues that once the breeding numbers are up where the white men in power want them to be, things will be better for women. This assertion certainly has no influence on America today, because, as already mentioned, America has the highest fertility rate in the industrialized world and yet the Brownbacks in power are still crying out for more babies through the ceaseless lament for the lost Unborn.

In the meantime, Offred is washed and groomed by her womenfolk, as if she is a “prize pig.” She is treated minimally better than the other women because of her breeding potential. Danita J. Dodson compares her to the colonized African-American slave woman—once she is incapable of producing offspring, she will be disposed of, or sent to the colonies as free labour until her body wears out. Bringing the comparison up to date, the woman that comes to mind is Michelle Duggar, who doesn’t get time off from breeding; she is enslaved to the far right’s belief that good Christian women must breed as much as possible to create warriors in the fight against evil (any one who isn’t an upper class white male Christian). Unlike Offred, though, Dugger and other aging women out there will find use in assisting their children in raising grandchildren; somebody has to do the thankless job.

If Hollywood and current politics are any indication, the anti-abortion camp is currently in the lead. And we would do well to heed the lessons of Atwood’s heroine, Offred, who Neuman (2006) shows us willingly chooses to ignore the warning signs pre-Gilead that women were about to lose the war. Our passiveness when it comes to the glorification of pregnancy in wealthy Hollyrude and ignoring the warning bells set off by women like Dugger can only lead to further promotion and acceptance of the Gilead expectation of self-managed victimization through the glorified hollow broodmare status.

When Women Attack Women: The Handmaid’s Tale and the Early 21st Century

by Nicolette Westfall

Continuing on from the Blog for Choice Day post about women and reproductive rights, today’s piece looks at women as a factor of suppression. The potential for women’s equality is hampered by divisive actions between women on behalf of men’s interests. When employed as a coping strategy, such actions result in maintenance of the status quo and damages to the gains made by feminism. A comparison of segregation within The Handmaid’s Tale to the lives of current high profile women (Ann Coulter, Hillary Clinton, and Britney Spears) reveals that women themselves often provide ammunition in the ongoing war against their own rights and validity.

Britney Spears, a.k.a. “Titney,” was raised as a sexual commodity for mainstream consumption by her own mother. Today, as she publicly grapples with issues of motherhood and drug use, the public debates over what role her mother, Lynne Spears, played in Britney’s downfall. A recent article in OK Magazine announcing the pregnancy of Lynn’s younger daughter, Jaime Lynn, points to a woman who willingly objectified an underage Britney to rake in the money. While Lynne asked people to “Just say prayers” for Britney, she only partially admitted to capitalist parenting, claiming that she simply could not supervise Britney, who grew up touring, because she had other kids to raise. Such comments are an attempt to justify the neglect while omitting her direct role in sexually exploiting Britney. The American Dream divided mother and daughter. The only consolation might be that the Spears women have found financial success that for some renders Britney’s consequential mental instability a minor side note generating income for the celebrity glossies.

The rupture between mother and daughter is also present In Atwood’s The Handmaid’s Tale; but instead of arising from willful actions, it manifests as state regulated separation. Offred and the other handmaids are not allowed to raise their own offspring, but must breed with the Commanders so that their Wives may take the coveted babies. While the birth mothers are allowed to nurse the babies for a couple months, the newborns are immediately given to the Wives so that a bond is established with them instead of the biological mothers.

Another divisive element that keeps women apart in The Handmaid’s Tale is the use of the “aunts,” who, under the guise of survival advice, train the breeders (handmaids) to be passively obedient. These women initially police the new handmaids with “electric cattle prods.” In a moment of clarity, Aunt Lydia asserts that it is the Wives whom the handmaids must guard against, not the men. The men are rarely present in the domestic sphere. Therefore the aunt is only doing her job when teaching women how to survive in a world where they are micromanaged by jealous and bitter women holding the power to dictate daily interactions, and who consistently brainwash male leaders.

