How are masculinity and male power examined in The Handmaid’s Tale by Margaret Atwood?
In The Handmaid’s Tale, Margaret Atwood examines masculinity and male power as central mechanisms of control in the theocratic regime of Gilead. Masculinity is constructed as dominance, authority, and control over women’s bodies, reflecting patriarchal hierarchies both within the novel and in historical societies. Through figures such as the Commander, the Eyes, and male institutions like the Guardians, Atwood critiques how male power sustains oppression by disguising control as protection. However, Atwood also presents fractured masculinities—men who are complicit, powerless, or morally conflicted—revealing that Gilead’s system dehumanizes both genders. The novel thereby exposes how authoritarian masculinity relies on fear, hierarchy, and ideology to maintain dominance, while simultaneously revealing its instability and dependence on women’s subjugation (Atwood, 1985; Stillman & Johnson, 1994; Howells, 2006).
1. Patriarchal Authority as the Foundation of Male Power
Atwood’s Gilead is built on patriarchal authority, where men occupy every position of leadership and control. From Commanders to Guardians, Gilead’s institutions are structured to privilege men as rulers and decision-makers. Theocratic ideology justifies male dominance through selective biblical interpretations, creating a society where female subservience is presented as divinely ordained (Atwood, 1985). The Commander’s household exemplifies this hierarchy, as women—Wives, Marthas, and Handmaids—are categorized and controlled based on reproductive and social utility.
This hierarchy mirrors real-world patriarchal systems where religion and law reinforced male supremacy. Atwood’s use of biblical justification recalls Puritan and Victorian gender doctrines, which framed men as natural leaders and women as moral dependents. As Stillman and Johnson (1994) note, Gilead transforms men into enforcers of divine will, legitimizing their control over women’s labor and sexuality. Thus, masculinity in The Handmaid’s Tale is not merely individual but institutional—embedded in the social and religious structures that perpetuate inequality.
2. The Commander: The Paradox of Power and Moral Corruption
The Commander, as one of the novel’s central male figures, embodies both the privileges and contradictions of patriarchal power. Outwardly, he represents the ideal masculine authority: a leader, husband, and moral guardian. Yet Atwood portrays him as hypocritical and morally compromised, suggesting that such power inevitably leads to corruption. Despite his outward conformity to Gilead’s laws, the Commander secretly violates them by inviting Offred to his study and the illicit nightclub “Jezebel’s,” revealing his desire for intimacy and validation (Atwood, 1985).
This duplicity underscores Atwood’s critique of toxic masculinity—the idea that power is sustained through domination and hypocrisy. The Commander’s need for Offred’s approval exposes the emptiness of patriarchal authority. As Howells (2006) argues, Atwood portrays the Commander as a man “trapped by the system he helped create,” dependent on women’s subservience for his sense of self. His actions reveal that masculinity in Gilead is fragile, dependent on the oppression of others, and inherently self-defeating.
3. The Role of Religion and Ideology in Constructing Male Power
Religion serves as the ideological backbone of male power in Gilead. Through selective readings of scripture, the regime constructs a theology that justifies men’s control over every aspect of life, particularly women’s reproduction. Phrases such as “Blessed are the meek” and “Give me children, or else I die” are weaponized to enforce obedience (Atwood, 1985). This manipulation of faith mirrors historical instances where religious discourse sustained patriarchal authority, such as in Puritan theocracies or Victorian moral codes.
Atwood’s critique of religious masculinity aligns with Cavalcanti’s (2000) analysis that Gilead’s theology “erases individuality and moral agency under the guise of divine order.” Men in Gilead act as interpreters of God’s will, granting them ultimate authority over women’s bodies and fates. Yet, this power is not rooted in genuine spirituality but in control and fear. By revealing religion as a tool of male dominance, Atwood exposes how ideologies can be weaponized to naturalize gender inequality, making patriarchy appear eternal and unquestionable.
4. The Eyes, Guardians, and Soldiers: Enforcing Masculinity through Surveillance and Violence
Atwood’s depiction of Gilead’s male enforcers—the Eyes, Guardians, and Angels—illustrates how state power transforms masculinity into a system of discipline. These men embody militarized masculinity, trained to surveil, punish, and control. Their role reflects how totalitarian states historically weaponize male aggression to maintain social order. The Eyes, in particular, represent the omnipresence of patriarchal authority: unseen, feared, and all-controlling.
As Cahir (1999) notes, “the Eyes function as both literal spies and metaphors for the internalized gaze of patriarchy.” Men are conditioned to police not only women but also each other, creating a culture of suspicion and competition. This militarized masculinity dehumanizes men as much as it enslaves women—reducing identity to obedience. Atwood thereby critiques how authoritarian societies manipulate male identity, replacing empathy and individuality with power and conformity. Through this lens, Gilead becomes a case study in how systemic control corrupts masculine ideals of protection and honor, transforming them into instruments of oppression.
