I'm going to assume most people are aware of the current political climate in the US, especially concerning abortion. This isn't limited to reddit, either. In many online spaces where women are active participants, a lot of them are comparing current cultural and political issues to the US becoming Gilead. Whether it's due to the formula shortage, Roe v. Wade possibly overturning, the lack of maternal leave policies, etc., the comparisons are there.
However there are a lot of women who want to be at home with children, or are at least more interested in being domestically focused while their husband works outside the home. I'm not going to assume that most of these women are traditional in the sense of gender roles, but based on what many women IRL have told me, it's more of a practical manner and taking advantage of biology.
With things like breastfeeding, post-partum recovery, and caring for small children, it makes more sense for them to be home. I don't see any concerns of Gilead, or being a forced "breeder," or not having access to contraception, or never being able to get a job on their radar. The decisions women make to achieve the goals of marriage, having a family, and being the best wife for her husband might appear to be pro-Gilead nightmare scenarios, instead of planned and prudent behaviors from an RP perspective.
What's going on with that? People cannot believe that men and women aren't incentivized by different things, or don't respond to different behaviors.
snarkypirate 2y ago
Gilead in the book I certainly hope is an exaggeration - however, even as a women with a very traditional role, I do still worry that some very important reproductive choices will be taken away. I don't think this is unrealistic based on laws that are either on the books in many states (trigger laws, and many with very few exceptions), or proposals that have been put forth for potential further restrictions - such as efforts to restrict access to IUDs or other contraceptives perceived as abortificants by some parties. Just because my husband and I want children doesn't mean that we want more than the number we can provide well for. And just because we might become pregnant doesn't mean there aren't potential complications that I believe we should be able to make our own choices about. I'm actually currently in my third trimester; the first part of my pregnancy was very anxious due to new laws that were recently passed in my state, and we have seriously considered what we will do when we may start planning for a second child depending on the restrictions.
And honestly, even though I personally value a traditional relationship, I don't think that's the role that all women should have. Maybe that doesn't make me as "RP" as some - but I know plenty of women who would be stifled and incredibly unhappy in my position, aside from any discussion of family planning.
So basically - yes, "Gilead" is itself probably an exaggeration - but I don't think it's fair to minimize the very real concerns that women may have in this political climate.
Kaleidoscopiquant 2y ago
I don't understand your argument.
People who draw this comparison are concerned about women ending up in childrearing situations they don't want. Being stuck at home with children against their will.
I don't think anyone's comparing women who choose to stay home with their children to Gilead.
girlwithasidecar 2y ago
Yes but every few months we have to discuss how we are headed for a Gilead situation because vague feministy reasons.
chevron_one 2y ago
Yes, this is what I'm referring to when I mentioned the concerns I saw, ie. abortion rights being taken away, formula shortage, etc.
SunshineSundress 2y ago
Not to mention that the way Margaret Atwood intentionally mimicked the jargon of real-life Catholic and Christian communities in her book resulted in a lot of hostility towards women who prefer traditional, religious, and/or male-led lifestyles. Thanks to that book, there’s outrage and disgust towards women who choose to see their husbands as the “head” of the family, due to religious reasons or not. Saying that idea out loud today is just unimaginable.
Her book was also based on the (admittedly) cultish People of Hope Catholic group (Atwood spoke about this openly), but that didn’t stop mass misinformation and hysteria against Amy Coney Barrett for being a Catholic in an entirely separate Catholic organization - People of Praise. She was and is still inexplicably linked to the Handmaid’s Tale.
I’m no huge fan of Barrett, but I just find it funny that she’s used as proof that even voluntary male-led relationships are oppression. Yeah, a female Supreme Court Justice is SOOO oppressed by her man.
chevron_one 2y ago
I just wanted to add a correction, People of Praise isn't a Catholic organization. They describe themselves as ecumenical: https://peopleofpraise.org
SunshineSundress 2y ago
Ah got it! Thank you for the correction!
