The Fundamental Value of a Good Book

Earlier this week, The Star's Kristin Rushowy reported that the Toronto District School Board (TDSB) was reviewing the inclusion of Margaret Atwood's multi-award-winning dystopian novel The Handmaid's Tale on its Grade 12 reading list. That's because, as she wrote in a follow-up today, one parent complained:

Robert Edwards says if students repeated some of the words from Margaret Atwood's The Handmaid's Tale in the school halls, they'd be suspended, so he questions why it is okay in the classroom.

And what about the foul language, the anti-Christian overtones, the violence and sexual degradation, asks the parent who launched a formal complaint about the Canadian novel. Don't they violate the Toronto board's policies of respect and tolerance?

<SNIP>

Edwards filed a formal compliant with the Toronto District School Board before the Christmas holidays, arguing that while the futuristic theme of the book is acceptable, its focus on "sex, brutal situations, murder, prostitution" is not.

The book "is rife with brutality towards and mistreatment of women (and men at times), sexual scenes, and bleak depression," Edwards said in a letter to the school's principal. "I can't really understand what it is my son is supposed to be learning from this fictional drivel.

"I have a major problem with a curriculum book that cannot be fully read out loud in class, in front of an assembly, directly to a teacher, a parent, or, for that matter, contains attitudes and words that cannot be used by students in class discussion or hallway conversation. Let alone a description of situations that must be embarrassing and uncomfortable to any young woman in that class – and probably the young men, too."

<SNIP>

After Edwards complained, his son was assigned another book, Aldous Huxley's Brave New World, and will step out of class during any discussions on The Handmaid's Tale.

Way to make your kid feel like a weirdo. But that's a parent's right, I suppose.

Nothing wrong with Huxley, whose Brave New World is still relevant. But in this world, The Handmaid's Tale, so successful it's been both a movie and an opera, is practically prognostication, and it relates to not only what is happening in some quarters of Western society but also all over the less developed and even parts of the Muslim world where women are nothing more than chattel and breeders.

Which leads to today's treeware column, reprinted here in full, with some links for readers who want more details:

The wonder is that Margaret Atwood's multi-award- winning 1985 novel The Handmaid's Tale ever made it on any public school reading lists.

Not because of its sexual content, which is as titillating as test tube fertilization. But because of its lacerating look at the let's-get-back-to-that-old-timey-religion and way-of-life-when-father-knew-best-and-women-sat-in-the- corner-doing-needlework fundamentalist undercurrent running, still, in society.

It isn't slipping beneath the radar, as we saw during Alaska Governor Sarah Palin's mercifully brief run at the high priestess-ship of this cult, er, culture.

The question is, is it growing or is it just getting better organized, thanks, or not thanks, to the Internet?

The Handmaid's Tale, which has been challenged in school districts from Washington to Florida, Texas to Pennsylvania, and now, as the Star reported this week, in Toronto, is a deeply depressing and disturbing mystery set in an environmentally devastated future where, like P.D. James' 1992 Children of Men, mass infertility and fascism reign.

The difference is that, in Atwood's version, most women, rather than all men, have been rendered sterile, and those that can still reproduce are drafted as baby incubators/reproduction slaves to the ruling elite.

And, hah, they are covered in robes not unlike burkas.

There's a lot of religious and ritualistic mumbo-jumbo thrown in, not to mention the sort of sexual hypocrisy we see in clandestine Jerusalem strip clubs frequented by ultra-Orthodox Jews, in Muslim clerics seen cavorting with their mistresses on the Internet in Iran and in Bible-thumping U.S. senators and televangelists pursuing underage boys.

It's a great book and, like George Orwell's Animal Farm, required reading for my Cold War generation, and Aldous Huxley's timeless Brave New World, is exactly the kind of literature needed to stimulate thoughtful discussion amongst adolescents who might not otherwise debate much more than who should win American Idol.

Especially in times like these.

For despite the inauguration of hope and change next week on Washington's Pennsylvania Ave., the social tectonic plates have far from settled where women may rest assured that their human rights supersede those of zygotes.

Consider: U.S. President-elect Barack Obama has chosen pro-forced pregnancy pastor Rick Warren to preside. This is a very influential religious leader who has compared the number of abortions since the Roe-vs.-Wade decision in the United States, to the Holocaust.

Meanwhile, at the Liaison Capitol Hill hotel a few blocks away, the American Life League will be gearing up for its "Personhood Conference," which is all about giving a half-dozen cells of human tissue supremacy over the woman in whose body they were created.

