The Politics of the Handmaid's Tale

[WuWei]

@Nemesis

@WuWei

@Nemesis

@WuWei

@Nemesis

@WuWei

@PurpnGold

@WuWei

All you self-proclaimed experts should have read the introduction to the damn book.

Like you did before posting the thread?

No, I didn’t read any of it before I posted the thread. It very clearly states I watched the first 7 episodes.

I have now read the first 10 chapters of the book, and the introduction. Which it appears you have not read.

Funny how none of my “expert” critics mentioned religion being attacked.

Small thinking is killing intelligence. White male libs will destroy the country.

Margaret Attwood has said numerous times her novel was about religion being used to justify a totalitarian state. It is about those who abuse religion not an attack on religion.

Should have read the introduction.

What introduction and who is it by? My copy of the book does not have an introduction. There have been several reprints and a number of different introductions written.

It is by the author. It’s not a forward.

Sorry but I cannot comment on something I have not read. Her introduction is not in my copy of the book.

Ok.
…

[WuWei]

@Nemesis

@Borgia_dude

Personally, I see what Sneaky is saying and he is right. Books many times are about more than the primary thesis and Sneaky has rightfully brought up other themes that can be discerned from the book.

You are correct. A novel as layered and nuanced as this will allow discussion of a number of themes but Attwoods intent with this novel is clear.

In the introduction you haven’t read.

[WuWei]

@PurpnGold

You made up a definition of what a lib is. A con and a conservative are also the same. But sure I can make up something different for a con like you did for lib.

No, I didn’t. Libs abandoned liberal principles. As did many who call themselves conservatives or cons.

The heart of a conservative is libertarian. The heart of a republican is big government. Same for libs and liberals.

[WuWei]

@PurpnGold

I’m just stating what the author said. I see what you are trying to do and you are wrong to apply “authoritarian” to only white male libs.

I’m not. The republicans are just as bad.

[WuWei]

@PurpnGold

Again just stating what the authors Perspective.

To the exclusion of everything else. Bias confirmation.

[PurpnGold]

@WuWei

To the exclusion of everything else. Bias confirmation.

I am not excluding everything else. I’ve never been asked what I thought of the book or the show. I’m just starting the discussion from source perspective. You are free to interpret their perspective anyway you want.

[WuWei]

@PurpnGold

@WuWei

To the exclusion of everything else. Bias confirmation.

I am not excluding everything else. I’ve never been asked what I thought of the book or the show. I’m just starting the discussion from source perspective. You are free to interpret their perspective anyway you want.

Of course.

Please explain Attwood’s comments on Soviet occupied eastern Europe. Please explain what happens to males who don’t toe the party line in the novel.

Priest hung on the wall. They put the cassock on him.

[LucyLou]

It is interesting that the OPer, from a position of lifelong power and privilege, is unable to see past his confirmation bias. Resulting in the absurd proposition that his power and privilege is as tenuously held as a handmaid’s.

[WuWei]

@LucyLou

It is interesting that the OPer, from a position of lifelong power and privilege, is unable to see past his confirmation bias. Resulting in the absurd proposition that his power and privilege is as tenuously held as a handmaid’s.

Was she a handmaid before her tenuous power was taken? Which came first? Who took it?

What role did Serena play in the taking? How did she end up?

The handmaid is the result of what? What caused the need for them?

[WuWei]

@LucyLou

It is interesting that the OPer, from a position of lifelong power and privilege, is unable to see past his confirmation bias. Resulting in the absurd proposition that his power and privilege is as tenuously held as a handmaid’s.

Interesting that the poster, from a position of lifelong being a female, is unable to see past her confirmation bias. Resulting in the absurd proposition that a man’s rights are less tenuously held than a handmaid’s in the face of the absolute power of government.

Happy Wife. Happy Life. All about the woman, always.

[LucyLou]

@WuWei

@LucyLou

It is interesting that the OPer, from a position of lifelong power and privilege, is unable to see past his confirmation bias. Resulting in the absurd proposition that his power and privilege is as tenuously held as a handmaid’s.

Interesting that the poster, from a position of lifelong being a female, is unable to see past her confirmation bias. Resulting in the absurd proposition that a man’s rights are less tenuously held than a handmaid’s in the face of the absolute power of government.

