The interpretation of romantic endeavors in the

The Handmaid’S Adventure

In the world of books, it is everything regarding your reputation.

Margaret Atwood’s The Handmaid’s Adventure, an Orwellian romp in the near future lead by a girl protagonist, received both the kiss of fatality and the present of prestige when it was labeled a “feminist dystopia. ” A lot like when a celeb “tweets” a comment that is remotely arguable, the dialogue among fictional critics erupted following this illustration of labeling. However , the case surrounding Atwood’s novel was slightly different from celebrity Facebook fodder for the reason that author hardly ever actually branded her book a feminist dystopia, others did it on her. In fact , Atwood has maintained to withstand the label other folks have given her operate. When constrained about her own beliefs, she accepted that she’s a feminist if the definition of feminism is actually a “belief in the rights of girls [as] similar human beings” adding that if “practical, hardline, anti-male feminists took over and became the government” she’d “resist all of them. “

On the other hand, critics still debate above whether or not The Handmaid’s Tale is known as a feminist textual content. Of course , it is hard to debate this matter objectively mainly because, like Atwood, individuals get their own meanings of feminism ranging from Atwood’s perspective to definitions that necessitate only blaming men for the oppression of girls.

Fortunately, some literary critics consider variables apart from a maliciousness supposedly inherent in males to explain the gender associations present in this kind of text. The current critical dialogue surrounding this kind of novel has done a fine task of recognizing the significance of the enhanced capitalism from the 1980s for the text. Karen Magro affirms the relationship between “unbridled capitalism” and male or female, claiming that Margaret Atwood herself found the “gains” women experienced made in the later half of the twentieth century “precarious, ” presumably as a result of disenfranchisement of women in the midst of increased materialism and commodification (Magro 118). Furthermore, Shirley Neuman posits that Atwood’s speculations are based on the “early 1980s reactions to the successes of the ladies movement plus the intersections of those reactions which includes of theexcesses of the period” (Neuman 859). Though quite a few critics talk about the part of capitalism in regards to female oppression both in and outside in the novel, it is Kristen M. Billy whom focuses on many ways in which capitalism in the form of gendered commodification capabilities in The Handmaid’s Tale, particularly the commodification of procreation. Still, even Billy portrays this behavior as a biological imperative of the man sex. Different critics, such as Barbara Ehrenreich, take a several approach, observing the story as a repercussion against significant feminism, exemplified through the the role that heteronormative romance plays because the “only truly subversive force” in Gileadean society (Ehrenreich 34).

While I do not feel that this book engages in a great “anti-male” plan like Billy, I am unable to disregard the presence of certain guys at the center of Gileadean systems of oppression, particularly prosperous men who control the means of production. Moreover, I intend to incorporate the wisdom of these authorities in order to demonstrate how capitalism and appreciate are connected with each other in this text message. Initially, I actually plan to quickly establish the realistic origins of this text that come from eighties economic ideology and manifest or evince Atwood’s negative thoughts toward these types of ideals through textual evidence. Then, my personal intention should be to demonstrate the partnership between capitalism and male or female. Finally, Let me posit love as Atwood’s response to the gendered concerns derived from capitalism. Ultimately, My spouse and i aim to prove that this story portrays Reagan era capitalism and materialism as the patriarchal force that transforms men in to oppressors, leading to the eventual subjugation of the female sexual intercourse. Nevertheless, Atwood champions males as people when the lady evinces heteronormative love since Gilead’s rarest and most important resource.

Atwood their self claimed there is “nothing in the book that hasnt already happened”and that “all the things described in the book, people have already completed one another” (Magro 118). Perhaps for this reason this text seems thus familiar towards the reader, as though leaving echoes of a problem they may have already had. To be able to understand Gilead we must first understand the social parameters that made Gilead a reality. For the functions of this new and this dissertation, it is important to keep in mind the socio-economic environment that existed while Atwood was writing, conditions that are then simply exaggerated in Offred’s points of pre-Gileadean America. Atwood’s discourse typically reveals an aversion to Reaganomics plus the materialistic attitude of the eighties. This point of view on the age is established by economist and journalist Jim Collins who recalls the “Wall Street” culture of this decade, that recognized “the dual propositions that ‘greed is definitely good’ and this ‘more can be better'” (Collins 1).

