The Handmaid's Tale: A story of non-consensual female sacrifice and the "auto-cannabilism" of a society

      The Republic of Gilead is a dystopian society built on traditional Christian and patriarchal views of female sacrifice. While women are treated explicitly as"two-legged wombs" or "ambulatory chalices" as a result of this new structure, I still think it would be too simplistic to blame this treatment entirely on the totalitarian spreading of a thousands year old faith. Rather, I think this is the result of an attitude held by the powerful few, a shallow and flimsy belief in the morality of sacrifice in the name of the "greater good." In the face of a man-made ecological meltdown, the few powerful cling will to any ideology that supports their selfish wish to remain unscathed upon the sacrificed back of others. 

       In The Handmaid's Tale, the over arching conflict is the ubiquitous pollution that has taken over much of the United States. While the pollution is straight up killing people, the greatest risk to the United States is that it is rendering most of the population, men and women, sterile and very unfit to carry life should they conceive. While this is a disastrous setting, it is really not mentioned very much, it is mainly just the vehicle to prove a point about how readily corruption takes advantage of people's fear and weaknesses. Because of a multitude of different factors, a return to ultra-christian conservatism, xenophobia, and fear-mongering propaganda, a new order rises to full power under a violent regime nearly overnight. Under the justification of the biblical story of Bilah and Jacob, all fertile women of childbearing age are herded together and forced to bear children for the powerful Commanders who run the new order and their wives. 

    This book is decidedly feminist and unflinchingly shows the unceasing injustices the women face under the fully patriarchal society, such as revoking of property and money, sexual assault, domestic abuse, loss of control over their bodies, and objectification. This book still remains largely, in my eyes, a warning to all how willingly absolute power will oppress the "others" if they do not remain vigilant. In the pre-Gilead government, women are still "otherized." Very similar to our own Democratic American government, it is run almost entirely by white men, yet most women are so complacent in their liberties to really notice as they begin to be silently infringed upon. Offred, the main character and handmaid in this book, was one of these women. She was often irritated by her mother and her best friend who were strongly outspoken feminists, who participated in protests and the like. I guess she found their crusade to be a little ridiculous given their current standard of living as "modern" women. But that is Margaret Atwood's warning to women, even just people who the government or powerful men may want to use for their own selfish benefit;"Nolite te bastardes carborundorum" is the anthem of this novel. It means "don't let the bastards grind you down", it's a message to remain vigilant of those who would prefer that you don't have freedom or humanity for their benefit. When anyone's philosophy is that the greater good is not always better for everyone, you've found the wolf in sheep's clothing. 
           This is a wake up call for the modern western women to recognize their legacy of forced silence in the face of their oppression, and how easily the time can be turned back. Margaret Atwood makes the point of how easy it was for the new government to enforce themselves upon women. The credit card companies simply shut off their accounts, the property Act is quickly reversed, and women are outlawed from being able to work all in a matter of weeks. The visage that women have any support from the government or the mob is quickly destroyed. Young women are now the "sacrificial lamb" to solve the problem of low birth rate all. But is it really sacrifice? No, it is "auto-cannibalism" of a society. These women are given the complete responsibility to carry on a generation, while at the same time being punished if they do not conceive (Do you think Rachael ever asked Jacob if he was sterile?) These women do not have the liberty to speak their mind under the threat of death from "the eye," how can a sacrifice be a sacrifice if it is not willing; even god-willed sacrifice in the bible has the component of human choice. Auto-cannibalism is when a society eats itself whole by suppressing those who could be used as a commodity for their own greed. In the Handmaid's tale, the commanders use the bodies of their citizens in what ever way they want, they are the stone bricks of the power structures. They are used as disposable wombs, pollution clean up, soldiers, and sexual provocations. This is why the only true sacrifice in this story is by the Offred that lived in the house before the Offred that tells us the The Handmaid's Tale. She is the one who carved the word "Nolite te bastardes carborundorum" into the closet wall for our Offred to see them. Yes, she killed herself, but under the inevitable pretense that the government would kill her when it was decided she could no longer conceive. Not only does this act of resistance act as a symbol to Offred, but it also rocks the commander to his core and gives him that weakness of guilt that our Offred does the best to exploit in the name of the "Mayday" resistance.

Why Margaret Atwood's "A Handmaid's Tale" is more disturbing in ways the 'Blood Child' could never compare.

