Female voices are only heard through men in dystopian fiction
In ‘The Handmaid’s Tale’ and ‘1984’, female voices are silenced by dystopian regimes in an effort to aid their
subjugation, however it is debatable whether their relationships with men are the only effective outlet to counter
this. Indeed, Atwood, using her perspective as a female author, explores the ways in which a variety of
suppressed women, ranging from the “loathing” Serena Joy to the “monotone” Offred, find moments of
liberation independent of men, clearly reflecting the rise in feminism at the time of writing. Meanwhile,
Orwell’s concern with the political issues such as the perceived threat from socialism prompts his focus on the
need for the whole of society to be liberated, presenting both genders to be oppressed and therefore no voice
able to be heard. Despite this, the misogyny interwoven in both dystopian societies most often results in women
depending upon men for their voices to be heard, although this is not the only opportunity available to them.
Both Atwood and Orwell demonstrate how marriage is used as a means to control and oppress women through
its illusionary association with a utopian life. In ‘The Handmaid’s Tale’, the Commander’s Wife is reduced to a
virtually powerless role, silenced by her trivial responsibility to “maintain and care for” the household, while
Mrs Parsons’ confinement to the domestic sphere in ‘1984’ renders her utterly reliant on Winston during her
husband’s frequent absence. In Gilead, the wives of the Commanders are diminished to mere accessories of the
home, as seen by Serena Joy’s habit of knitting and gardening in order to give herself “a sense of purpose”; such
loss of liberty echoes the patriarchal structure of Puritan New England, where women were forbidden to possess
property and inferior to their husbands. While Serena Joy initially advocated for such a society, giving speeches
about “the sanctity of the home, about how women should stay at home”, her transformation from a woman of
influence and popularity to one of impotence highlights the extent to which Gilead has subjugated the female
sex; she has not only lost her public ‘voice’ but has also sacrificed her identity, as evident through the possessive
title “Commander’s Wife”, just as the handmaids adopt patronymic names. By closely mirroring this character
with the extreme right activist Phyllis Schlafly, who was a staunch opponent of abortion, same sex marriage and
modern feminism, Atwood may be warning the reader of the potential impact of extreme right and religious
views. Indeed, although Serena Joy may have been crucial in promoting the conservative ideologies that act as
the foundations for Gilead, she is no less a victim of its control and suffers emotionally due to this, with Offred
noting her “held breath, the almost inaudible gasps, the shaking”; it seems in this instance that Serena Joy’s
female voice can only be heard through another woman’s ability to empathise with her. As observed by
Kauffman, “Gilead strips women of their individuality”, regardless of their status, and thus it is only through
their mutual struggle to reclaim their identity that women are able to hear each other’s voices.
Meanwhile, in ‘1984’, Orwell explores Julia’s greater sense of autonomy granted by her position as an
unmarried woman, which permits her to engage in affairs with Party members “scores of times” and thus creates
a channel for both her rebellion and voice to be heard. Unlike Offred, who is “paralysed” (Mohr) by her love
relationship with Nick, Julia “adores” her liaisons with Party members and sees them as an opportunity to
connect with like-minded rebels; she considers herself “good at spotting people who don’t belong”, an ability
which appears to mock the Party’s elaborate “telescreens” and “Thought Police” that were created for this very
purpose. Indeed, Winston understands that his relationship with Julia is a “political act” and is even educated by
her female perspective, ranging from her theory that the rocket bombs are not an aspect of war but “just to keep
people frightened” to her skill in arranging their rendezvous. This enlightenment of the nature of a regime by
women is similarly explored in ‘Fahrenheit 451’, where Guy’s relationship with Clarisse evokes his desire for
knowledge and individuality in a society where “so few want to be rebels any more". However, in spite of their
shared hatred for the Party, Julia’s resistance also appears to be sexualised and even infantilised by Winston,
who jokes that she is “only a rebel from the waist downwards”, suggesting that while female voices may be
heard by men, they are distorted or outright dismissed to suit their own misogynistic fantasies. This false sense
of camaraderie between the genders was clearly demonstrated in Communist Russia, where women outwardly
possessed equal rights and wages to men, yet were expected to sacrifice this for the sake of the economy when
the nation was not faring well; in reality, they continued to be actively discriminated against, just as O’Brien
favours Winston’s rebellion over Julia’s, despite their collective identity as Outer Party members and joint
initiation into the “Brotherhood”. Indeed, while the critic John Green argued that "Julia and Winston's victories
In ‘The Handmaid’s Tale’ and ‘1984’, female voices are silenced by dystopian regimes in an effort to aid their
subjugation, however it is debatable whether their relationships with men are the only effective outlet to counter
this. Indeed, Atwood, using her perspective as a female author, explores the ways in which a variety of
suppressed women, ranging from the “loathing” Serena Joy to the “monotone” Offred, find moments of
liberation independent of men, clearly reflecting the rise in feminism at the time of writing. Meanwhile,
Orwell’s concern with the political issues such as the perceived threat from socialism prompts his focus on the
need for the whole of society to be liberated, presenting both genders to be oppressed and therefore no voice
able to be heard. Despite this, the misogyny interwoven in both dystopian societies most often results in women
depending upon men for their voices to be heard, although this is not the only opportunity available to them.
