#its not due to any obligation nor any sign of patriarchy

[msbhagirathi]

IPKKND HEART TO HEART CONVO-(1/n)

It was a nice Sunday morning. Arnav was laying on his bed lazily, half asleep, with his hands folded behind his head. Khushi was, fresh out of the shower, getting ready for the day.

Khushi (quietely inching towards the bed) : Arnavji...? Aap so rahe hain kya...?

Arnav (already squinting at her with sleepy eyes and ruffled hair) : Khushi tum mujhese 'ji'-'aap' karke kyun baat karti ho...? Maine tumse kaha hai na that you are my equal. Tum me aur mujhme koi difference nahi hai.

Khushi (a knowing smile on her face, sat down beside him) : Yeh toh aapka baddappan hai Arnavji, joh aap humse aisa keh rahe hain.( You are being modest, Arnavji.)

Khushi : Hum aapse aise baat isiliye karte hain kyunki hum aapka samman karte hain. Humari nazron mein aapka kad bohot uncha hai.

Khushi : Hum jaante hain ki aap humein apna baraabar maante hain. Lekin aap nahi jaante ki aap humein jaan-anjaane mein kitna kuch sikha dete hain. Aap bhale hi kehte ho ki aap bhagwan mein vishwas nahi rakhte par humne apni puri zindagi mein aapke jaisa, nek insaan, aaj tak nahi dekha hai, joh apne aap ko nastik (atheist) kehta ho.

Arnav : But Khu-

*She placed her index finger on his lips*

Khushi : Hum jaante hain ki aapko purani baatein yaad karne ka koi shauk nahi hai par aaj humein bolne dijiye Arnavji. Aap humesha humein chup kara dete hain par aaj hum bolenge aur aap sunenge.

Khushi : Aaj hum aapko batana chahte hain ki hum aapki itni izzat kyun karte hain.

Khushi : Hum samajhte hain ki aapke liye kisi par bharosa karna kitna mushkil hai. Humein ab samajh mein aata hai ki, aap par kya beeti hogi, jab aapko yeh laga ki, jis ladki se aap pyaar karte hain, usne aapki zindagi ke sabse ahem insaan ke saath, dhoka karne ki koshish ki hai.

Khushi : Beshak tab aapke paas hum par vishwas karne ki koi vajah hi nahi thi kyunki tab hum aapke liye koi nahi the.

*Arnav knew where this was going and closed his eyes to steel himself*

Khushi : Hum jaante hain ki, har roz aap apne aap ko koste (curse) honge. Aapko lagta hoga ki, na aap Di ki raksha kar paaye aur na hi aap, humari vajah se, humare liye, apne aap ko, rakshas banne se rok paaye. Aapne kabhi socha hi nahi hoga ki, jis ladki se aap itna pyaar karte hain uski, nazron mein aapko itna niche girna hoga, ki aap apne aap se bhi nazrein nahi mila payenge.

*Arnav slowly starting to get teary-eyed, turned his face away from her, to hide it*

Khushi : Hum jaante hai ki hum galat nahi the phir bhi humare saath galat hua par hum yeh bhi jaante hain ki aapko bhi utna hi jhelna para tha. Hum samajhte hain ki aapko kitni ghutan hui hogi. Chahte hue bhi aap hum par vishwas kar hi nahi paaye honge.

*She laid her head on his chest with tears rolling down her face*

*Arnav slowly starting to sob, placed his hands softly on the back of her head, caressing her hair gently*

Khushi (speaking through her shaky voice) : Hum jaante hain ki aapko kitna dard hua hoga, ki aap hum se kitna pyaar karte hain, ki aapne hum par vishwas kiya aur humein mauka diya, humare pyaar ko apnaya.

*She started crying bitterly, shaking, trembling against his chest*

*Fresh tears, big and hot, rolled down his face as he took in her words*

He gently pulled her upright, sat up and wrapped his arms around her tightly, eyes shut, tears flowing continuously, his body trembling with the weight of the emotions, that her words held.