Oh but that's not all. The so-called "patriarchy movement'' is gaining momentum, with thousands signing on to ancient Christian ideas of women's submission and cloistering.

Not in Canada you say?

Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper can barely keep the lid on his forward-to-the-past party in which members demand legislation to protect "the unborn child'' and MPs head up the anonymous "pro-life caucus.''

His previous minority government silenced women's rights advocacy groups while "think tanks'' such as the Ottawa-based Institute of Marriage and Family Canada enjoy access to Parliament Hill and to newspaper opinion pages to pitch an anti-choice, anti-national-child-care, anti-gay-rights and anti-divorce agenda.

This while the Vatican blames women on the Pill who use the toilet, as it said this month, for the decrease in male fertility all over the world, which scientists have attributed, among other things, to the dumping of chemicals in the environment and the growth hormones used in the meat industry.

So is it any wonder that some people find The Handmaid's Tale – which is also about censorship – too threatening to have on Grade 12 reading lists?

God knows, it might give kids the ability to look critically at what's happening out there.

It's worth going to the Star's website for Kristin and my originals because there's a heck of a huge debate raging in the comments, especially on Kristin's story.

One note regarding the sexual content: It's straight out of the Bible, as in Rachel, Leah and Jacob.

When Rachel saw that she bore Jacob no children, she envied her sister; and she said to Jacob, Give me children or I shall die! […] Then she said, Here is my maid Bilhah; go in to her, that she may bear upon my knees, and even I may have children through her.

In fact, a whole lot of the novel is based on the Bible.

Figures.

Comments

[sooey]

Actually, this is all straight out of my high school years with "The Diviners" by Margaret Laurence.

[Mike2]

Ms. Zerbisias,
Thank you for responding to my post on your editorial today - your practice of responding to your readers' comments is commendable and appreciated.
I'm not sure that the links you posted, however, address my concerns.
My fist issue (file under "fantasy") is that you appear to be suggesting there is a move afoot to ban the Handmaid's Tale from Ontario's schools. There simply isn't - as the Star's own article says there is one single solitary parent who is concerned about the foul language, sex and violence in the book. I will wager you that I can find a parent somewhere to say that about virtually any book out there - this is in no way "news". The poor man isn't even asking to have to book banned. So this story is an absolute non-starter.
You take this non-story and then string together a list of facts that, while largely true, do not support your thesis that there are imminent dangers to women's freedoms. Rick Warren is indeed pro-life (though not in favour of "forced pregnancy" as you state), but the notion that this means Obama will be worse for women's rights than Bush does not survive the barest scrutiny. The existence of the Personhood Conference demonstrates that there are people in America who are strongly pro-choice and feel a fetus should have more rights - but this has been the case pretty much forever and is not news, nor does it demonstrate any increasing threat.
Your arguments concerning Canada are even weaker. Women's rights groups have not been "silenced". You provide no link, but I assume you are referring to the government's decision to stop funding certain groups. This argument, frankly, is insulting to the women's groups you purport to support. I have many issues with our current government, but it has never even occurred to me that the government should pay me to criticize it. I don't even see how any self-respecting lobby group could accept money from its perceived oppressor.
You provide a link to IMFC, but I don't see how that shows they have infiltrated Parliament Hill. And if the Conservatives really wanted to ban abortion (which would be overturned by the SC anyways), they need simply bring forward the proposal - a significant minority of Liberal MPs support limiting abortion rights and would likely bring enough votes to make it pass. (Note - I am resolutely pro-choice.)
Like any columnist, I am sure you have a long list of both fans and detractors. Many of your detractors are unlikely to listen to you whatever you have to say (if their comments are any indication), but I feel you have a responsibility to your supporters to portray things more accurately. In my observation, you seem to have the conclusion to most of your columns figured out before you do the research.

[Antonia Zerbisias]

Thanks Mike2, again. But please note that I used the words ''challenged'' and "review" and not once ''banned'' or ''censored.'' And, if you go through my blog, you will see many instances where the anti-choice movement has picked up steam. It became a huge issue during the US election after Palin joined the Republican ticket and, here in Canada, on the very eve of the election, the Cosnervatives made a point of withdrawing Bill C-484 because they didn't ''want to re-open the abortion debate.'' And yet, over the holidays, there was Conservative MP Bruinooge going on about this very matter! In any case, either way, as I state clearly in my column: ''The question is, is (the keep women pregnant movement) growing or is it just getting better organized, thanks, or not thanks, to the Internet?

