Silly mutant: you think women have status? Status is conferred by the man who claims ownership of her. High status men get to have offspring, by whatever female is best suited for the purpose.
As I recall, the specifics were never explained in the book, just a general sense that something had happened at a global level to affect fertility of women, so a high-ranking man’s wife might not be able to produce offspring for him, whereas a woman without the protection of a powerful man might have made it through the disaster with still-functioning ovaries and uteruses.
ETA: I started to write this, got a call I had to take, and by the time I hit “send” several others already explained!
Margaret Atwood’s 1985 novel is set in a near-future New England following the collapse of America into the authoritarian, theocratic state of Gilead. It was groundbreaking for its treatment of gender, depicting a state in which the advances of feminism have been comprehensively destroyed. Women are considered inferior to men, and their every behaviour is tightly controlled by the state. In particular, their role in reproduction is bound to a strict caste system: abortion is illegal, and fertile women are required to bear children for higher-status women.
I still don’t get it. If the men want children and the women have no power then why don’t the men just trade up to women they would rather have, like Trump does? Why do they keep the original ones? Is it part of the Christian thing? They are not allowed to?
If I recall correctly, religion is part of it, for sure. But also, if the wife “knows her place” and tows the party line, why would he trade her in for someone that might conceive of herself as a human being and make demands?
It’s not just two parties in a power dynamic. Powerful men have power. Wives have sort of reflected power, within the home, as long as they stay in their place. Handmaids have no power, so a wife can wield some control, just not over her husband.
Also, the timeframe is not too far removed from when women were people, so the massive structure can’t allow some women to have real power. An infertile wife might be easier to control than a fertile one.
EDIT: I don’t recall about divorce, but maybe I should just go ahead and read it again…
I believe the book said lots of people were infertile because of really really bad pollution because these people are ideologically against environmental regulations too…
The end of the book does describe modern US marriage/dating/ sex as “serial polygamy” as opposed to “parallel polygamy” which is how we think of polygamy. Not sure if that’s relevant or not, just something to think about.
Ownership also plays a huge role in how men treat women.
It’s been a while since I read it as well, but I recall it being hinted that the problem was infertile high status men. Of course the problem couldn’t be the men, so it must be the women, hence the handmaids, who frequently became pregnant through other means. There was a doctor that did the handmaids check ups that offered, and of course male servants were available. In addition to being a dystopian tale, it got into status seeking, a handmaid who was pregnant had status and maybe proud, even though they were literally raped.
Divorce is outlawed, but taking a fertile handmaid from the crimalized servent class is legal. Non fertile servent class women are housekeepers, all called Martha to dehumanize them, or sent off to die working farms, mines, or cleaning radioactive waste along with men with no status. Secretly some end up in brothels.
The main character ends up a handmaid because she was divorced before before war. Her child was taken away and given to a “proper” family.
Women from proper families are married off to proper men and if they don’t have kids the man can earn a handmaid if his career goes well.
Male infertility is denied as un- biblical, women are always blamed even though the doctors still know better.
I don’t have any problem with, say, Starbuck’s gender swap in Battlestar Galactica, but when the author is trying to tell a story that is (at least in part) about racism, it seems a little extreme to undermine that in the name of diversity.
I think it’s okay to undermine diversity for the sake of slavish faithfulness to the original, but I’m the kind of pedantic stickler that nobody likes to watch a movie with.
I read something from the show creators talking about how they didn’t want to have an all-white cast, even if it was more faithful to the source material…
It’s an atmospheric New Zealand crime drama. It has Boromir’s brother in it too, and the big plot reveal/ending is horrible. Watch it if you like suffering.