Astroviridae 2y ago
I often hear supporters of the book warn this is the path America will take if right wing Christians take charge. Yet, in the past few centuries of Christian hegemony in the Western world, no country had state sponsored and enforced concubinage. Not the papal states, which were under the sovereign rule of the pope for hundreds of years. And definitely not in America, where the majority of this hysteria is centered upon.
Euphoric-Chain-5155 2y ago
Yes, and one of the justices pushing for the repeal of Roe v. Wade is ACB. Whether that's because a Supreme Court Justice is somehow oppressed by the patriarchy, or because she's a devout Catholic and mother of 7 who has a reverence for human life, well that's a matter for debate.
A very stupid, one-sided debate.
SunshineSundress 2y ago
Yep. If RBG was able to bring her feminist ideals to the Supreme Court and later openly lament about making Roe v. Wade about the right to privacy (“Roe isn’t really about the woman’s choice, is it?” Ginsburg said. “It’s about the doctor’s freedom to practice…it wasn’t woman-centered, it was physician-centered.”), then why is it so incomprehensible that Barrett does the same regarding bringing her beliefs to the table? This is what ALL justices do.
purple_pansy88 2y ago
The handmaid's tale is about forced surrogacy/ adoption and the enslavement of women so they can give birth to children for other people to raise. Some of the biggest villains in the story are other women. I don't see how it relates to abortion or contraception or women having their own children and raising those children at all.
Reproductive freedom is its own issue. The handmaid's tale is mostly about women's bodies being enslaved for surrogacy and adoption. That does happen around the world unfortunately as in women being forced to give up children but not because of patriarchy nowadays.
Having to give up a child primarily just because you are unwed is a thing of the past nowadays even in most developing countries. In developing countries the issue is usually one of poverty or bent adoption agencies. In developed countries it's bent child welfare officals and family courts. Those are the real handmaids and many of these organizations are actually mostly female run.
Underground-anzac-99 2y ago
My two cents is I don’t see a comparison and I don’t live in the US but I’d be concerned any time the religious start legislating in accordance w their religion.
Im not religious and I don’t want decisions in my country made based on someone else’s religious beliefs. Im fine w Catholics, Pentacostals, Muslims, Jews in office as that does what it’s meant to: represent all sections of the community.
To refer to one’s conscience via religious belief is one thing but to impose or stop things based on it is another, be it abortion, gay marriage or the right of an employer to fire someone based on religious beliefs, like a shop keeper firing his unmarried and pregnant shelf stacker.
Then you start to slip into a theocracy which is exactly what democracy is opposed to.
katx_x 2y ago
do you mean the handmaid's tale or Gilead the book?
chevron_one 2y ago
Gilead as in the country that was formed in Handmaid's tale.
sunglasses90 2y ago
I don’t understand the reference.
But here’s the thing: if you ask 100 random women if their preference is a “provider” male or if they want to HAVE to work when they have babies 90% are going to say they’d rather have the guy work and pay for living expenses and not be equally responsible for household bills. The problem is more so the economy. Women HAVE to work because their spouse doesn’t earn enough to afford the lifestyle they want. The two income household is a relatively new concept.
My conspiracy theory: A ton of women left the workforce due to Covid. They lost their jobs or quit and never went back because they loved being at home once they were “forced” back into that role. That’s a big reason why we have the labor shortages and economic recession that we’re facing. Women left the workforce en masse unless they were single or work from home. Now, the economy and labor force is trying to fill an apparently significant gap. I’m 100% remote work. If they force me back 5 days a week I’m not going. I’ll find a remote job that pays less and just readjust the budget. I’m an accountant.
Marissa_Smiles 2y ago
I have received zero negativity from being a stay at home mom. I think it’s seen as a personal choice now. My grandma has told me stories about women hiding that they were working or being embarrassed to tell people they had a job, due to how it made the husband look. I don’t think that’s the case any longer. Women with children work because they want to or need to and shouldn’t be shamed. But I personally don’t believe the government should have any involvement with any of these decisions.
