Holy shit. Brad alerted me to this incredibly creepy upcoming film, Children of Men. And not creepy in a sci-fi dystopia kind of way. No, more in the crazy fundamentalist kind of way:
Children of Men envisions a world one generation from now that has fallen into anarchy on the heels of an infertility defect in the population. The world's youngest citizen has died at 18, and humankind is facing the likelihood of its own extinction.
"Really, since women stopped being able to have babies, what's left to hope for?" Clive Owen's character asks in the trailer.
Their only hope is a group called The Human Project, which is working to get women reproducin' again. Or something. (The trailer doesn't really make it clear.) Then a miracle is discovered-- a silent, pregnant woman (she's probably barefoot, too, but the trailer doesn't show her feet). They must rush her to The Human Project in an attempt to save the baby.
"For our future" flashes across the screen. The film's tagline is "NO CHILDREN. NO FUTURE. NO HOPE." The moral of the story? Start having more babies! Or the total breakdown of civilized society will ensue.
Was this movie written by the religious anti-contraception movement? "Children of men" is, after all, a biblical synonym for "mankind." But no, it was actually adapted from a book by British writer P.D. James (who sits in the House of Lords as a conservative).
There would seem to be some upsides to a world where everyone is infertile. For example, no shrieking infants on airplanes. No strollers clogging your favorite brunch spot. And what about pleasurable sex without the risk of pregnancy? Oh, no! At least according to the book, people have barely any interest in non-procreative sex, and women are punished for their infertility with "painful orgasms."
One might think that in 2021 sex has become some sort of national pastime, what with hardly anything else to do and no danger of unwanted pregnancies. However, people have lost interest in sex, and the state has had to open "pornography centres". Apart from phantom pregnancies, more and more women have what they describe as "painful orgasms", i e the muscular contractions without the accompanying feeling of pleasure.
Just look at what happens when you allow women to control their fertility. They'll STOP HAVING BABIES altogether. And they'll stop having orgasms. And the world as we know it will crumble.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Start breeding, ladies, or society will fall apart.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/3982
There would seem to be some upsides to a world where everyone is infertile.
But do they balance out that one nasty downside? You know, extinction.
If wingnuts are the alternative, extinction seems like the better choice.
We learn in the twist ending for this film that all Liberals have been imprisoned in Gitmo since 2007, leaving a free male population with equipment too tiny to do the job.
In a special-effects slow-motion ending, one courageous woman tears down the walls, and the camera pulls back as a wave of newly-freed and well-endowed Liberal men pour from the smoking Gitmo ruins. The world is saved!
The trailers are indeed creepy (the woman may or may not be barefoot, but she has to strip naked - silently - before a total stranger to prove she's pregnant; for some reason her bulging abdomen doesn't seem to suggest anything to him). I can't figure out the logic of it, either - if society is desperate for babies, why would they have to smuggle the only pregnant woman out of the city to a secret project made up of "the world's greatest minds"?
But I didn't know the story it came from; what you say makes it even creepier. The sex-phobics are indeed a sick bunch.
I can't figure out the logic of it, either - if society is desperate for babies, why would they have to smuggle the only pregnant woman out of the city to a secret project made up of "the world's greatest minds"?
Because obviously, the world of 2021 is full of radical lefty wackos who, after the abortion issue was rendered basically moot, decided to shift their focus from killing babies to making sure that no more babies were ever conceived. Seriously, I can't see how this plot could possibly work without some sort of anti-child bad guy.
I actually kinda want to see this movie, if only to see how it differs from Margaret Atwood's treatment of a similar premise in A Handmaid's Tale. My unfounded prediction: Children of Men will be characterized by a frightening earnestness and total lack of self-reflection.
Interesting. I've been looking forward to this film. The plot seems interesting enough and Chiwetel Ejiofor is one HELL of an actor. Obviously I haven't seen it yet so it may turn out to be some horrible propaganda piece for fundamentalist extremists.. but I really don't see any political overtones to the trailer. It's not that they're haven't been enough pregnancies -- there haven't been any. Ah, but maybe after watching a summer of popcorn movies I'm not being as keen a moviegoer as I could be. :)
I was thinking that this may be the chauvinist answer to Handmaid's Tale. Although I'm not sure there *needs* to be an anti-child bad guy; the "bad guy" could be the same as the bad guy (aka the cause of sterility) in Atwood's novel, namely some sort of virus or radiation poisoning due to nuclear war. The difference? In this film all the dirty little whores on birth control become sterile.