****Both of them sobbed for several minutes, calmed down gradually****

Khushi (wiped her tears, sniffing) : Isiliye jab hum aapke pair chune ke liye jhukte hain, toh aap humein roka mat kijiye.

Arnav (wiping his tears, look at her, pursing his lips) : Theek hai. Lekin SIRF tumhare liye.

Khushi (grinned) : Wada kijiye humse! (extended her palm)

Arnav (held her hand, smiling) : I promise, Khushi. Tumhare liye, kuch bhi.

Khushi : Hum bhi na! Ek hi din aap chutti par ghar-pe hote hain aur woh bhi hum roh-dho ke barbaad kar rahe hain.

She stood up hurriedly to complete drying her hair with the towel and placed it on the recliner.

Arnav : Tum chah kar bhi mera waqt barbaad nahi kar paogi, Khushi. (Note- *cue* when he had said something similar but very different to La, in her intro epi)

He made his bed, hung the towel on his shoulder and walked to the bathroom.

Few minutes later....

Khushi (to Garima, smiling dreamily) : Amma, aapko pata hai! Humare Arnavji duniya ke sabse acche pati the, hain aur humesha rahenge....

So.....I tried this one in Hindi....shall I...umm...is it better in English..? I don't even know... Also I don't know if I am allowed to casually tag people here or not. But I wanna thank them as well...so..

Phati-Sari, Jalebi-weds-bluetooth, Paobhaji, chutkiandchotte, onadaanparindey, dimaagkadahi, kashmakash, arnavsinghraizada, laadgovernorandsankadevi, pakki-ya-nahin and all the other IPK fans as well..

Mentioning all of you here because I have huge amount of gratitude to all of you, in some way or the other, I owe you the entertainment that I have received and enjoyed from all of your content and that too for...um...FREE!?!?! I can never thank all of you enough for all that you have done and are still doing for us IPK kids. So, I am trying to do something close to what all of you have done... THank you from the bottom of my heart.

[kershmaru-blog]

What is Feminism? An outside male perspective

First I think I need to acknowledge that feminism means vastly different things to different people. There are quite incompatible, warring factions within the movement, and what I dub amateur feminism or feminism of the masses, is another story altogether. I am talking about the feminism of the vast majority of self-described feminists who never came in direct contact with professional gender studies or feminist theory and wish for nothing but equality.

What I think all feminists have in common is the perspective that our world is male-dominated, that there is a relative lack of positive female role models even within the west - which is true if your viewpoint is that you need your role models to share such superficial criteria as sex, sexuality, and gender with yourself - and that our society values males more than it does females.

 I should introduce myself. I go by Kershmaru, which is an old Gamertag I came up with. It consists of a nonsensical first syllable and an ending for Japanese first names. So I am Japanophile. Sue me.

I do value my privacy and privacy rights in general (you don’t have to fear that I expose private conversations between us, or even write about them in an anonymous format without your express permission), but that is not the reason I go by a pseudonym. I may or may not announce my real name after some time. There is a reason for my anonymity: Part of my philosophy is that the source shouldn’t matter and that every post, every argument, and every article should be able to stand on their own, on their own merit.

I am 27, single, male, white, an atheist and from Austria, for those of you who care about such things. Personally, I think that my writing tells you more about myself than those more or less random metrics. In fact, I think the only thing I mentioned which tells you anything worth knowing about my worldview is that I am an atheist.

 Why write about feminism at all? Firstly, because there is a growing divide between feminists and social justice advocates on one side and anti-feminists and anti-SJWs on the other.  There is very little civilized dialogue between the two sides, and in all honesty, I believe such dialogue would be enriching for both sides.

Secondly, despite its vast influence over politics and media, some strains of feminism seem to have developed an “us vs. the world” mentality. I think those people would benefit from an outside perspective. The aim of this blog isn’t to explain your own ideology to you; it is only a subjective viewpoint and an outside perspective.

 I am neither a feminist nor an anti, despite the fact that I am sure I will be accused of being both, if nothing else because of the forums I plan to post this on (minds.com and tumbler).

 I am an advocate for equality as far as it is reasonable.

