Books like 1984 and “Handmaids Tale” are attempts at what I call “self-negating prophecy”, written in the hope of preventing the very scenario they describe. It is a case of “see the end, resist the beginning.”
Yes, it does seem extreme, but we all know the analogy of the boiling frog.
President Ted Cruz would be the first step to that.
I have not read “The Handmaids Tale” or seen the show I have only read reviews of the book and the TV shows but I think i have the jist.
Big picture “plausible” no, but at the same time I don’t think people appreciate what a knife’s edge the human rights we take for granted sit upon. Until fairly recently historically many people were serfs, slaves or some form of chattel so it’s not like a society of breeding slaves is operationally out of the question if the means existed to enforce that scenario.
Beyond this look to the outlier Mormon groups on compounds and how aggressively and violently the men with multiple wives exercise their control of the available supply of women to the point of throwing young boys out of the family when they are old enough to procreate, and expelling, beating and even killing men who are rivals for the supply of women. And this is here in the US not in the Congo.
The rights we take for granted are only ours to the extent we can support and defend them. Hypothetically if women who can bear children become a rare commodity that is mission critical for human survival the power of that ability is going to warp normal social functioning and relationhips. It may not be a “Handmaids Tale” scenario but things will change.
On one hand, the population is becoming less devout (I hear). Strike against plausibility.
On the other hand, strict enforcement of traditional sexual morality doesn’t necessarily need a religious justification. Does it? It seems to me that it can stem from other kinds of worldviews (including plain old cruelty).
PS: I ran across a short story, “ILU 486,” some time ago. Short story: ILU-486 | Panda-monium It’s an interesting companion to THT. More optimistic and action-packed. (Also set in a world closer to ours.)
Do you think that Orwell thought Animal Farm was actually going to happen, that animals were going to develop speech and then authoritarianism?
I do think that the Christian right is the greatest threat to America and has been for decades. The Christian right is why we are not addressing climate change, it is why we are falling behind in education and it is a tool of oppression for women. It is why we have are able to have a white supremacist attorney general who supports suppression of black voting and why we have Donald Trump in the White House.
The question isn’t will America ever become a theocracy, it is how much longer must we live in our current theocracy.
But the thing is: the frog actually does jump out of the water before it gets too hot. It’s not a good analogy, because it’s factually incorrect.
I do have to admit, however, that I find the central premise of A Handmaid’s Tale absurd, I simply cannot imagine an America where religious conservative men dictate to women about when and if they choose to reproduce. What’s next? That we would let the Christian right determine who could get married?
No, it’s ludicrous in just about every possible way.
One thing the “sure, it can happen” side is not taking into account is that there are 2 premises in the book, not just one. The RR takes over after there is a cataclysmic event that turns most (all?) men sterile. It’s not clear that MA is saying the first part can happen without the second part.
It’s been a while since I’ve read the book, but:
It’s been what, only 100 years since women were allowed to vote in the US? Only 150 years since slavery was legal. About the same time, women were just barely getting the right to actually own property (but not necessarily control it) in the United States. Religious groups are still doing their damnedest to control other people’s reproductive rights in the US.
Pendulums can swing and there are always groups trying to take rights away from other groups. So yeah, not likely, but plausible based on human history? You bet.
You think I created a straw man, then compare Game of Thrones to Handmaid’s Tale???
George RR Martin is writing fiction. Period. It’s neither history nor a prediction.
Atwood was plainly writing a dystopia based on fears of Christian fundamentalism in the USA.
Amusing sidebar; Apparently, Elizabeth Moss (Offred) is a Scientologist so she’s presumably got a lot of material to draw from when playing the victim of a crazy religious cult 
I nominate this for Durpiest Post of the Month.
Are you under the impression that Atwood is claiming her novel isn’t fiction? Again, do you think that Orwell thought the rise of sentient authoritarian farm animals was a real possibility? You don’t really “get” fiction that doesn’t include wizards, do you?
Not probable, in my view, but as any good dystopian story, it shows us how we should move our society–in the direction of “impossible” rather than “probable.”
It’s already been noted that all the basic tools – chattel slavery, male control over the woman’s reproductive cycle, male control over women’s property, encroachment of religious politics into secular society to justify all of the above – are real. In fact, none of them is without current advocates.
By the way, what does the OP want religious conservatism to do with 0.0001% or more of the power Atwood ascribes to them in her book?
I would like to see this question as a poll, divided by gender lines. As a woman, I find the scenario totally plausible.
I wonder what the same people who say Handmaid’s Tale is “Frighteningly Plausible” would say about all those bad fiction books where America becomes a Communist/Socialist dictatorship overnight.
I mean if you look at some of the craziest rhetoric coming from the Anti-Trump camp (“White Men shouldn’t have the right to Vote” or “Gun Owners should all be declared Terrorists”) you can make a really dumb book where that kind of far left revolution occurs and becomes a crazy perpetual “Cultural Revolution” thinking state.
You can’t blame her for that. Science Fiction doesn’t pay as well. Speculative Fiction is code for: yes, but I’m still literary.
Nice little strawman you’ve got there. Who’s saying the bolded part, except maybe in jest or frustration? 
Or as part of a hoax? Oh, and look who’s wringing their hands and having the vapors about the hoax: Breitbart, Daily Caller, Fox “News”, "Info"wars, etc. :rolleyes:
I think the natural divide would be along political lines rather than gender lines.