Bah.
It is a great book, actually. P.D. James is a brilliant mystery writer, and this was her one book exploring the genre of dystopian fiction. She herself is the mother of two daughters, and although she is conservative (I just read her published diary of one year) she is not a pushover, nor is she sex-phobic. I think this book has a lot more to do with her sense of family and how important it can be.
I think her thought experiment about what a world without a future would look like is both fascinating and sad.
Her writing is brilliant on the whole. Children of Men is not my favorite book, too dark, but her mystery novels are wonderful. She wrote the novel "An Unsuitable Job for a Woman"--the first in her series of books about a lower-class, uneducated British woman private eye named Cordelia Grey. I do not know if she self-identifies as a feminist. But she did complain that when her series of books was made into a BBC series, that they made Cordelia too wishy-washy and not as competent and sure of herself as she was in James' books.
She supported her family and herself through writing, because her husband was often ill. She is one heckuva tough lady, but I do think that her books are somewhat a product of her time. She does consistently write strong, interesting and central woman characters.
I don't know about the film, but if I remember the book correctly (and I haven't read it for ages) it is actually MEN who are infertile - women are ALL fertile, but with no men having viable sperm there are no children being born.
A young black woman has to silently and compliantly strip naked for a white man in a room of cattle to demonstrate her breeding capability and the only analogy anyone wants to draw is The Handmaid's Tale?
I've been seeing the trailer for this and it also reminded me of The Handmaid's Tale, which I remember was a film I watched with my mother and it put me on the path to becoming a feminist--as well as my mother and father:)I haven't read the original book but if the twist ending is true that would be great, so much is put on women for fertility and to reproduce it'd be nice to see the other side take the heat for a change.
I haven't seen the trailers, so I didn't know about the stripping naked part (I don't remember that in the book) but it really is a good book, even if hollywood mucks it up.
malfaisante, no fucking joke. i almost spit up my coffee when i saw the cows. jesus.
The whole universal sterility bit is an old trope in Sci Fi. It was especially popular in the seventies (if my dad's stash of novels and monthlies is any guide). I remember one beat up paperback I read in middle school featuring a mysterious 8 year old who pops up in a world that's been infertile for 20 years. The title and author escape me. It still pops up, of course - James' novel was published in 1992, and there was at least one story in Asimov's this year about a mass sterility event.
Given that Sci Fi often skews towards conservative/libertarian views, especially on gender, its probably true that some/most/all of the mass sterility in Sci Fi is serving some anti-woman agenda. That said, there's a whole lot of ideas in SF that can be used for nefarious rhetorical purposes. SF's job is to think about the unthinkable, and oftentimes the unthinkable isn't so pleasant.
mcsokrates, I'd strongly disagree that SF skews to libertarian/conservative views.
As for why they'd rush the woman to the center, maybe it's the equivalent of trying to catch the last surviving male in the Y: THE LAST MAN comic book series? If only one nation can keep reproducing, that simplifies negotiating with your neighbors.
Then again, maybe it's just because smuggling someone to safety sounds exciting, even if it doesn't make sense.
Also, if you'd like an alternate view of the dystopian novel try Anthony Burgess' novel "The Wanting Seed" which pictures a future world of total over population, where homosexuality is state santioned and governments start wars to deliberately kill off both armies to make more room. It's a dark satire, not that I need to tell everybody but it's interesting to see the whole thing swing in the opposite direction.
Reminds me of a terrible movie, "Hell comes to Frogtown" starring Rowdy Roddy Piper. In a post-apocalyptic world where most people are infertile, the one government agency with any resources is devoted to seeing that babies are made. A dozen or so fertile women are discovered and taken prisoner by a deformed mutant frog-king to be part of his harem; the government takes Rowdy Roddy Piper (since he's so fertile) on an expedition to find and impregnate these women at all costs.