Raspy410 2y ago
I think those people are being dramatic, the US is very far from Gilead
girlwithasidecar 2y ago
First, I've only read the book. It's a dystopian novel from a feminist perspective. So to believe that it has any bearing on reality you have to first assume that feminist have a clue what they are talking about.
No one has taken away the ability to have an abortion. Roe v Wade is done under the right to privacy and has always allowed for some government intervention. Overturning it has done very little bring us towards a polygamous culture with forced surrogacy.
Really? This only makes sense if you are so much of an idealogue that you don't believe women can make their own life choices in their own best interest.
We aren't headed towards Gilead. Atwood is selling a story of fear and shouldn't be given the time of day that she has received. Ignore the whole Handmaid's Tale phenomenon and live your life how you want.
rosesonthefloor 2y ago
I’ve read the book too, and I agree with what you say except this -
Atwood has done what authors do - told a story. And she has told it so well, that people still talk about it, still fear the society she created, and still feel like it has some relevance to the very real fears that some women have that their bodily autonomy will be taken away some day. Whether those fears have merit or not, whether their concerns are valid or not, she obviously hit a nerve. Regardless of anything else, she’s done her job as an author so well that we’re still talking about it nearly 4 decades later. I think that deserves recognition at the very least.
Similar to how I may have hated The Catcher in the Rye, but it clearly struck a nerve with many, which means it still deserves its place in the literary canon regardless of what I personally think lol.
But yeah overall Gilead isn’t likely to happen, and people should stop fear-mongering by acting like it is.
The only war on women is from other women who can’t fathom that some women will make choices they wouldn’t make for themselves.
girlwithasidecar 2y ago
I disagree. Generally this would be a good metric for literature but
What we read is dictated in part by what is published and promoted. Then it is also dictated by what is in your high school and college curriculum. It was in my HS curriculum.
Is it so good of a story or does it fit the narrative that we are given (particularly in college liberal arts). The patriarchy is evil, women are wonderful and we are told this is true by teachers and professors - people we assume know more than we do - at a time when our brains are more impressionable.
Then, we are still talking about it so many years later because a TV show was made about it recently. That show was then promoted by telling women that Trump's America was closing in on Gilead. There was so much about his failings - real and imagined - that many people spent four years on edge and it was easy to insert that paranoia that we were headed that way.
We are so much more susceptible to suggestion than we want to believe. THT isn't a good story, it isn't a prescient story, it's just a widely promoted story.
Kaleidoscopiquant 2y ago
I'm not sure but I think OP is arguing that the claims of Gilead are dumb because women should want to stay home with kids?? That the Gilead/HT stuff is shaming trad women who want that arrangement? I'm honestly kind of confused about this post in general lol.
Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't see all this shaming of SAHMs that I hear about here. My circles are super liberal and I know tons of women who gave up their careers to be with baby and tend to their hipster veggie patch. I keep seeing women come in here claiming they're being persecuted for wanting to care for their families/cook a good meal/wear a dress and it's just bizarre.
chevron_one 2y ago
Here's a local example of what I'm talking about:
https://np.reddit.com/r/TwoXChromosomes/comments/vbjybl/roe_v_wade_gets_overturned_theres_a_tampon_and/ic8wzph/
girlwithasidecar 2y ago
I've seen it but not as crazy as people suggest. I've worked for two separate men of two separate generations who have looked down on clients who are SAHMs. It isn't a huge tirade, it's a shake of the head and a "what does she do with her life" attitude.
I've seen gay men use the term "breeder" in mockery and disgust.
I've seen women do the "well it's fine if it works for her but I could never..."
So I do think that it's out there. I wonder though if too many young people have been raised with a victim mentality that is effecting their perception of these attitudes... making them seem worse or more important than they actually are.
Kaleidoscopiquant 2y ago
Oh yeah, the odd comment here and there I've seen. Just like I've seen SAHMs criticize the career woman for leaving her poor babies too soon to go back to work. People have their own views and will talk about them, I just don't view that as "shaming", or anything worth even commenting on, really.
