Friends,
I just finished the WWZ, and let me tell u it was pretty different. I mean there were no main character, not even a protagonist. guess u could call the zombies antagonists but to me they really aren't. Have you guys ever seen the movie, I AM LEGEND, thats what this book reminded me of. But in a different way. Both portray a world going to the dust but in different manners.
WWZ is told in a biography description. There is no narrator, there are no main character. The narator is unknown, but it seems that he or she is interviewing serveral people to talk about the zombie pandemic accuring around the world. First we are brought into a discussion with a Chinese diplomat who discusses the beginnings of the disease. A boy was fishing in CHina but was bitten. Then he continued to describe how the boy's body literally tore itself apart. tHE DISEASE BEGAN TO SPREAD AOUND QUICKLY, AND chINA SEEMED TO TRY and keep it a secret. Even the CIA didnt know what was going on because they thoiught that there was a givernment rebellion going on at the time. It is pretty funny because it seems likely that the United States would miss something like that just at the possibility at the communist regime in China to collapse. But then again our economy wouldn't do so well if it did. Anyway sson the whole world goes into chaos and it is amazing!! I mean if it happened in the real world that would suck but the way the author demonstrates politics and zombies is amazing. The author doesn't really focus on the zombies themselves as many books do, but on our reaction to them. Obviously like books like blindness, there are those who dont care about the infected, and decide to Quarantine the victims which I totally disagree with.
I know we have to defend the public to help the people but comeone there has to be a way to help these people i mean look at I AM LEGEND, that guy didnt give up.
Anyways of course the world heads come together and interestingly enough the author makes the united States be the country that decides to come to the offensive side. True un the book the US is the one that suffers most, considering the Great Panic that happens there but why is it there that wants to kill. Arent we the country that everyone comes to for help? Especially for humanitarian reasons. Why? Because the US started as such a noble cause and we were the first o nes to truly rise and become a great power so everyone. But then again sometimes I see it to be hypocritical. I mean I feel like the united States government doesnt really care, but uses that image as a mask for the true intentions.
But anyways usually I hate politics. Why u ask? Because it is so ruthless. There are no morals and it can destroy so may people. True politics can be seen in Roman times, and I mean lok what happened there they freakin stabbed Caesar, and it wasnt by assassins, it was byhis colleagues. I think that is what the book demonstrates, what the power of politics can do to destroy people, literally. I mean by the end of the book the human race is one its way towards extinction, not just because of the zombies, if I might add. I dunno I guess in my opinion politics is such a show. It is like in the book ANNA KARININA where the whole russian views of the outside is so restless and life consuming. It really destroys lives, and we make it so nessescary, why? Competition. We all want to be better than the next, but most are humble about it. No our society makes us be humble, because if we arent we are scorned. This is a very complicated part of life and I am so happy that I am not a part of it.
Friday, January 18, 2013
Saturday, January 12, 2013
Does Believing or Not Believing in Evolution Matter?
Friends,
Today I saw this question on the deviant art forum
Why do you believe or disbelieve in evolution?
And what I thought on this matter I thought I might share with you, because things like this sometimes make me sad and annoyed.
Well in my opinion its really a pointless debate. I mean I believe that we all went through evolution, but I don't think we were monkeys at first, i just think we adapted so much to our environment. But does it really matter? What good does this do for our future? I mean I constantly see people argue over the smallest of things, even though they have more in common than they think. It just seems that people always want to prove that they are the right ones and they are on top all the time and honestly that is just unnecessary.
I mean instead of talking about something that happened millions of years ago, shouldn't we be talking about the world and how to mmake it better? I mean there is so much shit going on all over. The shootings that happened, the fact that alot of people don't have the chances to get a decent meal, the fact that right now people are dying in the Middle East for their freedom, like we Americans did 200 years ago and no one is helping them. The fact that the world is always in constant conflict... I mean isn't that more important? Why live in the past?