     While I am not incredibly far into A Handmaid's Tale, I still have a good idea of the themes within this book from public knowledge, and some internet articles. So far, what I am seeing is that the world that Offred lives in is just a condensed version of the many horrors that women have faced at the hand of an oppressive patriarchal society, both past in present. In fact, Margaret Atwood meant that to be the case. The Handmaid's tale is different from most other science fiction or speculative fiction novels, because everything within it is possible with our current state of humanity and technology. Bloodchild is disturbing in it's easy comparison to sexual assault and slavery, but it is more removed from our reality in comparison to The Handmaid's Tale in it's alien-ness. This novel is the horror story to the modern American women who enjoys her freedoms, but at the same time realizes their fragility and how easy the can be taken away, especially in a digital age where bank accounts can be erased, or in a time when legislation limiting women's reproductive freedom is far from universally contested.
          While Margaret Atwood, is definitely not a person who usually supports the men and how they treat women in and outside this novel, she is also wise to make the point that the oppression of equality for women can also be perpetuated by the female gender. As a women in this modern age, it can be so frustrating to see other women whole heatedly spiting each other, whether it be for religiosity, political gain in a man's world, or simple jealousy. In this story, Atwood shows us a societal system made by men to hinder women of all statues, largely by turning them against one another and separating them into conflicting castes; it is it historical tale as old as time. While there are different allowances for each type of women, even the women who let the power and jealousy go to their head, the one thing they all have in common is that their existence is on the terms of a man or many men.
         The themes, such as oppression, sexual assault, and slavery, are similar between the two stories. One deals in a more abstract, gory version of these themes, while the Handmaid's tale is hauntingly more relateable to the modern day woman.

Battle Star Galactica (Can you imagine if other sci-fi shows were as well funded up to this point?)

      If there's one thing I can say about Battle Star Galactica, it's that it finally proved to general audiences just how sophisticated motion picture Sci-Fi could be. In a time when Marvel movies, Star Wars, and other Interstellar craziness are some of the highest grossing films out there, there is certainly a lot to be thankful for (especially for those who had been watching low budget space operas from day 1). Without overly clunky CGI or hilarous special effects weighing down the production, Battle Star Galactica was free to tell it's intelligent and dramatic post-apocalyptic epic without any sniggering from the back (ok, and if there is some it's due to the cheesy relationship between Gaius and Cylon model number 6). With the freedom of post-production, we are able to easily show the expert maneuvering of Starbuck, the quick space hopping of the Battle Star Galactica, and the sinister gleam of the metal Cylons.
    Because I did read the wiki, I'm acquainted with the huge story arc of this show. I really think that due to the fact that this show was not limited to the ship's bridge, 2 or 3 other rooms, a cheap green screen, and the desert outside of L.A, the show is really able to go all out and pull out all of the stops. I love how this show does not focus on "world building" like many other sci-fi(s) (which would be pretty difficult anyways because the way this series started anyways); instead it focuses more on many anthropogenesises. It is really like getting to fully understand what it is to be human, by observing conflicts between the races and learning about their origins (through heavy action). I also think that it was a very wise move on the part of the show runner to make the pilot of the show be a 2 hour long special. If the story of the pilot was told in 3 or 4 episode, there would be a lot of filler in the effort to give each episode a conclusion, and as a result less excitment and empathy towards the new characters.
All in all, Battlestar Galactica is an intelligent and complicated sci-fi show that won't have you snoring through the credits.

Dumpy ships, Robinhood's Merry Band, and Fringe society - is it as glorious as it sounds?

      For a show that focuses so heavily on the libertarian ideals, of free will in political, monetary, and social spheres, it made a bit of a humbling criticism of renegade culture. Jayne the obvious stand out in this episode proves how the legend of the civilian hero, is more of a myth, an important myth at that, but based more on hope and expectations than reality.
    It's seems reasonable that an oppressed and destitute community, much like the serfs throughout much of medieval history, would be happy to believe in a "robin hood" character - a person who gives to the poor and takes from the rich based on nothing but integrity and morals, with little regard for personal safety or necessity. Firefly sheds and realistic light on this idealistic archetype, and shows that this person does not exist, want and greed are universal. Even though Jayne is essentially a fraud, the show uses a softer tone to show how, even just a story is enough to keep a hope going for a people in distress.
      Firefly doesn't completely trash on the Robinhood story, in fact it still very much fancies it. With it's use of a mostly provincial crew and run down ship it creates an endearing image of a mostly good crew of citizen heroes. Firefly likes the idea of a libertarian society, but also is willing to cater to the idea that even that would not be a utopia - people are still greedy and insecure, regardless of power structure.
    

Yo where the Nadias at!?.. and other issues with an over philosophized political climate in the face of critical issues.

    It's news to most people over the age of 7 (sadly) that the world has a lot of problems that we are forced to deal with, albeit many of them are conflated non-issues, but there are usually no easy solutions. In an era where many of our most impactful issues are attempted to be resolved through hypothetical debate and deliberation in order to find the "right" solution, "Nadias" are as rare as ever. "Nadias" don't spend too much time wondering what the easiest course of action is, they instead focus on finding and putting a solution into action.
    When a person is drowning, they don't usually think about designing a new Eco-friendly scuba device, usually they are focused on figuring out which way the bubbles are going; maybe afterwards they'll devise a sustainable and hardy flotation device. "Nadias" are just people who apply that basic logic to the real world, which is easier said then done. A "Nadias" true strength lies in their ability to look past extraneous details and instead evaluate a situation in realistic and modifiable terms.
      This does not go to say that we don't need earth shatter-ers like Arkady or legendary inspiring figures like John, just to say that a healthy balance will never be achieved for society if progress relies solely on a battle of ideologies. Nadia shows that work and progress can still be done during times of non-harmony - stalemate or even revolution.
     By focusing heavily on characterization, for characters such as Nadia, Robinson finely evaluates the underpinnings of human cultures and civilizations, as each character represents certain parts of a functioning (and non-functioning society). Robinson never admits to his fictional society becoming a Utopia, more that it is a society that is chronically striving to not be a dystopia. A society is a continuously adapting thing that requires maintenance from all sorts of people, "Nadias" included, and there is no piece of paper, no matter how well written, that will solve all future and current issues. They say a society is only as good as the people within it, if by good they mean full of integrity and well intentions, then by all means I agree.  

