I was struck by your exploration of the parallels between Gilead and the Old Testament, particularly the story of Jacob and Rachel. You pointed out how the Handmaids' forced pregnancies and the societal obsession with fertility mirror the struggles of Rachel and Leah for recognition and motherhood. This connection added a layer of historical and psychological depth to the story, prompting me to consider the enduring relevance of these themes.
This was extremely helpful to understand the purpose of the story. The extra information you provided regarding the biblical context allows for a deeper understanding of the story. I got an alternate point of view on the story from this lecture which made it more understanding and pointed out details from a religious perspective that I had previously missed. I agree with your points on how women were treated as objects and only seen as useful when they can birth children.
thank you so much!! any additional videos on the handmaid's tale would be extremely appreciated :) you articulated some of my scattered thoughts so perfectly and helped frame the biblical context from a different (and arguably much more objective) perspective. my first english exam is in two weeks so this was such a gem to find!
I’m so glad to hear this! I have 3 other videos on The Handmaid’s Tale, actually. ruclips.net/video/V1fjMuvlsTs/видео.html ruclips.net/video/iThunicpbvE/видео.html ruclips.net/video/AlriTv4CVBU/видео.html
9:29 I'm listening while cooking so forgive me if i missed something but i wonder if even she thinks like that, we're seeing with our lens and she might thinks it's her duty, be proud or dont really give a damn. it's different times and we also must consider the individual too since no one is the same and people might reeeally differ from the general, i know that i do. Metatron said something crucial when talking Women King, he warned that if we change history facts to fit our modern ideals we can be sure people will do this about our moden day in the future. All of it its very scary if we think about.
As someone who has read the book, seen the 1990 movie,, and watched the series, I encourage everyone to do the same. In light of what’s happening in America today, The Handmaid’s Tale could possibly wake up some people who are blind to the machinations of the far right, folks such as Mike Johnson and Marjory Taylor Green. As we see in the novel, there are women, as well as men, who are quite happy to step into the role of sanctioned sadists.THIS IS NOT A STORY ABOUT CHRISTIANS; it’s about people who use the Bible to justify cruelty … as has been done for millennia. I’m glad the book was made into a series; many people will watch it, while they wouldn’t read the book. (Their loss, as it is truly a great read.)
10:47 That's fucking awful!!!! Interesting political game but If you think of the perspective of being enslaved and than having to be used like that just twists your guts. The parallel with the Tale girls really hits this deeper too, and when we see Janine lose her baby* - a little miracle - in a world where everything was stripped from you and how this affects her it's really startling. Atwoods ideas are just masterful, authors this good are rare for me to find. *BUT it's not conclusive, it's the idea that it's conclusive that sends her into madness, it's very curious how this would be the starting point of many stories. The positions individuals take, their skill, can really be what defines a genre.
As a Muslim, I find it shocking how different the story is in the Bible as opposed to in the Quran. In the Quran, 'Hagar' is not given to be used for her reproductive capability, instead, Sara tells Abraham to marry another woman to allow him to have children. He does so, not disposing of 'Hagar' after she fulfilled her purpose. Islam values 'Hagar' to such an extent that the pilgrimage Muslims preform annually includes an act of her sacrifice and pain (walking/running between two mountains in search of water for her baby) to honour her. If anyone reading this gets time, I'd love for you to learn the Islamic story of Abraham as it is not a misogynistic story, rather a story of beautiful marital relationships, between Sara (who later bears a child from whom Jesus and many other prophets were born) and Abraham as well as his marriage with 'Hagar.'
I was raised christian and the stories of the handmaids is a huge reason why I left the religion. I was mostly down with the idea of a god who loves people and all that, but it was really these two things that totally ruined it for me. I felt like, why would God allow that if he was truly loving? Especially if it allows Abraham to have children that go on to establish nations, without giving credit to the woman that allowed it? It was always so upsetting to me. I felt to bad for these women and I was honestly disgusted that it was considered holy word. Reading your comment though, I think fixed something in me that I didn't even realize was broken. I desperately hope the Muslim version of the story is correct because that sounds much better and is something I could honestly enjoy believing.
Islam values Hagar, soley because arabs descend from her son Ishmael. Islam does not value any of the the women who were alive during muhammeds time, such as his poor child bride aisha who was raped at age 9 nor does it value women alive today, who get nothing in Heaven for being good muslims.