For hundreds of years people have always been fighting over the smallest of things. Europeans fought over Protestantism and Catholicism and caused so many deaths, even though they are still both Christian and believe in God. They believe in the same thing yet they fight. And not just Christians, other religions too it is seen constantly. Buddist monks in Burma want all the Muslims there to die even though they both could just live in peace.
Is there a point in living in the past? Why cares if we were in monkeys or weren't monkeys? What matters is here and now and our future that is what we should be focusing on. We should instead of fighting strive for a better tomorrow, where less people are starving, where people can get together in talk about what they love, where no one has to die to have a peaceful life.
THAT IS WHAT MATTERS! THE NOW, NOT THEN!
I mean instead of talking about something that happened millions of years ago, shouldn't we be talking about the world and how to mmake it better? I mean there is so much shit going on all over. The shootings that happened, the fact that alot of people don't have the chances to get a decent meal, the fact that right now people are dying in the Middle East for their freedom, like we Americans did 200 years ago and no one is helping them. The fact that the world is always in constant conflict... I mean isn't that more important? Why live in the past?
For hundreds of years people have always been fighting over the smallest of things. Europeans fought over Protestantism and Catholicism and caused so many deaths, even though they are still both Christian and believe in God. They believe in the same thing yet they fight. And not just Christians, other religions too it is seen constantly. Buddist monks in Burma want all the Muslims there to die even though they both could just live in peace.
Is there a point in living in the past? Why cares if we were in monkeys or weren't monkeys? What matters is here and now and our future that is what we should be focusing on. We should instead of fighting strive for a better tomorrow, where less people are starving, where people can get together in talk about what they love, where no one has to die to have a peaceful life.
THAT IS WHAT MATTERS! THE NOW, NOT THEN!
Always,
thehistoryfreak13
You can watch me on deviantart at this link:
Friday, January 11, 2013
Friends,
Recently I read the book Blindness, and it was quite bizarre to be honest. The plot was very interesting overall but the characters were very strange to see through. The main character, the doctor's wife, is seen by many of the readers as the witness, who has to see what these blind people do. But that isn't the point of her role. To many the very presence of this woman is both baffling and horrific in some senses.
Why would she stay with her husband when he doesn't treat her right? He doesn't respect her or value her to much degree, even considering the lengths she took to remain with him. Her husband even cheats on her in front of her. It seems that even though the wife cared enough to go after the doctor, it wasn't anywhere near the feeling of love. It seems more like a sibling relationship, just without as much warmth. But that still leaves an important question, why did she stay? As we saw the asylum had gotten worse and worse. When people needed to go to the bathroom they couldn't find room so they just pooped everywhere, yet she remained. Many people think taht she is horrible to stay there and say nothing and not tell them taht she can see, but why should she. We don't know what the others would have done to her. The fact that they are blind and she isn't is a great chance for bitterness and resentment to occur. I highly admire her for staying because even with all the disruption and horrible occurrences she remains in the asylum. She is courageous and patient, traits that are so often lost to humanity that we need the tales of books and movies to remind us of its glories.
Recently I read the book Blindness, and it was quite bizarre to be honest. The plot was very interesting overall but the characters were very strange to see through. The main character, the doctor's wife, is seen by many of the readers as the witness, who has to see what these blind people do. But that isn't the point of her role. To many the very presence of this woman is both baffling and horrific in some senses.
Why would she stay with her husband when he doesn't treat her right? He doesn't respect her or value her to much degree, even considering the lengths she took to remain with him. Her husband even cheats on her in front of her. It seems that even though the wife cared enough to go after the doctor, it wasn't anywhere near the feeling of love. It seems more like a sibling relationship, just without as much warmth. But that still leaves an important question, why did she stay? As we saw the asylum had gotten worse and worse. When people needed to go to the bathroom they couldn't find room so they just pooped everywhere, yet she remained. Many people think taht she is horrible to stay there and say nothing and not tell them taht she can see, but why should she. We don't know what the others would have done to her. The fact that they are blind and she isn't is a great chance for bitterness and resentment to occur. I highly admire her for staying because even with all the disruption and horrible occurrences she remains in the asylum. She is courageous and patient, traits that are so often lost to humanity that we need the tales of books and movies to remind us of its glories.