The Gileadean handmaid’s ability to function in a man’s world at the cost of her own rights is similar to the actions of far right Republican pundit, Ann Coulter. Unlike Gilead aunts, the accomplished lawyer does not pretend to assist women in making it in the patriarchy. She plays it straight, like in the boy’s club, holding nothing back in her acidic approach. She has been negatively dubbed “mAnn Coulter” for her aggressively mannish and hateful presentation. Whatever her personal views are, it is her public persona that influences the like-minded in America. Although Ann is an independent, single woman, she has remarked that stupidly, women vote for Democrats—the solution is to remove women’s right to vote. The irony that feminist movements are what gave her the right to be single and independent in the first place does not even register in her speech. Promoting the far right’s agenda at the expense of women’s rights earns Coulter $25K to $50K a show. Women’s rights are an insignificant tradeoff for her personal gain.

Regardless of her monetary triumph, Coulter is still unable to break through the glass ceiling. Labeled everything from “…arch-conservative cutie…” to Cloud’s less appealing “telebimbo” and “Skank”, Coulter is firmly kept in her place as a second class body (woman), along with the objectified Britney. Criticism comes from the Republican camp. Old school conservative Daniel Borchers argues that she is a disgrace to the party and that she’s a living contradiction. Coulter’s controversial rhetoric is indicative of freedom of speech, but if she does get her way, women won’t have that manly privilege much longer.

While Coulter spews angry anti-feminism in an attempt to sway masses, Gilead women are conditioned to behave and watch. Their eyes echo God’s “eye” which covers the land; they police each other. The system is so efficient that the men do not have to lift a finger in effort. Gilead women micromanage themselves to the point that Offred is grilled by the house Martha about where and why she obtained a single match stick. These women, aside from the rare perks of beating a token man to death in a ceremonial Patricicution, do not have many outlets for their pent up emotions.

Though women in America rarely fight over match sticks, they do take out some of their frustrations on other women by being just as petty. Women writers such as Caryle Rivers and Rebecca Traister, among many others, have slammed Coulter for the way she dresses. Her controversial politics make her a much more acceptable target for women to objectify while voiding her arguments. Some women take it as far as criticizing presidential candidate Hillary Clinton for the clothes she wears. Fashion writer and Pulitzer Prize winner (2006) Robin Givhan devoted an article in the Washington Post to Clinton’s cleavage, arguing that the show of a lower neckline on the Senate floor (July 18, 2007) was something that made viewers uncomfortable and akin to a politician with his zipper down:“Just look away!”. Clinton’s advisor, Ann Lewis, said it was “insulting,” while Givhan back peddled by arguing there is a difference between Clinton’s neckline and breasts. Regardless, the distraction displays just how much more important a woman’s clothing is than her leadership potential.

Of course, for women like Spears, who present bottomless views for hordes of photographers in what has become known as “CrotchGate”, it’s her public lack of clothes that has women debating, whether they want to or not. Camille Paglia argues Spears is destroying everything feminism has achieved, while waxer Cindy Barshop argues stars are just comfortable and can bare all because they are “groomed”. Reactionary divisions and labeling Spears “white trash” is not the answer according to Liz Funk, who asserts that regardless of the loss of feminist gains through over revealing female stars, Spears has clearly been eaten up by the machine and needs support.

The competitive female preoccupation with clothing and all its rigid trappings is examined to great length in The Handmaid’s Tale. At one point in the story, Offred, who must wear clothing akin to a burqa, encounters tourists from Japan wearing Westernized style skirts, nylons, and heels. While appalled, she has mixed feelings for the sexualized attire. She longs for the freedom to be a prettied woman, and yet she also thinks of Aunt Lydia’s argument that modesty is protection from external penetration. The question arises of whether such a concept as modesty can be applied to a slave whose body is controlled at all times by the male regime. The government enforced covering of females also leads to their segregation by the colour coded gowns they wear. Only the poor women, who are responsible for all household tasks, get to wear multi-coloured dresses, but they are “cheap and skimpy.” Later, the thrill of being able to wear more freeing clothes, the left over remnants of Western fashion, draws Offred in as she’s forced to attend a sex club. She likens the sleazy, sequined outfit to “freedom” and a chance to “sneer at the Aunts” who have tried to condition the breeders into accepting the blandness of the piety façade. Her commander argues that women bought new outfits in the old days because they instinctively knew that men, by “Nature,” needed variety when it came to women.

