Post: #26

Utter bullshit - Christianity is very hard to co-opt for violent means. In our times it is utterly impossible already.

Even in the past with the Crusades it was tough to mobilize the Christian people against the hundreds of Muslim raids and attacks that preceded the crusades which were actually retaliatory in nature.

That such a movement would be able and willing to usurp power and then erect a moronic system is just nuts.

But when you hear that it was concocted by a feminist, then you don't have to wonder.

Still - the dominant male angle is clearly 50Shades territory also it probably got her panties wet being so utterly dominated by many evil fascist-Christian men.

They really did a number on it blending Christianity with fascism - heh.

Post: #27

(05-05-2017 03:22 AM)Nonpareil Wrote:  Being born and educated in Canada, in tolerance camp, I mean university (which while nowhere near as bad as it is now, was beginning in earnest while I was there) most of them loved to tongue the taint of Lady Atwood. The Canadian media is also guilty of the same, pull her bibliography; literally every book she's written for going on 40 years now gets a Governor General's Award nomination. I don't know a single person who lists any of her novels, except for this one, as particularly compelling or influential.

Me personally? Leave it to a feminist to make a dystopian future as boring as hell. It's feminist boilerplate and women bitching about their lot in life disguised as something Badass (like a government overthrow resulting in a broken world) with zero memorable characters.

Margaret Atwood is a hack. Something about Canada makes it a breeding ground for 4th rate writers who people worship (Atwood, Ondaatje, Yann Martel*).

The best Canadian writers are those who embrace canadiana; Farley Mowat, Lucy Maud Montgomery, Alice Munro, Mordecai Richler etc.,etc.

* Not that Life of Pi isn't a good novel, it just wasn't his idea.

EDIT: 92 out of 100 on metacritic...also Sliders was dope, though overshadowed by The X-Files (which was better). The Hip have a few great songs (gimme some of that Day for Night, fam), but thanks to the CRTC I have to hear fuckin' 'Bobcaygeon' five times a day every day on the radio. I motion for Sam Roberts and City and Colour to be added to the Canadian mediocrity pile.

Life of Pi isn't a good book. It's a severe piece of crap. It's an urban leftist Canadian psuedo-sophisticate's self-butt stuff stuffing. Martel is an awful writer...and his signature novel wasn't his idea? I am Jack's complete lack of surprise.

There's a lot of crap music put out by Canadians. City and Colour... yup. You can put that on the junk list. Most of our cultural output in the last few decades has been substandard. They just don't make em like Robertson Davies or Econoline Crush anymore.

Post: #28

Barbara Kay in the National Post the other day about it:

Quote:Atwood chose evangelical Christians as her villains, because their family structures are patriarchal. But patriarchy doesn’t necessarily imply misogyny. In fact, I found Atwood’s demonizing scenario rather hilarious. Pious Christians are the last people on earth to dream up a system in which the state has control over everyone’s sexual and reproductive lives, and women are forced into sex with random married men. Does anyone really believe the prudish Mike Pence would sign off on that executive order?

Quote:For actual mass eugenics programs, we must look not to Christianity, but to secularists at the top of eugenics’ slippery slope, and atheist totalitarians on the bottom. Urged on by “progressive” women, Alberta once endorsed sterilization of the intellectually handicapped. Communist China initiated a horrific forced-abortion program. And of course there were the anti-Christian Nazis and their Lebensborn program, which may have been Atwood’s inspiration.

Quote:Lebensborn had fertile young German women lodged at breeding farms, where they were impregnated by SS officers in order to improve Germany’s Aryan stock. On the surface, Lebensborn women seem a lot like Atwood’s handmaids. Except for one enormous, crucial distinction. German women were not forced to breed. They were eager volunteers. In fact, if Atwood had paid close attention to this particular bit of history — and to the traits of human nature it revealed — she might have rethought the value of her novel’s driving concept.

Post: #29

I know I started reading this book, but I can't remember if I finished it. Then again, Atwood never writes a conclusion to her novels. Every single one of them ends on an idiotic cliffhanger - "To make you think, it's not about the story, it's about the questions it brings up!" Oh, please do shut up.