Friends,
Earlier we watched the movie Idiocracy and throughout the whole film i couldn't help thinking how much I would hate to live in that world. I am so serious, i would despise it so much. When I'm around people, I'd like them to give me an interesting discussion and make me think about things alot. To live in that society would be hellish. But that isnt the point of the movie, it is a very sarcastic movie obviously, warning against the fact how technology and advertising is dumbing our society. THough that is true in some aspects, and is happening humanity is too complex and too diverse for something like this to happen. I mean there will always be those few people who seperate from anyone else, and I didn't see taht at all in this movie. I mean to be honest our society currently is so control oriented that something like this to happen is unrealistic. I the past it wasn't this extreme and now we are at the instance where our own technology is controling what we see and organizing it as well.
Im sorry but even though this movie was hilarious it was also horrifying at the same time. I didn't want to be there to live in a wasteland where life was destroyed to the brink or stupidity.
Earlier we watched the movie Idiocracy and throughout the whole film i couldn't help thinking how much I would hate to live in that world. I am so serious, i would despise it so much. When I'm around people, I'd like them to give me an interesting discussion and make me think about things alot. To live in that society would be hellish. But that isnt the point of the movie, it is a very sarcastic movie obviously, warning against the fact how technology and advertising is dumbing our society. THough that is true in some aspects, and is happening humanity is too complex and too diverse for something like this to happen. I mean there will always be those few people who seperate from anyone else, and I didn't see taht at all in this movie. I mean to be honest our society currently is so control oriented that something like this to happen is unrealistic. I the past it wasn't this extreme and now we are at the instance where our own technology is controling what we see and organizing it as well.
Im sorry but even though this movie was hilarious it was also horrifying at the same time. I didn't want to be there to live in a wasteland where life was destroyed to the brink or stupidity.
Friends,
Ok so this passage really pissed me off. You know when you read a book or watch a movie there is that one character that you want to smack in the face or kick in the face to let out your frustration, well for me it's the Commander. Gahhh how pissed I was when I read this.
'''It's a club?' I say.
'Well, that's what we call it, among ourselves. The club.'
'I thought this sort of thing was strictly forbidden,' I say.
'Well officially,' he says. 'But everyone's human, after all.'
I wait for him to elaborate on this, but he doesn't, so I say, 'What does that mean?'
'It means you can't cheat Nature,' he says. 'Nature demandsvariety, for men. It stands to reason, it's part of the precreational strategy. It's Nature's plan.' I don't say anything, so he goes on.
'Women know that instinctively. Why did they buy so many clothes, in the old days? To trick men into thinking they were several different women. A new one each day.'
He says this and he believes it, but he says many things that way. Maybe he believes it, maybe he doesn't, or maybe he does both at the same times. Impossible to tell what he believes.
'So now that we don't have different clothes,' I say, ' you merely have different women.' This is irony, but he doesn't acknowledge it.
'It solves a lot of problems,' he says, without a twitch.
I don't reply to this. I am getting fed up with him. i feel likefreezing on him, passing the rest of the eveningin sulky wordlessness. But I can't afford that and i know it. Whatever this is, it's still an evening out.
What I'd really like to do is talk to the women, but I see scant chance of that.
'Who are these people?' I ask him
...................
'No,' I say, 'I mean the women.'
'Oh,' he says. 'Well, some of them are real pros. Working girls'-- he laughs-- 'from the time before. They couldn't be assimilated; anyway, most of them prefer it here.'
'And the others?'
'The others?' he says. 'Well, we have quite a collection. That one there, the one in green, she's a sociologist. Or was. Thst one was a lawyer, that one was in business, an executive position: some sort of fast food chain or maybe it was hotels. I'm told you can have quite a good conversation with her if all you can feel like is talking. They prefer it here, too.'"