The bible literal shows that God himself appears to Hagar to comfort her Also the Bible does acknowledge Bilhah(sp?) and zilpah and as the true mothers of their respective sons. You're just another person trashing the Bible without actually reading it.
your comment suggests that because God comforted Hagar after Abraham cast her out, that this somehow excuses or makes her treatment as Abraham and Sarah’s handmaid justifiable. you’re literally proving Prof Koster’s point. you’re comment is literally what A Handmaid’s Tale is condemning.
@@maekar7664 No I'm referring to her claim that the bible does not empathize with Hagar. It's not true. And the bible never says Hagars treatment was justifiable, it simply records what happened as it happened. People think just because the bible records something as happening that means it's saying it's a good thing or justified by God. That's because they don't understand the Bible and simply blindly believe things anti-theists have taught them.
@@CCI320 So I’m happy I read your argument incorrectly. I’m glad we agree that divine comfort does not justify rape or slavery. We’re both on the same page there and I apologize for misreading your post. That being said, your original message is not clear about that. I reread the sections on Genesis since then, and the only portion that could possibly be interpreted as comfort for the rape and slavery, is found in Genesis 16:11b “for Yahweh has given heed to your affliction.” That being said, the text does not make clear what is meant by “affliction”. Interpretation #1: If it is the rape/slavery, we still have the problem of God then commanding Hagar to return to Abraham and Sarah, her sexual abusers. It sounds monstrous and confusing that God would command Hagar to return while he was in the middle of comforting her. That’s a problem. Interpretation #2: I argue, that God is strictly offering comfort over the “affliction” of “Sarah’s harsh treatment” of Hagar exclusively. You’ll notice, this is the context of the immediate conversation that precedes vs. 11: see Genesis 16:8-12. If the "affliction" is only "harsh treatment" because Sarah is jealous Hagar is pregnant, "okay, go back" makes somewhat sense. however, there is still a problem here with ignoring the rape/slavery and God only addressing the “harsh treatment” exclusively. Interpretation #3: it is certainly possible it could mean all three (the harsh treatment, rape, and slavery), but such an interpretation still seems outrageous, since God commands Hagar to return to her abusers - just like in Interpretation #1. Interpretation #4: God is referring to another “affliction” that is something other than the rape, slavery, and harsh treatment. But there is an argument from silence, as there are no other options offered. Plus, again, even if this the case why would God then ignore the rape, slavery, and Sarah’s harsh treatment? as I see it, these are the only possibilities regarding how to interpret “affliction” and all of them have their problems. That is my point. The "affliction" and what exactly is intended by this term is very ambiguous. To say the "affliction" has to be Hagar’s rape and slavery specifically is not clear. Why? Because the Biblical text nowhere makes this clear. While I’d like to agree with you, in all honesty, i also do not want to make the mistake of confusing any interpretation with what is explicitly given in the Bible. this coincides with exactly what Dr. Kosters is arguing: the Bible is silent here or at best, vague and ambiguous, and does not emphasize any empathy on the situation explicitly. it doesn't necessarily mean that the Bible is saying her rape and enslavement are justified, as you agree, but one would think the Bible would be far more explicit to condemn these sorts of things, and it just does not. It neither condemn it with Hagar, nor Bilhah nor Zilpah, at least not here in Genesis and that's the problem. lastly, PLEASE understand, this isn't a matter of "blindly believing things anti-theists have taught". NOBODY is attacking the Bible. Dr. Koster is simply indicating what is said and not said in the Bible. If anything, that is safety, that isn’t “anti-theist”. So, while you might not agree, and still hold to your argument - fine. but again, all the possibilities still have problems. And i would strongly caution against confusing your interpretation with what the Bible text actually says explicitly. You can afford to be more generous here rather than assuming the worst and engaging in Ad-Hominem attacks.
I was struck by your exploration of the parallels between Gilead and the Old Testament, particularly the story of Jacob and Rachel. You pointed out how the Handmaids' forced pregnancies and the societal obsession with fertility mirror the struggles of Rachel and Leah for recognition and motherhood. This connection added a layer of historical and psychological depth to the story, prompting me to consider the enduring relevance of these themes.
Glad it helped!
I’m writing an exam on this tomorrow i can’t explain how much grateful of you, here’s your flowers 💐 thank
I am so glad it helped! Please subscribe for more videos to help you with lit and writing!
