Post: #1

I keep seeing ads for this series, but paid no attention to it until I started seeing reviews of it.

It's more SJW doubling down along the lines of "When We Rise" and "Dear White People" - preposterous fantasizing about Christian fundamentalists (which, judging from the trailer, is really just Islam with the serial numbers filed off) taking over the US and oppressing women.

It's based on a novel by feminist hack Margaret Atwood written something like thirty years ago, so perhaps it can be forgiven for not anticipating/showing awareness of Islamic ideology, but that's no excuse for the producers. As usual, Hollywood is obsessed with blaming the people least likely to oppress anybody at all, and totally ignore the cultures that routinely do so and are openly welcomed here by suicidal leftists.

The entire premise is so ridiculous that it's hard to believe anyone could possibly take it seriously. This video is a pretty good takedown of it.

Post: #2

I read the novel back in high school for an essay I wrote in English class about dystopian literature. It was written in the early-mid 80's. That was the era of Regan's first term, the rise of the Pat Robertson/Jerry Falwell religious right's influence in the US, Maggie Thatcher being Prime Minister in the UK, and in Atwood's home country of Canada the Conservative party was running the country for the first time since the mid-60's. Leftists, being stupid and lacking perspective, think anything to the right of Karl Marx is a Fascist. Therefore the left wing literati couldn't help but project that the then rightward leaning of the Anglosphere was "problematic." Regan was the start of a conspiracy to turn the US into a Totalitarian Right-Wing country.

(1. They've been saying that since Nixon -- Philip K. Dick had a 10 year spree that was nothing but novel after novel of paranoid fantasies about Nixon. 2. I can't go a day without overhearing some half-wit talk about how Trump is going to suspend the constitution and launch a coup because he's literally Hitler. Which goes to show that the left hasn't changed it's rhetoric in over 50 years. Anyone they don't like has been a Fascist/Hitler since at least 1968.)

The plot of the novel itself is that after either a limited nuclear war with the Soviets or some ecological disaster-- it's not clear which-- most women in the US have become sterile. The religious right launches a coup and the US is now a Christian fundamentalist totalitarian state and the rights of women are rescinded so that they are literally kept barefoot and in the kitchen and the upper class fundamentalist Christian government bigshots get assigned fertile women as concubines to have children. Most of these fertile slave women are political prisoners-- feminists, lesbians, religious minorities, anyone who was known to be against the regime's values. So yeah, it's kind of a martyr fantasy/horror story for feminists. The plot is mostly how the female protagonist deals with being a concubine. Not much actually happens. Which is very indicative of female vs male writing-- writing about the apocalypse happening and a woman author talks about female feelings while a male author will chronicle the turn of events, speculate about the big picture, and want to get to the actual meaning of things.

So yes, this show is going to be nothing but anti-male, anti-white, anti-Christian poz.

Post: #3

Quote:Most of these fertile slave women are political prisoners-- feminists, lesbians, religious minorities, anyone who was known to be against the regime's values. So yeah, it's kind of a martyr fantasy/horror story for feminists. The plot is mostly how the female protagonist deals with being a concubine. Not much actually happens. Which is very indicative of female vs male writing-- writing about the apocalypse happening and a woman author talks about female feelings while a male author will chronicle the turn of events, speculate about the big picture, and want to get to the actual meaning of things.

It's kind of hilarious how quickly they can go from treating this state of affairs as a dystopian horror story, to immediately defending the creation of such a system via Islam.

Post: #4

Margaret Atwood, The Tragically Hip -- you can all thank Canada for showing you the benchmark of mediocrity.

Post: #5

^Come on TFAP, what about Justin Beiber, Avril Lavigne, Celine Dion and Nickel Back bro?

Post: #6

We used to be on our way to something.

We had Joni Mitchell, Neil Young, Gordon Lightfoot, and Mordecai Richler.

EDIT: Scotian, you forgot Brian Phaggot Adams. 3 years I lived in Britain, every time I mentioned my home country some cheeky cunt mentioned that no-talent hack.

Post: #7

Left-wing womyn have it so good in the West, they have to rely on fiction to pretend to be oppressed. Ironically they keep defending Islam.

