The Handmaid's Tale

So I'm reading a book right now called 'The Handmaid's Tale'. It's by Margaret Atwood and was written in 86 I think. I found it by searching my usual 'dystopian novels', then I find ones that stick out to me. As my friend said to me today when I told her I was reading it 'it's very you'. She read it in Extension English in Year 11 I think. Here's a review of it, I recommend trying it.

I didn't know it'd been a school novel in Australia, though I'd seen it was a novel studied in America. That nearly put me off because while I don't have a problem reading old books, English texts make me wary. But my friend was right, feminist novels are my thing. I still find it hard to work out why feminism isn't everyone things, it just seems to me like such a positive movement. It has such a bad name but still, it's equality. How can people reasonably be against it?

I did a bit of reading about it actually, in response to this book. I am not that knowledgeable about the past waves of feminism. I mean, everyone knows the basics, righting for equal rights in the workplace, abortion, sexual freedom, that was the 60's and 70's, second wave feminism. THe right to choose, freedom of choice. First wave was the vote, women having a voice.

I think now we are at 3rd or 4th wave feminism but it doesn't work now. People are passive and  feel the urgency is gone, though things are beginning to slide, get worse, and that's sad.

I know what kind of feminist I am. Sex positive. That generally means pro-choice (duh, that's just feminism of any kind), anti slut shaming, pro pornography (within limits), pro sex, having multiple partners, doing away with old moral and religious standards that shame people for sex. But also of course not shaming people for not wanting sex. It's all about choice, all the time. I'm also a big believer in nurture over nature. Of course science has proven that genetics do play a role in personality and things such as intelligence, but science has also proved women to be just as capable as men in IQ, even in subjects like maths and science. Though men have been shown to have slight advantages in spacial visualisation and things like that, and women are better communicators and have more highly developed social skills, I am similar to 2nd wave feminists in that I believe it is society that creates the largest divides between men and women. Physicality is not as important as people try to make it. Yes, men are better at football and have a much greater ability to bulk up upper body muscles, but beyond that I think it is mostly irrelevant. I don't know for sure that I'm right. In the 70's, when mothers gave all their little girls lego and things, encouraging tom boys to prove the theory... well I can see myself being like that.

Because I don't know. I was a tom boy as a kid, still am in some ways, but also a real girly girl. I loved dolls, a lot. I loved pink. I loved satiny dresses and bows and rainbows. I love long hair and being feminine and lipstick and I want to have kids and all of that. Now, of course that is okay. Feminism is fine with all of that. Feminism is always about choice. About women not being limited to only that traditional feminine role. It's okay for people to be that way, and though feminists get bad rap and people say things like 'I'm a bad feminism because I like those things', it's not true. It's unfortunate in a way, because it slows feminism down, but that doesn't make it wrong. Still, it's not the women that want to be housewives that are going to change the world and gender roles and help the cause. That's what the women who are taking on the workplace and striving for the top will do.

So theoretically, both are fine, but as far as advancing the cause goes, I know which I prefer.

But yeah, those are my views. I can't prove them, no one can. It's not like you can test it, you can't ever have a blank slate to which you can test to see if you raise a child in a purely equal environment, what they will be like, because society is always there and so much of that social learning is passive. It's every day, in a hundred little ways. A parents influence is only so much. Maybe effects 10% of final personality. Maybe 20%. How can you tell? Am I a feminist because I was raised to be? Would I always have gone this route?

If I was my friend and I was raised muslim, if my culture and family dictated that I behave a certain way, and in return I was granted approval, love, chance of romance and marriage and social ties, money, a chance to go to university and be paid for, would I turn it down because I didn't believe?

If I was raised more than half heartedly religious, would I have been able to throw of religious belief the way I have? And not even fully, if I am in a bad situation, if something serious or urgent happens, I know that my first instinct will be to pray. Still, there are no consequences to my choice to identify as an athiest. I do it because I realised I judge people and scoff more for saying they have religious belief, then for saying they do not. If having religious belief is something I see in my head as dumb, then obviously I don't believe it myself.

This entry is very wishy washy all over the place, but you know I hurl out these things as soon as I think of them (what is planning?). I don't try to make clear topics.

Anyway, the Handmaid's Tale is basically a what-if combining the  anti pornograpghy feminist movement and religious fanatics. These are real things that happened. In the 70's, when there was much debate between feminists over these things (remembering of course that feminism is never been one equivocal movement, with total agreement between members over what is right). The pairing up of feminism and right wing religious movement may seem strange- it is. Though they shared their anti pornography stance, they could hardly have shared much else. That kind of dogmatic feminism is dangerious. I think feminism has to be about individuals. It has to be a practical movement focusing on individual choice, "respecting individual agency and personal maturity".

Also, I think it's dangerous to highlight the differences between genders. I think focusing on the different needs of men and women escalates the problem rather than diminishes it. Focusing especially on things like child baring. My probable ability to grow a baby is important sure, but while protecting my rights to my own body is important, I think it just as important to emphasis the joint idea of parenting, because I don't thinkwomen are meant to be homemakers and housewives any more than men.

But see, that's where religion comes in, and why the crossing of religion into social movements gets scary. When there is a God, and a Plan, when there is a 'right way' to do things, when people can argue that because women are children and breast feed etc, that their place is at home, I call bullshit because I don't believe in divine plans or purpose. Life and meaning is what we make of it. There is no wrong because there is no right. Morality is fluid and created on a societal and individual level.