Initially, Gilead subjugates it is citizens by class additionally to gender. The commanders, for example , will be wealthy men who support the highest get ranking in culture. They also manage to flaunt all their wealth and Atwood’s diction reveals that she does not approve of this kind of practice. When Offred can be describing the Commander’s “very expensive” car, she statements that it is ” much better than the chunky, useful Behemoth, inch and elaborates on it is black color when your woman likens this to “the color of prestige or a hearse, and long and sleek” (Atwood 20). Though Offred’s description can be sincere, Atwood’s intentions will be slightly different. Initial, labeling the fancy car as “much better” compared to the practical choice has a cynical connotation that connotes the author’s negative thoughts toward materialism. In addition , evaluating the car into a “hearse” equates this material high-class with loss of life. Furthermore, Atwood uses economical language although describing facets of life that seemingly will not hold materials value. As an example, Offred product labels sanity as a “valuable possession” (Atwood 109). This offer further emphasises my declare that this new is about commodification in its many extreme type because Offred’s tendency to view the intangible concept of state of mind in financial terms shows how over loaded the contemporary society is with capitalist ideology. Offred agrees, speculating that Gileadean society is not about “control” nevertheless about “who can own whom, inches using the concept of ownership, which in turn typically is definitely applied to items instead of people, to affirm the connection among interpersonal associations and overall economy (Atwood 135).

Nonetheless, how does this negative give attention to capitalism relate to gender?

1st, we would become remiss to assume that Atwood spontaneously produced a connection between gender and economy. Actually keeping in mind her quote about the reasonable genesis of the book, we could prove that this kind of socioeconomic relationship is far from a fictional advent. During Ronald Reagans obama administration, “women made-up an increasing percentage of those inside the lowest-paid jobs, and they produced no profits or misplaced ground in the better-paid trades and professions” (Neuman). This was likely the consequence of increased competition for opportunities in an economic climate that was beginning to globalize. Incidentally, the typical consensus is that capitalism as well creates a feeling of entitlement among the list of elites whom are, in Western culture, historically wealthy, white, house owning guys. It is not outlandish to understand just how this feeling of material entitlement could be extended toward people, possibly producing these men truly feel as though they may be just as qualified for do the actual please to women as they are to their improper and elegant cars.

Kristen Billy cites Azizah Al-Hibri who have claims that “men need to dominate females in order to rule out them via production” explaining that “patriarchy results from in a number of desire for immortality” and feelings of “inadequacy” that derive from their incapability to carry kids (Billy 24). However , inside the sociological document “Capitalism as well as the Oppression of Women”, Martha Gimenez argues against the idea that patriarchy is known as a biological imperative of males, insisting that gender inequality is a “structural characteristic of capitalist social formations” that is not sufficiently described through “microfoundations” such as “men’s or women’s intentions” and biology since gender inequality is “the structural a result of a complex network of macro-level processes through which production and reproduction are inextricably connected” (Gimenez 24). This reason coincides with all the novel’s characterization of capitalism as a real estate agent of oppression. Furthermore, this article argues that since a capitalist strategy is unable to provide “full employment and pay to all workersmale and feminine workers have to contend with each other for scarce jobs” (Gimenez 30). This system, subsequently, creates two spheres of occupation. Females are invested in the “sphere of reproductive system labor” since men are unable to reproduce in the same vogue while property owning guys are given the scarce paid out jobs. Essentially, Gimenez is suggesting that in a perfect world by which everyone could obtain job, gender inequality would vanish.

It truly is impossible to discern from just one function of literary works whether or not Atwood herself is usually anti-capitalist or perhaps anti-materialist nevertheless , she unquestionably recognized some of the problems that these types of economic methods created for females. This understanding is exemplified in the new, in which women’s bodies happen to be commodified intended for procreative uses. According to the text, this started, presumably, together with the commodification of sexual pleasure in pre-Gileadean contemporary society, showcased by presence of places just like “Porno-Marts. ” Moreover, in the scenario Atwood presents, virility has become a hard to find resource most likely as a result of these types of commodified intimate practices or environmental destruction. Whatever the cause, infertility grew rampant, supplying the Gileadean regime the impetus to seize electrical power. Since guys control the means of development, fertility becomes another resource that they have mastery over. Nevertheless , although the old-fashioned regime sought to end the less ethical sexual overabundance contemporary America, they even now commodify love-making, further subjugating women. Having children in Gilead is “rationalized, made greatly more efficient, and becomes increasingly more public”part of an integrated social network” (Billy 19). When procreation can be industrialized, the sex/gender system of Gilead is usually reduced to just one official function: reproduction.

