Handmaid's Tale III

The Semiotics of the Kitchen

Artist Martha Rosler creates a satirical video commenting on the stereotypes of women in modern society.

Finishing our latest novel, it is still evident that Handmaid’s Tale comments on society’s pervasive language that shapes representations of gender and sexuality. In fact, the very existence of Offred as a “woman” is constituted by the representations society constructs. She is a woman because she can biologically produce babies. She is the lesser sex because her job should only be to maintain the human population. Because of this rhetoric, the women of Gilead are forced into gendered constructions that arbitrarily establish what it means to be a man or a woman.

Often, Offred contemplates on the meanings of words found in society and in her biblical texts. She concludes that the control of language constitutes the misinterpretation of the bible and more importantly, perpetuates totalitarianism. The Commander says, “Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection” (223). He says, “For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression” (223). I think this is an example of how language fuels our values, beliefs, and sometimes, hatred. Some of the students in our class last week explained that “trivial” distinctions do little to shape our representations of gender. However, instances like biblical interpretations are in fact, a prime example of how we perceive women based on language. Feminist language argues that once we associate certain words (pretty, handsome, pansy etc. etc.) to a gender, we create a norm of what a woman should be, and what she isn’t supposed to be. However, once we deconstruct this language, we are able to alleviate instances of patriarchy, which are imbedded in our daily language. Dale Spender, a feminist scholar explains, “The crux of our difficulties lies in being able, to identify and transform the rules which govern our behavior and which bring patriarchal order into existence” (Spender). He explains that the only way to dismantle patriarchy is to challenge both blatant and subtle structures of language that perpetuate male dominance. Furthermore, when these “distinctions” are justified through biological differences in a man and woman, they only reinforce patriarchal representations of the female body. The many life experiences of women and men cannot be simply explained by biological differences between the sexes. The many variations of maleness and femaleness show that the traits are signed to a sex by a culture are socially determined and learned, and therefore, alterable. (Goueffic)

Images of women in media also shape our perception of femininity 

In Handmaid’s Tale the commander assumes ultimate power. Despite his affair with Offred, he still feels that he must play the role of a man, the dominant figure. With this power, he establishes an emotionless, cold façade in order to enforce some type of authority over the women. Offred observes that, “He on the other hand talks little: no more hedging or jokes. He barely asks questions” (282). Atwood suggests that in Gilead, emotions are associated with the weak women. Whereas detached men possesses power. Ultimately, it is these stereotypes that shape our discourse. It’s unfortunate that not everyone chooses to recognize this, but fortunately, Atwood presents her novel as a critique of this system.

Although I think she adequately presents her criticism, I do think that the ending was rather abrupt. I was hoping for a more "liberating" experience. I suppose the ending is a parallel to our own uncertainty. After all, this book is a portrayal of a dystopia. With that said, we can't expect a perfect ending. Her final sentence, "And so I step up, into the darkness within, or else the light" perhaps alludes to a call of action on our part. Perhaps it is our turn to "step up", despite our uncertainty of what's to come. 

"Boy play with G.I Joe's, Girls play with Barbies"

Dale Spender, “Man Made Language” pg. 5

Louise Goueffic, “Breaking the patriarchal code” pg. 1996