Why Conservative Christians Should Read “The Handmaid’s Tale,” the Acclaimed 1985 Feminist Novel

Authoritarianism Takes Many Guises

The Old Tower in the Fields, Vincent van Gogh, 1984. Wikiart.org, public domain.

-8 minute read time-

NOTE: Anyone can read this essay, but I’ve written it primarily to other followers of Jesus.

---

Margaret Atwood’s 1985 novel The Handmaid’s Tale deserves a place among the dystopian classics, like 1984 and Brave New World. Indeed, Atwood’s writing, stylistically, eclipses Orwell and Huxley’s. While The Handmaid’s Tale was written, in part, to critique the Moral Majority movement, I’ll argue that its message is relevant for Christians today, socially conservative or otherwise.

The Setting of The Handmaid’s Tale 

The Handmaid’s Tale is set in a dystopian American future, where an authoritarian government called the Republic of Gilead enforces social classes. These classes form around exaggerated traditional family roles (often justified using hilariously out-of-context Bible verses). One class of women, called Handmaids, bear children on the behalf of upper-class wives through perverted sex and birthing rituals. They live confined lives. They can only go outside in pairs at designated times and must wear strictly “modest” clothing. In a future where most women are infertile due to environmental wear and tear, the Handmaids are created as a social class to protect and advance fertility through rape and imprisonment as, essentially, concubines.

Atwood says every misogynistic restriction relayed in her book existed at some point in history. She writes, “One of my rules was that I would not put any events into the book that had not already happened in what James Joyce called the ‘nightmare’ of history.” In the Republic of Gilead, Women aren’t allowed to read, write, or speak out of turn and can’t own property or money. Such restrictions are, tragically, common(ish) in the broad scope of history.

The Republic of Gilead ascends to power through societal decay, due mostly to declining birth rates caused by abortions, sexual choices, and adverse environmental effects on fertility. Atwood then considers how a modern, egalitarian society might suddenly snap into such a dystopia. For instance, the people who indoctrinate Handmaids are themselves a class of women called “Aunts.” Oppressed classes enforcing and enacting oppression is a powerful tool often used by authoritarian governments.

In the ‘80s, many scientists worried about overpopulation, but Atwood foresaw the crisis of declining birthrates. Her remarkable prescience on this point should give us pause. In her fictional depiction, this factor, combined with the rising power of feminism and progressive sexuality, creates a harsh backlash that snaps the US back into a strict, authoritarian, misogynistic culture. 

Was she on to something? 

Personal Clarifications

First, something about me: On rational and biblical grounds, I'm convinced that human life begins in the womb—probably when the egg becomes viable by attaching to the uterine wall, but plausibly at conception. Either way, this fact makes most modern abortions, “elective” abortions, unethical. Many people take Atwood’s book as a work of abortion activism; that may be correct, but I take it as more than that.

Second, something about Atwood. Although Atwood does depict this dystopian regime using the Bible to justify their oppression, she has since, on several occasions, denied that her depiction is a portrayal of genuine Christianity. Indeed, in The Handmaid’s Tale, the Republic of Gilead names Baptists, Roman Catholics, Quakers, and Jehovah's Witnesses as enemies of the state. 

In other words, although she is certainly critiquing the Moral Majority movement, she is not critiquing Christianity as such. She’s depicting how authoritarian States twist religion for their power; Christianity is, obviously, not exempt from this abuse. Personally, I relate to the sentiment of the moral majority, but know it’s not free from problems. 

However, I want to draw out her broader point that hyper progressivism and declining birthrates might upset the social order enough to cause an authoritarian, misogynistic backlash.

And I hope to warn fellow brothers and sisters against this backlash, which is neither biblical nor healthy for society. “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves.” (Matthew 7:15)

How you Respond to Atwood Probably Depends on your Assumptions

You, reading this, likely either take this as a given, or you view it as an overblown delusion pushed by left-leaning, institutional media. Here are two more ways of writing it:

• Misogyny is alive, well, and growing.

• Misogyny is an overblown worry.

To the latter audience, who doubt that misogyny still exists in the West, consider an essay I read last week on Substack, “Therapy is Gay: How Therapy Harms Men” by Megha Lillywhite. She claims to uphold traditional values by arguing men process feelings through “competency” and women, basically, through gabbing. (Yes, she uses “gay” in the pejorative sense, like a chronically online, childish man might use it.) 

These kinds of essays and themes are not infrequent in 2024. “Trad-wives” purport to prefer a simple life of traditional values, mothering children alongside doing chores like, literally, churning butter (but still posting on TikTok for some reason). There’s nothing wrong with working on a farm and being a stay-at-home mother; it’s perfectly laudable and should be celebrated.

However, some of these folks seem to blame society’s ills upon egalitarian feminism and emotionally intelligent men. This is counterproductive, misguided, and, honestly, mind-boggling.