There's another book "The White Plague" (frank herbert I think) in which a disease selectively kills off the vast majority of women. In that book, as I recall, the message is that womens' status and power is instantly enhanced by their relative scaricty in proportion to the men, not reduced a la handmaid's tale.
Shadow32 : I've never actually done a survey of every SF author, so I'm totally talking out my ass. I was grasping at the fact that a lot of the heavy hitters (especially before 1980 or so) did skew to the right - Heinlein, Poul Anderson, etc. I mean, You've got HArlan Ellison and Asimov on the other side, so it probably evens out.
I will say though, that on the whole, SF is still pretty right-leaning in terms of gender.
Actually, there's many prominant feminist and left-wing sci-fi/fantasy authors. Connie Willis, Octavia Butler, Sherri Tepper are all strong feminists and highly regarded. My user name comes from a strong feminst charechter in a book by a left-leaning author (100 pts for the person who can knows the reference). Tad Williams writes wonderful female charechters. hell, even Neil Stephenson is a strong lefty, even if his feminist credentials are sometimes lacking. Tanith Lee, Ursula LeGuin, Jane Yolan, and, on the lighter, more fantasy side, Anne Bishop and Jacqueline Cary write kick-ass female charechters, even if they aren't totally feminist books. There's TONS of feminists and leftys writing especially in sci-fi fantasy fields. In fact, I'd say that's our richest terrain.
Actually, there's many prominant feminist and left-wing sci-fi/fantasy authors. Connie Willis, Octavia Butler, Sherri Tepper are all strong feminists and highly regarded. My user name comes from a strong feminst charechter in a book by a left-leaning author (100 pts for the person who can knows the reference). Tad Williams writes wonderful female charechters. hell, even Neil Stephenson is a strong lefty, even if his feminist credentials are sometimes lacking. Tanith Lee, Ursula LeGuin, Jane Yolan, and, on the lighter, more fantasy side, Anne Bishop and Jacqueline Cary write kick-ass female charechters, even if they aren't totally feminist books. There's TONS of feminists and leftys writing especially in sci-fi fantasy fields. In fact, I'd say that's our richest terrain.
I'm sorry Ann, but I really disagree with your post. A world where the human race faces extinction in 40-50 years is (1) an interesting (though no original) premise in which to explore themes and ideas and (2) isn't necessarily anti-woman, or anti-birth control.
It seems a little facetious of you to list all of the "great" things that could happen if there were no more babies, when the reality is, if humans were facing extinction, no one - even you - would be saying how great it was that we could fly on airplanes without crying babies.
Surely it is possible that the movie could have an unreasonable bias that unfairly blames feminism and birth control for the distopian set-up, but I at least will have to see the movie first, or read the script, before I make that judgment.
I highly doubt that Julianne Moore, a noted Planned Parenthood supporter and pro-choice advocate would be involved if it took an anti birth-control or anti-woman stance. I think you might have just read a little too much into it.
P.S. If you were just being silly, I apologize for not getting the joke.
I second UltraMagnus's "The Wanting Seed" recommendation. Also I'd like to add Theodore Sturgeon to Jenna's list...his exploration of male-female relationships (in context of sci-fi) was mighty progressive for his day.
Even some of the nutty right-leaning material from this genre can be entertaining (mainly from the '40s-70s), which is one of the few exceptions to the rule that conservatives tend to fall short in creativity!
What really gets me is that this movie is debuting at a time when in reality, millions of unwanted children are languishing away in orphanages, group homes, and the streets. The LAST message we need to send out right now is "Populate! Populate!" I don't want to see the film because of what I've seen here - I don't want to watch a silent woman be poked and prodded by the "men who know best," and the last thing I want to see right now in this overcrowded, underfunded, polluted planet is a group of people pining for "more baybeeeeeeeeeeees!" Frankly, it sounds a little to "GOP party line" to me.
