Can someone please explain to me why _The Handmaid’s Tale_ is considered a major feminist work? I’ve read the book, and while it’s well written, I found Offred one of the more passive characters I’ve come across in a book. She doesn’t DO anything for almost the entire book except basically stand around and look pretty. And by doing, I don’t mean Offred should have been trying to overthrow the government or anything like that. I mean she could have at least tried to find out, ON HER OWN INITIATIVE, what ultimately happened to her husband Luke (i.e. confirm whether he really died that day or not), and whether it was possible for her to reunite with her young daughter, instead of waiting passively for someone to present her with that info only when they need something from her. I would have preferred to read about the adventures of Offred’s BBF Moria, or of fellow handmaid Ofglen, both of whom DID something about their situations (even if it ultimately failed), than read about the one character who was so perfectly passive that she needed not one, but two Duex ex Machinas to rescue her from her plight. Admittedly this might be my weird ideas of what makes a female character a feminist one at work (does the female character still find a way to make her own decisions about her life and still hold onto her dignity, even if she lives in an extremely sexist society? Then she’s probably a feminist character.), but I still don’t find _A Hansdmaid’s Tale_ to be a very feminist work.

And unless someone asks for it, I’ll spare you guys my ranting over Atwood’s worldbuilding in Handmaid. Approaching this work from a SF/F background like I did, the (lack of) worldbuilding is as screamingly bad to me as the passive feminist Offred was.

I didn’t think you meant it that way at all! I just meant that I thought it was okay to link with a warning rather than not link at all, since she made good points.

Yeah, sorry, I didn’t mean to be like “Everyone’s stupid except meeeeeeee!”

It’s just one of my pet peeves. Even though I had a brother who was disabled, and all of my siblings would agree that it’s a terrible thing to call someone who ~actually is disabled~ most of them use it as a pejorative for everything else frequently. And it’s so ubiquitous that even though it bothers me a lot, I can read an article that uses it the same way and completely blank it a couple weeks later.

But I know I’ve frequently screwed up, I never thought twice about using “crazy” or “lame” until I started reading about feminism, and a lot of other issues from there online.

And yes, it seems like simply banning kids from using one name will lead to them inventing other ones that mean the same thing. I know when I was younger a lot of kids used “special” once people started cracking down on “retarded”

I haven’t really seen or heard people use “sperg” but I have seen “Ass-Pie”.

I haven’t, but I have started noticing people using ableist terms like “sperg” a lot more since being diagnosed with Asperger’s Syndrome (an Autism Spectrum Disorder). Privilege is very good at keeping one from noticing things until the moment you realize you no longer have it.

Patrick McGraw: I think it’s the same process by which neutral terms for disability become ableist through being used as insults, just in reverse. I’m reminded of elementary school children who had been forbidden to use the term “retarded” simply using “LD” (Learning Disability) in exactly the same manner.

That reminds me of my mom saying “remedial” instead of retarded…and she calls my sister “remedial” all the time. >_>V
Has anyone else experienced people using “autistic” as being interchangeable with “retarded”?

Patrick McGraw: As has been noted, the term “derp” did not originally have any ableist meaning, simply referring to silly behavior, but it didn’t didn’t take long for ableist usage to show up.

I recall one person in my Public Speaking class explaining “derp” as meaning “the onomatopoeia for a brain fart”. I myself used it a lot in class as a synonym for “silly” or “ill-thought out”. People not hep to internet culture found it cute and endearing, LMAO.
HOWEVER, I don’t use it in safe spaces hardly anymore due to being called out for being ableist.[/cool story, sis]

I think it’s the same process by which neutral terms for disability become ableist through being used as insults, just in reverse. I’m reminded of elementary school children who had been forbidden to use the term “retarded” simply using “LD” (Learning Disability) in exactly the same manner.

I was very disappointed to read Tabitha Saint Germain’s response, she was one of my favorite members of the MLP:FIM cast due to her performance as Rarity. Her response was total “Intent: It’s Fucking Magic!” where not intending to hurt someone means they have no reason to be angry, and the offender should have no reason to feel sorry.

While most people know that calling someone “retarded” is wrong, not everyone’s aware that calling ideas or other non-people things that is also problematic for different reasons. I’m not defending the writer, but just mentioning we’ve all had to realize some of our past language choices were privileged at some point.