History Headscratchers / TheHandmaidsTale

** Just a guess, but a fundamentalist Christian regime probably would shy away from using a burqa or any clothing associated with Islam. Also, you're asking why a government founded on irrational beliefs would act irrationally by putting people in ridiculous costumes? It's really a question which answers itself. Moreover, this is Margaret Atwood's explanation for the uniforms: "The modesty costumes worn by the women of Gilead are derived from Western religious iconography — the Wives wear the blue of purity, from the Virgin Mary; the Handmaids wear red, from the blood of parturition, but also from Mary Magdalene. Also, red is easier to see if you happen to be fleeing. The wives of men lower in the social scale are called Econowives, and wear stripes. I must confess that the face-hiding bonnets came not only from mid-Victorian costume and from nuns, but from the Old Dutch Cleanser package of the 1940s, which showed a woman with her face hidden, and which frightened me as a child. Many totalitarianisms have used clothing, both forbidden and enforced, to identify and control people — think of yellow stars and Roman purple — and many have ruled behind a religious front. It makes the creation of heretics that much easier."

** Adding to what the above poster said: Atwood has noted that when she was writing the novel, she was thinking about sumptuary [[http://www.inquiriesjournal.com/articles/777/3/womens-fashion-and-the-renaissance-considering-fashion-womens-expression-and-sumptuary-law-in-florence-and-venice laws]] throughout history. Besides being ColorCodedForYourConvenience , the clothes serve a purpose in defining who belongs to what class. And, as noted above, it's easy to find the rule-breakers when everyone is forced into these narrow categories. As just one example, [[https://www.bustle.com/articles/118996-8-bizarre-fashion-laws-from-history medieval prostitutes wore yellow]].

** The book was written in the aftermath of the Iranian Revolution; where Iran went from a secular government affording women nearly equal rights to one of extreme religious fundamentalism. A point of the book is to point out that the US of the 80s wasn't so different to Iran of the 70s. And once you've fallen to religious fundamentalism, all the logic and science in the world can't change the beliefs of the people in charge. In fact, you can see *many* of the same behaviors and beliefs in fundamentalist theocracies today.

* How the heck are a group of armed men with machine guns break into what is suppose to be one of the most secure places in the country? Machine guns are big and heavy, and Washington DC has a ban on assault weapons. No one with any common sense would have failed this sort of spot check. I get that it's suppose to explain the background of the story, but this explanation stretches the suspension of disbelief a little too far.

** But why? What purpose does this attitude serve? What event(s) transpired to make some people desire and adopt this attitude? Why does the government not only desire that fertile women shouldn't enjoy sex but decide it's in their best interest to ignore the fact that younger men are more sterile than older men? If they want babies to be born, what purpose does ignoring the knowledge their world has that older men are less fertile serve them? If they decided ensuring women don't enjoy sex is more important than babies being born, why go through the farce of assigning them to likely infertile men? The adult heroine was an adult before this society arose; it hasn't been around that long. Even if this society believes female oppression is more important than propagation, there's no point in wasting energy and resources putting women and older men in a set-up you know accomplishes nothing.

** It can and does happen where a child with two lighter black parents can come out darker than either, just like a child with two dark parents can come out light; the genetics of melanin often aren't that cut-and-dried.

** It can and does happen where a child with two lighter black parents can come out darker than either, just like a child with two dark parents can come out light. Not necessarily a bad casting choice.

* Hannah looks way too dark to be June's and Luke's daughter in the miniseries. She seems to have much more melanin than both her parents. Poor casting choice- when everything else was done so well and cautiously.

** Just a guess, but a fundamentalist Christian regime probably would shy away from using a burqa or any clothing associated with Islam. Also, you're asking why a government founded on irrational beliefs would act irrationally by putting people in ridiculous costumes? It's really a question which answers itself. Moreover, this is Margaret Atwood's explanation for the uniforms: "The modesty costumes worn by the women of Gilead are derived from Western religious iconography — the Wives wear the blue of purity, from the Virgin Mary; the Handmaids wear red, from the blood of parturition, but also from Mary Magdalene. Also, red is easier to see if you happen to be fleeing. The wives of men lower in the social scale are called Econowives, and wear stripes. I must confess that the face-hiding bonnets came not only from mid-Victorian costume and from nuns, but from the Old Dutch Cleanser package of the 1940s, which showed a woman with her face hidden, and which frightened me as a child. Many totalitarianisms have used clothing, both forbidden and enforced, to identify and control people — think of yellow stars and Roman purple — and many have ruled behind a religious front. It makes the creation of heretics that much easier."