Famous women are not only trivialized by what they wear, but by the fact that they are women. Under such conditions even the mother-daughter bond disintegrates. The totalitarian marginalization of the female sex in The Handmaid’s Tale is merely an extension of what both men and women prescribe to today, if reactions to famous women are any indication. Watching women tear each other down in competition for male attention and unattainable approval has changed my perspective on the issue. Making enemies of fellow women is a waste of time and only serves to keep us divided. When we do, we effectively keep the glass ceiling in place, making ourselves the oppressors.

Handmaids and Politicians in the Promiseland

by Nicolette Westfall

Margaret Atwood’s “The Handmaid’s Tale,” originally published in 1985, offered a stiff warning about the future of women’s reproductive rights under the current 2007 American government—er, fictional right wing theocratic conservatives in the not so distant future. Atwood created the satire’s elements from newspaper clippings dating from the distant past to the time the book was drafted, using historical precedence as the basis for her story of Gilead (America), where the historical status of women as property, mere broodmares, is reinstalled during time of war. During an interview (393), the author explained that all of the events in the book happened at one time or another, yet one cannot escape the prophetic quality of the idea that women, at this moment in history, are treated as mere reproductive commodities. Here, we take a look at the loss of women’s reproductive rights in Atwood’s work and compare it to news excerpts from the past decade (1997-2007) in an effort to illustrate why it is important to maintain the individual’s right to reproductive choice.

Currently, reproductive issues exclusive to women repeatedly make headlines across the United States. Given that the right-wing power is aiming for increased cannon fodder for an extended war effort in contemporary colonies (countries) around the world, such as Iraq, Afghanistan, and Iran, it is no surprise that the conservatives (and the conservative women who support them) are calling for the removal of women’s rights concerning birth control, abortion, and the morning after pill. Cloud reports that as of April, 2007, the United States military will extend both current and future Army tours abroad 12 months to 15 months which indicates the need for more American bodies on the war front. But cannon fodder is not the only motivation for the conservative push to ban birth control and abortion. As noted in Atwood’s story, pollutants (specifically, high air pollution) are a factor in human infertility (Rubes, 2005). Both the fictional Gilead and 21st century America face a decline in birth rates due to man-made sterility and birth defects. This reality, combined with the rapidly accelerating death and injury toll abroad, have the conservative camp on the offensive.

For many women, the ability to choose is a matter of quality of life, both for themselves and their unborn children. Gilead and contemporary American leaders would argue that the issue has nothing to do with quality of life; however one can be sure that the rich man in office cares little for the sufferings of those unwanted or unaffordable children born as a result of denied preventives. These privileged men do not take an active interest in seeing whether women denied the morning after pill have the financial stability or familial support to raise the unplanned children. What matters to these men is that the “unborn” are not denied the right to be offered up as disposable bodies in the government’s bidding. For that reason it is critical that the rich white man has the ultimate say in what is done with all American women’s bodies, denying all women birth control and the morning after pill–except for his wife. After all, their son’s and daughters will never be sent to the front lines. Gilead’s women are also destined to live out lives in which they cannot make their own reproductive choices. These women exist in a void, caged and used like farm animals—except, of course, for the Commanders’ wives, who enjoy the perks of drinking, smoking, and playing in their pretty gardens. Just as Gilead breeders suffer in isolation, American women denied access to contraceptives or abortive methods are also denied choice in life.

