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.

The story is set in the state of Maine. I imagine it as spreading down the east coast , there are mentions in the book of battles in the Appalachia.
The emissions thing is interesting in that light too, it seems Texas and other oil rich areas are not under their control and they don't have the currency to pay externally for oil. The rooms are all dimly lit too. And the Martha's seem to do everything by hand.

I've read articles that suggest that using the pill means that some of the artificial oestrogen is excreted in urine & then enters the drinking supply & could be affecting the development of both sexes. Ditto the effect of the medications given to animals that we use for meat. In theory, maybe there could be some merit to the idea that widespread fertility issues could be helped by going organic & taking away the option of hormonal birth control from all those inherently sinful women who need saving from themselves by those nice men who know better. I haven't researched it enough to know if there's any realistic prospect of it becoming as huge a problem as the pre-Gilead people seemed to have though. It's just another of those thoughts that make me have a "this could actually happen" moment!

There have been a few references to Boston, so perhaps they are implying it is there. I think it is set in the liberal NE US as it is more shocking that this regime took hold - rather than seeing it set in more religiously conservative states.

Look at Henry VIII's quest for a male child. It was never even considered that maybe he just wasn't that potent.

However, Henry VIII wasn't infertile. In fact, he fathered quite a few children including boys.

In one of the episodes Offred said that the USA flag only has 2 stars on it and one of them is maybe Alaska. They implied that the rest is under Gilead's control or in civil war.

My DH watched the first episode, but he felt so uncomfortable. He read the book in school and suggested I watch it on my own. He did not like seeing me cry all the time.

Yes I know he wasn't infertile. Catherine of Aragon became pregnant many times, but sadly only Mary Tudor survived past infancy. Anne Boleyn became pregnant at least 3 times, I think, but only Elizabeth survived. Obviously Jane Seymour had a healthy baby boy, but died herself a few days later.

But, my point was that all of these sad miscarriages, still births and infant deaths were considered to be the woman's fault for not producing a healthy enough baby.

You can blame religion for the female blame game played by men through the ages... Women are the ones guilty of original sin from the start. Religion has always painted women as harlots, sinners, weak, selfish... Modern day sexism is still everywhere, and is a direct result of years of religious rule in this country.

Henry VIII had illegitimate boys by other women (e.g. Henry Fitzroy).

Yes, I thought of Henry Fitzroy, too. I can't think of any other illegitimate boys though? Unless you want to accept that Henry Carey was his...? I don't think he was ever publically acknowledged.

Henry VIII should have had millions of kids given the numbers of wives and mistresses he had. He must have had fertility issues of some kind.

I think the Henry VIII comparison is a bit confusing. There's a big difference between a couple not able to get pregnant and repeated conceptions ending in miscarriage / stillbirth. Of course men can carry genetic conditions that mean a women pregnant with their child is likely to suffer a miscarriage. However on the face of it it is easy to see how you might think that once conception has occurred, a miscarriage is more likely to be to do with the woman's body than the mans.

My understanding of history is that there were a few schools of thought, but one of them was that both men and women produced a 'seed' that then had to come together in the womb to make a baby. Both parties needed to orgasm for release of the seed and conception to occur. Certainly there are guides to marriage dating back centuries that emphasis the importance of the female orgasm in procreation. And the idea of men's ejaculate being insufficient or the wrong temperature (temperature being regarded as a crucial element in reproduction) was floated as a possible cause for infertility. So I'm not sure it's correct to say that it was considered impossible for men to be infertile.

On an everyday level, in a time of high death rate the fact the Julie was married to Mike for ten years with no kids and then he died and within 5 years of marriage to Luke they've got 3 kids...that kind of stuff would have happened frequently and it would have been clear that it's not as straightforward as the woman being barren.

Of course, impotent or simply disinterest in sex is a easier thing to point the finger about, for example that was the thing Eleanor of Aquitaine complained of with Louis VII, although the divorce was granted on consanguinity grounds.

The whole thing about the problems lying solely with the woman would be a touch more believable if the problems in Gilead were not so much low conception rates, but rather pregnancy loss and a high rate of deformities amongst the children born. This is alluded to in the book with the idea of 'shredders' but I don't think this has been discussed on the TV version yet. Then you can see how the focus would end up (incorrectly) concentrating on the woman.

As I said in a previous post, it's not just about fertility. I think misogyny, and a misogynistic interpretation of the Bible, is the more powerful driving force in Gilead. If producing children was the number one priority I think things could be very different. Actually they want to control reproduction very strictly. Blaming women for infertility is ideological and not based on fact, science or reason.

Agree batteries I think it was Galen who first mooted the importance of the female orgasm?

Yep MaQueen tbh Galen is my interest and he didn't drop totally out of fashion/interest until Victorian times.

Agree Emma it's about misogyny not fertility, and control over the children. A regime like Gilead would need to be able to ensure all children could be intensively schooled in their fanaticism and live with devout members of the regime. In a way they don't really want to produce too many children. Just enough for all the Commanders to get a warm manly glow.

Dh has been watching it and finds it highly disturbing because of the comparisons to FGM and Saudi Arabia's non existent women's rights, women being forced to wear uniforms or cover up. We both saw the Saudi documentary, where the true extent of the lack of freedom was uncovered. Scary stuff. It punched me in the face when Emily got in the car to drive
" whats she doing"
" she is driving"

Emily's face! Women of course are not allowed to drive in Saudi.
Its utterly brilliant show though, great script, acting etc.

Bah, bleddy Victorians. Though didn't they promote giving woman orgasms through various gadgets, applied by 'doctors' to rid them of tension and hysterical behaviour?

I remember watching a program about conception and they'd actually put a tiny camera inside the woman to see how the cervix moves during an orgasm. And it actually formed a sort of spout and dipped downwards - the better to scoop up sperm, apparently

That was going on well before the Victorians.

Doctors taking advantage of their position through things like administering orgasms as medicine, or having inappropriate relations with vulnerable female patients, is pretty common through history. Hence why MA put the 'kind doctor' in I should think. Just another feature of the patriarchy.

My DH is watching and enjoying, although is also finding it disturbing. He has never read the book though so had no expectations of it, or any idea of what the story was about. He never usually likes dramas like this so it's surprising.

Batteries
"In a way they don't really want to produce too many children. Just enough for all the Commanders to get a warm manly glow."
LOL

I like the way they left it that the Mexican woman, even after hearing Offred's stark and horrific truths, just said that she couldn't help. But it was her lower-ranked male companion who apparently had more compassion and would try... Interesting flip.
But how did he know so much about June/Offred? It implies that he knows her whole story, and surely even the commander doesn't know/care about her real name, husband, etc? Fascinating.

How long do we have to wait for the next?!
:)

MaQueen I remember that! It's one of those things that have stuck with me. I must have only been in my early teens, and watched it by accident.

I'd love to know if there's any real science behind it because it made sense to me.

I'm glad there's a week in between each episode - I need that time to process what I've watched - I think I'd be too traumatised by watching back to back episodes!

So are we due another episode this Sunday? Oooooo I hope so, I was steeling myself for a'when is the next series being aired?' discussion lol
:)

It's a 10 episode series. Four more to go.