And Kathleen, I think a world free of crying babies would be a paradise. No SUV strollers in stores! No booger-distributors getting their sticky hands all over the place! No screaming, no whining, no piles of stinking, poopy diapers piling up in landfills. I think a serious, dratic thinning of the population is just what's needed in our world today.
And all reproductive-based sci-fi aside, it's still pretty apparent that wackos from many religious backgrounds continue to breed like cockroaches. It's not going to be a question of qualtity, but one of quality. ;)
According to a review by someone who's actually seen the film, it's pollution that has led to the infertility epidemic in the film:
http://film.guardian.co.uk/festivals/news/0,,1864443,00.html
Also, this is only implied in the review, but I've read elsewhere that the main characters are actually helping the pregnant woman to escape from a far-right government.
Frankly, I was disappointed to see a post like this on Feministing. I do not expect uninformed comment from this site, and I would hope that we can leave it to the PTC to spout off ill-informed comments about films or TV shows that they haven't seen and probably never will. (Note: I can tell the difference between Feministing and the PTC. I just find it deeply frustrating when people get outraged about something on the basis of a trailer and very little else. People easily forget that trailers can be misleading or deliberately ambiguous.)
Jenna,
I'm going to guess Jenna is for Jenna/Jo-Ann-Enna in Jane Yolen's Sister Light/Sister Dark? Am I right?
Ismone
mcsokrates,
Brian Aldiss wrote 'Greybeard' in 1964, a story using 'the whiskery old sf theme of future civilization collapsing thanks to worldwide sterility'. I've read both- each is good, but P.D.James ought not to get any points for creativity in plots- C.o.M tracks Greybeard start to finish. Other than that in Greybeard it's radiation pollution, not chemical pollution, that causes the sterility. Greybeard captures the feel of a fading civilization- the resigned horror of the 50 year old protagonists' being the youngest person on earth- quite well.
Unfortunately for Aldiss, when non science fiction genre writers write a SF book, reviewers (and the non-genre-writer) will pretend it isn't science fiction. By not admiting it's SF, the reviewers refuse to research and write about predecessor books and the history behind the idea, giving credit for originality where none was due. (Think Harris' Fatherland- few reviews suggested that the 'what if Germany didn't lose WWII' plot had a very long history. The same with Atwood's end-of-world Oryx.)
The trailor definantly gives off an antiwoman vibe as do the quotes presented. Hopefully that isn't the idea.
It is interesting to note that, in the book, isn't the reproductive problem lying with the men?
It seems they definantly are blaming the women in this one which is an interesting change and probably motivated by something.
It has hope, but from the way they are marketing it, it really does seem very anti woman to me as well.
"The Children of Men" isn't the result of women taking control of their fertility. It's actually a problem with the men. And if I remember the book correctly the fertility tests are for everyone, men and women alike.
It's not neccessarily MORE children, it's ANY children. I think plenty of feminists agree that children are important.
Don't judge the book or movie by the trailer.
It's dystopian. Ever heard of a feminist dystopia?
I remember reading this book back before high school! It was quite different from any vision of pregnancy I had come across before. The problem in the book is indeed with the men. And the whole society, of course, is going nutty. I'm not going to spoil the ending, but the message of the book was not that women must be baby-makers for society to remain whole - it was more that we all had a kind of sickness concerning babies and the making of them, and in the book's world the sickness grew like cancer and couldn't be ignored.
I always appreciate a science fiction writer who doesn't stick to predictable lessons.
I'll second (or fifth? wherever we are) that in the book the problem is male sterility. Actually, there's a great GREAT scene in the book where James completely takes to task the man who sits around proudly boasting that he's the man with the sperm and all the women will now be flocking to him... I really hope that scene is in the movie. It's simultaneously chilling, sad, and deeply satisfying.
I've also been looking forward to this movie. I'm a fan of sci-fi and dystopia in general (one of the few women, I imagine, who loves these genres) and I'll be really interested to see how the movie turns out. Hopefully it will not be as anti-woman as the previews make it appear. Wouldn't it be great if they did the previews that way to lure in the anti-woman sci-fi/action fans, only to educate them about their own, masculine failings? ;)
Law Fairy-
If you go to SF conventions (book ones, not media-cons or comic-cons), you'll find that the love of this genre isn't predicted or predictable by sex. Maybe it was 40 years ago, but not today.