Some of you might have read this far only to stop after reading about reasonable inequality. For those who didn’t, hear me out: There are currently disparities in rights that are unfair but without an alternative.

The most striking of these rights is the right to bodily autonomy and reproductive rights. (I am well aware that in some states in America, the religious right fights against the right to choose, and I am squarely on board with the feminists on this one. Women need to remain the sole decision makers regarding their own bodies)

To clarify my views on abortion, I regard it as a necessary evil. There are cases in which it entirely is a medical necessity (i.e., Pregnancy within the fallopian tubes, which cannot be brought to term and if unchecked will cause massive internal bleeding and the death of the mother), but for a variety of reasons - I can go more into detail if you want me to - I also am in favor of all other cases except late-term abortion. There needs to be some time for a prospective mother to decide what she wants to do, and she shouldn’t have to make rash decisions. But there should be a time limit after which the rights of the fetus are protected. Such a limit is necessarily arbitrary, but as I said before, a necessity to give the mother time to think. Would I be in favor of fewer abortions? Absolutely. But the way we can arrive there is only by providing easy access to contraceptives, not through clumsy attempts at social engineering through abstinence-only education. It would also help if there were more resources for nascent mothers, like easy access to childcare, legally protected maternity leave (which of course makes women less attractive on the job market) and easy access to adoption services.

 My personal views aside, the status quo in wide parts of the western world is that women have the unilateral power to make decisions on whether or not they will become parents, even after the fact. Men cannot legally interfere with this decision.

If the woman decides thusly, the men become fathers, with all the legally binding obligations that entail. (An exception is a policy in Sweden of which I am not sure whether it has been implemented which would allow men to opt out of paternity, but only by relinquishing all legal rights. That is not equal to the female power to chose; in my opinion a useless policy)

If the woman doesn’t want to be a parent, the man also never gets the chance to.

 This situation is intrinsically unfair. But the alternative, making women into incubators against their will is so dystopian that I will not even consider advocating for it. (on a side note, if artificial wombs were already available, I would likely be in favor of protecting the fetus and bringing it to term in such a device if one of the parents - in this case, the father - wishes it, at least if the conception was consensual in the first place. But because such devices don’t yet exist and will likely have to navigate a maze of “ethical” obstacles, this point though interesting is mute)

There you have it: A right, in favor of women no less, which is intrinsically unfair and unequal but needs to stay this way.

 But enough distractions. Time to get to the meat of it. Feminism.

To some a necessary struggle against oppressive structures, to others a totalitarian system based on religious dogma aiming to police, form, and control every aspect of culture, politics and interpersonal relationships.

Firstly, I agree that there are inequalities in men and women, even within the western world.

I also believe that there are differences between men and women based in biology. Are these differences reinforced by cultural norms and traditional gender roles? I think they are.

As you can see, I neither fully subscribe to an entirely biologic-deterministic nor to a socially constructed worldview. Both lack - to me as a layman regarding gender studies - merit (I also will avoid using overly technical or predefined language in this blog due to the emotional baggage and presuppositions associated with such terms. Here, where I was forced to use it nevertheless is the best place to inform you of my rationale for this decision).

What are these differences? Most of them, like muscle strength, are irrelevant regarding the modern work environment. The obvious exception here are positions that demand high fitness and muscle strength, like construction, firefighting or some military jobs. I am of the opinion that such positions should absolutely be open to women who pass the requirements, though I will admit that men aiming for these posts hold an unfair biological and physiological advantage. Two mutually dependent differences aren’t irrelevant: Risk aversion and resource management (meant are personal resources like stress)

Men are less risk-averse than women (as can be seen in factors such as gender differences in gambling behavior https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4736715/ )

This primes them for high risk, high reward positions which are highly valued by our society (politicians, CEOs)

To clarify, I don’t believe that women aren’t qualified for these positions. Quite the opposite, I think those who make it there in a meritocratic system are qualified. I also find them to be outliers.