To the former group, who need no convincing of misogyny’s resurging influence, consider the following nuance and reason why misogyny might be making a comeback. In Western societies, young men generally feel purposeless, nihilistic, and desultory. The problem of male alienation in the modern West is undeniable—something’s not right. Some call this the “meaning crisis,” which tends to hit men harder than women. This condition of modern society allows for sinister voices to capitalize upon their anger, confusion, bitterness, and futility.

Entirely ignoring the trends (not universalities) of sex differences is counterproductive. Studies seem to show that in the most egalitarian countries, women tend to choose different career paths. Some call this phenomenon the “Gender Equality Paradox.” Not recognizing the pattern of biological dispositions and physical sex-differences between men and women does more harm than good. 

As an anecdotal example of social change, the Democratic Party is losing young, male voters at a staggering rate. It’s one of many, many reasons Trump won in November. I’m no Democrat (or Republican for that matter), but this fact demonstrates my point: Social conservatism appears to be more popular in its response to the meaning crisis facing young men. Several powerful influencers in the West have started focusing on this issue, in broadly positive ways, like Dr. Jordan Peterson, and extremely damaging ways, like the former boxer Andrew Tate. 

In short, unjustified, anti-masculine sentiment leads to male alienation, which leads to the susceptibility of men to genuinely toxic influences. The alienation of men could lead to a backlash of sinister misogyny, as depicted by Atwood.

“Solving” the “Meaning Crisis?” 

My aim in this essay is not to solve the so-called meaning crisis. I want to contrast these two views of the meaning crisis, however, to provide nuance.

• Men and women tend to be different in some ways, but not others. Societies that actively ignore or suppress these differences undermine their own social fabric.  

• Societies that impose these differences undermine freedom and flourishing, and are, generally, unbiblical in doing so.  

These are broad claims, but I want to leave them general for this essay. Authoritarianism despises nuance. Although my points here are abstract, they are anti-authoritarian precisely because they are nuanced and narrow in scope.

Christians, especially conservative Christians, are so used to being lambasted in popular media, we feel tempted to take any allies we can get—but at what cost? Consider the way Elon Musk warns about declining birthrates. Ironically, although he is frequently supported by conservatives and independents, and, although he has many children, he’s not a family man by any stretch of the imagination. He’s an outspoken transhumanist, an admitted workaholic, and three-times divorced. In what world does a man like Elon Musk become a hero of social conservatives? Sadly, the world of 2024.

We must find a better way; a Christ-centered way. To start, consider reading my essay on Bonhoeffer and his framework of the ethical “ultimate” and “penultimate.” 

Conservatism and Authoritarianism

While traditional conservatism used to support lawfulness and smaller government, and therefore, was prima facie anti-authoritarian, in the past few years, it has trended toward power, nationalism, tribalism, and lawlessness. For an unnerving example, see Steve Bannon’s interview with David Brooks.

I’m not bashing conservatives. I’m saying that, knowing myself, I will be tempted to see the deluge of political and social leftism and want to find the answer in a reactionary movement which falls into the same trap as the worst strands of progressivism, the villainous “by any means necessary.” I, and many other conservatives, like New York Times’ David French, see the backlash of conservatives fighting fire with fire, grasping nihilistic power to fight nihilistic power, as a growing and existential peril. 

If we continue down this road, the struggle might end in a clear, if violent, victory for one side, but ultimately, an authoritarian one. America’s once proud Republic give birth to the Republic of Gilead.

In short, a dystopian US could be socially conservative or socially liberal. This point might be obvious, almost trivial, but I want to make a stronger claim, that it’s plausible that a future dystopian US would be socially conservative, despite its history as a movement opposed to government overreach.

In Conclusion, Watch for Wolves in Sheep’s Clothing

I’m not directly addressing the “meaning crisis,” masculinity, the November 2024 election, or biblical exegesis of Egalitarianism and Complementarianism here. Rather, I want to warn Christian conservatives, a la an excellent forty-year-old dystopian feminist novel, that Christianity could plausibly be twisted to support socially conservative, authoritarianism in response to declining birth rates, demasculinization, postmodernism, the absence of good heroes, and swift expansion of progressive sexuality.

Ultimately, both sides, left or right, can misuse Scripture to support an authoritarian government. While the true Church survives under any government (since our true government is under Christ as King), Christianity is thoroughly and principally opposed to authoritarianism, as the Bible values freedom, human worth, and truth.

You, yes, you pro-life evangelical, should consider reading The Handmaid’s Tale, a brilliantly written feminist work that warns of a real threat of authoritarianism, just like 1984, just like Brave New World. 

(Warning: The Handmaid’s Tale includes violence and brief but graphic depictions of rape, and a few short descriptions of other sexual encounters.)

Hopefully, the comments don’t get too spicy🙏🌶️

I’m happy to clarify and nuance down below.

Thanks for reading,

Soli Deo Gloria

—

Edited, 11/22/24, for grammar mistakes and clarity