I was quite bothered that the Handmaids took on the names of their Commanders (Ofglen, Ofcharles, Offred). Seems so domineering, de-personalizing -- another tool in taking power away from women in Gilead. So archaic, even. Then I realized that we do the same in our culture, but with last names. Does this make it okay? Even women who keep their maiden name (no pun intended) after marriage tend to refer back to their father's name. Do our customs continue to de-power and de-identify women? What would a culture that values the matrilineal look like?

Several couples we know have chosen to combine their two surnames into a new family name, and I think that's ideal - symbolic not only of equality between husband and wife, but of the new family unit which is formed by marriage. Unfortunately, though we toyed with the idea ourselves, we couldn't put together a name that wouldn't have made all our wedding guests snort their toasting champagne out through their noses, so we had to let it go. I, like many of my married friends, am known as "Ms (My Surname)" or "Mrs (My Husband's Surname)", with the former being used 99% of the time*. Only a minority of my female friends go by their husband's surname in day to day life.

But even there lies a big difference between this society and Offred's. Feminism includes the right to submit. These friends of mine - like my mother - have freely chosen to take on that name, and they can choose to keep it. Moreover, all these women keep a name of their own - the first, or given name. Offred is named merely for her current usage, which is decided by the unseen Powers That Be. Not only does the name identify her work, instead of her unique self, but that identity is completely lost and changed each time she is reassigned, and her ability to choose her identity is virtually** removed. Becoming Mrs (Your First Name) (Your Husband's Surname Here), of your own free will, is a very different thing - especially since the role of "Mrs" is so flexible in the modern day.

There should be a passage here about the use of matrinymics in various cultural traditions around the world, and the effect of those traditions in the modern day (preferably with statistics about women's pay, domestic violence, and a comparative breakdown of the roles males and females play both inside and outside the home, etc etc) but I'm going to leave it there, because man, there are enough doctoral theses in that to keep a whole anthropology department going for decades.

*As an aside, I've only found this difficult in the UK. "Ms" wasn't on a lot of forms, and sometimes I didn't even have the option to write it in. Our bank, for example, could never think outside the Mrs/Mr dichotomy. I also found myself having the following conversation when giving details: "It is Miss or Mrs?" "It's Ms." [Wary Look] Whereas at home, or in Asia, I get asked, "Miss, Mrs or Ms?" without the blinking of an eye. It's particularly puzzling, because the Australian and Asian attitudes to marriage are, if anything, more conservative than the modern Brit's.

Most puzzling are the times a British person is heard to say how they want a certificate that legally recognises their relationship - and they describe, as points of inclusion, all the legal rights and responsibilities of marriage, including those which are permanent and ongoing - but they don't want to get married. I always ended up raising an eyebrow and saying, "Sounds like you do." There's probably some connection there with the culture's relative inability to recognise non-traditional name choices.

**She has a sort-of choice, but it's one horrible situation against another.

On pg. 112, during the birth day while Ofwarren is in labor, Offred is thinking about the baby that is about to be born. At this time she also talks about the unborn babies and the fact that they had no way of telling until birth what type of baby would be born. She states: There's no telling. They could tell once, with machines, but that is now outlawed. What would be the point of knowing, anyway? You can't have them taken out; whatever it is must be carried to term. While reading this, I found myself thinking back to my first pregnancy where I wound up with conjoined twins. Then and even now, I wonder if I would've been better off not knowing. I miscarried, so I did not have to make a choice, but in light of that, ignorance may very well have been bliss. How do you feel about the abundance of technology when it comes to reproduction and pregnancy? Do you think that sometimes not knowing so much can be a good thing?

People are fond of saying, "They didn't used to have all this back in the old days, and people got along just fine!" Actually, people did not get along just fine. Women and children died or became seriously, even permanently ill. It's true that much of the time there's nothing you can fix simply by knowing - a lethal defect is still lethal, no matter when you find it out, and a whole host of measurements fall under "wait and see and hope the odds go your way". Some of the people in these situations will be glad just to know, and some of them will regret their loss of ignorant bliss.

But. But. There are also tragedies which can be averted today. Averted because we know about them on time, and can act. So, much as it can be hard sometimes to deal with the overload of information available to us, I wouldn't trade the angst for a single mother or child who might be saved.

On pg. 70, Offred is discussing her past studies of psychology and at this time she mentions a study done on three pigeons trained to peck at buttons for grain. She states: Three groups of them: the first got one grain per peck, the second one grain every other peck, the third was random. When the man in charge cut off the grain, the first group gave up quite soon, the second group a little later. The third group never gave up. They'd peck themselves to death rather than quit. While reading these lines, I could not help but identify with the third group of pigeons. Sadly, I think I've come to a point where I will never give up, even if it means death before success. How about you? Do you identify with one of these groups? What do you think Atwood's intention was in including this bit of information?

This very much explains the way couples can get "trapped" into following a certain path for too long. If results were predictable, the point of moving on would be clear.

Intrigued by the idea of a book tour and want to read more about The Handmaid's Tale? Hop along to more stops on the Barren Bitches Book Brigade by visiting the master list at Stirrup Queens and Sperm Palace Jesters. Want to come along for the next tour? Sign up begins today for tour #9 (The Jane Austen Book Club by Karen Joy Fowler with author participation!) and all are welcome to join along . All you need is a book and blog.