![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
wingedbeastI started this deconstruction with a side-project of examining ways that things would be different if the diverging timeline didn't happen during the 80s, when this book was written, but instead now. This chapter is the reason why, or at least a concept I now know was in this specific chapter.
Most of this chapter is flashback to an event in Offred's childhood in America. Her feminist mother took her to a public burning of pornography. She was even given a magazine to throw into the fire, but was too young to know what the pictures were and letting her actually see the pictures was a mistake quickly remedied. But, it was an incident of what was, at the time of the writing, a point of agreement between two unlikely allies.
One ally was, of course, the feminists. They (not all, of course) viewed pornography as essentially disrespectful and objectifying of women. It's worthy of note that they weren't as far off as all that. The culture at the time treated men as default (more so than today, I mean) and treated men as the only consumers of pornography. So, all pornography being built upon fantasy, the fantasies were aimed to men and, yes, were objectifying of women. More on this in a bit.
The other ally was conservative Christians. They viewed pornography as immoral sex, at least akin to premarital or extramarital sex. Or at least that was the stated reason. I'm of a less generous frame of mind when it comes to giving them the presumption of good faith as I've experience with a great deal of bad faith coming from those who both claim ownership of and then defend "the faith".
Another way of describing it would be that pornography was a socially acceptable power-grab, a way of taking a grab for power and dressing it up as defending morality. Towards that end, they would believe whatever they had to believe, including such notions as pornography leading to rape and murder.
In the real world, they were willing to believe Ted Bundy's claims that pornography led him to being a serial killer. In exchange for him saying that, they granted him audience and credibility... These were effectively toys for him to play with up until his execution.
As a note of how credible the word of a serial killer is versus how ready the religious right was willing to take that word, I'll bring up David Berkowitz (AKA Son of Sam). He'd gotten the nickname of "Son of Sam" by writing a letter in which he blamed his killings on being told to do so by the dog next door. When interviewed by the profilers who would eventually begin the profiling department, he quickly admitted that no such thing happened, laughing about it. Decades later, he would go on the 700 Club and blame his killings on demons, a move that would get him money and the attention and credibility of the 700 Club audience.
In short, they believed what it took to believe in order to believe what they wanted to believe. And, they wanted to believe, getting back to the topic of pornography in the book, that their crusade was good, rather than a grab for power.
Feminists were not going to ally with the religious right on much of anything. In fact, Jerry Falwell Sr would later (in the real world) blame 9/11 on Feminists, claiming that God lifted protection from America because of Feminism. Pat Robertson's response would be "I couldn't agree more". There may have been only one place where the two groups could have agreed, particularly where one group views the other's very existence as an affront to all things good. And, that was pornography.
I think there are two morals to be taken, there. One of which is to be very wary of allying with any group that views your existence and values as an affront to all morality.
The other is where we come back to my alternate-Gilead thought experiment and the aforementioned feminist view on pornography. Be wary of believing a narrative that was given to you by people who hate everything you stand for.
In the time since the writing of The Handmaid's Tale, there's been some change in popular feminism and some change in porngography.
In the latter case, there's been some acknowledgement that women can be and, indeed, are consumers of pornography. The idea that women are more intellectually or emotionally stimulated in comparison to men's visual stimulation was less an inherent fact of men and women and more a matter of socialization and social expectations. So, more porn is made with the understanding that the fantasies involved aren't only limited to men. I explain the latter first because it's a result of the former.
The former case, changes in popular feminism, has come to include a far greater amount of sex positivism, a more inclusive notion of sex, even sex that seems, on the surface, to diminish women, can be freely enjoyed and actively pursued by women. Nina Hartley, a porn star, is also an activist for both feminism and sex-positivism, including for the "enthusiastic consent" and "yes means yes" models of consent.
Today's feminist organizations would be less likely to ally with the religious right on their opposition to pornography, because today's feminist organizations would be more likely to view porn as something women might want. Porn hasn't become perfectly feminist, it's still happening in the society in which we live and bares the sins of today's culture. But, feminists are far less likely to consider its existence, alone, as a threat.