In Gilead, the removal of women’s rights is part of the “return to traditional values,” an approach taken by the rich and powerful conservative Christian politicians in Washington over the last decade. The extremely influential right wing Christians in power, such as Senator Sam Brownback, stand as clear examples. As stated in Rolling Stone, 2006, Brownback is part of the “new American crusaders” arguing that the unborn are what Christ brought a sword to fight for (Sharlet, 2006). Brownback and the like-minded are going to eradicate freedom of choice in the land of the free in order to save the fetuses.

Present swords appear in the manner of legal denials of women’s control over their own bodies and quality of life decisions. Feministing reports that according to the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals, company drug plans do not have to pay for birth control prescriptions. While women in America today do not face the enforced monthly reproductive examinations that broodmares or prized pigs (86) of Gilead must attend (73), they are encountering similar third-party control over their reproductive capacity. Borgmann reported that in November of this past year, the American Federal court ruled that pharmacists can deny women access to the morning after pill. The daily responsibilities of bringing those unborn to full term and then raising them for 18+ years will not be directly experienced or assisted by the pharmacists who make that judgment call.

Of course, in the world of Gilead, medical professionals in the previous era who performed abortions are dealt with in a violent manner, to discourage others from assisting women in ridding their bodies of the fetuses that the powerful government officials covet. They are war criminals. As poignant examples, they are hung on “The Wall” by grisly hooks, their heads bagged, and some to bleed red stains on the material. Reality is more potent than fiction. Clarkson has reported the 1994 assassinations of Dr. John Britton and an escort, James Barrett, by former Presbyterian Minister Paul Hill were celebrated this past December by a re-enactment of the murders. The life of a trained physician is assuredly expendable, especially when compared to an unborn.

Ultimately, the right to breed (or not) in Gilead is dictated by statesmen in power, who exercise god-like authority. Women who breed are treated slightly better than those that cannot. Like Orzek’s commentary on Republican Presidential candidate Mike Huckabee’s lip service to 16-year-old Jamie Lynn Spears for her decision not to terminate her pregnancy, Gilead’s breeders are given small but coveted nods for their efforts. They are guaranteed healthy food and, unlike in Spears’ case, whereupon Huckabee briefly acknowledges her undeveloped capacity to face “all the responsibilities of adult life,” Gilead women do not raise their offspring; it is the rich white men’s wives who get that privilege. Though they do not receive medals, as breeders of Nazi Germany did (the NSDAP initially gave cash incentives and various medals, depending on how many children were born to acceptable women (Digger History), Franzblau tells us they were to avoid smoking and drinking similar to approved German broodmares.

Despite the push for physically healthy breeders in Gilead, their health is not, however, controlled by their doctors. Rather, this control belongs to the state power, which has the final word on everything regarding their bodies. The idea of a third party completely controlling women physically is not very far removed from our own history or the present. Michael J. Franzblau discusses the compromise of the physician-patient relationship in Nazi Germany as a warning for Americans today. Increasingly, doctors must answer to HMOs, politicians, and religious views, instead of to the patients in their care.

While women still have the right to vote in America, it is important that they vote pro-choice. Unlike children who are farmed in Gilead and given to rich women who will raise them in the comforts of wealthy homes of Commanders resembling Bush, Brownback, and Huckabee, real children born to women without choice will not be given financial or emotional assistance from the anti-choice camp. The odds are high that the surviving unborn will grow up to help feed their struggling families by joining the war machine as low-paying, non-commissioned soldiers.

Works Cited:

Atwood, Margaret, The Handmaid’s Tale. Doubleday, Canada.

Rubes, Jiri., Selevan, Sherry G., et al., “Episodic air pollution is associated with increased DNA fragmentation in human sperm without other changes in semen quality.” Human Reproduction. 20.10 (2005): 2776-2783.

Sharlet, Jeff, “Who would Jesus vote for? Meet Sam Brownback.” Rolling Stone 25 Jan., 2006.

« Previous Page