Both Atwood and Orwell demonstrate how marriage is used as a means to control and oppress women through
its illusionary association with a utopian life. In ‘The Handmaid’s Tale’, the Commander’s Wife is reduced to a
virtually powerless role, silenced by her trivial responsibility to “maintain and care for” the household, while
Mrs Parsons’ confinement to the domestic sphere in ‘1984’ renders her utterly reliant on Winston during her
husband’s frequent absence. In Gilead, the wives of the Commanders are diminished to mere accessories of the
home, as seen by Serena Joy’s habit of knitting and gardening in order to give herself “a sense of purpose”; such
loss of liberty echoes the patriarchal structure of Puritan New England, where women were forbidden to possess
property and inferior to their husbands. While Serena Joy initially advocated for such a society, giving speeches
about “the sanctity of the home, about how women should stay at home”, her transformation from a woman of
influence and popularity to one of impotence highlights the extent to which Gilead has subjugated the female
sex; she has not only lost her public ‘voice’ but has also sacrificed her identity, as evident through the possessive
title “Commander’s Wife”, just as the handmaids adopt patronymic names. By closely mirroring this character
with the extreme right activist Phyllis Schlafly, who was a staunch opponent of abortion, same sex marriage and
modern feminism, Atwood may be warning the reader of the potential impact of extreme right and religious
views. Indeed, although Serena Joy may have been crucial in promoting the conservative ideologies that act as
the foundations for Gilead, she is no less a victim of its control and suffers emotionally due to this, with Offred
noting her “held breath, the almost inaudible gasps, the shaking”; it seems in this instance that Serena Joy’s
female voice can only be heard through another woman’s ability to empathise with her. As observed by
Kauffman, “Gilead strips women of their individuality”, regardless of their status, and thus it is only through
their mutual struggle to reclaim their identity that women are able to hear each other’s voices.
Meanwhile, in ‘1984’, Orwell explores Julia’s greater sense of autonomy granted by her position as an
unmarried woman, which permits her to engage in affairs with Party members “scores of times” and thus creates
a channel for both her rebellion and voice to be heard. Unlike Offred, who is “paralysed” (Mohr) by her love
relationship with Nick, Julia “adores” her liaisons with Party members and sees them as an opportunity to
connect with like-minded rebels; she considers herself “good at spotting people who don’t belong”, an ability
which appears to mock the Party’s elaborate “telescreens” and “Thought Police” that were created for this very
purpose. Indeed, Winston understands that his relationship with Julia is a “political act” and is even educated by
her female perspective, ranging from her theory that the rocket bombs are not an aspect of war but “just to keep
people frightened” to her skill in arranging their rendezvous. This enlightenment of the nature of a regime by
women is similarly explored in ‘Fahrenheit 451’, where Guy’s relationship with Clarisse evokes his desire for
knowledge and individuality in a society where “so few want to be rebels any more". However, in spite of their
shared hatred for the Party, Julia’s resistance also appears to be sexualised and even infantilised by Winston,
who jokes that she is “only a rebel from the waist downwards”, suggesting that while female voices may be
heard by men, they are distorted or outright dismissed to suit their own misogynistic fantasies. This false sense
of camaraderie between the genders was clearly demonstrated in Communist Russia, where women outwardly
possessed equal rights and wages to men, yet were expected to sacrifice this for the sake of the economy when
the nation was not faring well; in reality, they continued to be actively discriminated against, just as O’Brien
favours Winston’s rebellion over Julia’s, despite their collective identity as Outer Party members and joint
initiation into the “Brotherhood”. Indeed, while the critic John Green argued that "Julia and Winston's victories