I guess that makes Gilead that little bit less likely today... but then again, there are some contemporary matters that are hard to overlook as making Gilead more likely. I'll say this much, however, it's less likely to happen with unseen ways into power.
I'll finish this as the chapter finishes, with a bit of a look at how we treat stories. Offred wants to believe she's telling a story to someone. Part of the reason she wants to believe she's telling a story is how we see stories as discrete collections of events. Her story might have back story from her youth, but once it's over, she can return back to her life outside of the story and be done.
The reality is a lot messier than that. I'm reminded of the 4-part episode "City of Stone" from Gargoyles. Within the flashback story, the character of MacBeth says, to Demona, "it's over" in a statement of a happy ending. That happy ending was taking the castle and taking Scotland. The events that lead to that were epic enough to be a multi-season story in themselves, enough that we would be satisfied with MacBeth's statement. Yet, it was only half-way through the flashback story that would continue into suspicion, betrayal, and... well, I don't want to spoil it if you haven't seen it. (Really, watch Gargoyles, it's great.)
Stories aren't discrete. We finish one to find out that life not only goes on, but it goes on with the scars of the story and the immediate aftermaths and with far less being accomplished at far greater price than we imagined.
It's easy to tell the story of how Abraham Lincoln freed the slaves... only to find that Lincoln wasn't free of the bigotries of his time and that hundreds of years of bigotry don't go away with an amendment... or that said amendment has an exception that seemed small at the time but becomes glaring in later light.
Offred wants to believe she's telling a story because the story can be over and the telling can accomplish so much. Instead, she fears that she's living in reality, which is far messier, greater in cost, and can accomplish only the hopes that maybe thing will build up into something good.
The story can't be kept confined within itself. Life just doesn't work that way. But, for all our sake, let's hope that much can be accomplished with the telling.
Most of this chapter is flashback to an event in Offred's childhood in America. Her feminist mother took her to a public burning of pornography. She was even given a magazine to throw into the fire, but was too young to know what the pictures were and letting her actually see the pictures was a mistake quickly remedied. But, it was an incident of what was, at the time of the writing, a point of agreement between two unlikely allies.
One ally was, of course, the feminists. They (not all, of course) viewed pornography as essentially disrespectful and objectifying of women. It's worthy of note that they weren't as far off as all that. The culture at the time treated men as default (more so than today, I mean) and treated men as the only consumers of pornography. So, all pornography being built upon fantasy, the fantasies were aimed to men and, yes, were objectifying of women. More on this in a bit.
The other ally was conservative Christians. They viewed pornography as immoral sex, at least akin to premarital or extramarital sex. Or at least that was the stated reason. I'm of a less generous frame of mind when it comes to giving them the presumption of good faith as I've experience with a great deal of bad faith coming from those who both claim ownership of and then defend "the faith".
Another way of describing it would be that pornography was a socially acceptable power-grab, a way of taking a grab for power and dressing it up as defending morality. Towards that end, they would believe whatever they had to believe, including such notions as pornography leading to rape and murder.
In the real world, they were willing to believe Ted Bundy's claims that pornography led him to being a serial killer. In exchange for him saying that, they granted him audience and credibility... These were effectively toys for him to play with up until his execution.
As a note of how credible the word of a serial killer is versus how ready the religious right was willing to take that word, I'll bring up David Berkowitz (AKA Son of Sam). He'd gotten the nickname of "Son of Sam" by writing a letter in which he blamed his killings on being told to do so by the dog next door. When interviewed by the profilers who would eventually begin the profiling department, he quickly admitted that no such thing happened, laughing about it. Decades later, he would go on the 700 Club and blame his killings on demons, a move that would get him money and the attention and credibility of the 700 Club audience.
In short, they believed what it took to believe in order to believe what they wanted to believe. And, they wanted to believe, getting back to the topic of pornography in the book, that their crusade was good, rather than a grab for power.
Feminists were not going to ally with the religious right on much of anything. In fact, Jerry Falwell Sr would later (in the real world) blame 9/11 on Feminists, claiming that God lifted protection from America because of Feminism. Pat Robertson's response would be "I couldn't agree more". There may have been only one place where the two groups could have agreed, particularly where one group views the other's very existence as an affront to all things good. And, that was pornography.
