The Handmaid's Tale

[sciencevsmagic]

Aunt Lydia’s commentary on the normalization of totalitarian violence is incredible, and terrifying — this will soon feel normal to you feels very much a propos, but it should also feel intensely familiar if we take into account the history of the 20th century.

Not so shocking when you consider that animals in the meat and dairy industry are routinely subjected to this kind of abuse. I mean, I know this story isn’t about animal rights, but as mentioned above, it comes down to this.

It’s about treating certain sets of people–women, LGBT, non-Christians, non-Caucasians–as “other.” They are un-people. That’s the driving through-line of Atwood’s novel and what some would say is happening in America every time people in power–President or Congress or the Supreme Court–attempt to otherize citizens

My question is, why stop at humans? It should ultimately come down to recognising that a being, any being, is able to feel pain and letting that guide your treatment of this being, even if you cannot relate to it. So in that sense, I believe that this type of violence is already normalised.

[nevermore]

So, I watched through the 4 first episodes last night. Some random thoughts:

I find the flashbacks really intriguing but also super frustrating. As in, how did that world get to this? I don’t remember enough of the world building in the book to quite figure out what’s happening, but I find myself really curious about the mechanics of the coup, which I think presupposes a particular kind of gendered alliance across other social fractures (like class and race), but also presupposes a homogeneity to the United States that I don’t think is there? Can someone remind me whether Gilead is just New England, or whether that’s the broader US?

There are points where the show’s 1980s feminism sort of shows, in that race is not a dividing line (and class is also sort of skirted around).

I think the dynamic between Ofred and Serena is probably one of the most interesting aspects of the show. From the book, we know that Serena — and women like her — have helped usher this particular world into being, but are now being completely sidelined by the very thing they fought for. With Serena, the way she’s played feels to me so similar to Cersei from GOT — that seething rage just below the surface at her own powerlessness. The main difference is that Cersei was born into that system, whereas Serena actually helped produce it. So I guess I’m interested in the shades of complicity that the show is exploring: for example, I find the Aunties loathsome, but they seem to be simply sadistic religious zealots animated by a very authoritarian, vindictive reading of the Old Testament that got cherry picked to maximize the oppressive message. But Serena is a different kind of creature — is the idea that women like her were complicit with the coup in a (mistaken) bid to maximize their own power and social authority, a complicity that then backfired? And if so, does she buy into the ideology?

Not so shocking when you consider that animals in the meat and dairy industry are routinely subjected to this kind of abuse. I mean, I know this story isn’t about animal rights, but as mentioned above, it comes down to this.

I agree. These are not separate processes though — reducing humans to “bare” animality has been at the heart of all sorts of 20th and 21st century projects of power (think concentration or detension camps for the most obvious example). But if you want to think with industrial ag, I don’t know if the allegory of Ofred’s reduction to her reproductive function is actually animalization — I think that analogy is a little bit off. This isn’t the paradigm within which this world operates: otherwise you’d see mass confinement & artificial insemination, along with all sorts of eugenic logics of breeding the best stock and maximization. Whereas here you’re seeing this really complicated relationship to surrogacy mediated by religious dogma.

[RumplesGirl]

Can someone remind me whether Gilead is just New England, or whether that’s the broader US?

IIRC there is a USA because when Offred get glimpses of the news or hears Serena Joy discussing the matter with other Wives, they talk about the war and the victories Gilead has had lately. I think, though, that the last bits of the US are incredible small and fractured themselves. Florida and Alaska, which are on opposites sides of America, stick out in memory as being two places that have not been taken over.

However, Gilead is the major exerting influence of the region . I seem to remember at some point in the novel Offred sees both Middle Eastern delegates and Asian tourists

 

"He was a lot of things to me" "The only conclusion was love"

[RumplesGirl]

I finally got to sit down and watch episode four. I think this episode is a bit slower or maybe that’s because the first three are designed to be watched together and were written and directed to be as shocking as possible. Still, a very good episode with a pretty great message at the end.

Nolite Te Bastardes Carborundorum, indeed.

