Our tech team has launched updates to The Nest today. As a result of these updates, members of the Nest Community will need to change their password in order to continue participating in the community. In addition, The Nest community member's avatars will be replaced with generic default avatars. If you wish to revert to your original avatar, you will need to re-upload it via The Nest.
If you have questions about this, please email help@theknot.com.
Thank you.
Note: This only affects The Nest's community members and will not affect members on The Bump or The Knot.
I'm ready to discuss The Handmaid's Tale
Some of you were curious about whether or not I would enjoy the book, so I thought I would share my thoughts.
First, I want to say that as I was reading it my tin-foil hat self was having panic attacks. The thought of the government being able to just shut off bank accounts in an age when money is handled digitally made me think about burying my money in the backyard. Seriously. Also, given recent news, the whole suspending the Constitution stuff is scary. Then, of course there's the idea that what we are doing to the environment could eventually make us all sterile. I mean, set aside all of the other stuff in the book and these things alone were upsetting me.
And I also starting thinking about how we already have handmaids in our culture, they just aren't religiously affiliated. We can "rent" wombs in India, for Pete's sake. Crazy stuff.
I found the book fascinating and couldn't put it down all weekend. Then I got to the end and was upset. I felt let down with the ending until I realized that the Historical Notes in the back were actually part of the story and then I fell in love with the book. It put an entirely different spin on the story for me. I feel like it was a reminder that when you're looking at historical texts, you have to keep the perspective of the narrator in mind. I think about Offred's account of her first experience with Nick and how she kept changing the story based on how she wanted to remember it. We'll never know whether Gilead was suffering from infertility or just a perceived infertility because all we know is the account of one woman and the information she had available to her. She was able to write history the way she wanted to or the only way she could.
It made me think about the Gospels and about how there are inconsistencies between the different writers. Their accounts are all based on their experiences and the way they chose to remember the events (or the way God wanted them to). But none of that matters because the overall message is what is important and that is the same.
What I took away from the book as the main theme was a critique of ideological extremism. I was suprised that feminism (particularly radical separatist feminism) was shown just as negatively as the Christian fundmentalism/patriarchy in many ways. While Gilead devalued women saying that they were merely vessels to have and care for children, many of the feminist characters (like Offred's mother) devalued men in the same exact way by saying they weren't necessary for anything other than the amount of time it takes for them to contribute half of a child.
One ideology used the sexuality of women (sexual freedom) for its cause, while the other used the suppression of that sexuality for theirs. But with both, a woman is still being reduced a sex object in many ways.
I think that the point was that any type of radical ideology, while it may be good or pure in theory and intentions, never turns out the way we want it to. I think the Commander said it best - "Better never means better for everyone. It always means worse, for some."
I feel like some of the men in Gilead were just trying to make things better for everyone - the men who were viewing themselves as no longer wanted or necessary, and the women who were being abused and desperate/starving themselves/getting plastic surgery in order for a man to find them valuable (as the Commander said). The men viewed radical feminism as harmful to women and were trying to protect them.
But in any type of ideological extremism, I often feel like two things are usually missing - freedom and love. I guess this is why, after reading the book, I found it sort of upsetting that people continue to refer to me as Ofadam and think that I would support radical ideology like this. I feel like the fundamentals of Christianity, that the men of Gilead were conveniently ignoring, are freedom and love. While I agree that some of the virtues (like chastity, modesty, and holiness) that they were trying to force on the women are actually good things, I think Scripture is clear that we should all have the freedom to choose to be virtuous. And Jesus was also clear that love should be at the core of everything we do. The Commander scoffed at the idea that their society was lacking love when Offred mentioned it.
I think that all of this is sort of depressing, because it shows no matter what type of good people try to do in this world, someone is always going to come along and pervert it for power. Christianity or even fundamentalism isn't what is wrong with Gilead - it's the men that chose to take their agenda and use Christianity as a way to oppress others that are. Even the holiest (IMO) and most beautiful ideas that exist are being used for evil in our world.
Anyways, thanks for the suggestion. I really enjoyed the book and it gave me a lot to think about. But please stop calling me Ofadam, because that doesn't really make sense. 
Re: I'm ready to discuss The Handmaid's Tale
and are they really virtues if they're being forced on you? Is chastity or modesty virtuous if you have no choice to be any other way? Isn't the virtue in the choice and effort it takes to do it?
I was saying that the virtues are good things, not the forcing. I wrote that really poorly.
There is virtue in obedience, but I don't think acting modestly because you're forced to when your heart isn't truly modest makes you virtuous. It would be like saying going through the motions and rituals of worship without really believing in what you're doing means you have a heart of worship.
Exactly, isn't a virtue based on the choice to live that way? It's hardly a virtue dress modestly if the only choice you have is modest clothes, the virtue comes in making the effort to dress that way.
At least in my opinion, I don't follow a modest dress code though so maybe that's a bad example.
ETA: AW I got what you were saying and was agreeing with you.
I'm typing on my iPad so I can't say as much as I want but Im really glad you posted this and I think some of your observations on the book are very interesting.
I think Atwood would agree.
Glad you enjoyed the book.
A very thoughtful review.
I read this in high school and hated it so much. I've been wondering if I should read it again and give it another chance with the perspective of an adult.
I have a cousin in publishing and all the talk of it on the nest lately (in the context of the 'war on women') is making me want to ask her if she has access to something that would indicate whether or not its had a huge jump in sales/borrowing in the last couple of months.
Yeah that's right my name's Yauch!
my read shelf: