It’s an interesting thought experiment and it touches on why I could never get into the Handmaid’s Tale - I found the scenario implausible. The people who own guns (and there are quite a few) are simply going to let their wives, sisters and daughters become property?
Atwood, the original author, was meticulous in documenting all the events in the handmaids tale as 1:1 events reported in real life, but just transposed to the United States.
Yes, I am aware of the events that inspired Atwood: Ceaușescu’s Romania, polygamous fundamentalist Mormon sects, the treatment of women as property in 3rd world countries, etc.
It’s the actual “a group of old testament loving christians managed to topple the US government and turn 50% of its former citizens into subjects with absolutely no rights what so ever” part of the Handmaid’s Tale that I find implausible.
some may argue we have a version of that today. none of my female friends or family from abroad can come and visit right now because they are of child bearing age.
Don’t know about the patriarchy… but in the use of weapons, yes things have changed since the weapon of choice was a spear. With melee weapons, a man has a huge advantage over a woman due to their size and strength. Guns are a great equalizer. With a little bit of training, any woman with a gun is no longer at a a disadvantage in a fight against a man.
In the past 20+ years, approximately 2 million to 3 million soldiers served in the Global War on Terror. Approximately 10% to 20% of those soldiers were women and all of them were trained in the use of fire arms. Which leads back to my original statement regarding my thoughts on the founding of Gilead: I find it implausible. Are all of these women going to just docilely submit to become property?
I’m not sure how you think the patriarchy is enforced, but the answer is no, they won’t, and they’ll be oppressed with violence for resisting the people with more guns and soldiers.
Which is part of the story. “The War” and “The Crusade” are how Gilead refers to the ongoing civil war that formed the state, where, among other things, civil rights and the Constitution were abolished.
So, if you want to know why armed women didn’t turn the tide?
Plenty of them joined Gilead, for one thing, and the took the others’ guns and killed the ones who resisted.
That Roe v. Wade was over ruled for being poorly argued, as Ruth Bader Ginsberg predicted? Thus allowing states (thus the people of each state) to decide on the issue of abortion? Something that was denied to them in 1973?
But now… Republicans are finding out that many of their constituents are not nearly as pro-life (or anti-choice) as they thought. I believe this fall they will pay quite dearly for their over reach.
It’s an interesting thought experiment and it touches on why I could never get into the Handmaid’s Tale - I found the scenario implausible. The people who own guns (and there are quite a few) are simply going to let their wives, sisters and daughters become property?
Atwood, the original author, was meticulous in documenting all the events in the handmaids tale as 1:1 events reported in real life, but just transposed to the United States.
None of it is entirely fiction.
Yes, I am aware of the events that inspired Atwood: Ceaușescu’s Romania, polygamous fundamentalist Mormon sects, the treatment of women as property in 3rd world countries, etc.
It’s the actual “a group of old testament loving christians managed to topple the US government and turn 50% of its former citizens into subjects with absolutely no rights what so ever” part of the Handmaid’s Tale that I find implausible.
some may argue we have a version of that today. none of my female friends or family from abroad can come and visit right now because they are of child bearing age.
Yes?
Do you think the patriarchy worked differently when the weapon of choice was a spear?
The point is always power and control.
Don’t know about the patriarchy… but in the use of weapons, yes things have changed since the weapon of choice was a spear. With melee weapons, a man has a huge advantage over a woman due to their size and strength. Guns are a great equalizer. With a little bit of training, any woman with a gun is no longer at a a disadvantage in a fight against a man.
In the past 20+ years, approximately 2 million to 3 million soldiers served in the Global War on Terror. Approximately 10% to 20% of those soldiers were women and all of them were trained in the use of fire arms. Which leads back to my original statement regarding my thoughts on the founding of Gilead: I find it implausible. Are all of these women going to just docilely submit to become property?
I’m not sure how you think the patriarchy is enforced, but the answer is no, they won’t, and they’ll be oppressed with violence for resisting the people with more guns and soldiers.
Which is part of the story. “The War” and “The Crusade” are how Gilead refers to the ongoing civil war that formed the state, where, among other things, civil rights and the Constitution were abolished.
So, if you want to know why armed women didn’t turn the tide?
Plenty of them joined Gilead, for one thing, and the took the others’ guns and killed the ones who resisted.
What do you think is happening in the US right now?
What do they think it used to be like, and why…
That Roe v. Wade was over ruled for being poorly argued, as Ruth Bader Ginsberg predicted? Thus allowing states (thus the people of each state) to decide on the issue of abortion? Something that was denied to them in 1973?
But now… Republicans are finding out that many of their constituents are not nearly as pro-life (or anti-choice) as they thought. I believe this fall they will pay quite dearly for their over reach.