In love vs. Physically used

"I turn away I see her straighten her blue skirt, clench her legs together; she continues lying on the bed, gazing up at the canopy above her, stiff and straight as an effigy... Which of us is it worse for, her or me?" -Handmaids tale by Margaret Attwood 

Is it worse being the woman the man is actually in love with, or the woman characterized as a container and used for only a job to reproduce? It's almost worse being the woman who's in love because before this change in society sex was a way to show love and a way to connect with that specific person. Even though the society is different that attraction and want is still there but having to watch her love, have sex with another woman, would be the most difficult thing to witness. 

Viewing it from the Handmaids perspective this dehumanization is already there. She doesn't have actual emotion towards the man, and will never have to deal with him again. With being a Handmaid even though its dehumanizing, in this society you at least still have a purpose. And there was a choice given, though it wasn't entirely obvious, there was one, they had a choice into this profession, because unfortunately it was the best one.

But his wife has to live with him everyday, watching him sleep with several Handmaids in order to keep society alive. What's her purpose then? Even though it's just the Handmaids job, as demonstrated in the quote, "clench her legs together...stiff and straight." She will still be angered, and protective over her husband, the one person that's only for you and not meant to be taken away is being shared, and not just being shared taking their time together, but being shared in the most connective way possible a human has with another; and she can't be that one. 

Is it better to be loved without the physical connection, or not to be loved at all and only used for the physical connection? With having to witness the physical connection of the one you love with someone else changes this question since both aspects are put together in the situation. Affection is a critical factor in the psychological aspect of human development, it is needed for creating relationships, social reasons, mental and emotional, but also in our body development. Is either woman receiving affection in the right way? 

A Nurturing Container

"We are containers, it's only the insides of our bodies that are important" 
"The outside can become hard and wrinkled, for all they care, like the shell of a nut" 
-Handmaids Tale by Margaret Attwood

Women, literally translated as a container, de-personifying their whole existence. The imagery of being a container represents women carrying a child in the womb, such as a container holds food. This concretes the idea of being seen as an object. How they look and they feel means nothing, the only importance is their reproductive organs. From something that is supposed to be a physical action that represents love and commitment now represents only the scientific aspect of a sperm and egg forming a fetus and nine months later the baby being born. The social schema of sex is commitment, trust, love with one person, a connection that can never be taken away. Is now only it's script, a routine, emotionless, careless, a cold act that is now a job. A job you are applauded for, but not for being a woman, and respected as that, but for being a tool to reproduce and keep society alive. 

The fact that their skin can wrinkle suggests that they don't care about your age, or whether it's healthy for you to become pregnant, as long as you're fertile that's all that matters. The health risks mean nothing, whether it's safe means nothing, you are looked at as an employee. If you fall on the you get fired, if you can't get pregnant you're not even considered a woman. And the fact that the parallelism to their appearance is "the shell of a nut" signifies how they are just a thing, on the side, that can be stepped on, pushed away, unacknowledged, like you do with a nut on the sidewalk. You never pay attention to their significance. 

Overpowering Minds, Dehumanizing the Soul

"It has taken so little time to change our minds about things like this" 

This quote from the Handmaids Tale by Margaret Attwood represents how quickly their society has changed. From woman wearing knee length skirts, high heels, and red lipstick to becoming a thing used for just reproducing. Taking walks to keep their stomach muscles stretched for when they're pregnant and being only used for that. 

The quote also emphasizes how fast this change has occurred, not just a little change but drastic. From being an independent woman to being a resource. And realizing that staying silent, and doing as told led to this; even made the process go faster because no one questioned the actions. It also represents the fear, that if this drastic dehumanization has occurred in this little amount of time what other corruption will occur? How far will they go? And how much of themselves as people, as humans with souls will be taken away from them until they stop? if they ever would stop. 

 This quote also ties in with how the angels hand pick the guards and give them guns. In this Dystopia what makes it so extreme is how Margaret Attwood uses the bigger power, "God" and his followers in heaven, the "angels"  as the ones who create the destruction. The dystopia manipulates mother nature, our basic reason of life, to produce; and turns it into a job, but not only a job, but manipulates the whole concept of a woman becoming a mother, to a woman being a tool for men, to get the job done. Dehumanizing the woman to such extremes that she has no thought process, not say in anything. Just the title, her only identity, of being a "Handmaid"

The Animal underneath the Human Shell

"The one permanent emotion of the inferior man is fear- fear of the unknown, the complex, the inexplicable, what he wants above everything else is safety." -Henry Louis Mencken 

In the Land crab by Margaret Atwood the characteristics of fear and aggression are imaged as "soft gut" and "hard bone" of a land crab to represent our defensive and vulnerable sides as humans. We extinguish the fact that we have this fight or flight instinct in ourselves because we refuse to believe that underneath our language, morals, and conscience that we are animals. Our fear is emphasized with this refusal of being an animal by having this hard shell we refuse to look underneath, Margaret Atwood represents this with the allusion of a "nightmare" symbolizing what we don't want to see in ourselves. 