The same applies for dystopias, as they are almost always science fiction (SF is just exploration (or extrapolation) of "what if..." what happens if one or more characteristics of today's society are changed).
At a recent convention I went to, one panel covered dystopian fiction- both the panel and audience had all sorts of people, not just adolescent men.
kathryn, that's awesome!
Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that there aren't women who appreciate sci fi and/or dystopia. Traditionally most of my female friends do not, whereas my male friends do, but I absolutely agree that they're enjoyable genres for both (or all ;)) genders!
Sailorman: I think your memory of The White Plague is a little off. In that book, in areas where most of the women are dead, the surviving ones become VERY VALUABLE chattel and are locked in germ-proof rooms. I can't think of any SF apocalypse in which women do well.
And yes, PD James is a cranky conservative but also a thoughtful writer, and I like the book. I really advise reading it before commenting on what you think it's about. The same goes for reviewing movies based on their trailers.
I can't think of any SF apocalypse in which anyone does well, personally. An apocalypse tends to be bad all around.
I agree that this post was very alarmist. I thought the trailer looked pretty damn cool and I thought that it was great that the person the human race depended upon was a pregnant black woman. After hearing all of the assholes complaining about well-off white women not having enough babies while poor minority women are having so many they'll soon take over, I found this refreshing. I did find it odd that she had to strip to show her pregnancy, but I'm assuming that the filmmakers did this for a more dramatic reveal shot.
I don't know what the movie-makers may have done with her work, but P.D. James is a fantastic writer whose books often have strong women (and girl) characters. If she had script-approval, it should be OK.
Hob: yeah, during the plague the women (who are all susceptible to dying) are protected in rooms. That is fairly creepy--though the female protagonist WANTS to be protected, as she is not a fan of dying of the plague.
but at the end when the plague is done/cured and when the surviving women are "freed" of their protection, the end scene has the female protagonist being asked/courted--not compelled in any way--to bear the child of a very powerful man (secretary of state, I think, or someone similar). And her husband, who previously felt secure in his monogamous husband-status (entitlement?) realises it's a whole new world. His intelligent wife (who realizes that she is a rare commodity) may well say yes to the man.
I dunno. I read the book as being disturbing, but the end (and the imagined future) was one where women clearly benefited from their scarcity.
Sylke - not to belabour this point, but you are talking about a different movie. the movie isn't about a world with fewer babies, but a world with NO babies. None. The extinction of humanity in our lifetimes.
It is just not serious to say that you would be all "Yay no more SUV strollers."
Wikipedia's article on the novel states that the book describes a "number of unprecedented phenomena" which begin occurring after infertility sets in. It states that "Some women just go crazy, pushing prams with dolls in them or dressing up kittens in baby clothes." If that's not a statement on the natural place of women and the dependency of women on having babies, I don't know what is. There were quite a few highlights in the article that turned me off, but I realize that the article could be misleading. After all, I'm sure one would make certain assumptions about Silence of the Lambs, a film that happens to be about a man who kills and skins women, prior to seeing it. But after seeing the movie it becomes clear that it's a feminist piece (the sequel not so much).
Plus, couldn't this be a statement on the world's dependency on women? If the infertility is caused by pollution and really rooted in men, then this might even be considered Eco-feminist. It shows the Earth (Mother Earth) taking back her rightful place of equality with men(mankind), who have dominated her and polluted her and upset the balance of nature. Thus, the female takes back her rightful place of equality with the male. I really don't know that much about Eco-feminism, but doesn't that seem possible?
This strikes an interesting contrast to Soylent Green, which portrays an Earth overpopulated by humans. That seems to be more of the sad direction in which we're heading. (Feminism is also present in this film - the ridicule and devastation of the female population parallels that of the Earth, as a warning of what tragedy could happen if humans don't change their ways.)
As far as the Wikipedia article on the book is concerned, I was rather annoyed by the bit about "women going crazy" from apparent empty-womb syndrome. To me the implication seemed to be that having