Agh there is so much wrong with this conversation agh!!!!!!! Don't you feel like just punching him!! So Ofglen is taken to a club, but interestingly enough the club is only for the high officials. Ordinary men can't come here. It is funny because the officals are supposed to be the most religious and most dedicated to the laws, but as we see it is the opposite. In these cases, the laws are never placed because of the enforcer's belive in those laws. It's merely because they want something to assert their power. This is again seen in the fact that the prostitutes in the club are mostly 'working girls'. See the Commander doesn't even call them women, he calls them girls. Think about the language he is using when referring to the women is insulting, its as if he is enjoying the position that these women seem to have.
Also when he says that its nature that men have to a variety of women ti be satisfied, but if that is true to him then why aren't other men able to get the same. You see the Commander doesn't really belive that statement in generally, he is mostly talking about himself and all these officials.
It also seems that the Commander believes that women desire to catch men's attention. He says how women used to dress up in different outfits to make others that they are different people. Clearly he hasn't tried to understand women at all, please all he bases his statements are on what he thinks. He probably desired different women and thought this so as to justify his disgusting thoughts. This is seen in how he treats Ofglen as pet instead of an actual woman. It is really weird because considering how woman are the ones who needed the most because they give birth to the children, yet they are treated the worst and thought to be the ones that could destroy society, to the extreme of not even allowing them to read and write.
Atwood is making a very bold statement with this dialogue, and it is obvious when reading it.
Ok let us talk about the Commander in general, because many people seem to like the Commander since he treats Ofglen better than the others. But I absolutely disagree, the Commander is one of the most detestable characters in the book for me. He doesn't see any woman, not even his wife as a person. He doesn't acknowledge the pain that Serena Joy might feel from the fact that he is always woth other women including the Handmaids. He doesn't treat Ofglen in a kind manner, he treats her as we treat a dog. He seems to like to see how uncomfortable she is with everything in the society, which is horrible. He is getting off on it. What is there to like in this guy, He is hypocritical especially. Many peoeple think that the more obvious the villian the more devestating they can be but that isnt true. thOSE WHO CAN SNEAK AROUND ESPecially with acting nice are the most dangerous, and that includes the Commander.
Ok so this passage really pissed me off. You know when you read a book or watch a movie there is that one character that you want to smack in the face or kick in the face to let out your frustration, well for me it's the Commander. Gahhh how pissed I was when I read this.
'''It's a club?' I say.
'Well, that's what we call it, among ourselves. The club.'
'I thought this sort of thing was strictly forbidden,' I say.
'Well officially,' he says. 'But everyone's human, after all.'
I wait for him to elaborate on this, but he doesn't, so I say, 'What does that mean?'
'It means you can't cheat Nature,' he says. 'Nature demandsvariety, for men. It stands to reason, it's part of the precreational strategy. It's Nature's plan.' I don't say anything, so he goes on.
'Women know that instinctively. Why did they buy so many clothes, in the old days? To trick men into thinking they were several different women. A new one each day.'
He says this and he believes it, but he says many things that way. Maybe he believes it, maybe he doesn't, or maybe he does both at the same times. Impossible to tell what he believes.
'So now that we don't have different clothes,' I say, ' you merely have different women.' This is irony, but he doesn't acknowledge it.
'It solves a lot of problems,' he says, without a twitch.
I don't reply to this. I am getting fed up with him. i feel likefreezing on him, passing the rest of the eveningin sulky wordlessness. But I can't afford that and i know it. Whatever this is, it's still an evening out.
What I'd really like to do is talk to the women, but I see scant chance of that.
'Who are these people?' I ask him
...................
'No,' I say, 'I mean the women.'
'Oh,' he says. 'Well, some of them are real pros. Working girls'-- he laughs-- 'from the time before. They couldn't be assimilated; anyway, most of them prefer it here.'
'And the others?'
'The others?' he says. 'Well, we have quite a collection. That one there, the one in green, she's a sociologist. Or was. Thst one was a lawyer, that one was in business, an executive position: some sort of fast food chain or maybe it was hotels. I'm told you can have quite a good conversation with her if all you can feel like is talking. They prefer it here, too.'"