"When we're afraid, we lose all sense of analysis and reflection. Our fear paralyzes us. Besides, fear has always been the driving force behind all dictators repression." -Marjane Satrapi

Does this make us the "dictators" of ourselves? Our fear causes us to repress the fact that we are mammals, we are animals on this earth. With dictating this quality we have, does this cause our fear and aggression characteristics? If we accepted both sides of ourselves as humans would our decision making be altered? 

Even though we have this "nightmare" that terrifies us, we have to remember that a nightmare is short term, it's not always there. Which is like our animal instincts, it's not constantly activated. We have more qualities than this, we think about the future rather than just the present, we think about the consequences of our actions, and even if we react to things without our conscious awareness we remember how it affected others so that we can fix it if it wasn't the way we wanted it to be. 

The Land crab in the poem represents the negative connotations of a human, we try to extinguish this parallelism but our harsh environment causes us to have this "hard shell" as well. 

Fear can only control you if you let it to be. What makes us different is that we can control this instinct. We can choose to be fearful or choose to overcome and realize our hard shell can push us through the barrier we had. We have the knowledge to realize if the situation is worth being fearful about,  and realize that we are capable of changing the outcome.

Angels for the Guns

"Guns were for the guards, specially picked from the angels" -Handmaids Tale by Margaret Atwood

How far can a human being go in the process of gaining power, before it crosses the line of protection and becomes corruption? 

Protect: to defend or guard from attack, cover or shield from injury or danger
Corrupt:Having or showing a willingness to act dishonestly in return for money or personal gain. Cause to act dishonestly in return for money or personal gain.

The quote from Handmaids tale prevails the setting of a dystopian society and contradicts the typical stereotype of an angel and a gun. An angel is a spiritual being believed to act as an attendant, agent, or messenger of God; representing hope, peace, guiding you towards the right path. The fact the "angels" are handing the guns emphasizes their governments purpose, to control all through fear. It represents their want to dehumanize the people, while showing them that they don't care what the cost is to gain power. How soulless and power ridden to go through drastic procedures to gain want they want. With the angels "specially" picking the guards demonstrates how they reward violence. Praise is only received through violent actions. This representation also shows how guns and violence is a good thing in their society because the "messenger of God" is picking them, meaning it has to be the right choice. Showing that protection is not the purpose of these guns, but authority and the ability to make people fear you to gain control leading to absolute power, and because they have already reached absolute power the next step is corruption. 

The Wave Persists

Her wavy hair soaks up the salty air
Her feet running in the gold crystal sand
why do the minutes have to be unfair
reality seems so vapid and bland
Her problems build as the waves are crashing
she rides the tide conquering all her fears
sucked into the under-toe she's splashing
holding her breath unable to see tears
she climbs her board to take on the next round
riding the tunnel searching for the light
though it's not always able to be found
through the dark cylinder there's something bright
she rides to the end and then starts again 
she persists, knowing that she can sustain 

I've got the Power

Power can be demonstrated in many different ways, though the base of power is the physical capability to carry out an action, with the ability to carry it to an end result, leaders can interpret that to different extents. 

There are three types of power: 

1. coercive power- threat force, usually based on fear.

2. exchange power- bartering

3. integrative power- respected, non violence. 

In The Tempest by William Shakespeare these three types of power are demonstrated by Sebastian, Stephano, and Gonzalo.

Sebastian's idea of ruling demonstrates coercive power, for he feels that killing is the only way to get to the top. This may give him power through fear, but this way of ruling will not give him authority. Stephano represents exchange power, because he is the only one with access to wine. Making wine be his barter for power. Problem with this is once the wine supply is gone his power will to. He won't receive authority because no one will respect his ways, they'll just be waiting till the supply runs out. Gonzalo demonstrates integrative power, though his idea is a Utopian society which is unrealistic, he still cares about respect, and humility. This way of power will give him authority because he cares about the people he is ruling rather than bribing, and terrifying them. This way of power will be more successful, and last longer, because the people will feel significant.