(05-04-2017 08:22 PM)Latinopan Wrote:  Interesting enough there was a TV show called Sliders back mid 90s, the premise was a group of scientists created a device that allow them to travel to alternate universe, but they have problem getting back to their own universe, anyway, in one episode they jump to an alternate reality where men almost went extinct by a virus that attack the Y chromosome, men are kept in big resorts like mansion/military fortress and their only purpose is to keep healthy and impregnate as many women as possible since that is how countries compete against each other, the episode is called "Love Gods".

You should read the graphic novel "Y The Last Man" about an apocalypse that kills off all of the male mammals, except for one guy and his monkey. It's a frank and honest depiction of what would happen if women had to suddenly take control of civilization, displaying both the virtues and vices typical to their sex.

Post: #30

It was only some years later that the "epilogue" or whatever made any sense to me. What, umpteen years in the future after Gilead has collapsed, Offred's memoir tapes are discovered and become the stuff of academic study and conferences and the like?

Now, anytime I encounter the ravings of feminist academics, I remember that epilogue and think: "Yep. Spot on." I could see exactly this sort of critical academic work being done in real-world-2017 about some random 1950s housewife's diaries - symposia and papers and whatnot agonizing over every last word, reading into the text the author's own biases, motivating numberless intellectualized two-minute-hates, etc. "She's so important to us as wymyn, and to the world, and all humanx hixtory. She shines a light into what we fight against, and shows how far we still have to go to assure equality! Oh, and men suck, did I mention it proves that men suck? Well, men suck."

SJWs in general and feminists are addicted to anything that makes them see a group as oppressed or victims, most especially when the individual SJW is part of one of the groups in question (or like Rachel Dolezal or Talcum X can assert dubious membership in same). This kind of story is irresistible to them for that reason, even if it makes no sense whatsoever - it confirms their biases about how the world works, it casts them as heroes by proxy, and if the created fantasy world is inconsistent or unrealistic or irrational given the basics of human nature and human history, well, those things just have to be ignored in service of the Bigger Story It Tells. They really are, as someone else here suggested, little more than ideological Harlequin Romances - melodramas that exploit the reader's unrealistic fantasies and overwrought fears to titillate and impassion, but which to the outside observer are plainly absurd and unrealistic and inconsistent with how humans actually behave (each of which is a cardinal sin in fictional worldbuilding).

And just as a woman who reads cheap romance novels can develop the same sort of unrealistic romantic or sexual expectations as a man who watches porn, the SJWs who get into these kinds of stories have their beliefs about themselves and the world (i.e.: their mental illnesses) reinforced by the fictional worlds and oppressive scenarios they encounter. And it's not even transparently-ideological SJW bilge like Atwood, look at the lunatic extent to which SJWs obsess over the Harry Potter universe. It all feeds into and reinforces their corrupted and self-flattering self-images, not unlike a psychoactive drug that they think shows them the truth but in fact merely gives the appearance of reality to their inner fantasies and delusions.

ETA: thankfully I don't encounter many SJWs in my daily activities, but I work with one, and her Goodreads list is an astonishingly vast and promiscuous inventory of tacky romance novels...everything from Harlequin Romances to historical romance to Regency to space-romance science fiction. I used to be suspicious of the "feminist women secretly crave a strong man with a strong hand" line, but not any more.

Post: #31

Horrible book. Had to read it for Grade... 10? English. Then the movie was on the Ceeb and it's equally as bad; tough to do with Bobby D in anything.

(05-05-2017 03:22 AM)Nonpareil Wrote:  thanks to the CRTC I have to hear fuckin' 'Bobcaygeon' five times a day every day on the radio. I motion for Sam Roberts and City and Colour to be added to the Canadian mediocrity pile.

Amen. City and Colour is horrible. I loved Alexisonfire but even then he's a bit whiny but the wheels come right off for C&C. Bonus points to you, sir, for spelling Bobcaygeon properly: sometimes even locals give up.

Guilty pleasure: Nickelback's "Last Contestant"

Post: #32

I was young when the movie came out. My dad got it out for me as it was supposed to be sci-fi.
I despised the movie. The world didn't feel real.

At uni we had to do a Margaret Atwood book and all the chicks in the class were having literary orgasms over it.
I couldn't finish it. More BS.

Didn't realise it was the same author. Makes sense.
Propaganda doesn't make for a coherent plot or world building.