With Serena, the way she’s played feels to me so similar to Cersei from GOT — that seething rage just below the surface at her own powerlessness. The main difference is that Cersei was born into that system, whereas Serena actually helped produce it. So I guess I’m interested in the shades of complicity that the show is exploring: for example, I find the Aunties loathsome, but they seem to be simply sadistic religious zealots animated by a very authoritarian, vindictive reading of the Old Testament that got cherry picked to maximize the oppressive message. But Serena is a different kind of creature — is the idea that women like her were complicit with the coup in a (mistaken) bid to maximize their own power and social authority, a complicity that then backfired? And if so, does she buy into the ideology?

Serena is probably the most interesting aspect of the episode. You gotta wonder what women like Serena thought their lives would be like once their vision of government took hold. Did she imagine a sexless, loveless, existence where she’s treated as a subordinate and not an equal partner? I very much doubt that is what Serena was fighting for.  We don’t get that much insight into Serena in the book either so it’s really hard to say but Serena, and women like her, were women who think that women and men had different spheres. Serena is the wife and her job is to care for her husband and make sure his life out in the world is bearable.

It’s almost a romantic notion, this idea of the being the ultimate caretaker. Except, of course, that when it’s put in to practice it also means that Serena loses her own agency, though not obviously not nearly as much as Offred. The opening breakfast scene where the Commander dismisses his wife’s astute observations by noting that “we have good men on the job” shows that whatever “separate but equal” partnership Serena Joy envisioned pre-Rebellion was one long con.

Speaking of, I think we need to talk about the Commander a bit. I don’t want him to be a sympathetic figure but we do need to parse out why he’s doing what he’s doing. He obviously benefits highly from this system of government; he’s in the upper echelon, has no compunction about institutionalized rape or the cultural and social structures that keep him at the top of the proverbial food chain. So when he says that he wants Offred’s life to be bearable–but still intends to rape her once a month, to keep her life heavily controlled, and not to curb Serena’s cruelty–it’s rather difficult for me to believe him. And I think this is where @sciencevsmagic’s animalization point might kick in. I agree with @nevermore that the analogy isn’t cut and dry as anmalization but Offred is treated like one might treat a prized horse. When they need the mare to perform, to produce a calf, they tend to treat that mare differently. Different foods, different exercises, different day to day routines in order to get what they want. I don’t necessarily think it’s all that different for Offred. The second she’s believed to be pregnant, everything changes. She’s given different food, she’s treated differently. And while we don’t see “mass confinement & artificial insemination” (to quote @nevermore upthread) I think we do see eugenic selective breeding because the women chosen to be handmaids are those who have had children before. They are proven capable of bearing fruit and thus have a higher chance of being able to do it again. If the government wasn’t thinking in terms of livestock, then why not have every woman be a Handmaid. Wouldn’t that increase the chances of more children? But not all women are Handmaids because not all women have had children. Their ability to reproduce is their only defining trait, hence why all other traits are removed like names, individuality in dress and mannerisms, knowledge through active learning and engagement (we finally learn that reading and writing are a punishable offense.)

So going back to the Commander I don’t think he’s genuine when he says that he wants Offred’s life to be bearable, at least not truly genuine. He wants Offred’s life to be bearable so that it benefits him (so that his mare will produce a calf) but also because I strongly suspect that it makes him feel good about himself. Not that he feels guilty about the society he not only directly benefits from but also helped establish and continues to run but that it makes him feel like he’s a good master who is looking out for his flock. It’s charity but it’s a self invested and selfish charity. “Look what a good master I am. I am helping the downtrodden and the unfortunate of my society” never minding the fact that he and his system are the ones keeping Offred downtrodden and unfortunate. He has a willful blindness to the whole situation while congratulating himself on his own largess.

Other passing thoughts

–There are some very clever shots in this episode that remind us of the common horror of this world. Particularly I liked the shot of the Handmaid sitting in the waiting room, pregnant, while above her are various pictures of Commander’s and the Wives holding the children that were born from the Handmaid.

–Moira’s rebellion and escape. Thoughts on leaving June behind? June more or less tells her to go with a slight head nod and seems happy that Moira gets away (everything about being a Handmaid is horrifying but there’s a different sort of horror for Moira and the woman who was Ofglen being lesbians and forced into institutionalized rape).