In the period before the fertility epidemic, similar to the 1980s, females were being a more crucial part of the workforce and applying reproductive technologies to duplicate without guys, which probably excluded males from the productive and reproductive spheres. This problem is alluded to in one of Offred’s Family games conversations with all the Commander:

“The problem was not only together with the women, he admits that. The main issue was with all the men. There is nothing to them anymore.

“Nothing? inch I say. But they had…

“There was nothing so they can do”, he says.

“They could make money”, I say, slightly nastily¦

“It’s not enough”, he says. “It’s too subjective. I mean there was clearly nothing so they can do with women. inch (Atwood 210)

Consequently , widespread infertility provided men with a method to relegate women to the reproductive sphere, giving the men “something to do” with them, and effectively reducing their competition for success in the capitalist system.

Applying this logic, it would seem as though Atwood is indicating that, beneath capitalism, in order to achieve balance is to subjugate half of the human population. In this fashion, the novel reveals sexism as a important component of capitalism, a radical and terrifying notion, considering the fact that her viewers is composed of persons entrenched in similar- although far less extreme- capitalist communities.

Thank goodness, Atwood gives her viewers with some peace of mind. Return for any moment, to the excerpted dialogue between the Leader and Offred. The Commander wants “something to do” with ladies, not to them or against them. Left beneath the even more prominent components of the book, Atwood posits a possible fix for your problem, love. Inside the Handmaid’s Adventure, love is the force capable to connect women and men independently of production and reproduction. In addition, love may be the only power with the potential to subvert the program of capitalist subjugation since it is the only useful resource that can not be controlled or perhaps purchased.

In part nineteen, Aunt Lydia says that “A thing is definitely valuedonly when it is rare and hard to get. ” This astute observation is a principle that governs economical and sociable relations in the novel. In Gilead, take pleasure in is the simply resource scarcer than male fertility and therefore vehemently sought after. Offred herself ruminates on “falling in love”, observing which the more “difficult” love was your more powerful it seemed, and acknowledging take pleasure in as a word so powerful that it “made flesh” (Atwood 225). In this article, the protagonist is recognizing the power the concept of love features over the human psyche.

This theme is demonstrated primarily through Offred’s relationship with both the Commander and her quite possibly deceased partner. The Leader is a person of the top rank whom enjoys the fruits of capitalism that Gilead provides, such as his previously referred to car wonderful access to unusual items just like hand lotion and journals. He also has access to non-procreative sex, as evinced during Offred’s trip to Jezebel’s. However , although Commander features all that this individual could obtain, he still longs intended for love. This really is revealed during his group meetings with Offred which are in the end about psychological companionship rather than the lewd alternatives that Offred imagines. Rather than asking Offred to perform sexual acts the Leader asks her to play Scrabble with him and to hug him like she “meant it” (Atwood 140). Though she finds it peculiar to start with, Offred uses love like a subversive tool, exploiting the Commander’s desire in exchange to get small benefits like hand lotion and prohibited info on Gilead.

However , the Commander is definitely not the sole character affected by the a shortage of love. Offred often allongé for his passion she knowledgeable about her spouse Luke. In a single of her late night introspections she confesses that the girl wants “to be held” and told her name. She wants to “be valued” in manners that she actually is not, to be “more than valuable” (Atwood 97). Theoretically, Offred is already the most respected commodity in Gileadean society because the girl with a fertile woman, although this estimate implies that Offred wants more than to be valued as a uncommon commodity, the girl wants to be loved.

It may seem odd that Atwood spends a significant slice of her novel conveying Offred’s marriage with Henry, a character that never actually appears. Nevertheless , when juxtaposed with descriptions of Offred’s relationship with the Commander, it evinces the difference between true love and the type of love that can be bought. The Commander efforts to find appreciate with Offred through an economic exchange, however the type of take pleasure in he’s trying to find, the type that Offred experienced with Henry, is important. This is further more emphasised within a particular explanation of Offred and Luke’s relationship:

Henry and I used to walk together, sometimes, along these roads. We used to talk about purchasing a house just like one of these, an old big house, correcting it up. We might have a garden, shots for the youngsters. We would have children. Even though we knew it wasnt too likely we could at any time afford it, it was some thing to talk about, a game title for Sundays.

This kind of freedom right now seems almost weightless.