Post: #33

(05-05-2017 06:24 AM)ed pluribus unum Wrote:  Barbara Kay in the National Post the other day about it:

Quote:Atwood chose evangelical Christians as her villains, because their family structures are patriarchal. But patriarchy doesn’t necessarily imply misogyny. In fact, I found Atwood’s demonizing scenario rather hilarious. Pious Christians are the last people on earth to dream up a system in which the state has control over everyone’s sexual and reproductive lives, and women are forced into sex with random married men. Does anyone really believe the prudish Mike Pence would sign off on that executive order?

Quote:For actual mass eugenics programs, we must look not to Christianity, but to secularists at the top of eugenics’ slippery slope, and atheist totalitarians on the bottom. Urged on by “progressive” women, Alberta once endorsed sterilization of the intellectually handicapped. Communist China initiated a horrific forced-abortion program. And of course there were the anti-Christian Nazis and their Lebensborn program, which may have been Atwood’s inspiration.

Quote:Lebensborn had fertile young German women lodged at breeding farms, where they were impregnated by SS officers in order to improve Germany’s Aryan stock. On the surface, Lebensborn women seem a lot like Atwood’s handmaids. Except for one enormous, crucial distinction. German women were not forced to breed. They were eager volunteers. In fact, if Atwood had paid close attention to this particular bit of history — and to the traits of human nature it revealed — she might have rethought the value of her novel’s driving concept.

Genuinely surprised that article was written by a woman.
She clearly has a strong man in her life and is aware of certain red pill truths.

Post: #34

I too read it in college. The professor I ended up with had some kind of dystopian fetish. We had started the semester off with Eutopia, then went into The Handmaids Tale and followed by a choice of between Forever Peace and some other book.

Basically I read what I needed to write my essayes. The experience was as painful as listening to the album Lou Reed and Metallica made together. The ending was the best part not just because the book was over but because there's something amusing about native Americans reclaiming the country and taking classes on Anglo American studies.The story literally didn't matter at all.

The book was a love letter intersection b.s., "everyone is oppressed", blah blah blah. The more I think about Atwood contradicts herself through out the book. I dont even care to elaborate.

Any ways someone thought it was a good idea to let Margaret Atwood right a graphic novel.

Post: #35

Ok, I just finished watching the first 3 episodes.

Spoilers if you care about them.



The show like the book is shown in flashbacks, Offred's life is shown at the beginning when she gets captured by the new military and her life before the new government took over.

Is shown in the flashbacks she and the entire female staff of her company get fired, her card gets declined while buying a coffee and all her money is transferred to her husband account (or a woman's closest male kin for single women) women are no longer allowed to own property.

Offred has a lesbian friend that goes into a argument with Offred's husband when he mentions he will take care of her now she has nothing, (I read there is a part when when her husband shows some satisfaction now she does not work and she is totally dependent on him) but is not shown.

She her husband and her daughter try to escape to Canada, is never explained how is Canada Ok but USA had a birthrate issue. It said the birthrate was due to Aids and contamination in the air and water but somehow only USA had problems.

When Offred first is taken to the red center, some sort of orientation, she is and another woman called Janine arrive together, Janine first pretend to be rebellious but the woman in charge of the Handmaids, Aunt Lydia is hard on her and tease her for cursing.

Janine gets an eye pulled out as a punishment and eventually goes into some psychiatric breakdown. Offred encounters Moria, her lesbian friend from before the new government took over, Offred like all others Handmaids are assigned to be concubine for particulars married men, the wives of these men are called mistresses and they must be present when the husbands (called the commanders) are having sex with the Handmaids.

Offred and every other Handmaid is assigned a shopping partner, another Handmaids that goes to shop the groceries. Offred's partner is a lesbian woman (yes another one) that used to be married to a woman and had kid together.

Eventually all the Handmaids are brought to some sort of sacrifice, but Ofreed notice Moira is missing, Offred starts asking about Moira and Janine, now heavily pregnant and completely submissive, passive and docile tell her she is death, that Moira tried to run away and was killed. The sacrifice is that one man raped a pregnant woman and causer her a miscarriage, all Handmaids surround the man and Aunt Lydia gives the order, all the Handmaids beat the man to death.

Offred's shopping partner called Ofglen is arrested, and replaced by another Handmaid. Her wife called Martha is hanged and Ofglen is assumed to have a clitoral removal.