Can the frequency of such outliers be increased by shifting cultural norms and by nurture? I believe it can be. But should it at all costs? I am not a father, and I may well never be. But the way I would raise my children, regardless of gender, would be to try to instill in them the same primal curiosity, the same drive to see the beauty in our universe I feel, and to reinforce in them whatever interests they have. I wouldn’t project my insecurities and wishes on them.

The other thing I mentioned, resource management, is in favor of women. Women manage their own stress better, this meta-study on burnout suggests http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0001879110000771 and have a higher life expectancy.

There are fields in which women are yet underrepresented which cannot be explained by the two metrics of risk aversion and resource management, for example, science and engineering. This may be partially due to biologic differences, but I do believe we will see more women drift to these professions organically over time. After all, curiosity isn’t a male trait. At least I didn’t see any evidence for it.

I believe in a meritocratic and free system. It may take some time until the gender balance approaches the distribution of genders as dictated by biology, but I don’t see the problem in that. In most circles, no one doubts that women can be as capable as men in a given position, and that, rather than gender parity, is to me the sign of achieved equality.

 Which brings me to my main gripe with feminism. Regardless of their exact strain of feminism, a lot of feminists believe in particular policy implementations that go against meritocracy, such as diversity quotas.

 The belief that those measures are necessary is founded partially in what presents itself to me as a persecution complex: That the world is still in the fangs of patriarchy. There is an interesting philosophical debate to be had on the topic who or rather what is in control of our world and society, but that goes beyond the scope of this blog. I may write an article on it on minds.

 I am not saying sexism is dead, or that unconscious bias doesn’t exist. What I am saying is that bias isn’t the sole explanation for societal ills and injustices. Consider this if you will: A biased opinion against people with the descriptor d. A person with d may be discriminated against by d-cist people and learn that this bias exists. They will now be conditioned to look out for this prejudice, and it will color their perception of reality. If they encounter repeated injustice, perceived or real, they are more likely to attribute it to d and d-cist opinions.

This in itself can pose a problem, if they set out to cure d-cist attitudes. An overreach can antagonize and prejudice people who didn’t hold d-cist positions to start with. Overestimating the scope of a problem or applying the wrong solution can be as destructive as doing nothing at all. It can not only promote d-cist attitudes in reaction to the overreach but can lead to its own set of social problems and injustices. For example, if you insist on thinking in these categories, a person with d might be promoted due to a diversity quota over a socio-economically disadvantaged person without d, who might even have better qualifications and a more significant need for the position.

The belief that d-cist attitudes are rampant in society at large can also lead D’s to self-segregate and take on a hostile attitude towards people outside their community or society at large. This can lead to other problems, like shifting attitudes towards D’s, actual d-cism and mutual hostility.

D can, in this context stand for any arbitrary attribute, from gender, sex, sexuality, race to wearing glasses. (if you think that the last example is ludicrous or ridiculous, remember that Pol Pot’s Khmer Rouge murdered people wearing eyeglasses on the suspicion that they were intellectuals. Say what you want about the treatment of women in history and today, but I cannot think of an ideology or system, extant or extinct that promoted female genocide.)

 Herein, as alluded to before, lies my biggest problem with feminism (And the biggest problem of many others): Both its dogmatic, overly simplistic assertions about the nature of our world, and the political solution widely championed by feminists.

 It needs to be said that I respect everybody's right to an opinion. We all would like the world to be different in subtle ways. Some of these problems and complaints seem petty to outsiders (manspreading), but if you feel like there is a problem, you absolutely have a right to speak out. Issues come into play when you try to control culture or media because then you infringe upon others right of expression. I am well aware most feminists, particularly but not exclusively the aforementioned amateur feminists only want perceived equality in specific circumstances that are near and dear to them, such as political representation, positive role models, unbiased education. Again, nothing wrong about that. But most of the proposals I have seen to bring such changes in short time are flawed. And the used rhetoric can be downright abusive. What possible use have “teach boys not to rape” seminars and workshops? Literally everybody knows rape is an unforgivable crime and one of the most damaging, traumatic events to the victims. There is nothing to learn here. The only ones who could learn from such a seminar are those who would never rape in the first place. What right do you have to indoctrinate children to look at each other and themselves as sexual deviants, these barely restrained predatory monsters? But I digress. Do you know that some definitions of rape only encompass penetration, but not forcefull envelopment? That is right, according to some definitions - which have been used for studies and statistics - , if a woman forces herself onto a man that isn’t rape. Not to mention that the current culture makes it very hard for male victims to speak out, especially against female perpetrators. Feminists may interject here that they are addressing these cultural norms, but the truth is that male advocacy or men’s rights is a derogatory term often named in a breath with pick up artists or similar lowlifes. Disparate incarceration and suicide rates, as well as a gendered and biased justice system, are a joke to some feminists. Worse yet, if the issue is brought up some see it as a twisted form of justice, recompense for millennia of oppression.