5. Complicit and Subversive Masculinities: Nick and Luke as Contrasts
Atwood complicates the portrayal of masculinity by including men who both resist and conform to Gilead’s regime. Nick, the chauffeur and Offred’s lover, represents a subtle form of rebellion. His ambiguous loyalties challenge the binary of oppressor and victim, revealing that masculinity under Gilead is fluid and circumstantial. Through his acts of compassion and risk-taking, Nick embodies an alternative masculinity rooted in empathy and mutual survival (Atwood, 1985).
Luke, Offred’s husband from the pre-Gilead era, offers another perspective. Before the rise of Gilead, he benefits from casual patriarchy—taking his wife’s freedoms for granted. His belief that he could “protect” Offred through marriage demonstrates how male privilege often operates invisibly (Howells, 2006). Both men illustrate the varying degrees of complicity within patriarchy. Nick’s partial resistance and Luke’s complacency suggest that even well-intentioned men are implicated in structures of domination. Through them, Atwood portrays masculinity as a spectrum—ranging from oppressive to redemptive—but always shaped by power.
6. Masculinity and Emotional Repression: The Cost of Power
Atwood also explores how patriarchy harms men through emotional repression and moral alienation. In Gilead, expressions of vulnerability or empathy are seen as weaknesses incompatible with masculine authority. The Commander’s loneliness, Nick’s secrecy, and the Guardians’ violence all stem from a system that denies emotional authenticity. This reflects broader sociological insights about how traditional masculinity enforces emotional silence to maintain dominance (Connell, 1995).
Atwood’s male characters are often isolated, unable to form genuine relationships because power has replaced intimacy. The Commander’s awkward need for companionship with Offred reveals that domination cannot fulfill human emotional needs. Likewise, soldiers and guards become desensitized instruments of authority, robbed of individuality. Through these portrayals, Atwood demonstrates that toxic masculinity dehumanizes men as effectively as it enslaves women. Male power, therefore, is not liberation but confinement within the very hierarchy it enforces.
7. Dismantling Patriarchy: Atwood’s Feminist Reclamation of Power
Ultimately, Atwood’s critique of masculinity serves her broader feminist project: to reveal and resist patriarchal systems that define power as male and dominance as natural. By exposing the moral decay and emotional emptiness of Gilead’s men, Atwood dismantles the illusion that power equates to strength. As Offred narrates her experience, her voice becomes an act of reclamation—defining humanity through empathy and memory rather than control.
Howells (2006) emphasizes that The Handmaid’s Tale “subverts patriarchal authority by re-centering narrative control in the female voice.” Atwood’s depiction of flawed, insecure, and divided men underscores the fragility of patriarchal systems. Gilead’s ultimate downfall, hinted at in the “Historical Notes,” suggests that male power structures are inherently unstable, collapsing under their contradictions. Through this feminist lens, Atwood reimagines power not as possession but as relational—rooted in truth, compassion, and resistance.
Conclusion: The Fragility of Masculine Power in Gilead
In The Handmaid’s Tale, Atwood’s exploration of masculinity reveals a system both dominant and decaying. Male power sustains Gilead, yet its contradictions—between moral authority and corruption, control and fear, faith and hypocrisy—expose its weakness. Masculinity, in Atwood’s dystopia, is not a monolith but a performance enforced through ideology and violence. Through figures like the Commander, Nick, and the Eyes, Atwood portrays how patriarchal systems enslave men as well as women, replacing humanity with hierarchy.
By connecting Gilead’s structures to real-world histories of gender inequality, Atwood delivers a timeless warning: when masculinity is defined by control, both freedom and empathy perish. Her novel thus redefines power as moral accountability rather than domination, asserting that true strength lies not in authority, but in the courage to resist it.
References
-
Atwood, M. (1985). The Handmaid’s Tale. Toronto: McClelland and Stewart.
-
Cahir, L. C. (1999). “Narrative Poetics and Feminist Politics: Margaret Atwood’s The Handmaid’s Tale.” Journal of Narrative Theory, 29(2), 162–176.
-
Cavalcanti, I. (2000). “Utopias of/f Language in Contemporary Feminist Literary Dystopias.” Utopian Studies, 11(2), 152–179.
-
Connell, R. W. (1995). Masculinities. Berkeley: University of California Press.
-
Howells, C. A. (2006). Cambridge Companion to Margaret Atwood. Cambridge University Press.
-
Stillman, P. G., & Johnson, S. (1994). “Identity, Complicity, and Resistance in The Handmaid’s Tale.” Utopian Studies, 5(2), 70–86.