** Just a guess, but a fundamentalist Christian regime probably would shy away from using a burqua or any clothing associated with Islam. Also, you're asking why a government founded on irrational beliefs would act irrationally by putting people in ridiculous costumes? It's really a question which answers itself. This is Margaret Atwood's explanation for the uniforms: "The modesty costumes worn by the women of Gilead are derived from Western religious iconography — the Wives wear the blue of purity, from the Virgin Mary; the Handmaids wear red, from the blood of parturition, but also from Mary Magdalene. Also, red is easier to see if you happen to be fleeing. The wives of men lower in the social scale are called Econowives, and wear stripes. I must confess that the face-hiding bonnets came not only from mid-Victorian costume and from nuns, but from the Old Dutch Cleanser package of the 1940s, which showed a woman with her face hidden, and which frightened me as a child. Many totalitarianisms have used clothing, both forbidden and enforced, to identify and control people — think of yellow stars and Roman purple — and many have ruled behind a religious front. It makes the creation of heretics that much easier."

* Why the weird handmaid uniform? This isn't an AlternateHistory. The world it takes place in already had a uniform designed to conceal a woman's body and reinforce her second-class citizen status -- it's called a [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burqa burqa]]. This world designing a different uniform for the same purpose that doesn't do the job as well seems like the equivalent of a society in a book (written in, say, 2000) set in the future of our own world having a wheeled horseless vehicle that runs on gasoline and the reader being expected to act as if this is some sign of how different this society is just because said vehicle isn't called a "car."

** The IdiotBall is to be expected of those rulers: they're not exactly intelligent, only murderous. Also, Heaven prohibit that the Handmaids actually enjoy the sex. Anything other than IKEAErotica is antithetical to their sense of propriety.

** It's also an example of the kind of paranoia under which these characters live. They're all easily replaceable, and if they don't "earn" their place in the household, they will be sent to the Colonies or shot.
* The doctor who examines Offred mentions that it is more than possible that the guys the Handmaids are allotted to are sterile... or simply too old. Which they could very well be given only the highest echelon gets Handmaids, but is a serious IdiotBall from the Gilead society. Seriously, if you want to propagate and even punish women for not conceiving, shouldn't you send them with the young and virile ones?

** It's also an example of the kind of paranoia under which these characters live. They're all easily replaceable, and if they don't "earn" their place in the household, they will be sent to the Colonies or shot.

** Probably because a Handmaid is expected to be healthy, as her main purpose lies in her phisiology. Besides, most babies who are being born are implied to be sick in some ways, so it's likely that there are draconian measures in place to ensure that nothing about a Handmaid can affect a baby negatively, even things that from our perspective (or from a common sense perspective) would have no effect on her pregnancy.

* Offred mentions that only the Wives are 'allowed' to get sick; the Marthas must avoid being seen to be past their prime lest they be forcibly 'retired' and the Handmaids must avoid being reported for infertility lest they be declared Unwomen. Offred remembers when one of Serena's Marthas caught the flu and, rather than taking bed-rest as a Wife would, continued performing her duties as well as she could. When Serena saw her collapsing from one pillar to the next and questioned her, the Martha blamed it on a 'slight cold'. Wouldn't being reduced to fainting onto pillars by a slight cold be more indicative of overall bad health of the sort that would get one retired than being affected that way by the flu? And fertile women can catch the flu just as much as infertile women, and both will recover perfectly well with a week's rest, so why the need for a Handmaid to disguise the symptoms of her flu lest she be reported for infertility?

* Offred mentally chastises Janine for making a big deal about the pain of giving birth, saying to herself "She's given birth before - she must remember how much it hurts." But she also notes that "They don't believe in pain relief" for childbirth - so why doesn't it cross Offred's mind that perhaps Janine received pain relief during the birth of her first child, and that this is the reason for Janine seeming to be unprepared for the pain of birthing her second child?