 There is no doubt that women were denied their fair shake by society. Heck, they still are outside the western world. But there can also be no doubt that things are different now. Claiming otherwise is delusional. We may not yet be a society reflecting the real interests and qualifications of the individuals therein, but the main ingredient missing, in my opinion, is time. Time for genuine bigots to be retired from their place of power. Time for girls to speak out about their “boyish” hobbies and interests and potentially make them into a career. But it is also necessary to acknowledge the progress we already made and to think more critically about complaints concerning sexism or other forms of bigotry in the western world.

 I really don’t know exactly how to structure the following because every subpoint would be deserving of its own blog post, and they may get them, in time. In The meantime, here is a more or less unstructured rant about some common feminist complaints about western society. It is by no means a full list, and I would caution you against using what I have written to extrapolate my stance on other issues. Making assumptions without sufficient information is a profoundly human trait; albeit one we need to work hard to overcome. Feel free to disagree and tell me why it is you disagree. I am more than willing to change my position if you present me with a good argument.

 What about sexualized media? First off, I know that this is an unfair argument because a good part of feminists see female sexuality as liberating and liberated. Personally, I have no problem with any form of sexuality or sexual imagery for the purpose of advertising or marketing. To put it in plain English: Sex sells. Using sexuality in marketing isn’t oppressive or objectifying, it is a good business practice. I agree that it can become ridiculous at times, especially if there is absolutely no connection to the good or service being advertised. It is a cheap tactic to draw eyes, but an effective one.

What about the male gaze in movies? I would argue that the same is true here. And I would also say that not only men sexualize women. Humans, in general, are very good at sexualizing each other, regardless of their sexuality. Envy and critique replace lust as the motivating factor, but women also look at legs and breasts and men at abs.

What about the elephant in the room: the pay gap? It would be more honest to speak about a earnings gap. It is true, men and woman earn disparate incomes, but they also work in different professions. If you compare apples to oranges, of course, there will be a disparity. If you compare people within comparable positions, the earnings gap shrinks. If you control for hours worked, qualifications and other factors it shrinks again. It doesn’t disappear altogether, but that is where the risky behavior and assertiveness comes into play. Women can and should be more self-aware and aware what they are worth, and ask for financial recompense. That is what men do.

(It should be mentioned that there is a gap in payment amongst male and female CEOs, which of course cannot be ascribed to divergent qualifications. But the pay amongst CEOs, in general, is highly variable and depends on the worth of the company. Once a woman is in charge of Amazon, Microsoft or a comparable Company we will see this gap shrink)

On a side note, there are legal protections against pay discrimination in many countries in the western world, including the US. Of course, legal protection doesn’t mean that it cannot happen. Despite my above explanations, I do not doubt that there still is gender-based discrimination in isolated cases. If you think you are being discriminated against, be very careful. You might well have a case, but if you try to litigate and the court doesn’t find in your favor, you might well be out of a job. That being said, you have a right to take up your legal arms and fight in court. As somebody opposed to discrimination, I wish you the best. Nobody should suffer any form of discrimination, least of all due to a trait of their person they have absolutely no control over.

