Slavewomen are a bit overdressed and wives underdressed for what happened in real life though. Typically it was the High status women who got to wear acres of clothing and headcovering. The slaves made do with whatever master thought was appropriate.
The clothing is based on what was worn in the are in which the book is set, back when there were white slaves (oh, excuse me, indentured servants) in the area.
I suspect slaves in Scandinavia or Russia, while not what one would call “well-dressed”, did get enough clothes to keep warm. Only a stupid master wastes valuable property.
I believe that personal insults belong in the pit. If you’d like to take me there, I have some comments on you.
I would point out that in Indiana, women seeking an abortion are encouraged by the state to talk to a clergy member before doing so. Why on earth is the government of Indiana advocating that women talk to a clergy member?
There will never be a president in my lifetime who does not profess to be a Christian and politicians regularly use their Christian faith as an excuse to oppose all kinds of things from abortion, to gay marriage, to gay couples being allowed to adopt.
Calling me names doesn’t change those fact.
( this was posted a few pages back, the comment was about Mike Pence refusing to eat alone with a woman other than Karen Pence.)
Yes, because women do provocative things while eating like opening their mouths and putting things in it … it’s the devils work and how could any man be expected to maintain his control.
It’s the same philosophy that drives the treatment of women in Saudi Arabia --the idea that a glimpse of hair or the sound of high heels clicking on the floor will tempt men beyond resistance. And the latest is that Saudi women can’t wear over the shoulder seat belts because of the way the define the breasts. Really.
I thought the idea was, he’s not concerned about impropriety; he’s concerned about the appearance of impropriety. That he doesn’t want to pitch himself to the public as some lust-filled maniac barely kept in check by a watchful minder; he wants to pitch himself as a serious-minded man who sensibly wants to avoid being accused of having taken liberties with some attractive young woman he was alone with.
Granted, you can criticize that philosophy, too – but it’s a different philosophy.
Yes. What’s the difference between Mike Pence and strict Saudi men? Not a damn thing.
I’ll just point out here that Mike Pence used to be governor of Indiana…
Yup. Also the home of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. Religious Freedom Restoration Act (Indiana) - Wikipedia
It depends what we mean by implausible. Implausible that we get there from here? Yes. Implausible that we would get there if the circumstances changed? No.
There are men on this board who have said that if there were a major population collapse, imprisoning and raping fertile women in order to force them to reproduce would be justified. So I don’t find a book that takes the body of that concept and dresses it up in a fictional garment would be implausible, given the right circumstances.
Pretty much all dystopian futures - A Handmaid’s Tale, 1984, Brave New World, Fahrenheit 451, Harrison Bergeron, Soylant Green, The Hunger Games are actually pretty silly. They usually take one or a couple of aspects of our culture or modern problems we are concerned about, then extrapolates them to their logical absurdity.
Which men?
Although, what the hell was that…ceremony I just saw in the first episode. It gave a whole new term to the meaning mechanical sex. Hell could scarcely be worse. :eek:
Ah, finally, this one is available at my local library and I have ordered it. I’ll let you know how plausible I think it is.
Wait - what? Link?
I find it so plausible that I had to shut off the show after 20 minutes. I read the novel 30 years ago, but now it seems too real, too plausible to enjoy as entertainment.
Especially when we have examples of this kind of thing happening in recent history—comfort women for Japanese soldiers and breeding stock for the Nazi Aryan programs.
It’s not the specific fix detail of the story’s fictional history that is plausible, but the general outlines definitely. The last few years have shown us that our culture and civilization are on a razor’s edge. One by one political and societal norms are being disregarded, whether it’s the acceptability of vile racist and sexist speech in public or the refusal to allow a sitting president to fill a Supreme Court vacancy.
It’s too real, too possible. Too close for comfort.
Lordy. Hmm. I’m not sure how easily I can find it, given I can’t remember a title or a year. I’ll try to look tonight, but if it’s ringing a bell for anyone else, please let me know. I think there were a couple of threads all spinning off on various topics.
I meant to say “after his second election,” but I wasn’t fully awake, and then I missed the edit window.
Others have mentioned this, but I think it is worth emphasizing that the backstory of The Handmaid’s Tale did involve major changes in circumstances. It’s not a story about extreme fundamentalists running things in the US as we know it today (or in 1985), and the “Sons of Jacob” do not gain control through the usual American electoral process. It takes an environmental/public health crisis plus an attack on DC that kills the President and most of Congress before this faction is able to seize power.
There is a thread in the pit right now about a NH politician who started an incredibly misogynistic Reddit sub thread.
It does throw a different light on “Does Your Mother Know?”
Well, I’ll cop to admitting that my currently full-blown pro-choice-to-the-last-minute views may be subject to rethinking in the event of a human-extinction crisis.
I don’t think I mentioned “imprisoning and raping”, though I also have vague memories of “men on this board” who’ve said any restrictions on abortion were tantamount to imprisonment and rape.