100%. The amount of drama on both ends is insane.
chevron_one 2y ago
I didn't say that the claims are dumb. I'm asking if these comparisons are accurate, because IME what I've seen isn't in alignment with the concerns that women are expressing online.
girlwithasidecar 2y ago
In any internet forum there are fake people who are there to push a narrative or get users worked up. Take everything you read with a grain of salt.
Then there are actual crazy people who do not know how to think for themselves. They feel something and look for their media to tell them the reason they feel that way. It doesn't matter that it doesn't make sense because it feels right. Logic is not the name of the game anymore.
The claims that we are headed for Gilead are dumb. They are extreme rhetoric and don't stand to reason.
Kaleidoscopiquant 2y ago
I mean they're obviously exaggerated for a political end, but what political activism is not. It's a bit hysterical of course but I understand their frustration. I personally don't like the idea of the government telling a willing and able doctor that he's not allowed to perform any procedure on me should I want to pay for it. I'm not religious, I don't want children, and I would prefer that someone else's beliefs didn't get in the way of my freedom to live the way I want to.
Astroviridae 2y ago
So to be clear, you think denial of one procedure will lead to total oppression and disenfranchisement of women in a society that mandates polygamy and surrogacy? And that America is headed there?
Kaleidoscopiquant 2y ago
Excuse me? Where did I say anything like that?
Astroviridae 2y ago
Based on your comments in this thread, especially those concerning the overturning of Roe v Wade. The book/show is feminist outrage porn, and screaming "Gilead" at every thing is little more than fearmongering.
Kaleidoscopiquant 2y ago
I screamed Gilead at nothing. Please settle down and try re-reading what I've actually said.
I have no thoughts on RvW specifically. It's a legal technicality that doesn't affect me where I live. In principle, I disagree with religion or the government encroaching on the free market and restricting which services, medical or otherwise, I can pay for.
Astroviridae 2y ago
What you said is the government prohibiting a certain procedure is communist oppression, right? That you sympathize with those using handmaid's tale hysteria for political activism and you understand their frustration. Clearly you do have an opinion about RvW, regardless of its affect on you.
Kaleidoscopiquant 2y ago
No, not at all.
I was responding to a user who was talking about Gilead, and acting shocked that people viewed the forced breeding in the book as oppression, because humanity was relying on it.
I said that a government forcing you to have children for the good of humanity amounts to communist oppression.
I said nothing about RvW in this exchange:
Euphoric-Chain-5155 2y ago
If I recall, the forced surrogacy is a policy adopted due to plummeting fertility from a few different causes. While fertility rates in the West are below replacement rates, we're not facing the kind of fertility drop that would result in catastrophic depopulation - the US government just wasn't able to get vaccination rates for Covid high enough to pull it off.
What I find more fascinating about the novel is the degree of selfishness and short-sightedness you'd have to have in order to view having kids as the ultimate form of oppression when the human race is facing possible extinction.
Kaleidoscopiquant 2y ago
Giving up your own bodily autonomy to have children you don't want out of duty to "humanity" is absolutely communist oppression. I can't see how it could be viewed in any other way.
Empyrean_Truth 2y ago
I see where you're coming from;
Yes. That shouldn't have to ever come to fruition. But when faced with nearly extinction, we're back to tribes.
I'm not even straight; I'm a gay woman but I'm also a realist;
Women were pretty much forced to have kids they didn't want for many years.
To think that my protest of "This is communism!" will hold weight in the face of apocalyptic humanity-ending conditions is laughable.
Though, this is all theoretical. In the reality of today, yes, it is communist oppression.
Underground-anzac-99 2y ago
Anti vax but pro forced surrogacy, and for a baby you definitely do not get to keep!
Kaleidoscopiquant 2y ago
Bizarre on every level
Euphoric-Chain-5155 2y ago
Out of curiosity, what percentage of the world's population would have to die in a catastrophic event for you to feel duty-bound to something higher than yourself? 95%? 99%?
