thank you :) glad you liked it

thanks so much, really appreciate that :)

Glad to hear that!

thanks so much, I appreciate that :)

I do mention the intersectionality of the oppression in Gilead. Some are oppressed to a greater extent than others, while some may be oppressed, but also play a role in oppressing others. It's not equally oppressive by any means.

​@@mcgregorhumanities As I said, Gilead oppresses _everyone._ In the book, blacks and Jews simply were dumped in the Atlantic, whereas handmaids got three hots and a cot, so you're right about the lack of fairness when Gilead doles out the ol' oppression.

@@RideAcrossTheRiverin the film there are plenty of references to people who would rather die. Or to people whose skin colour, religion and sexual orientation did not matter as long as they had functioning ovaries.

@@crochetomania The 1989 film is a faithful adaptation of the book. The recent 2010s streaming-service series is a drastically hipster-bowdlerized version of the book. In the book and film, whole demographics are simply dumped in the ocean.

@@RideAcrossTheRiverhandmaids were used to repopulate gilead but were otherwise considered useless ... not really that much better, theyre only being fed and being given beds to maximize chances of reproduction

Thank you so much for your questions! 1. I don’t think there’s a strict way to calculate who has more power when it comes to the wives and the aunts, but my first instinct was to consider the wives higher than the aunts just simply because of their proximity to the commanders. I think the system of Gilead is designed in such a way that it gives preference to the wives, and the aunts are thus subjugated to the wives in some way. However, I definitely think the aunts could be considered to have more power in terms of their role in the system and, like you said, the way exceptions are made for them. It really depends on the angle you look at it I guess. I think perhaps it was a little too simplistic for me to put them into a linear hierarchy, because the system is far too complex and contingent than that. 2. Honestly I think there can be religious people who don’t use religion as a means of oppression, or those who don’t use it to justify bigotry against women or, for example, homosexual people. But after truly carefully reading the things in the bible and the torah, (I can’t say much about the quaran since I haven’t read it thoroughly yet), I think it is safe to say that religion, or at least abrahamic religions, are inherently oppressive. That is not to say that, if there is a god, it is necessarily an oppressive figure by nature (I don’t know if we would ever be able to know that). I am just certain that man-written holy books contain oppressive scripture, and that many oppressive regimes of power have borrowed these ideas to dictate their oppression of others. I also fully believe that holy books are a product of their time, and they were written in a time where women were actively being oppressed, often more violently than now. And I suspect that holy books were strategically written to reinforce the narrative that women should be subordinate to men, etc. So I think, yes, religion (as created and organised by man) is inherently oppressive.

@@mcgregorhumanities Thank you so so much for your response! It is definitely very insightful and helpful to me studying the Handmaid’s Tale ❤

They remind me of nuns, who years ago, were the only women allowed an education, or a career, but had to give up marriage and live a life of celibacy. In Italy, probably other places, the only other women allowed education were courtesans, high class prostitutes. Everyone else had to get married and have kids.

The world needs More of you!!!😊

@@joanna4289 Trust me, it really does.

whats more horrific if that, famously, margaret atwood hasnt written anything that hasnt happened to groups of people in the past. this kind of oppression exists right now, in different places, on the daily, far away from the eyes of people consuming the media about it

Please read the book

Those sorts of people are going to wind up like Serina, who thought she'd be immune, then found out she wasn't. " It can't happen to me" Yes, it can, and it will. Ignore it at your peril.

I am, my username is @mcgregorism on tiktok and @mcgregorist on instagram :) and yes you can repost

Sure!

handmaids aren't an example of oppressors, they are right at the bottom of the hierarchical structure. they have the least power out of everyone in the system

@@mcgregorhumanities hahaha well then I'm really dumb! What did you say tho about oppressors and oppressed? Did my mind really understand something you didn't even say?

It absolutely is a reality for many women around the world. Everything in this book has happened in some form.

@@mcgregorhumanities I can see it being a reality in the middle east for sure.

@@The_D_Man Of course, that is where it is most explicit and overt, but there are traces of it everywhere. It is not limited to the middle east, or the south. It is a global phenomenon that is even present in the west, even though some people would like to think of the west as more progressive and forward than other regions.

1. A book/series detailing a fight against the systematic rape of women is not what I would generally term “woke”, I don’t think that does the story justice at all. 2. The main theme is more about fighting against the use of religion to oppress women. There is no denying that Abrahamic religions contain elements of misogyny and calls for women to be subordinate to men. There is no question about that. In terms of the denigration of religion, Atwood’s intention is not to show that Christianity is “bad”, but rather to show how religion is a dangerous tool in the hands of power. 3. Aggressive oppression against women requires very aggressive feminism in response. In my opinion, the aggression in the revolt of the handmaids was not even as intense as it could have been. You cannot expect their violent oppression and subjugation to be met with gentle acceptance. 4. Simply showing a portrayal of a lesbian couple is not a glorification of lesbianism. And what if it was? Heterosexuality has been the norm for long enough. 5. If watching or reading literature with these kinds of themes turns you into an enemy of female liberation and closer to the ideals promoted by people with the same mindset as those of Gilead, that’s your choice, but it is a scary one.

A man speaks! Every women drop what you're doing and listen to this blessing!

@@kwiiin_ No, they'd rather go shopping.

@@grasonicus Behold! He has spoken, and thus patriarchy, rape culture, sex based discrimination and more are BOOM gone! I hope us women will continue to work, leave women hating religions, preach lesbianism and childfreeness until the last man realizes we are not their property. You're not sane enough to vote buddy, get off the internet.

No.

Big time cuckkk energy.

Hell no!

okay...

Wow really coming at her with the hard hitting issues huh 🤣 ... Typical tactic (to belittle a woman) if you're not articulate enough to address the true substance of her argument.

Would you like to take a minute to think about what you just said?

I don't believe that he can.

Only high ranking men are issued women by the government. Right wing men miss this fact in their Handmaid fetish. Most men are completely left out. Working class men do NOT get issued a woman from the government. They are executed if they try to seek out a woman. Working class men are forced to be celibate, working class men (the majority of men) have zero access to women. Working class men wash the higher ranking men's cars & run errands for them & have eternal blue balls. There is a strict hierarchy - both the men and the women are cogs in that caste system. Right wing men jerk themselves off over this, expecting that only the women are oppressed and all the men are treated like kings. It sucks for 99% of the men as well. I would not expect a right wing man to actually read an entire book, so it's no surprise when right wing men don't know this shit. If they did read, they wouldn't be so stupid and thusly they wouldn't be right wingers any more.