Post: #8

It's not the first time it's adapted on screen.



The trailer of this version : The Handmaid's Tale - 1990 version

Post: #9

I remember reading this book in high school and the whole class thinking what a pile of complete bullshit it is. Of all the dystopian novels like 1984 or Brave New World which actually have some believable parallels to the real world, this one had the most ridiculous premise: women are life, women are the most important sacred thing left on this earth and yet this beautiful perfect creature is kept in breeding captivity by oppressive fundamentalist Christians. It has just the right mixture of pathological fear of Christians and fear of their predetermined biological function of being mothers to make all leftists swoon.

Post: #10

Would impregnate this handmaiden for the sake of humanity.

Post: #11

(05-03-2017 09:57 PM)Germanicus Wrote:  I read the novel back in high school for an essay I wrote in English class about dystopian literature. It was written in the early-mid 80's. That was the era of Regan's first term, the rise of the Pat Robertson/Jerry Falwell religious right's influence in the US, Maggie Thatcher being Prime Minister in the UK, and in Atwood's home country of Canada the Conservative party was running the country for the first time since the mid-60's. Leftists, being stupid and lacking perspective, think anything to the right of Karl Marx is a Fascist. Therefore the left wing literati couldn't help but project that the then rightward leaning of the Anglosphere was "problematic." Regan was the start of a conspiracy to turn the US into a Totalitarian Right-Wing country.

(1. They've been saying that since Nixon -- Philip K. Dick had a 10 year spree that was nothing but novel after novel of paranoid fantasies about Nixon. 2. I can't go a day without overhearing some half-wit talk about how Trump is going to suspend the constitution and launch a coup because he's literally Hitler. Which goes to show that the left hasn't changed it's rhetoric in over 50 years. Anyone they don't like has been a Fascist/Hitler since at least 1968.)

The plot of the novel itself is that after either a limited nuclear war with the Soviets or some ecological disaster-- it's not clear which-- most women in the US have become sterile. The religious right launches a coup and the US is now a Christian fundamentalist totalitarian state and the rights of women are rescinded so that they are literally kept barefoot and in the kitchen and the upper class fundamentalist Christian government bigshots get assigned fertile women as concubines to have children. Most of these fertile slave women are political prisoners-- feminists, lesbians, religious minorities, anyone who was known to be against the regime's values. So yeah, it's kind of a martyr fantasy/horror story for feminists. The plot is mostly how the female protagonist deals with being a concubine. Not much actually happens. Which is very indicative of female vs male writing-- writing about the apocalypse happening and a woman author talks about female feelings while a male author will chronicle the turn of events, speculate about the big picture, and want to get to the actual meaning of things.

So yes, this show is going to be nothing but anti-male, anti-white, anti-Christian poz.

Couldn't be more on point, as the saying goes.
Hunger Games. I remember thinking, is that book really about a dystopian nightmare future, or some teenage girl's feelings about her clothes. Absolute gash.

Post: #12

Funny, I was talking about this book with a chick today. She was saying due to the political climate it's totally relevant. Make no mistake, these people believe, eat and shit their rhetoric. On a side note, i was never a fan of Atwood. She's too cynical and nihilistic and it comes out in all her writing. She sounds like one of those advan gare hippies from the 90's make poetry about the monotony of being human or something. No wonder she's loved by feminist.

Post: #13

Could it be that women fear becoming feminine again - to fear men?

Or could it be that they secretly want this to happen, stop her degenerate, shameless, tasteless life; to submit to men and serve, protected and defended by her master?

Slavery is, "... a condition for every higher culture, a heightening of culture" - Nietzsche, (BGE, 239).

Post: #14

(05-03-2017 09:57 PM)Germanicus Wrote:  The plot of the novel itself is that after either a limited nuclear war with the Soviets Russia or some ecological disaster-- it's not clear which-- most women in the US Western Europe have become sterile. The religious right Muslims launch a coup civil war and the US parts of Western Europe are now a Christian an Islamic fundamentalist totalitarian state and the rights of women are rescinded so that they are literally kept barefoot and in the kitchen and the upper class fundamentalist Christian Muslim government bigshots get assigned fertile women as concubines to have children. Most of these fertile slave women are political prisoners-- feminists, lesbians, religious minorities Christians, leftist/centrist/right wing native Europeans, basically anyone who was known to be against the regime's values - plus the leftists who enabled it in the first place of course. So yeah, it's kind of a martyr fantasy realistic scenario/ horror story for feminists intelligent Europeans. The plot is mostly how the female protagonist deals with being a concubine. Not much actually happens.