Agh there is so much wrong with this conversation agh!!!!!!! Don't you feel like just punching him!! So Ofglen is taken to a club, but interestingly enough the club is only for the high officials. Ordinary men can't come here. It is funny because the officals are supposed to be the most religious and most dedicated to the laws, but as we see it is the opposite. In these cases, the laws are never placed because of the enforcer's belive in those laws. It's merely because they want something to assert their power. This is again seen in the fact that the prostitutes in the club are mostly 'working girls'. See the Commander doesn't even call them women, he calls them girls. Think about the language he is using when referring to the women is insulting, its as if he is enjoying the position that these women seem to have.
Also when he says that its nature that men have to a variety of women ti be satisfied, but if that is true to him then why aren't other men able to get the same. You see the Commander doesn't really belive that statement in generally, he is mostly talking about himself and all these officials.
It also seems that the Commander believes that women desire to catch men's attention. He says how women used to dress up in different outfits to make others that they are different people. Clearly he hasn't tried to understand women at all, please all he bases his statements are on what he thinks. He probably desired different women and thought this so as to justify his disgusting thoughts. This is seen in how he treats Ofglen as pet instead of an actual woman. It is really weird because considering how woman are the ones who needed the most because they give birth to the children, yet they are treated the worst and thought to be the ones that could destroy society, to the extreme of not even allowing them to read and write.
Atwood is making a very bold statement with this dialogue, and it is obvious when reading it.
Ok let us talk about the Commander in general, because many people seem to like the Commander since he treats Ofglen better than the others. But I absolutely disagree, the Commander is one of the most detestable characters in the book for me. He doesn't see any woman, not even his wife as a person. He doesn't acknowledge the pain that Serena Joy might feel from the fact that he is always woth other women including the Handmaids. He doesn't treat Ofglen in a kind manner, he treats her as we treat a dog. He seems to like to see how uncomfortable she is with everything in the society, which is horrible. He is getting off on it. What is there to like in this guy, He is hypocritical especially. Many peoeple think that the more obvious the villian the more devestating they can be but that isnt true. thOSE WHO CAN SNEAK AROUND ESPecially with acting nice are the most dangerous, and that includes the Commander.
Friends,
I have just read one of the most heart-breaking scenes in my life. When I read this passage in the Handmaids Tale, I literally cried. In this passage, Ofglen is given the chance to see her daughter by Serena Joy. But also Serena Joy isn't doing it out of the goodness of her heart. It is obvious by the way she speaks to Ofglen that she particularly enjoys torturing Ofglen in her lowest moment. Which is a pretty disgusting thing because all Ofglen has in this book is low moments where is is really miserable. There are people who say that her personality is not admirable at all but she doesn't have to be. She is a normal woman who still in the past. To be honest I highly admire her for her patience, because that is such a rare thing to see these days, especially in the darkest of times. Never have I seen Ofglen lose her temper, especially with people like the Commander and Serena Joy. If it was me I would be really pissed off. My pride gets in the way, I can't stand people like the Commander or Serena Joy.
So back to the scene in the book. This is the passage:
"I take it from her, turn i t around so I can see right-side up. Is this her, is this what she's like? My treasure.
So tall and changed. Smiling a little now, so soon, and in her white dress as id for an olden-days First Communion.
Time has not stood still. It has washed over me, washed me away, as id I'm nothing more than a woman of sand, left by a careless child too near the water. I have been obliterated for her. I am only a shadow now, far back behind the glib shiny surface of this photograph. As shadow of a shadow, as dead mothers become. You can see it in her eyes: I am not there.
But she exists, in her white dress. She grows and lives. Isn't that a good thing? A blessing?
Still, I can't bear it, to have been erased like that. Better she'd brought me nothing.
I still sit at the little table, eating creamed corn with a fork. I have a fork and spoon, but never a knife. When there's meat they cut it up for me ahead of time, as if I'm lacking manual skills or teeth. I have both, however. That's why I'm not allowed a knife."