------

This is a good summary of the first 3 episodes they have released so far, but the thing I noticed is the men are not that bad toward Offred or others Handmaids, the military and the upper class government positions are all men but the management position is all women like Aunt Lydia, and the mistresses are horrible toward their handmaids, in fact the husband at the house Offred is staying play board games with her and treat her very gentle, even though the handmaids are not supposed to be alone with the husband in the same room. All the punishment and pain the handmaids have gotten so far is done by other women.

One man got beaten to death for raping a woman, and there is a low status young guy at the house Offred is staying that has not been assigned a woman yet, so is not like men go around raping women left and right, there is a lot of emphasis in protecting women from unnecessary harm.

Like I said before and some other noticed there is some sort of 50Shades things going on, there is a particular balance between pain and pleasure, and many of the handmaids seem very happy eventually, sure they have to sell the feminism angle to make women feel good but the male domination and female submission is clear.

Post: #36

Post: #37

(05-07-2017 01:52 AM)metalfan20 Wrote:  I too read it in college. The professor I ended up with had some kind of dystopian fetish. We had started the semester off with Eutopia, then went into The Handmaids Tale and followed by a choice of between Forever Peace and some other book.

Why am I not shocked that 1984, Fahrenheit 451 and Brave New World weren't on the list?

Orwell, Bradbury and Huxley are all too white and heterosexual I suppose...

Post: #38

(05-05-2017 03:22 AM)Nonpareil Wrote:  Me personally? Leave it to a feminist to make a dystopian future as boring as hell.

Spot fucking on. I love sci-fi and dystopian novels, but The Handmaids Tale was like swallowing two melatonins.

Post: #39

(05-08-2017 12:24 PM)DannyAlberta Wrote:  Why am I not shocked that 1984, Fahrenheit 451 and Brave New World weren't on the list?

The leftists do not see these books as warnings of a grim future, but instructional guides for new world order. These idiots do not comprehend the the writings of Orwell, Bradbury, and Huxley.

Post: #40

I always assumed this was feminist fetish porn, for girls who want to be dominated but don't want to admit it.

It's like those low-grade anime stories who ends up with a harem of bossy, dominant chicks who want all to fuck him.

Post: #41

To be fair I had the opportunity to read Fahrenheit 451 (a much better book) and Animal Farm in High School. It won't surprise you that my English professor was a feminist.

Post: #42

Took a look at it.

Utter and complete feminist feverish bullshit. They set it even our times with Christianity already decades weaker, technology and instant communication also valid.

First of all - what kind of Christian direction is that? They literally destroy all churches, fire at demonstrators, conquer the entire super-armed US all in one swoop? Who the fuck would support them? Oh yeah - massive infertility is problematic, so what they do is take the top men and let them fuck young women. All those top men get zero fertility testing, just being done on faith alone?

I cannot even begin of how crazy that series is both in terms of assessment of fertility and their solution, of how female and male nature works, of how Christian thinking even works. This movie does not even make sense in terms of human thinking.

Who the fuck would call 2 jogging women SLUTS? 200 mio. men people suddenly becoming followers of a strange cult?

There is already one major religion that does this:

+ calls liberal women sluts
+ mutilates genitals of women
+ hangs homosexuals on cranes
+ plucks eyes out for minor or moderate transgressions (yes - it happens - doctors in Muslim countries are told to take eyes out)
+ painful lashings for other transgressions
+ women not being allowed to walk alone and having highly limited voting/property rights

All of this is already out there in Islam, but not in Christian societies.

This series is utter and complete bullshit. Also it is less a patriarchy than a stupid bitchy matriarchy while the bitches only miss partaking in the power of the top men. But even the men are not overly enjoying things in those stupid de-sexualized ceremonies.

Pure mind-cancer this is.

Post: #43

(05-05-2017 04:05 AM)Zelcorpion Wrote:  Still - the dominant male angle is clearly 50Shades territory also it probably got her panties wet being so utterly dominated by many evil fascist-Christian men.

Quote:utterly dominated by many evil fascist-Christian handsome men

FTFY

The men of the show are all good looking men, many look like fashion models, not a single fat double chin slop on sight, the man the main character must have sex with is a good looking guy.