Fixed it.
It makes so much more sense this way.

But wait a minute, isn't that what's happening in Syria right now, in real life?
I mean, look at it:

Quote:Muslims launch a civil war and parts of the Middle East are now an Islamic fundamentalist totalitarian state and the rights of women are rescinded so that they are literally kept barefoot and in the kitchen and the upper class fundamentalist Muslim government bigshots get assigned fertile women as concubines to have children. Most of these fertile slave women are political prisoners - religious minorities and anyone who was known to be against the regime's values.

Maybe they should just send a camera crew there to film it, would save a lot of money on production for sure.

Post: #15

There was an ad for this thing after the Super Bowl. I was watching with about six or seven people and they were puzzled.

Despite having read the book in school (and even watching the Robert Duval movie), I couldn't remember the story well enough to describe it as anything more than "some sort of dystopian feminist thing, where women are...uhh...".

I realize now that's because there was no story.

Post: #16

(05-04-2017 01:49 AM)TooFineAPoint Wrote:  Margaret Atwood, The Tragically Hip -- you can all thank Canada for showing you the benchmark of mediocrity.

I hate The Tragically Hip. Never understood why they achieved any kind of success. And yeah, other garbage Canadian acts like Nickelback, Nelly Furtado and such got mentioned just now, but it's the Hip that are really jarring. When both mullet heads and music critics like something you know it's festering crap.

(05-04-2017 03:53 AM)I DIDNT KILL MY WIFE Wrote:  I remember reading this book in high school and the whole class thinking what a pile of complete bullshit it is. Of all the dystopian novels like 1984 or Brave New World which actually have some believable parallels to the real world, this one had the most ridiculous premise: women are life, women are the most important sacred thing left on this earth and yet this beautiful perfect creature is kept in breeding captivity by oppressive fundamentalist Christians. It has just the right mixture of pathological fear of Christians and fear of their predetermined biological function of being mothers to make all leftists swoon.

Now that you mention it, that is bang on analysis. What do western, white feminists fear and hate the most? Their own femininity and biology. Submitting to a man and becoming a mother to his children is on par with a repressive totalitarian government in their eyes. Well...if you're talking their own white men or Christian white men. Islamic, non Western men? Yes, that's perfectly fine.

Post: #17

(05-03-2017 09:57 PM)Germanicus Wrote:  I read the novel back in high school for an essay I wrote in English class about dystopian literature. It was written in the early-mid 80's. That was the era of Regan's first term, the rise of the Pat Robertson/Jerry Falwell religious right's influence in the US, Maggie Thatcher being Prime Minister in the UK, and in Atwood's home country of Canada the Conservative party was running the country for the first time since the mid-60's. Leftists, being stupid and lacking perspective, think anything to the right of Karl Marx is a Fascist. Therefore the left wing literati couldn't help but project that the then rightward leaning of the Anglosphere was "problematic." Regan was the start of a conspiracy to turn the US into a Totalitarian Right-Wing country.

(1. They've been saying that since Nixon -- Philip K. Dick had a 10 year spree that was nothing but novel after novel of paranoid fantasies about Nixon. 2. I can't go a day without overhearing some half-wit talk about how Trump is going to suspend the constitution and launch a coup because he's literally Hitler. Which goes to show that the left hasn't changed it's rhetoric in over 50 years. Anyone they don't like has been a Fascist/Hitler since at least 1968.)

