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 think it's good that Luke has flaws. He's normal. The most frightening thing about the entire story is that it is happening to normal people and so many things about our reality is only slightly removed from our reality.

TBH I can imagine my DH reacting in a similar way to the job thing - his instinct would be to resssure me that he will look after me and our DTDs. And we have no idea if there was a blazing row later on as it's not in the script! He would also want to deal with the here and now, so wondering if our daughters (who are older than Hannah but still pre-pubescent) are gay or straight wouldn't come into it.

Luke didn't actively abandon his wife and child to save himself. He tried to buy them time by shooting at the guardians and was rescued - he tried to leave but was too injured. He talked about not being able to leave and having to go back for them.

I don't think he's a shit. I think he's a deliberate "Everyman" character.

their reality, that should say.

I think "Everyman" describes it perfectly

Interesting aside:

In the USA, there are still quite a few states that still allow discrimination based on sexual identity. Some states don't have any laws that protect LGBT people from employment discrimination and you can't sue if someone fires you for being LGBT. I wonder how many people in the USA who aren't LGBT fight for this because their child might be LGBT and will grow up in a country that still has issues with LGBT people.

Or don't they see it as a problem as they're not LGBT?

I've been lurking for a while and I have to say, I love this thread probably more than the TV series now. I've learned so much and there has been so many important topics discussed. Not yet read the book but got it ready to start once the series is finished.
Just caught up on the latest episode from c4. Something that has stuck with me, although possibly minor in comparison to other themes, was the fixer (forgotten his name) saying that June's mum had either given him or arranged a vasectomy for him after they were made illegal. I just thought it was interesting that he had lost control also. Given the philosophy of Gilead it's straightforward that that would have happened but it never occurred to me until he said it, I was more preoccupied with the effects on women.

Today there's a major conference in London discussing family planning - and especially the importance of contraception in 3rd world countries.

summit2017.familyplanning2020.org/

See this about poor women bearing babies for other infertile women: 'Wombs for rent' www.cbc.ca/news/technology/indian-women-carrying-babies-for-well-off-buyers-1.681951

don't they see it as a problem as they're not LGBT?

Some of that. Some who think laws which allow you to discriminate against LGBT are absolutely fine, and any worries they have about children growing up to be LGBT will be a fear that they might.

EvilTwin, you nailed it exactly...

Why were people getting abortions and vasectomies at all? Surely there woukd have been great rewards for retaining your fertility.

Right now, the majority of abortions are provided to women who already have children. Same to vasectomies, though obviously fathering a child doesn't carry the same physical risk to health AND LIFE as birthing a child.

My family is complete. Would I carry another pregnancy knowing that the child probably wouldn't be healthy because my medication is incompatible with life (though I'm gonna guess I'd be denied that anyway in an antichoice/prolife world) and knowing that it could kill me and leave my children mother-less?
No. Regardless of what "reward" I was offered.

I was listening to Radio 4 this morning discussing the fertilty summit. A woman was discussing how she spoke to someone who 'just wanted time to bring up their family, work and educate them' rather than regularly giving birth. No access to contraception. No chance to improve their life or the life of their children.

I was thinking about the sexy Bible foreplay bit between the Commander and Serena. It was the bit where God takes a rib from Adam and uses it to create Eve, as a 'helpmeet' for him. This passage is used a lot as justification for women being subservient to men. It could be seen as the start of all the problems for women. It also goes on to say 'Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.'

This causes problems for the LGB community as it is clear that the 'correct' union is between a man and a woman. It also causes the issues for Luke and June. If a husband and wife become one flesh then they can't split up and remarry.

So it's very interesting that they would choose that passage.

To be honest I think most men would reassure thier wives that they would look after them financially, at that time it wasn't clear how bad things were going to get so most people at the start would have just thought about the next month or so and then when it became clear this wasn't going to go away then people would start to look at the long term plan.

Most people would also then look into the legal ways of moving etc and by the time people realised that wasn't going to work it would probably be too late.
Most people's instinct is to hunker down in thier home and weather the storm, it takes a lot of courage and foresight to leave everything behind, especially if you have nowhere to go to. Most people would only leave when the bombs start falling and people start getting arrested in droves.

Theresa May might be a woman, but if you watch her she's acting like a man for the rest of them - like Thatcher did. She talks in quite a booming, low voice, wears tailored suits, jeers and whoops with the boys on the benches, and shows few traditionally-feminine traits like compassion or modesty.

That in itself is a sexist comment, unless you have certainty that her presentation is an act.

Re: May, I think the issue is more that women who display more stereotypically feminine attributes don't tend to get very far in politics. Politicians, regardless of their sex, tend to be conditioned to behave in the same way & when you have a group of people who all expect everyone else to behave the same way it must be incredibly difficult to change the culture. The gentler, more "feminine" people don't tend to get the promotions/nominations because they don't fit with the expected image of a "capable politician". It's an interesting question - whether politics is the way it is because of the people involved, or whether being in charge of running the country would harden people. I know it's not a job I could do - I'd find it impossible to balance wanting to help everyone with finding enough money to do it. I doubt I'd last a week as PM.

The vasectomy question, I'm not sure of timeline on this but the Gilead regime did take retrospective action on doctors who performed sterilisations and abortions before they came to power. It didn't matter that this was legal at the time, it went against the procreation ethos. Fertility is considered a state resource.

I'm curious about fertile couples that meet the criteria of approved relationships (i.e. First marriages) do they get to stay together? Are they encouraged to have more children? Or are the women taken away and made into handmaids to allow the opportunity for procreation to the 'deserving' men (i.e. those in authority)?

Is the season 10 episodes?

What number episode has just been broadcast? TIA

It's a while since I read the book but poorer men had 'econowives' who played the role of wife, handmaid and martha. I assume all the approved marriages were allowed to stay together, though of course it wouldn't take much for either party to be arrested/executed.

The seventh of ten @WestleyAndButtockUp

I find the length of June's hair quite handy in keeping track of flashbacks etc.

Offred - bottom of ribcage length
Before - chin length bob
Escaping - perhaps a bit longer than chin length?

Brie that's why I said There's a world of difference between inability to escape (understandable, so many different reasons) and refusal to contemplate it.

The first is what would be most likely to happen. The second makes you either stupid or selfish.

Did anyone else get the impression that Luke was quite high up in the Little America resistance? He went into the meeting and started talking about something else before being told about June, maybe that's why the Mexican aide knew who he was?

Rather than mute through trauma, I assumed that the escaped handmaid has had her tongue removed