I think there are two morals to be taken, there. One of which is to be very wary of allying with any group that views your existence and values as an affront to all morality.
The other is where we come back to my alternate-Gilead thought experiment and the aforementioned feminist view on pornography. Be wary of believing a narrative that was given to you by people who hate everything you stand for.
In the time since the writing of The Handmaid's Tale, there's been some change in popular feminism and some change in porngography.
In the latter case, there's been some acknowledgement that women can be and, indeed, are consumers of pornography. The idea that women are more intellectually or emotionally stimulated in comparison to men's visual stimulation was less an inherent fact of men and women and more a matter of socialization and social expectations. So, more porn is made with the understanding that the fantasies involved aren't only limited to men. I explain the latter first because it's a result of the former.
The former case, changes in popular feminism, has come to include a far greater amount of sex positivism, a more inclusive notion of sex, even sex that seems, on the surface, to diminish women, can be freely enjoyed and actively pursued by women. Nina Hartley, a porn star, is also an activist for both feminism and sex-positivism, including for the "enthusiastic consent" and "yes means yes" models of consent.
Today's feminist organizations would be less likely to ally with the religious right on their opposition to pornography, because today's feminist organizations would be more likely to view porn as something women might want. Porn hasn't become perfectly feminist, it's still happening in the society in which we live and bares the sins of today's culture. But, feminists are far less likely to consider its existence, alone, as a threat.
I guess that makes Gilead that little bit less likely today... but then again, there are some contemporary matters that are hard to overlook as making Gilead more likely. I'll say this much, however, it's less likely to happen with unseen ways into power.
I'll finish this as the chapter finishes, with a bit of a look at how we treat stories. Offred wants to believe she's telling a story to someone. Part of the reason she wants to believe she's telling a story is how we see stories as discrete collections of events. Her story might have back story from her youth, but once it's over, she can return back to her life outside of the story and be done.
The reality is a lot messier than that. I'm reminded of the 4-part episode "City of Stone" from Gargoyles. Within the flashback story, the character of MacBeth says, to Demona, "it's over" in a statement of a happy ending. That happy ending was taking the castle and taking Scotland. The events that lead to that were epic enough to be a multi-season story in themselves, enough that we would be satisfied with MacBeth's statement. Yet, it was only half-way through the flashback story that would continue into suspicion, betrayal, and... well, I don't want to spoil it if you haven't seen it. (Really, watch Gargoyles, it's great.)
Stories aren't discrete. We finish one to find out that life not only goes on, but it goes on with the scars of the story and the immediate aftermaths and with far less being accomplished at far greater price than we imagined.
It's easy to tell the story of how Abraham Lincoln freed the slaves... only to find that Lincoln wasn't free of the bigotries of his time and that hundreds of years of bigotry don't go away with an amendment... or that said amendment has an exception that seemed small at the time but becomes glaring in later light.
Offred wants to believe she's telling a story because the story can be over and the telling can accomplish so much. Instead, she fears that she's living in reality, which is far messier, greater in cost, and can accomplish only the hopes that maybe thing will build up into something good.
The story can't be kept confined within itself. Life just doesn't work that way. But, for all our sake, let's hope that much can be accomplished with the telling.
no subject
Date: 2018-02-12 11:41 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2018-02-12 01:10 pm (UTC)I know the idea that feminists believe all sex is rape was there in the 90s.
None of this speaks to what feminists actually believe and speaks far more to what other people (some who would actually describe themselves as feminists if they had a more accurate understanding, my father at the time included) believed of them.
But, feminists who are openly accepting of things like pornography and BDSM in which women are the subs are far more apparent in the public consciousness. And, today, we have a word, "SWERF" for those derided for excluding sex-workers from their model of feminism.
I can't say what the composition was in the 80s, but the opposition to porn was at least enough that Atwood had to comment on it as someone active in feminism. It's certainly different today.
no subject
Date: 2018-02-28 02:50 pm (UTC)I'd argue it was less them being deceived and more "the enemy of my enemy," but I wasn't around at the time. :/