The specifics of these scenarios in speculative fiction are important, but Handmaid's Tale is the only one I've ever seen where there is absolutely zero philosophical contemplation resulting from the book's plot.
Kaleidoscopiquant 2y ago
I haven't actually read the book so can't comment on that. But in principle, I vehemently disagree with giving my body up for "duty".
Euphoric-Chain-5155 2y ago
If your position is that the only person whose well-being you will ever consider in your political positions is your own - that's fine. It's your right to take that position.
You should not be surprised though, when that attitude causes men - who have to register for the draft when they turn 18 - turn around and laugh at you when you cry about your rights.
The absolute narcissism and self-centeredness of feminists is why Roe v Wade is going to be overturned, and I suspect it's just the beginning.
Kaleidoscopiquant 2y ago
I care about my family and the people I love and will absolutely consider their well-being. Men who are against the draft will have me right alongside them.
I'm not a feminist, and I'm not crying about anything. I'm simply saying I would never, ever have a child for any reason other than my partner and I wanting one.
Underground-anzac-99 2y ago
Only those who live in countries whose borders have not been breached have this masculine view of war.
Talk to the Vietnamese women who fought the French, Americans, Chinese about your wonderful draft.
SunshineSundress 2y ago
The Viet Cong and NVA women who fought in the Vietnam War were, for the most part, relegated to only fulfilling support duties. They were restricted from direct combat with American troops. They were also under a communist regime that, unlike democratic countries whose borders have also been breached like Ukraine, uniquely required women to enlist alongside men.
The women who served South Vietnam forces were vastly only trained to be nurses and office clerks. The Women’s Armed Forces Corps was a part of the ARVN, but they only had administrative duties. Again, perhaps this has to do with the fact that they were (ideologically) a democratic republic whose social norms prevent the expectation of an all-gender draft.
All of the women (along with the elderly and teenagers) in the People’s Self-Defense Force (which was a militia that defended their villages against VC and PAVN attacks) were in voluntary support elements only - where they provided first aid, education, social welfare, and entertainment.
All that to say: the women who fought in the Vietnam War were still held to a different set of responsibilities than the men. Drafted or not (and a large number of them were not), they were not expected to be on the front lines of combat like the men often are. The ones who made it to combat were largely voluntary.
Euphoric-Chain-5155 2y ago
Thank you for the context Sunshine, but whether the women of either North Vietnam or South Vietnam saw direct combat or not is besides the point.
My main point is that - in the context of Handmaid's Tale - an individual woman's "right" to not reproduce when 99% of other women have been rendered infertile takes a backseat to the broader need for humanity and civilization to continue to exist.
I don't believe for a second that women who served in the military during a Civil War would take issue with that logic. And I suspect you don't either.
Underground-anzac-99 2y ago
No, and I do know this too. Plenty were snipers and spies. A friend of mines mum was actually an undercover assassin.
They weren’t on the front lines like the men in the same numbers but they were an active part of the war.
Sadly those who gave their youth for the cause ended up alone w minimal support afterwards sometimes.
Many of the men suffered too, but w a decoration could marry the prettiest girls in the village, something not accorded to the older women.
Not a lot has been written in this, but there’s a lot of anecdotal evidence when you chat to folk there.
Euphoric-Chain-5155 2y ago
Something tells me they won't look kindly on people valuing abortion over every other political consideration either.
In fact, we'd probably agree on a lot of things, like the second amendment, tight border controls, etc.
Underground-anzac-99 2y ago
It isn’t an either / or. Abortion is legal there. The only border controls are around the vast grey markets of the borders by China.
Euphoric-Chain-5155 2y ago
My point sort of flew right over your head (or under it, considering where you live) but don't worry about it too much.
Underground-anzac-99 2y ago
I ignored it as why as we discussing border controls in a RPW thread?
magmawing98 2y ago
People who positively compare Handmaid's tale to today's society presume all men just want to control women without any considerations about their own happiness. It's a typical radical feminist view which, as you may have guessed, is absolutely preposterous.
In US where people don't know the basics of biology, nothing of this sort should be surprising.