This was extremely helpful to understand the purpose of the story. The extra information you provided regarding the biblical context allows for a deeper understanding of the story. I got an alternate point of view on the story from this lecture which made it more understanding and pointed out details from a religious perspective that I had previously missed. I agree with your points on how women were treated as objects and only seen as useful when they can birth children.
Thanks for sharing.
thank you so much!! any additional videos on the handmaid's tale would be extremely appreciated :) you articulated some of my scattered thoughts so perfectly and helped frame the biblical context from a different (and arguably much more objective) perspective. my first english exam is in two weeks so this was such a gem to find!
I’m so glad to hear this! I have 3 other videos on The Handmaid’s Tale, actually.
ruclips.net/video/V1fjMuvlsTs/видео.html
ruclips.net/video/iThunicpbvE/видео.html
ruclips.net/video/AlriTv4CVBU/видео.html
so useful, thank you! was surprised to see a mahabharata reference but it connects really well
Yes, isn’t it interesting how similar stories are found across a variety of religious texts and mythologies? Thanks for watching!
9:29 I'm listening while cooking so forgive me if i missed something but i wonder if even she thinks like that, we're seeing with our lens and she might thinks it's her duty, be proud or dont really give a damn. it's different times and we also must consider the individual too since no one is the same and people might reeeally differ from the general, i know that i do. Metatron said something crucial when talking Women King, he warned that if we change history facts to fit our modern ideals we can be sure people will do this about our moden day in the future.
All of it its very scary if we think about.
Well, you also have to keep in mind that the male professor from the future is contextualizing and controlling her narrative!
this video is so good thank u sm!!!
Thank you so much, Clara! I hope it helped you! I have 3 other videos on The Handmaid’s Tale. Each focuses on different aspects of the novel.
As someone who has read the book, seen the 1990 movie,, and watched the series, I encourage everyone to do the same. In light of what’s happening in America today, The Handmaid’s Tale could possibly wake up some people who are blind to the machinations of the far right, folks such as Mike Johnson and Marjory Taylor Green. As we see in the novel, there are women, as well as men, who are quite happy to step into the role of sanctioned sadists.THIS IS NOT A STORY ABOUT CHRISTIANS; it’s about people who use the Bible to justify cruelty … as has been done for millennia. I’m glad the book was made into a series; many people will watch it, while they wouldn’t read the book. (Their loss, as it is truly a great read.)
Very insightful and very accurate. Thank you for sharing.
10:47 That's fucking awful!!!! Interesting political game but If you think of the perspective of being enslaved and than having to be used like that just twists your guts. The parallel with the Tale girls really hits this deeper too, and when we see Janine lose her baby* - a little miracle - in a world where everything was stripped from you and how this affects her it's really startling. Atwoods ideas are just masterful, authors this good are rare for me to find.
*BUT it's not conclusive, it's the idea that it's conclusive that sends her into madness, it's very curious how this would be the starting point of many stories. The positions individuals take, their skill, can really be what defines a genre.
Absolutely! And Atwood definitely leaves room for another book with the twists that the historical notes create!
As a Muslim, I find it shocking how different the story is in the Bible as opposed to in the Quran. In the Quran, 'Hagar' is not given to be used for her reproductive capability, instead, Sara tells Abraham to marry another woman to allow him to have children. He does so, not disposing of 'Hagar' after she fulfilled her purpose. Islam values 'Hagar' to such an extent that the pilgrimage Muslims preform annually includes an act of her sacrifice and pain (walking/running between two mountains in search of water for her baby) to honour her. If anyone reading this gets time, I'd love for you to learn the Islamic story of Abraham as it is not a misogynistic story, rather a story of beautiful marital relationships, between Sara (who later bears a child from whom Jesus and many other prophets were born) and Abraham as well as his marriage with 'Hagar.'
This is really interesting to hear! Thank you so much for sharing it, Mehak! How does this change your perception of the novel?
I was raised christian and the stories of the handmaids is a huge reason why I left the religion. I was mostly down with the idea of a god who loves people and all that, but it was really these two things that totally ruined it for me. I felt like, why would God allow that if he was truly loving? Especially if it allows Abraham to have children that go on to establish nations, without giving credit to the woman that allowed it? It was always so upsetting to me. I felt to bad for these women and I was honestly disgusted that it was considered holy word. Reading your comment though, I think fixed something in me that I didn't even realize was broken. I desperately hope the Muslim version of the story is correct because that sounds much better and is something I could honestly enjoy believing.