The plot of the novel itself is that after either a limited nuclear war with the Soviets or some ecological disaster-- it's not clear which-- most women in the US have become sterile. The religious right launches a coup and the US is now a Christian fundamentalist totalitarian state and the rights of women are rescinded so that they are literally kept barefoot and in the kitchen and the upper class fundamentalist Christian government bigshots get assigned fertile women as concubines to have children. Most of these fertile slave women are political prisoners-- feminists, lesbians, religious minorities, anyone who was known to be against the regime's values. So yeah, it's kind of a martyr fantasy/horror story for feminists. The plot is mostly how the female protagonist deals with being a concubine. Not much actually happens. Which is very indicative of female vs male writing-- writing about the apocalypse happening and a woman author talks about female feelings while a male author will chronicle the turn of events, speculate about the big picture, and want to get to the actual meaning of things.

So yes, this show is going to be nothing but anti-male, anti-white, anti-Christian poz.

As a Canadian Gen-Xer this was the "Can-Con" (Canadian Content) novel shovelled down my throat when we were taking dystopian science fiction. The upside was at least I got to read 1984 BEFORE it and was therefore able to detect that Atwood's tripe was clearly the inferior product.

I was uber beta at the time (1st year University) so naturally I didn't say anything about how amateur it was compared to Orwell. All the girls in my class loved Atwood (or at least professed to).

Although it is not a very good read, it could serve as decent allegory of the dangers of a totalitarian religious AND political regime coming to power in the West (i.e. one that has no separation of church and state). However, Atwood gets it precisely wrong in picking Christianity. I wonder if the feral regressive leftists can see the parallels between the state in the Handmaid's Tale and a few Islamo-fascist regimes currently in existence right now around the world? (Of course not.) All they are missing is a fertility crisis.

Post: #18

Fuck sake, the irony of the CBC gushing over this book and trying so very hard to push the parallels between the book and Trump's America.

Unreal, its times like this that I do wonder, for real, if the unchecked leftism actually does lead to a type of brain damage.

Post: #19

I still have the movie on VHS if anybody wants it. The titty scenes might skip a little.

Aloha!

Post: #20

I saw some trailers about this because it was promoted ad on Youtube app on my phone, and I saw some clips from the 90s movie.

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".

There is also Children of Men in which the entire human population goes sterile.

Men tend to created dystopia that have some base on reality.

But this novel like many here have said, is nothing but feminism porn, it takes everything feminism hate and created a totalitarian government on it.

But I also wonder if women read this novel as feminists novel or as a some sort of romance erotica novel, because the novel itself has the same elements you would find in Harlequin, female submission, male authority, the main character eventually falls in love with the guy that was suppose to get her pregnant. My guess some women get turn on by the idea of being subject like in the novel.

Post: #21

I read it in high school almost 20 years ago. This is on my top five worst novels list. They synopsis above is just about right, although there is some irony in that the hookers in this book have more freedom than the handmaidens. What was alluded to earlier was that this type of relationship bothered me. Did they not think about polygamy? That would have been an easier leap to me than being concubines, but of course I am deluding myself. We are talking about feminist fascists(the FF for short ) here. Of course they would think that concubines would be the way to go for Christians instead of polygamy, as if polygamy is not found in the bible, or that they suspended the concept of legitimacy for offspring. I keep forgetting that Christians are knuckle dragging oafs who cant think past their dick to these people.

Post: #22

What's hilarious about this new adaptation is that the writers felt compelled to inject race into it on top of everything else. The pretext was that 'nobody could have foreseen when the book was written that fascist wacko evangelicals would actually succeed in coopting so many blacks into their hate-filled theocratic hate-cults of hate', so to make it realistic in Current Year, they had to make the protagonist the wife in an interracial marriage, the child taken from her for adoption mixed race, and therefore blacks part of the ruling elite of Gilead.

Which, when you think about it, makes Gilead less bad by their own SJW standards than in the original book. Originally, the Gileadeans were every bit as racist as the Nazis in "Man in the High Castle". Now? Not so bad!

Talk about shooting your own ideology in the foot.

I got suckered into reading it years ago by a college girlfriend. She raved about how good it was, how important, etc. Which was absurd (and illuminating) given she was a die-hard capital-GOP Republican partisan.

Post: #23

I remember watching Sliders reruns on Scifi over a decade ago. That was a fun show.

Post: #24

I can tell it's a SJW jerkoff fantasy because every SJWanker on my Facebook has been diddling zherself to death since this trailer came out.

Post: #25

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.