So, yes, there is some sort of fetishism with male dominance and female submission.

(05-08-2017 05:15 PM)Zelcorpion Wrote:  Took a look at it.

Utter and complete feminist feverish bullshit. They set it even our times with Christianity already decades weaker, technology and instant communication also valid.





Who the fuck would call 2 jogging women SLUTS? 200 mio. men people suddenly becoming followers of a strange cult?

There is already one major religion that does this:

+ calls liberal women sluts
+ mutilates genitals of women
+ hangs homosexuals on cranes
+ plucks eyes out for minor or moderate transgressions (yes - it happens - doctors in Muslim countries are told to take eyes out)
+ painful lashings for other transgressions
+ women not being allowed to walk alone and having highly limited voting/property rights

All of this is already out there in Islam, but not in Christian societies.

This series is utter and complete bullshit. Also it is less a patriarchy than a stupid bitchy matriarchy while the bitches only miss partaking in the power of the top men. But even the men are not overly enjoying things in those stupid de-sexualized ceremonies.

Pure mind-cancer this is.

Quote:First of all - what kind of Christian direction is that? They literally destroy all churches, fire at demonstrators, conquer the entire super-armed US all in one swoop? Who the fuck would support them? Oh yeah - massive infertility is problematic, so what they do is take the top men and let them fuck young women. All those top men get zero fertility testing, just being done on faith alone?

The author wanted to generalize all Christians in general, the book was made in the 80s when Christians evangelicals started to become influential in politics in the USA, the assumption by the author is Christians can any time make this fiction a reality, is a way to sell a boogyman.

Quote:I cannot even begin of how crazy that series is both in terms of assessment of fertility and their solution, of how female and male nature works, of how Christian thinking even works. This movie does not even make sense in terms of human thinking.

The most pathetic part I saw was once a Handmaid gives birth once she is kicked out the house she is assigned, if you have a fertility issue, the last thing you do is get rid off females, you need to have a replacement rate high, one kid just won't do it.

Quote:This movie does not even make sense in terms of human thinking

It does not make sense starting for the fact this is all happening in the USA, logistic speaking there is not way some cult could rise up and take control of the USA government, they could not take a single state, USA is immune to a totalitarian regime like this.

Post: #44

What always bothered me about this story is how she's there for years and only had one baby. This is the thing about leftists, they think having ONE KID IS A LOT.

Seriously? If I'm a right wing dystopian Christian-theocratic patriach and most women are barren and I have one that can have children? Lemme tellya, that woman is having a baby every two years, minimum.

Post: #45

Actually it's healthier to spread them out by three years.

Post: #46

I was forced to read this book in high school.

Aside from being SJW spank bank material it was criminally boring. We even had to watch the boring-ass movie. Of course the teacher was a hideous swamp donkey from Ireland who wore clothing that looked like burlap sacks with holes in them. Her name was Mrs. Kent but you can guess what we called her.

Post: #47

(05-08-2017 12:24 PM)DannyAlberta Wrote:  

(05-07-2017 01:52 AM)metalfan20 Wrote:  I too read it in college. The professor I ended up with had some kind of dystopian fetish. We had started the semester off with Eutopia, then went into The Handmaids Tale and followed by a choice of between Forever Peace and some other book.

Why am I not shocked that 1984, Fahrenheit 451 and Brave New World weren't on the list?

Orwell, Bradbury and Huxley are all too white and heterosexual I suppose...

Well, to be fair 1984, Fahrenheit 451 and Brave New World are high school literature.
People in college should have definitely read those already.

Post: #48

(05-08-2017 11:50 PM)Tytalus Wrote:  What always bothered me about this story is how she's there for years and only had one baby. This is the thing about leftists, they think having ONE KID IS A LOT.

Seriously? If I'm a right wing dystopian Christian-theocratic patriach and most women are barren and I have one that can have children? Lemme tellya, that woman is having a baby every two years, minimum.

The author like many feminists hate the fact that still to this day (or the time she wrote the book) women are still the one that bear children, feminists hate really hard pregnancy in general, the fact a woman must carry man's child inside her make feminists uncomfortable because it give into their delusion of owners ship, man---->inside woman. Is also the matter that pregnancy put women in vulnerable position.

