Literary Log #1

The Handmaid's Tale by Margaret Atwood




Does the end justify the means?

A reoccurring theme throughout the novel is the idiom, the end justifies the means. As all people with a morally correct compass, I severely disagree with this ideology. I believe Atwood makes a statement with her novel arguing against this Machiavellian principle. The entire setting of The Handmaid's Tale takes place in a society that uses appalling methods to "fix" the "damage" that has plagued the people. To fix a society of reproduction issues, select women have to be alienated and serve as child-bearing vessels, violated during "holy ceremonies". An end to woman objectification has been found; now they have the freedom from the horrors that befell women before. No skin will be shown, no careers to be had, and no choices to be made. Yes, women will be free from the excruciating and cruel power to choose. There is a solution to improper household. Women will only have one job, because that is all they are good for. Marthas will take care of household duties, Wives will be the instrument for their husbands to climb the social and economic ladder, Handmaids to bear the children, Aunts to teach and train, and Jezebels--because men will be men, and they have needs to fill. If mistakes are made, rules broken, the women and men will be hanged or taken to the colonies, scrounging in filth and radiation. After all, thinking independently and freely is corrosive and hardly conducive to a productive society. But faith and religion too have come to attention. As previously stated, it is dangerous to think outside the infinitesimal minds of the frame workers of Gilead. So religion, one of the bones in Gilead's skeleton, too has to be regulated. For the safety of the people. Love has been removed from existence, has become taboo. As did the pleasure that comes with it, now a sin and forbidden. Never again will someone be alone, for all marriages will be arranged. Does this not sound like utopia? A world that will "benefit" the future generations is all but destroying the current. Now, will this "end' really justify the means; "You can't make an omelet without breaking eggs" (Atwood 211). Will the the omelet be good enough.  Each aspect of Gildean is meant to control under the guise of creating a utopia, safe from crime, sexuality, and freedom. This is Margaret Atwood's statement; the omelet will never taste as rich when the price of the broken eggs was great. The result will never be able to validate the actions and course taken to achieve it, if the actions and course were corrupt and immoral.