The lion’s share of the earnings gap is due to individual choice. Men work more dangerous and dirtier jobs than women and are compensated for that. You want parity amongst CEOs? What about equality amongst miners or sewer workers? Some careers are simply higher paid than others. A lot of male-dominated fields fall into that category. If a woman wants to enter these fields and she has all the necessary qualifications, she is free to do so, and I would encourage her. As I would encourage everybody to pursue the career they want.

Should some of the traditional female professions be better compensated? Well, talking about dangerous jobs, I think that teachers should be paid much more but also be held to a higher standard.

What about cyberbullying? Well according to the data, http://soc101group2.providence.wikispaces.net/Gender+Distinctions+in+Cyber+Bullying women are more likely to be the perpetrators. That, of course, may change over time and depends on whether or not you count gossip as “bullying.” Also all studies I could find depended on self-reporting, so take them with a grain of salt since that is amongst the least reliable study designs. It should also be said that one amongst the most recent studies I could find (from 2016, conducted amongst US highschoolers), on statista.com showed contrary trends. It might just be that the interviewed girls didn’t count gossiping as cyberbullying; and I am not certain gossip should count. I welcome your thoughts on the matter.

What about “bossy?” When a man is a boss, he isn’t considered “bossy.” Neither is a female boss. The male equivalent to “bossy” isn’t “boss” it is “dick” speaking of which…

What about sexualized slurs you might ask? What about them? How often have you called somebody a dick or a prick and not even thought of it as a sexual slur? This does of course not mean that sexual slurs should be societally acceptable. My point is that those against women already aren’t, while those against men clearly are. Here we come to another aspect of my philosophy, this time concerning free speech: everybody should be allowed a chance to speak freely and out themselves as an ass, the right to free speech doesn’t mean freedom from social condemnation.

 I cannot possibly go into detail on all I touched on without writing a veritable book. This is as good as any a place to take a break. I will be back next week with some thoughts on the Weinstein scandal and rape culture. In the meantime, as alluded to before, I am here to talk. Comment with your thoughts, questions, and of course, criticism. I will do my best to explain myself and my positions. Tell me where you disagree and agree with me and if need be, enlighten me if I made some factual errors or overly simplifying generalizations.

[thevalkirias]

The Handmaid’s Tale and the fear that lives within all of us

The Handmaid’s Tale, written by Canadian author Margaret Atwood, had always been on my “must read” list. Years went by without any movement on my part to change its status from “must read” to “read” on my shelf, and it was only now, with the news of its adaptation – released in April by Hulu and starred by Elisabeth Moss –, that I took the dust away from my copy and started reading. I knew the story was intense and filled with metaphors, but little did I know that I was about to be punched in the stomach every time I flipped a page.

As it happens in some of the best sellers from recent times – The Hunger Games and Divergent, only to name a few – The Handmaid’s Tale is also a dystopia, but different from what we see on Katiniss’ and Tris’ sagas, here there’s no chosen one that will save human kind from its annihilation. In this future, the United States as we know it no longer exists and is dominated by an extremely religious and patriarchal society that, through a military coup, has taken the power and controls every individual and the entirety of Gilead’s Republic with an iron fist. It’s not really clear how the coup took place, but the fight for power ended up causing environmental catastrophe and, moreover, totalitarianism and religious fundamentalism get mixed, shaping a new and rigid social system that is nothing but terrifying – especially to its women.

It is in this context that we meet Offred, a woman that had her whole life taken away from her and is now a Handmaid in the new regime. Through her experiences, we slowly discover that human fertility has decreased to low levels; hence, all fertile women (even the ones that already had children) are obligated to corroborate with this system. These women are trained which has the sole purpose of getting them pregnant and have them deliver and breastfeed their babies until it’s time to give the children away to the Commanders and their wives. Forget about free will or autonomy: each and every Handmaid is tied to this system and will be a part of it until the end. Offred’s name, by the way, means “Of Fred”; the name is given to each Handmaid due to the Commander to which she is destined, contributing to the erasure of the woman’s life: even her own name is taken away from her in order to magnify her status as an object

“I wait. I compose myself. My self is a thing I must now compose, as one composes a speech. What I must present is a made thing, not something born.”