Islam values Hagar, soley because arabs descend from her son Ishmael. Islam does not value any of the the women who were alive during muhammeds time, such as his poor child bride aisha who was raped at age 9 nor does it value women alive today, who get nothing in Heaven for being good muslims.
Project 2025 anyone?
Always keep your eyes open!
The bible literal shows that God himself appears to Hagar to comfort her
Also the Bible does acknowledge Bilhah(sp?) and zilpah and as the true mothers of their respective sons.
You're just another person trashing the Bible without actually reading it.
your comment suggests that because God comforted Hagar after Abraham cast her out, that this somehow excuses or makes her treatment as Abraham and Sarah’s handmaid justifiable. you’re literally proving Prof Koster’s point. you’re comment is literally what A Handmaid’s Tale is condemning.
@@maekar7664 No I'm referring to her claim that the bible does not empathize with Hagar. It's not true. And the bible never says Hagars treatment was justifiable, it simply records what happened as it happened. People think just because the bible records something as happening that means it's saying it's a good thing or justified by God. That's because they don't understand the Bible and simply blindly believe things anti-theists have taught them.
@@CCI320 So I’m happy I read your argument incorrectly. I’m glad we agree that divine comfort does not justify rape or slavery. We’re both on the same page there and I apologize for misreading your post. That being said, your original message is not clear about that. I reread the sections on Genesis since then, and the only portion that could possibly be interpreted as comfort for the rape and slavery, is found in Genesis 16:11b “for Yahweh has given heed to your affliction.” That being said, the text does not make clear what is meant by “affliction”.
Interpretation #1: If it is the rape/slavery, we still have the problem of God then commanding Hagar to return to Abraham and Sarah, her sexual abusers. It sounds monstrous and confusing that God would command Hagar to return while he was in the middle of comforting her. That’s a problem.
Interpretation #2: I argue, that God is strictly offering comfort over the “affliction” of “Sarah’s harsh treatment” of Hagar exclusively. You’ll notice, this is the context of the immediate conversation that precedes vs. 11: see Genesis 16:8-12. If the "affliction" is only "harsh treatment" because Sarah is jealous Hagar is pregnant, "okay, go back" makes somewhat sense. however, there is still a problem here with ignoring the rape/slavery and God only addressing the “harsh treatment” exclusively.
Interpretation #3: it is certainly possible it could mean all three (the harsh treatment, rape, and slavery), but such an interpretation still seems outrageous, since God commands Hagar to return to her abusers - just like in Interpretation #1.
Interpretation #4: God is referring to another “affliction” that is something other than the rape, slavery, and harsh treatment. But there is an argument from silence, as there are no other options offered. Plus, again, even if this the case why would God then ignore the rape, slavery, and Sarah’s harsh treatment?
as I see it, these are the only possibilities regarding how to interpret “affliction” and all of them have their problems. That is my point. The "affliction" and what exactly is intended by this term is very ambiguous. To say the "affliction" has to be Hagar’s rape and slavery specifically is not clear. Why? Because the Biblical text nowhere makes this clear. While I’d like to agree with you, in all honesty, i also do not want to make the mistake of confusing any interpretation with what is explicitly given in the Bible. this coincides with exactly what Dr. Kosters is arguing: the Bible is silent here or at best, vague and ambiguous, and does not emphasize any empathy on the situation explicitly. it doesn't necessarily mean that the Bible is saying her rape and enslavement are justified, as you agree, but one would think the Bible would be far more explicit to condemn these sorts of things, and it just does not. It neither condemn it with Hagar, nor Bilhah nor Zilpah, at least not here in Genesis and that's the problem.
lastly, PLEASE understand, this isn't a matter of "blindly believing things anti-theists have taught". NOBODY is attacking the Bible. Dr. Koster is simply indicating what is said and not said in the Bible. If anything, that is safety, that isn’t “anti-theist”. So, while you might not agree, and still hold to your argument - fine. but again, all the possibilities still have problems. And i would strongly caution against confusing your interpretation with what the Bible text actually says explicitly. You can afford to be more generous here rather than assuming the worst and engaging in Ad-Hominem attacks.
You are fitting the Bible into the Handmaid's Tale. 🤦♀️😒
How so?