The Handmaid’s Tale as fake news with a twist

From Brent Bozell at Townhall:

It’s based on a loopy 1985 novel by the radical feminist Canadian author Margaret Atwood, which imagines the United States quickly falling under a theocratic dictatorship based on its Puritan roots. America becomes a patriarchy called the Republic of Gilead. All women are deprived of their rights and forbidden to read. Due to environmental degradation, very few women can conceive a child, so a slave class of handmaids are created, whose entire purpose is giving birth. The handmaids wear dowdy red gowns (to represent menstrual blood) with large white bonnets that obscure their faces.

Liberals called this story “very timely” in 1985 and never stopped declaring it timely. On CBS, the TV series’ star Elizabeth Moss proclaimed: “When everyone signed on, it felt incredibly relevant. It was written in 1985, and it’s been relevant every decade since. I think it’s just in this country, there’s a relevance now that is striking everybody.”

When Hillary Clinton accepted the Champion of the Century award from Planned Parenthood, she referred to the book and show as a warning for feminist vigilance. Moss gushed on CBS that this was a “huge honor,” saying, “we all respect her so much.” For her part, Atwood said that after the 2016 presidential election, “the cast woke up in the morning and thought, we’re no longer making fiction — we’re making a documentary.” More.

Reality check: File the “documentary” under Trump Derangement Syndrome. The fact that not enough Americans were willing to buy into a Hillary Clinton presidency (because they had nothing to gain from it) is not the Republic of Gilead. Only a progressive seeking government funding and a crackdown on alternative media would think so.

The twist: None of Atwood’s dystopian crap happened. But sharia law, if permitted in Canada, will strip women of rights – and Cool people voted for the Liberals who outdid themselves making it possible. They and the Handmaids fans deserve it, but the rest of us maybe don’t.

See also: Will abortion branding help or hurt Handmaid’s Tale?

Share
  • Dave

    “Which imagines the United States quickly falling under a theocratic dictatorship based on its Puritan roots. America becomes a patriarchy called the Republic of Gilead. All women are deprived of their rights and forbidden to read.”
    This aptly describes all Muslim regimes. It also describes what Canada is becoming because of that useless P.O.S. called Trudeau inviting “refugees” here and what the U.S. would be more rapidly looking like if the hildabeast had actually won.
    Stupid leftist writers just can’t see that we whiteys are what are going to be saving their sorry asses.

  • Drunk_by_Noon

    I want to know why we have all been hearing about this dumb book for the last thirty years?

    • Alain

      You should thank all the progressives for that. Yes, it is a worthless, poorly written piece of rubbish by an untalented deranged female that has been imposed on school children for the last 30 years or so.

    • (slow clap)

  • Tom Forsythe

    Trying to imagine which is worse: being forbidden to read, or having to read Margaret Atwood.

    • Alain

      Definitely having to read Atwood.

    • Justin St.Denis

      Being obliged to read Atwood could be reserved by the courts as a form of punishment to be meted out in/by courts only. Imagine if 80% of Canadian aboriginals knew Atwood’s oeuvre like the back of their hands!

      • Tom Forsythe

        We are trying to correct them, not make them worse.

    • Surele Surele

      Yes!

    • May I steal this for my twitter blurb? Please?

      • Tom Forsythe

        Steal away!

        • Thanks! BTW, any new music we could post?

          • Tom Forsythe

            Nope. There’s no way to make money at it, anymore. Playing in church tomorrow, though.

          • Shame. Well, if things change keep us posted. (I don’t read that violet.mamba account though so I guess keep BCF etc. posted. Or grab me in the comments.)

            Do you still have the link for the one in the pool hall? I loved that.

          • Tom Forsythe

            Chadley Chase, who is celebrating the birth of his new daughter, this week:

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lQl7ML77tB0

    • Okay, I’m just going to go do it. Patience is not one of my few virtues.

    • Reading it is torture.

  • felis gracilis

    The Handmaid’s Tale: feeding the dystopian fantasies of demented hags for 32 years.