What is the important similarity between Captain Jean Picard, Christopher Columbus, and the BOOOOOORRRGGG??

      Hint: They're all pasty white guys!! (I'm only kind of kidding). After putting that thought aside, we can see that the obvious similarity is that the are all men of conquest, with that being the case, the real question is why do we generally have such extremely different impressions of each of them? What makes a "good" or "bad" conquistador?
     I think many people would be inclined to say how they treat the land and people on which they arrived, is the defining factor in deciding if they are moral or amoral. I rather, would suggest that it is actually the adventurers motive or mondus operandi, or at least the one that they proclaim, that shifts our perception of that person and possibly even turn a blind eye to their less humane actions. People live vicariously through stories of adventure and like to identify with the main character, so we like a story with a main character with a motive we can aspire to; "To go where no man has gone before", "To discover the New World", but "Resistance is Futile"?, not so much. Because of our bias, we would rather chalk up mortality at the hands of a conqueror we "like", or maybe just their carelessness as just symptom of adventure, than instead destroy our perfectillusion of grandeur, especially if that conqueror is from our direct history.
     In the case of Christopher Columbus many American people will put aside the genocide he committed in their mind as to not destroy the romantic vision of "the Discoverer" and effectively themselves, it's borderline narcissistic. I'm in no way saying that Picard has a similar moral compass to Columbus, just a similar motto. For the same reason that we look past Colombus's atrocities, we look past Picards shortcomings, even if they are partly due to some kind of Butterfly effect. He used his confidence to explore as a way to pick up alot of responsibility, that viewers sometimes let him shed when something goes wrong. For example, because of how Picard handles Q and the Borg, thousands of people die in battle. At the very least, Picard is not mindless, we are just apt to look over the messiness and dark side that inevitably come along with having the drastic influence of leading a civilization to new explorations.
             I think what is most distressing about the Borg, besides the fact that they kill entire species, is that they don't seem to have any heroic motive, at least not from the human perspective. They seem to have a mindless appetite for over consumption and destruction. It doesn't make sense to us, they seem like viruses; why would they even bother with conquest? How can we logically reason with or make sense of a race that's motive is not "self-improvement" or adventure. It is scary to think that a species could erase something so immense like an entire species with out any passion, even if it is nefarious, how do we as humans wrap our heads around it?

Why I love Octavia Butler's Writing style and how she conquers sensitive topic with it.....also a random thing about the femal victim role in sci fi.

    Octavia Butler is already so wildly celebrated and recognized, but that won't stop me from doing the same :). I found her writing to be refreshing and flowing; no info dumps, pretentious science explanations that sound like a 12 year old boy wrote it, just pure narrative from a fictional source that is actually experiencing whatever strange new world Octavia drops us into.

    Needless to say, Octavia Butler is into some WEIRD stuff, but in my eyes that's not exactly a deterrent. Her work turns things that could easily be considered campy or simply gross into something interesting and thought provoking, but that's because she digs DEEP and gives every detail of the story special attention and care - but really that's all you need to make any story worth reading.

I think that is what made the first story we read in class so sophisticated - I say while still being mindful of it's terribly disturbing aspects (it would be pretty hard for Butler to downplay those traits anyways). The truth is the weird sexual/farming slavery of humans by aliens is super interesting, and maybe just as plausible as one of the common alien invasion tropes. Besides, the characterization of all of the humans and aliens is incredible, the interpersonal social aspects of post invasion world is not something I had really considered before ( I kind of assumed we'd be mostly dead). I think this story also drew some strong real-life parallels of slavery, abuse, and Stockholm syndrome. Honestly, the way she wrote for the main alien almost made me understand it's side, ALMOST. (did I almost get Stockholm syndromes by Butler?). This story also made me think a lot about how we treat the animals we use for food, clothing, etc. Even in the case of the aliens being superior to humans (as many assume we are to animals), everything they do to the humans seem incredibly wrong; it's even more sickening when you think about how we violate animals in just as inhumane ways (Maybe we don't try to use them to grow our parasitic offspring, but we still do some terrible things that we try to justify.) Overall the power dynamic between the alien and her human is totally disconcerting, it would almost be easier to understand if she was just overtly physically abusive, and did not act as some kind of family member.
          And now for the last little bit that I kind of built up in the title. What I found completely interesting was how I perceived the protagonist, the stereotypical victim character to be female, even thought he was overtly defined as male. While I don't like the fact that I subconsciously assumed that, I think Butler may intentionally written the main character as a doted on, but raped and manipulated young person, in order to make the statement that we are biased to assume that a victim is female, for good or bad reason I'm not sure.