The Handmaid's Tale Vol 2

[PacificDogwod]

I go to work and this is what happens: the previous thread fills up when I have pertinent things to say!

Hope nobody minds, I've taken the opportunity to start a new one before the Offspring demand food and the likes...

One of the masterful strikes of strategic genius of the new regime is the division and envy between everybody and everybody: men vs women, women in different roles vs other women, high ranking vs low ranking.
No solidarity is allowed - even the partnered Handmaids were half companion and have guard. Never knowing who might be an Eye and who to trust must be soul destroying.

I think Serena is quite a tragic figure - in the book and in the TV series. She must feel so betrayed by the ideals she fought for and that she is now kind of forced to uphold because otherwise what would her life be?? Admitting that she supporting a world view that while giving her some kind of social status by dint of her husband's role, considers her without value as she cannot have children would render everything she stands for invalid, and herself by extension.

The author who wrote a book about women being able to electrocute men by touch thereby causing a power change over (sorry, I cannot remember either name ) was talking on Radio Scotland today. She said the idea for her book came from when she wondered why so many mechanisms in society seem to go back to the fact that 'more men can throw a woman across a room than the other way around'. It's a depressing thought that physical strength underpins so much.

I've seen people refer to Serena Joy as being infertile but she may not be; couldn't it be the commander who's the infertile one? Although male infertility isn't recognised in Gilead.

Yes the commander is infertile. That is made clear in the book.

I suspect that, after reading the interview as to why Serena Joy is young, unlike in the books, that she might ger pregnant. The fact that her and Fred haven't had sex will obviously cause issues!

But didn't they have sex in last night's episode? I didn't think that was a flashback but happened after the handmaids were flaunted in front of the Mexican Ambassador?.

Did they have sex? Thought he backed off before they got anywhere

I thought the bit where they quoted scriptures as foreplay was a flashback.

Yes it was. Was just before the regime was being implemented.

The part that struck me about this episode was when Offred automatically assumed that the Mexican man was the ambassador, not the woman - as if living under the Gileadean regime had brainwashed her, to some extent, so she'd forgotten women could have positions of power.

I assume that the Econowives are in marriages that the regime thinks are legitimate - i.e. both on their first marriage - and that an Econowife who is fertile won't be forced to become a handmaid - but that any girls born to Econowives will have their fertility checkend, and might be forced into the Handmaiden role if the birth rate isn't picking up as fast as they want it to.

SDTG
Yes that moment struck me too - I thought that Offred/June might have felt doubly mortified for getting it wrong, not just for fear of causing offence but more importantly because she must hate the fact that the regime has conditioned her to assume the ambassador was male.

They haven't featured Econowives in the series yet have they? I reread the book the other week and I had totally forgotten about them.

I'm waiting on the book. Wait list of a million in the library

The part that struck me about this episode was when Offred automatically assumed that the Mexican man was the ambassador, not the woman - as if living under the Gileadean regime had brainwashed her, to some extent, so she'd forgotten women could have positions of power.

TBH this happens a lot in real life. One of the very senior female directors in my organisation told me once that it happened all the time when their office manager (waaaay more junior to her) was male, less so now that they have a female manager.

Someone mentioned black children in the group. I wonder how many of the children are not actually children of commanders but of men like Nick or the doctor, and whether there would be any penalty if a baby came out the obviously wrong colour.

Given the amount of children Gilead has produced and how there haven't been any live births in the Mexican city for 6 years, Gilead obviously works. That would make it hard to criticise or dismantle, when the fate of humanity is at stake.

I would think that the handmaid would definitely be punished if the baby was the wrong colour. Perhaps not executed (as she is still useful breeding stock). There was one Handmaid would had had her face cut - perhaps that is the penalty.

I ended up buying the book even though I'm trying to work through my TBR list. Looking forward to it!

I don't think a handmaid would make an "arrangement" with an extra man of a different ethnicity to her "patron". That would be incredibly stupid.

I have to read the book again. It's been so long, I can't remember what I've forgotten and what's new!

That would make it hard to criticise or dismantle, when the fate of humanity is at stake

As a contrast, China had the one baby policy. When the population got too big so women's fertility was controlled that way.

If a country was struggling to 'produce new children', can you imagine the pressure there might be on you if you were fertile?

The Mexican angle would absolutely not increase the Handmaids' chance for liberation.

Currently, some women who come to the UK (say) from cultures where it is commonly believed that women should be chaperoned at all times by a family member/husband, are heavily controlled/monitored for the duration of their visit by a group of trusted persons. Say they've come here to study for a month, usually they are housed together, they are taken to/from destination with a nominated chaperone, in pre-arranged transport, have their time heavily organised etc. In some instances, courses are closed to other nationalities/religions/men, or the chaperone sits in if they are more open and so on.

So if Handmaids were taken to Mexico, they would be under the same threats/promises upon their return to "freedom" to ensure they 'completed the contract'. Aunts would go with them. Same ceremony, same coercion, same rules apply. Scenery is a bit different when they are permitted to be escorted out. 'Tis all.

They would not be able to "defect" because they would not have access to police/health/safe houses/charities/helplines etc. Nor would many be able to speak sufficient Spanish, obtain access to money/food/sympathisers and so on. There would be no asylum for them to apply for.

Also, they would be shared out amongst men who were trusted/connected to Mexican regime who arranged their repatriation. Those men would have no interest in liberating the women, quite the contrary. They would collude with Gilead to keep the women bidden.

They would be no closer to escape than now. In North Korea, defectors families are usually imprisoned even if they knew nothing of the defector's intention. But some NKs do visit Western Cultures...very few defect. Very few do because of fear for their families but usually because they will be rewarded on their return. If they do defect, however, we have asylum for them including access to money/housing/food and translators.

This is the reality now for people in regimes which subjugate women/human rights. But not so for the Handmaids if sent to Mexico.

So the Handmaids will be promised an elevated life/status upon their return to America post "contract", or death/colonies if they don't comply.

Being shipped to Mexico would make it much harder for them to escape. It would most definitely not increase their chances of liberation.

I've just finished re-reading the book.

It's so short, it would be hard to make a series from it, so I'm relishing the way the Hulu version has used it as a base, and taken some of the many questions it leaves unanswered and deals with them through the lens of the 21st century. And while the book is JUST Offred's thoughts, the series can give the viewpoint and experience of others (and their flashbacks)

Interesting article from Stylist that discusses the facts within the fiction of THMT contains spoilers

It does hold up a mirror to our world and how countries ignore and minimise what's going on in other countries because of trade deals and what we need from that country.

Is anyone else confused by Serena Joy's behaviour?

Before the regime, she was the boss in the relationship - she told him not asked him about going to the cinema. He seemed very deferential to her. And she was instrumental in creating the regime. But when/how/why did she decide she'd prefer to be a little stay at home wife? I felt like I'd missed a major chunk of her character development.

(Haven't read the book yet - maybe it's clearer if you have.)

I'm currently working on a project which gives lots of insight into why refugees are fleeing Syria. A lot of the treatment of women in Gilead is happening in Syria right now. Some of it's even more forbidding. Women aren't allowed out of the house at all. Windows are painted so they can't see out. Body parts chopped off for the tiniest infraction of 'law'. It's way too close to reality.

Before the regime, she was the boss in the relationship - she told him not asked him about going to the cinema. He seemed very deferential to her. And she was instrumental in creating the regime. But when/how/why did she decide she'd prefer to be a little stay at home wife? I felt like I'd missed a major chunk of her character development.

She didn't decide to stay at home, she had no choice. The society she helped create put her there.