Happy Wife. Happy Life. All about the woman, always.

See what I mean?

[WuWei]

@LucyLou

@WuWei

@LucyLou

It is interesting that the OPer, from a position of lifelong power and privilege, is unable to see past his confirmation bias. Resulting in the absurd proposition that his power and privilege is as tenuously held as a handmaid’s.

Interesting that the poster, from a position of lifelong being a female, is unable to see past her confirmation bias. Resulting in the absurd proposition that a man’s rights are less tenuously held than a handmaid’s in the face of the absolute power of government.

Happy Wife. Happy Life. All about the woman, always.

See what I mean?

Do you?

[Nemesis]

@WuWei

@Nemesis

@Borgia_dude

Personally, I see what Sneaky is saying and he is right. Books many times are about more than the primary thesis and Sneaky has rightfully brought up other themes that can be discerned from the book.

You are correct. A novel as layered and nuanced as this will allow discussion of a number of themes but Attwoods intent with this novel is clear.

In the introduction you haven’t read.

Why are you basing this whole discussion around the introduction? Google the multitude of interviews and talks she has given on this book.

[PurpnGold]

@Nemesis

Why are you basing this whole discussion around the introduction? Google the multitude of interviews and talks she has given on this book.

Confirmation bias. He liked that specific entry seemingly ignoring the authors intent.

But like I said earlier… he is free to interpret her writing anyway he sees fit

[WuWei]

@Nemesis

@WuWei

@Nemesis

@Borgia_dude

Personally, I see what Sneaky is saying and he is right. Books many times are about more than the primary thesis and Sneaky has rightfully brought up other themes that can be discerned from the book.

You are correct. A novel as layered and nuanced as this will allow discussion of a number of themes but Attwoods intent with this novel is clear.

In the introduction you haven’t read.

Why are you basing this whole discussion around the introduction? Google the multitude of interviews and talks she has given on this book.

I’m not. The introduction is part of the book. Uncontaminated.

Why are you still here?

[WuWei]

@PurpnGold

@Nemesis

Why are you basing this whole discussion around the introduction? Google the multitude of interviews and talks she has given on this book.

Confirmation bias. He liked that specific entry seemingly ignoring the authors intent.

But like I said earlier… he is free to interpret her writing anyway he sees fit

Yes, her stated intent confirms my bias. And disproves yours. Winnah!

I’m beginning to think some people haven’t read the book…

[WuWei]

@Nemesis

Why are you basing this whole discussion around the introduction? Google the multitude of interviews and talks she has given on this book.

Oh and because you haven’t read it.

[Nemesis]

@WuWei

@Nemesis

@WuWei

@Nemesis

@Borgia_dude

Personally, I see what Sneaky is saying and he is right. Books many times are about more than the primary thesis and Sneaky has rightfully brought up other themes that can be discerned from the book.

You are correct. A novel as layered and nuanced as this will allow discussion of a number of themes but Attwoods intent with this novel is clear.

In the introduction you haven’t read.

Why are you basing this whole discussion around the introduction? Google the multitude of interviews and talks she has given on this book.

I’m not. The introduction is part of the book. Uncontaminated.

Why are you still here?

Who are you to dictate who can and cannot participate in a thread?

It is obvious you have read one or two sentences and discarding the rest.

[WuWei]

@Nemesis

Who are you to dictate who can and cannot participate in a thread?

It is obvious you have read one or two sentences and discarding the rest.

I’m not. I asked why you’re still here.

Oh no, I read every word and I’m not discarding anything. How would you know since you haven’t read it?

[Nemesis]

@WuWei

@Nemesis

Who are you to dictate who can and cannot participate in a thread?

It is obvious you have read one or two sentences and discarding the rest.

I’m not. I asked why you’re still here.

Oh no, I read every word and I’m not discarding anything. How would you know since you haven’t read it?

The book has fascinated me since I first read it back in the late 80s. I have read the novel multiple times as well as everything Atwood has ever published. Over the years I have scoured the internet and read/watched pretty much everything I can find of her being interviewed and speaking. So yes unless her introduction is contradicting everything she has ever said about The Handmaid’s Tale I can still comment on the novel as wells as the nuances and meanings.