This Margaret Atwood book, having such an intensely gendered agenda, is sometimes confusing to the reader and the author’s opinions, as expressed through different characters, seem to mislead the reader as to her own opinions about feminism and a potential utopian order for the world. Specifically, it was difficult to piece together exactly what her mother’s position had been in terms of the protests and issues like abortion and pornography, although less so with the pornography as there is the scene where Offred’s mother burns it. At one point the mother talks about being called a “pronatalist” by her friends because she wants to have a baby and it is difficult to tell exactly for what reasons this is such a horrific thing. Other places in the book other characters mention the women who realized the infertility problem and gave up trying, and perhaps this is the group that Offred’s mother was involved with. Unfortunately, it is very difficult to cite specific parts of this book without having excessively marked up the text while reading, as the nature of the narrative is that it hops frequently between past and present in no predictable pattern.

One particular passage where Offred is reliving a conversation with her mother stands out as an interesting set of beliefs about women and their place in the world. The scene begins with a description of the mother being over for dinner around Offred and Luke. A discussion of why she refuses to dye her hair is what launches the mother’s tirade.
“What do I need it for, I don’t want a man around, what use are they except for ten seconds’ worth of half babies. A man is just a woman’s strategy for making other women…just do the job, then you can bugger off, I said, I make a decent salary, I can afford daycare.” (120-121)
Clearly she has respect for men as producers of sperm, but little else. As if to support the Commander’s claim to Offred during one of their chats, the mother suggests that the feeling had gone from their society and any idea of love was the exception rather than the rule.

Perhaps Atwood uses the figure of the mother to play the stereotype of the feminist, the feared, illogical and outspoken feminist that most other women with the occasional feminist thought consider when denying the label “feminist”. And yet even hidden amongst stereotypically hostile statements, the mother sometimes makes logical points – or the beginnings of them – so she is not rendered a completely ridiculous character. Instead she could be a method for Atwood to deliver certain ideas with immunity, having a character like this to hide behind. The reverse sexism is evident in comments from the mother such as, “it’s like they’re permanently absent-minded…they aren’t a patch on women except they’re better at fixing cars and playing football, just what we need for the improvement of the human race, right?” (121). This sentiment mirrors the statements made by men about women throughout history suggesting a lack of intelligence and a strict limitation to only a very few activities they may do better than men. Considering the impression given by the book as a whole, it is still difficult to pin down where Atwood stands. She does present this extreme feminist activist, but at the same time, belittles her in many ways and renders her somewhat comical. There are many layers to the gender conflict in this book, but without more in depth study of other characters and specifically how they interplay in the mind of Offred, Atwood’s intentional message remains somewhat mystifying.