(Atwood 120)

Gimenez insists that men and women require each other for purposes of procreation, and this potential can be controlled simply by economic factors. Though it “wasn’t also likely” that Offred and Luke could afford the materials markers of any family unit, ie: (a big house, “swings for the children”) their particular economic inabilities do not infringe on their joy and do not minimize their connect. Moreover, it is crucial to give awareness of the connotation of the expression “weightless. inch Perhaps Atwood uses this word to describe Offred’s independence because her freedom can be intangible, particularly when compared with her discussion of the tangible things she and Luke wasn’t able to afford. This connotes to the reader that it can be not the material luxuries that Offred ideals even though these were the subject of her conversation with Luke. Rather, she ideals the freedom of discussion and the closeness she distributed to her husband. Furthermore, they are doing eventually include a child inspite of these monetary difficulties, displaying that the wish to procreate out of love supersedes economic limitations.

Still, one could argue that even Offred’s relationship with Luke is affected by economical factors and this Offred intimates that her husband stocks and shares the qualities of additional repressive men. In this case, their relationship would not represent the pure, unsullied love which i have been conveying. This alternative view of Offred’s romance with Lomaz is best provided when Offred loses her job. Lomaz attempts to comfort Offred, saying that “it’s only a job” and will “always take care” of her. Initially, Offred thinks that he is patronizing her but changes her mind, acknowledging that she actually is “starting to get paranoid” (Atwood 179). Nevertheless, this kind of example truly does reveal any issue with disagreement this task has offered in favor of true love. Moreover, if Luke demonstrates behavior that perpetuates the ideals of the “patriarchy”, this example dissembles claims that Atwood can be not blaming men like a gender for creating and allowing this horrific society. However , when browsing the above excerpt, it is prudent to keep in mind the novel’s rule, “context is. ” Luke’s behavior appears patriarchal in the context from the sexist capitalist system which includes rendered his wife unemployed. Under distinct circumstances, his promise to “take treatment of” his wife probably would not have this sort of a negative connotation and Offred herself knows this when ever she recognizes her individual paranoia.

In a hyper-capitalist society just like Gilead, what cannot be commodified retains one of the most value in addition to this case that may be love, particularly the love distributed between a male and a lady. Atwood portrays heterosexual appreciate as humanity’s most good-hearted and at the same time subversive property. For this reason, it truly is impossible to state that Atwood “blames” the biological imperatives of males for her dystopian vision because she includes them as a necessary area of the solution. This book is much more worried about presenting a society by which capitalism provides run amuck and human beings are commodified than it truly is with the “patriarchy. ” Hence we return to the original query of authorities and viewers alike:

May be the Handmaid’s Experience a feminist text?

In line with the author’s personal definition the solution is affirmative. This kind of text helps bring about a perception in the “rights of women”, particularly females disadvantaged by the sexism natural in capitalism and it can do so with no “blaming” or perhaps excluding you gender. It promotes the rights girls have to believe, to learn, to have, and especially to love the two themselves plus the male receivers of their love. Perhaps this can be a most feminist claim a person will certainly make, to endorse for a upcoming in which a woman does not need a guy for success or social utility but still retains the privilege to love become loved in return and to certainly not feel eligible for anybody but each other.

Works Cited

Billy, Kristen. “I I AM A NATURAL RESOURCE”: THE ECONOMY OF COMMODIFICATION IN ATWOOD’S THE HANDMAID’S ADVENTURE. TCNJ Diary of Student Scholarship 13 (2011): 1-6. The College of New Jersey. Internet. &lt, http://joss. pages. tcnj. edu/files/2012/04/2011-Billy. pdf&gt,.

Ehrenreich, Barabara. Feminisms Phantoms. The New Republic 194. 11 (1986): 33. Produce.

Collins, Jim. Made to Flip. Jim Collins. one particular Mar. 2000. Web. twenty-four Apr. 2015. &lt, http://www. jimcollins. com/article_topics/articles/built-to-flip. html&gt,.

Magro, Karen. Gender Issues: Revisiting Margaret Atwoods The Handmaids Story and The Penelopiad through the Zoom lens of Social Justice. Records On American Literature 22 (2013): 20-28. Print.

Neuman, S i9000. C. (Shirley C. ). Just A Backlash: Margaret Atwood, Feminism, Plus the Handmaids Adventure. University of Toronto Quarterly 75. three or more (2006): 857-68. University of Toronto Press. Web. 24 Apr. 2015. &lt, http://muse. jhu. edu/journals/university_of_toronto_quarterly/v075/75. 3neuman. pdf&gt

Gimenez, Martha E. Capitalism And The Oppression Of Women: Marx Revisited. Research Society 69. 1 (2005): 11-32. Guilford Publications. Web. 24 Monthly interest. 2015. &lt, http://academic. evergreen. edu/curricular/pesm/marx and feminism. pdf&gt,.