Post: #49

(05-09-2017 07:44 PM)Latinopan Wrote:  

(05-08-2017 11:50 PM)Tytalus Wrote:  What always bothered me about this story is how she's there for years and only had one baby. This is the thing about leftists, they think having ONE KID IS A LOT.

Seriously? If I'm a right wing dystopian Christian-theocratic patriach and most women are barren and I have one that can have children? Lemme tellya, that woman is having a baby every two years, minimum.

The author like many feminists hate the fact that still to this day (or the time she wrote the book) women are still the one that bear children, feminists hate really hard pregnancy in general, the fact a woman must carry man's child inside her make feminists uncomfortable because it give into their delusion of owners ship, man---->inside woman. Is also the matter that pregnancy put women in vulnerable position.

There is more to the delusion and of course our rulers love to finance and foster those delusions so that it may separate the women from the men.

The feminists believe that if they only would be free from the burdens of motherhood, then all the female Picassos, Teslas, Edisons, Fords and Van Goghs would be unleashed. There would be 50% of inventors, top artists and CEOs everywhere.

The reality is and the globalists have been willingly lying about this just as they lie about the wage gap. Men are faster, the top level geniuses are close to 100% men, men love science and technology 10 times more, men have minds that get infatuated with a subject far more and men also have different motivation frameworks, so that they prefer to be motivated of being the best in a large 50.000 strong group while female motivation stretches to the direct office space and there mostly to other women.

That is why most women in the 30s suddenly lack motivation to continue the rat race even if they are successful.

If ever there was an equal artificial womb, then in truth this would not free women to become betters. They are already over-represented as CEOs at 4%. They should probably be less than 1% without the diversity hires.





A non-PC society would quickly make those facts clear. And with artificial wombs then women would simply be mostly sexual playthings and nothing else. Also I might add - most would develop terrible neuroses since their biological impulse of wanting to have a child is simply too strong. You cannot breed that instinct out of them.

Post: #50

(05-10-2017 02:37 AM)Zelcorpion Wrote:  

(05-09-2017 07:44 PM)Latinopan Wrote:  

(05-08-2017 11:50 PM)Tytalus Wrote:  What always bothered me about this story is how she's there for years and only had one baby. This is the thing about leftists, they think having ONE KID IS A LOT.

Seriously? If I'm a right wing dystopian Christian-theocratic patriach and most women are barren and I have one that can have children? Lemme tellya, that woman is having a baby every two years, minimum.

The author like many feminists hate the fact that still to this day (or the time she wrote the book) women are still the one that bear children, feminists hate really hard pregnancy in general, the fact a woman must carry man's child inside her make feminists uncomfortable because it give into their delusion of owners ship, man---->inside woman. Is also the matter that pregnancy put women in vulnerable position.

There is more to the delusion and of course our rulers love to finance and foster those delusions so that it may separate the women from the men.

The feminists believe that if they only would be free from the burdens of motherhood, then all the female Picassos, Teslas, Edisons, Fords and Van Goghs would be unleashed. There would be 50% of inventors, top artists and CEOs everywhere.

The reality is and the globalists have been willingly lying about this just as they lie about the wage gap. Men are faster, the top level geniuses are close to 100% men, men love science and technology 10 times more, men have minds that get infatuated with a subject far more and men also have different motivation frameworks, so that they prefer to be motivated of being the best in a large 50.000 strong group while female motivation stretches to the direct office space and there mostly to other women.

That is why most women in the 30s suddenly lack motivation to continue the rat race even if they are successful.

If ever there was an equal artificial womb, then in truth this would not free women to become betters. They are already over-represented as CEOs at 4%. They should probably be less than 1% without the diversity hires.





A non-PC society would quickly make those facts clear. And with artificial wombs then women would simply be mostly sexual playthings and nothing else. Also I might add - most would develop terrible neuroses since their biological impulse of wanting to have a child is simply too strong. You cannot breed that instinct out of them.

If you look at the people behind funding the early feminists movement it was powerful men in banks and government, the feminists icon Gloria Steinem admitted she worked for the CIA before launching Ms Magazine.

One reason to get women in the workforce has nothing to do with liberation women but with doubling tax revenue, if only men are working you are just taxing half of the population, get women into the workplace and you double that, plus you help to lower the wage by flooding the market with more people.

Something similar is being done now with mass immigration.