  • El Martyachi

    Does it at least have a happy ending?

    • Clink9

      You’re mixing it up with The Handjob Tale.

      • UCSPanther

        That’s a good name for a porno parody of this sorry Atwood book…

      • Surele Surele

        You. Won. The. Internet. No question ’bout it.

  • UCSPanther

    I think a dystopian tale set in a EU-style state, facing its inevitable crumbling while the regime becomes increasingly desperate, repressive and punitive in response to the failure of their ideology and rule is a more exciting and plausible tale.

    As such, the premise of Matt Bracken’s books is very interesting…

  • bargogx1

    What would really take the wind out of the sails of this tripe, is if right leaning publications started promoting it as a cautionary tale of what could happen under a real-life repressive totalitarian ideology masquerading as a religion, such as Islam. The resulting mental and verbal gymnastics leftists would have to employ to attempt to explain why it could happen under Christianity, but not Islam, would be hilarious.

    • Surele Surele

      Funnily enough, when I read this book as a new Canadian in the 80s, and not very well versed in things political/religious, my first thought was that this perfectly describes life under Islam.

  • favill

    I’ve been watching it…and the parallels to Islam are startling. They talk about the women being unable to own property (except through a man), gays (both men and women) are hung, all the churches are destroyed (“stone by stone”), the few fertile women are given to warlords for procreation (like ‘Mo did after a battle), barren women in the household, except for the official wife are essentially slaves, and they performed a clitorectomy on a fertile, gay woman so she can’t enjoy sex anymore–but could still have babies. And most importantly, anybody who tries to get out is killed.

    • To be absolutely fair, property rights are the only rights Islamic women have ever really possessed traditionally. Oh, they inherit half what men do and all that, but they do actually have a limited control over their property. When their husband “talaqs” them they’re entitled to their dowries back. I guess to a bedouin that might seem like a pretty big deal.

      This is why there is a tradition of Muslim women founding things in “waqf”, which is the Arabic legal equivalent of “mortmain”. You know how they like to boast that a Muslim woman founded the oldest existing university? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fatima_al-Fihri Nonsense, of course, or at best a 1/4 truth, like all of it, but some rich girl did use her money to found a Mosque to establish status for her immigrant community. (I’d be astonished if any woman ever studied there.)

      The fact that wealthy Muslim women have limited property rights independent of their male owners, along with the fact that Mohammed told people they weren’t allowed to bury newborn girls alive (no, really, it’s a bragging point) are the two main pillars of Islam’s claim to being a big – sorry, the big – feminist religion.

    • To be absolutely fair, (and they have so little going for them, it seems mean not to give credit where it’s due), property rights are the only rights Islamic women have ever really possessed traditionally under sharia. Mo let them have a bit. Oh, they inherit half what men do and all that, but they do actually have a limited control over their property. When their husband “talaqs” them they’re entitled to their dowries back. I guess to a bedouin that might seem like a pretty big deal.

      This is why there is a tradition of Muslim women founding things in “waqf”, which is the legal equivalent of “mortmain”. You know how they like to boast that a Muslim woman founded the oldest existing university? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fatima_al-Fihri Nonsense, of course, or at best a 1/4 truth, like all of it, but some rich girl did use her money to found a Mosque to establish status for her immigrant community. (I’d be astonished if any woman ever studied there.)

      The fact that wealthy Muslim women have limited property rights independent of their male owners, along with the fact that Mohammed told people they weren’t allowed to bury newborn girls alive (no, really, it’s a bragging point) are the two main pillars of Islam’s claim to being a big – sorry, the big – feminist religion. And it’s why they’re always blathering on about the idea that Englishwomen couldn’t own property prior to WWI or something, which is nonsense, obviously*, but that’s never stopped them.

      *https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Married_Women%27s_Property_Act_1882

      • BTW, look up “Waqf” in terms of the Temple Mount. It’s interesting.

  • Pingback: As traditional print media seek government funding to survive, demands arise for diversity – Blazing Cat Fur()