Wow that was so powerful. That paragraph is both in of the saddest and best passages I have ever read. The simplicity and passion and despair is so evident. Before this scene it states "'You can have it for a minute,' Serena Joy says, her voice low and conspiratorial. ' I have to return it, before they know it's missing'". See that part is what pisses me off. Serena Joy sees that Ofglen is in her lowest moment and there is no need to push her down but she continues to try to destroy her emotionally. I guess she is trying to do that so that Ofglen and be more obedient than she already is. The human mind can be so confusing sometimes, there at most times never a logical reason we do things. Sometime she just have these urges, we act on our emotions. In Serena Joy's case, she seems to resent Ofglen for the mere fact she has the ability to have children while she can't. Having children could also be associated with Serena's desire to be in a position of higher authority. Because before she was a well-known speaker for the church and now she is the wife of the Commander where the highest prestige she can have is having a child of her own. I guess that is the real reason why she want to have a child so badly, it would explain why she is perfectly fine with taking a child against a mother's will.
I understand what Ofglen is feeling. It isn't only the fact that her lost her daughter that she is upset, it is the fact that even her child has become totally oblivious to her orgins. Only Ofglen knows and acknowledges that she is the mother and without her the truth dies with her. Imagine your child, the child that grew within you, that came from you and sought your presence as a babe, now is growing never to remember that again. Her child is stolen from her.
What I also admire about Ofglen is that even though she is so upset, she is able to later pick herself up in anger. She has this anger and passion that comes out in a vengeance. We know from this that Ofglen is ready to fight back, to make them pay. She will no longer lay there and just do as she is told.. It is her time now. Then Nick comes........
Always,
Nour
I have just read one of the most heart-breaking scenes in my life. When I read this passage in the Handmaids Tale, I literally cried. In this passage, Ofglen is given the chance to see her daughter by Serena Joy. But also Serena Joy isn't doing it out of the goodness of her heart. It is obvious by the way she speaks to Ofglen that she particularly enjoys torturing Ofglen in her lowest moment. Which is a pretty disgusting thing because all Ofglen has in this book is low moments where is is really miserable. There are people who say that her personality is not admirable at all but she doesn't have to be. She is a normal woman who still in the past. To be honest I highly admire her for her patience, because that is such a rare thing to see these days, especially in the darkest of times. Never have I seen Ofglen lose her temper, especially with people like the Commander and Serena Joy. If it was me I would be really pissed off. My pride gets in the way, I can't stand people like the Commander or Serena Joy.
So back to the scene in the book. This is the passage:
"I take it from her, turn i t around so I can see right-side up. Is this her, is this what she's like? My treasure.
So tall and changed. Smiling a little now, so soon, and in her white dress as id for an olden-days First Communion.
Time has not stood still. It has washed over me, washed me away, as id I'm nothing more than a woman of sand, left by a careless child too near the water. I have been obliterated for her. I am only a shadow now, far back behind the glib shiny surface of this photograph. As shadow of a shadow, as dead mothers become. You can see it in her eyes: I am not there.
But she exists, in her white dress. She grows and lives. Isn't that a good thing? A blessing?
Still, I can't bear it, to have been erased like that. Better she'd brought me nothing.
I still sit at the little table, eating creamed corn with a fork. I have a fork and spoon, but never a knife. When there's meat they cut it up for me ahead of time, as if I'm lacking manual skills or teeth. I have both, however. That's why I'm not allowed a knife."
Wow that was so powerful. That paragraph is both in of the saddest and best passages I have ever read. The simplicity and passion and despair is so evident. Before this scene it states "'You can have it for a minute,' Serena Joy says, her voice low and conspiratorial. ' I have to return it, before they know it's missing'". See that part is what pisses me off. Serena Joy sees that Ofglen is in her lowest moment and there is no need to push her down but she continues to try to destroy her emotionally. I guess she is trying to do that so that Ofglen and be more obedient than she already is. The human mind can be so confusing sometimes, there at most times never a logical reason we do things. Sometime she just have these urges, we act on our emotions. In Serena Joy's case, she seems to resent Ofglen for the mere fact she has the ability to have children while she can't. Having children could also be associated with Serena's desire to be in a position of higher authority. Because before she was a well-known speaker for the church and now she is the wife of the Commander where the highest prestige she can have is having a child of her own. I guess that is the real reason why she want to have a child so badly, it would explain why she is perfectly fine with taking a child against a mother's will.