Offred narrates her experiences in this new society while she remembers moments of her life from before the coup, before Gilead’s Republic. Women in this new world are sorted out and categorized, and the image of the Handmaid is the most emblematic, important and discriminated against. Since human fertility is no longer the same, the Handmaids – always dressed in long, red gowns, almost like nuns, covering their faces with wide white hats – are necessary to assure not only the maintenance of the regime, but also life as a whole.

The Handmaids’ lives are closely watched by the Commanders and their wives, who crave the babies the Handmaids may come to carry; they are watched by the Aunts, women responsible for educating the Handmaids, teaching them to be submissive and helpful, focusing only in getting pregnant and in not showing any sign of threat to the sterile wives; and by the Marthas, women that can no longer have children and have to dedicate themselves to the chores that have to be taken care of at the homes of Gilead’s great leaders. There are also those women that are discarded by society, sent away, and those who live in the margins of society, on brothels, attended by the same leaders that despise them.

“It's strange to remember how we used to think, as if everything were available to us, as if there were no contingencies, no boundaries; as if we were free to shape and reshape forever the ever—expanding perimeters of our lives. I was like that too, I did that too.”

It is when Offred is arriving at the house of a new Commander that the story becomes stronger and gets even more terrifying. Trying to find other people that may take part on the resistance or that may have news about family and loved ones lost during the coup, Offred discovers that the secrets and dynamics of this new world are even worse than she could have imagined. Any deviance from the path set by Gilead’s leaders is punished with death, there’s no more individuality, nor the right to one’s own body. Atwood, using her made-up plot, shows us how the rights earned after much struggle can be extinguished through the use of violence and how religion can be used, wrongly, to justify the privileges of a few and the ruin of many. The women of this new world cannot read, write or talk without consent; they lost the right to work and study. One of the first maneuvers of this new regime, by the way, was to take away all forms of autonomy from every woman, giving all of their money to the men in their families and making them depend on the men, with no way out.

With a live that is purely based on repression, the Handmaid must also submit to a surreal ritual in which she has to have sex with the Commander she is assigned to, under the supervision of the Wife. Offred tries to keep her dignity, trying hard not to let go go of her personality, remembering facts related to her old life, to her companion, mother and daughter, but it is hard to maintain your sanity in a world where everybody is watching you. The Handmaid’s Tale is a very disturbing story that, even 30 years after its first publication, in 1985, keeps echoing the fear that lives within women all over the world. With world leaders that are more and more deplorable and carry bizarre ideals, it is not hard to imagine a world in which all of our rights would be taken away, in which our autonomy would be usurped.

“These things you did were like prayers; you did them and you hoped they would save you. And for the most part they did. Or something did; you could tell by the fact that you were still alive.”

The Handmaid’s Tale is disturbing and it is not an easy read: Margaret Atwood’s role as a writer is to provoke us, to make us think about a world that might seem to belong to a dystopian universe, but is always there, lurking, in our own world. Women experience oppression, are silenced, persecuted, harassed, raped and killed every day – and that’s not only the plot of a dystopia. Atwood had the courage of writing write about painful themes back in 1985, themes that, unfortunately, remain very real and terrifying. If women left their houses to add their strength to the Women’s March, it’s not by chance: we all know how much we need to stick together and make our rights worth.

Atwood’s book carries strong criticism towards patriarchy and, according to the writer, there’s nothing in its plot that women does not know – that is why the whole plot is so terrifying and distressing, so real in its barbarity and in showing the fear that live within all of us. If we need feminism, if it gives us strength, it is because we need to make sure that a future like the one in Gilead never becomes a possibility.

About the author:

THAY

Tomb explorer, shadow assassin, pirate captain and sailor soldier. Hunts demons in her free time, wears a Gryffindor scarf and is an occasional getaway driver. Addicted to Supernatural and to buying books as if there was no tomorrow.

This piece was originally published in Portuguese on February 13, 2017 on Valkirias as "O Conto da Aia e o medo que mora em todas nós". Translated by Anna Viduani.