** It's not their best interest, fine, but they believed it to be God's best interest.

** Also, there are plenty of instances throughout history where people who previously had rights lost them later. It's not unfeasible. Some of the Middle Eastern countries that have oppressive laws toward women were actually more progressive decades ago. It's possible to regress.

** Also, there are plenty of instances throughout history where people who previously had rights lost them later. It's not unfeasible.

** There are lots of societies that do things that hurt them. Also consider that in times of fear and chaos, many people turn to extremism is one form or another. And then, consider that there are lots of people who believe the values of the Republic. It could be a matter of a minority gaining power and exerting it over an unwilling majority. That does happen. It's possible that many supporters of the movement were of the type that says "Well, I don't agree with everything they say, but I support them because of X reasons". There's a good chance that the leaders gained power that way. (for example, many low income people who rely on social assistance programs will still vote for politicians who disagree with those programs, because they might agree with their stance on abortion or gay marriage) Serena is a clear example of a woman benefiting from equal rights while arguing against them. The book establishes that the Republic of Gilead ''wasn't'' stable and ''didn't'' last very long.

If this took place in an alternate history, where women's status never changed and they never gained any more rights than they had centuries ago (and still do in many non-first world countries), the premise could make sense. But it takes place in a North America that used to be just like our world's, where the protagonist went to college and had a husband and child and lived with the same rights and freedoms North American women have now. Then that changed, and a new tyrannical regime took over that set all kinds of new restrictions, on men, as well, but mostly on women. Does the novel ever explain, why? What led people to the conclusion that these changes would serve any purpose? For that matter, what purpose are they supposed to serve? Even if it was a selfish purpose, like ensuring wealth and power for a select few, or an illogical purpose that a second look would show these methods would never accomplish, is one provided? For example, due to declining birth rates caused by radiation poisoning, the society wants more babies to be born. Well, they have access to the same scientific knowledge our society does that shows that men can be sterile as well as women, so why would they decide it was in their best interest to deny all those scientific facts and instead re-adopt the debunked superstition that only women can be infertile and that it's always and only the woman's fault if she can't conceive? Adopting and enforcing this superstition as fact only sabotages their efforts to produce more healthy babies. Yes, that's the point -- the novel's demonstrating that oppression of women hurts society -- but why would a society adopt rules that only hurt its goals? The rules imposed by the societies of ''BraveNewWorld'' and ''[[NineteenEightyFour 1984]]'' are unjust, but they serve the purpose of the regimes imposing them (the problem is that either that purpose itself is horrible, or the methods used to reach it have a huge price tag). Here, it seems the rules of this dystopian regime don't serve any purpose at all (unless the rulers just hate women and want them to suffer no matter what the cost to society?). What's the motive?

If this took place in an alternate history, where women's status never changed and they never gained any more rights than they had centuries ago (and still do in many non-first world countries), the premise could make sense. But it takes place in a North America that used to be just like our world's, where the protagonist went to college and had a husband and child and lived with the same rights and freedoms North American women have now. Then that changed, and a new tyrannical regime took over that set all kinds of new restrictions, on men, as well, but mostly on women. Does the novel ever explain, why? What led people to the conclusion that these changes would serve any purpose? For that matter, what purpose are they supposed to serve? Even if it was a selfish purpose, like ensuring wealth and power for a select few, or an illogical purpose that a second look would show these methods would never accomplish, is one provided? For example, due to declining birth rates caused by radiation poisoning, the society wants more babies to be born. Well, they have access to the same scientific knowledge our society does that shows that men can be sterile as well as women, so why would they decide it was in their best interest to deny all those scientific facts and instead re-adopt the debunked superstition that only women can be infertile and that it's always and only the woman's fault if she can't conceive? Adopting and enforcing this superstition as fact only sabotages their efforts to produce more healthy babies. Yes, that's the point -- the novel's demonstrating that oppression of women hurts society -- but why would a society adopt rules that only hurt its goals? The rules imposed by the societies of ''BraveNewWorld and ''[[NineteenEightyFour 1984]]'' are unjust, but they serve the purpose of the regimes imposing them (the problem is that either that purpose itself is horrible, or the methods used to reach it have a huge price tag). Here, it seems the rules of this dystopian regime don't serve any purpose at all (unless the rulers just hate women and want them to suffer no matter what the cost to society?). What's the motive?