I understand what Ofglen is feeling. It isn't only the fact that her lost her daughter that she is upset, it is the fact that even her child has become totally oblivious to her orgins. Only Ofglen knows and acknowledges that she is the mother and without her the truth dies with her. Imagine your child, the child that grew within you, that came from you and sought your presence as a babe, now is growing never to remember that again. Her child is stolen from her.
What I also admire about Ofglen is that even though she is so upset, she is able to later pick herself up in anger. She has this anger and passion that comes out in a vengeance. We know from this that Ofglen is ready to fight back, to make them pay. She will no longer lay there and just do as she is told.. It is her time now. Then Nick comes........
Always,
Nour
Thursday, January 10, 2013
Friends,
I was reading Handmaid's tale earlier and I wanted to show this particular passage that really intrigued me.
"The sidewalks here are cement. Like a child, I avoid stepping on the cracks. I'm remembering my feet on these sidewalks, in the time before, and what I used to wear on them. Sometimes it was shoes for running, with cushioned soles and breathing holes, and stars of fluorscent fabric that reflected light in the darkness. Though I never ran at night; and in the daytime, only beside well-frequented roads.
Women were not protected then.
I remember the rules, rules that were never spelled out but that every woman knew: Don't open your door to a stranger, even if he says he is the police. Make him slide his ID under the door. Don't stop on the road to help a motorist pretending to be in trouble. Keep the locks on and keep going. If anyone whistles, don't turn to look. Don't go into a laundromats, by yourself, at night.
I think about laundromats. What I wore into them: my own clothes, my own soap, my own money, money that I had earned myself. I think about having such control (24)".
This is the debate really that most people bring up when discussing women and their role in society. Woman have to protect themselves from the predators of the world. They lurk in the shadows to take advantage of your weaknesses and women should watch out. Alright I know this has been stated before by many people before but I am going to say it anyway: Woman should not have to learn how not to get raped, men should learn not to rape. Considering all the complications and emotional consequences thet rape victims face there aren't as many convictions as there should be. I see what Atwood is trying to do here. She present such a controversial and true point, yet she also puts the narator's desperations and joy in haviing such a freedom, when the society sees a lack of freedom as the only solution. It is very clever in its own way.
I
I was reading Handmaid's tale earlier and I wanted to show this particular passage that really intrigued me.
"The sidewalks here are cement. Like a child, I avoid stepping on the cracks. I'm remembering my feet on these sidewalks, in the time before, and what I used to wear on them. Sometimes it was shoes for running, with cushioned soles and breathing holes, and stars of fluorscent fabric that reflected light in the darkness. Though I never ran at night; and in the daytime, only beside well-frequented roads.
Women were not protected then.
I remember the rules, rules that were never spelled out but that every woman knew: Don't open your door to a stranger, even if he says he is the police. Make him slide his ID under the door. Don't stop on the road to help a motorist pretending to be in trouble. Keep the locks on and keep going. If anyone whistles, don't turn to look. Don't go into a laundromats, by yourself, at night.
I think about laundromats. What I wore into them: my own clothes, my own soap, my own money, money that I had earned myself. I think about having such control (24)".
This is the debate really that most people bring up when discussing women and their role in society. Woman have to protect themselves from the predators of the world. They lurk in the shadows to take advantage of your weaknesses and women should watch out. Alright I know this has been stated before by many people before but I am going to say it anyway: Woman should not have to learn how not to get raped, men should learn not to rape. Considering all the complications and emotional consequences thet rape victims face there aren't as many convictions as there should be. I see what Atwood is trying to do here. She present such a controversial and true point, yet she also puts the narator's desperations and joy in haviing such a freedom, when the society sees a lack of freedom as the only solution. It is very clever in its own way.
I
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)