[hysperia]

The Bible ought to be challenged and reviewed. Seriously. Violence, brutality towards and mistreatment of women, sexual scenes and bleak depression - especially Job. There are many passages that I wouldn't want to read out loud in front of a teacher, parent or school class.

I would suggest that most 17-year olds today are aware of sex and violence, with or without Margaret Atwood. I'd rather they were aware WITH her.

[Adam]

Heh. This just reminds me of that scene in Donnie Darko where one teacher tries to ban Graham Greene's "The Destructors" from school because it's violent and senseless.

Even if I'm not the biggest fan of "Handmaid's Tale"(I preferred Oryx & Crake over it, by far) I don't believe it should get pulled from any curriculum.

It seems Mr. Edwards is only privy to the actions taken within the novel, and not the story. Fifth Business surely isn't banned, so I don't see why A Handmaid's Tale should be, considering its literary value.

[Barbara-Ann Ryan Pearce]

From the Preston Manning Centre for Democracy website:

"The vision of the Faith-Political Interface Program is to encourage and equip Canadians of faith to apply their faith-based values within the political arena in a manner consistent with democratic principles, so as to responsibly and measurably impact the political culture of Canada."
“....aims to bring together those who share similar values including: Canada’s cultural, religious, and democratic traditions ; Strong families and communities

In July, Stephen Harper appointed Preston Manning to the Council of Canadian Academies. The Council performs independent, expert assessments of the science that is relevant to important public issues including, natural, social, health and humanities.

Preston Manning, Stephen Harper, Stockwell Day etc. are all Fundamentalist Christians. Remember Fundamentalists believe they have a god given duty to be bigots and misogynists.

Most sane people of faith (I'm going to use Christian quotes here simply because I am more familiar....same type of examples can be found in every religion.) choose to embrace the "Do unto others as you would have others do unto you" and “love thy neighbour” philosophy. It promotes understanding and empathy.

Fundamentalism embraces "the rod will impart wisdom" or the "I come not to bring peace, but to bring a sword" line of thinking. The “rod” is a metaphor for harsh punishment. The sword is a metaphor for dividing the righteous, from the unrighteous....

Who is unrighteous? It is simply those who do not adhere to the Fundamentalist narrow interpretation of faith beliefs. The unrighteous are hell bound, because they have different beliefs, lifestyles, are feminists, or believe in human equality.

In order to avoid hell fire just follow the "divine rules.” These divine rules do not allow for questioning, questioning leads to hell. Blind faith is required. Be a bigot, identify the unrighteous. Women, support God-ordained male leadership in the home and church. Proselytise, evangelise and spread god’s wisdom. Remember, punishment imparts wisdom for those who are unrighteous...and hey, if punishment doesn't work? Don’t sweat it, it's not your problem. You tried to impart wisdom. It’s their own fault. No pity or empathy needed "for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness?"
.
So here is a question I always get in trouble for asking. (...can't stop myself though) What political party right now is most attractive to fundamentalists, misogynists, bigots, racists and your basic joe/jane sixpack with an inferiority complex?

All these groups believe in exclusivity not inclusivity. These groups can only define their value as human beings in terms of having superiority over others. Equality doesn’t offer superiority or righteousness over anyone. So in effect, equality only offers them inferiority or hell.

Discussions that could conclude anything other than their superiority or righteousness are forbidden. They view equality as an attack on their self worth or as a Satanic temptation. They become aggressively defensive. Bogus accusations, name calling and topic switching are used to create chaos, demean and trivialize, all in an attempt to divert the conversation to halt any deep investigation that may threaten their illusion of superiority or their place in heaven. (The dirty tricks manual comes to mind)

The Stephen Harper Conservative Party, offers an ideology that supports people who need to have an illusion of superiority or righteousness. Their policies are aimed at creating a culture that punishes people who need the benefits of equality. If the punishment doesn’t work? It’s your own fault.

The Harper Conservatives try to frame liberalism as promoting equality in attempts to attack individual freedom. The reality is the Harper Conservatives attack equality to divert attention from a responsibility to each other thus keeping their illusion of superiority.

[Barbara-Ann Ryan Pearce]

Here is something to scare you out of your seat. From our own Canadian conservative Mary Kassian:

Here is The True Women Manifesto....(or how to see submissiveness as a good thing)

http://www.truewoman.com/assets/files/TW_Manifesto.pdf

Here is The True Women website

http://www.truewoman.com/

Makes me laugh that they don't see the ideological similarities between themselves and the "evil doers"