–June’s beating was hard to watch

–The theme of control looms large over this entire episode especially where Serena and Offred are concerned. Doors and windows and who has control over those things in particular.

–Hey it’s Orphan Black’s Donnie Hendrix as the suspiciously nice Doctor! I never could figure out, in the book and then here, if the Doctor is genuine in wanting to help or if he’s a spy who would turn Offred over to be punished as soon as she said “yes” to help. I suspect that’s by design so that we get a taste of what Offred is going through when this happens.

ETA

—I have some thoughts about that final jaunty struct at the end. I’m not so sure it’s as effective as the writer/director wants it to be. At the end of the day, Offred lives in a world where she can’t trust anyone. She trusted the first Ofglen but she can’t trust the second. She doesn’t know if she can trust Nick or the Doctor. There are literal Eyes everywhere. The scene is done in tandem with the scene of the Red Center where the other future Handmaid’s give June their food and that scene is much more effective. They are together in suffering but also in solidarity. But the Handmaid’s at the end are suspect.  They are together in suffering but we don’t know if they are in solidarity. Maybe the show wants us to assume that they are without hearing all their stories but given that a lot of the first three episodes were about who you can trust and who you cannot, the scene is a bit false.

(with that said, I would 10000% wear ” Nolite Te Bastardes Carborundorum, *******”  on a t-shirt)

"He was a lot of things to me" "The only conclusion was love"

[sierraleone]

I read the book some 10-20 years ago (I honestly can’t remember when, though I am certain it wasn’t part of any assigned curriculum). I watched the first two episodes that were free to access, though no need to hide any spoilers from me, just saying what I have seen 🙂

I would agree that the show doesn’t have to end well. It just feels more pointless to me that way. I have watched the first three episodes and seen some of the explanation to what happen. I just find it extremely unrealistic, especially based on what is going on in the United States right now. I am quite certain people aren’t sitting in a corner just letting things happen. There are constant protests. The park service. The judges stepping in on those executive orders. Though this is a different situation in the show, in that, something catastrophic has happened. People aren’t able to have babies anymore which is world ending. I just think the ritualistic bizarre thing that is happening here is not what would happen. Descending into chaos, maybe, but not this. Violence, sure, but this. I just don’t know.

Quote

June is basically like a person held as a patient in old-fashioned badly run asylum. She that gets very little outside information, and gets an escorted walk once a day to a grocery store, and the odd field-trip to reinforce her “place” in this society. And we know there is a war going on.

It would be very believable that some people are sitting in a corner. Maybe because they have been striped of their agency and means, or they are too busy keeping/maintaining what little agency and means they have in the socio-economic system in place (very few of us have any say in the system inherited and/or imposed on society). Very few people have learned the skills necessary to survive in the wild, or even to farm, so to have to choose between accepting a place/role you can in a society where you have access to basic necessities, taking a place/role in that society but be willing to constantly risk those things by resisting/fighting from the inside, or running into the woods/wilds and hoping for the best…. People do whatever the need to to survive.

With a war going on I sort of imagine where June in a heavily curated community where Gilead’s power is concentrated. And some people would prefer to be here, where it is “safer”, and not fighting in the war, or the dangerous jobs of cleaning up industrial waste. Presumably there are some men, and infertile women, doing the grunt labour, like farm or shelf-stocker, or other non-household service/labour, who are not dealing with quite the same restrictions of the handmaid’s (though since slavery is in the bible, maybe they do, minus the ceremony).

Minus the ceremony, is the restrictions the handmaid’s really never heard of in human society? One thing I read the author say before is that she did not want to write anything that had been unknown in human history. For example, slaves were not allow to read, women have been denied education before based on their sex. There are currently many restrictions, in either in custom or law, in many countries on women. The most well-known I would guess would be Saudi Arabia, with their male-guardianship. If this is happening right now on our shared planet, how is it so hard to imagine human rights backsliding in our corner of the globe here in North America? And human rights have backslide before in other parts of the globe, there are pictures in Afghanistan in the 70s(?) of women wearing modern clothes, going to university… I can’t recall what was the most proximal thing leading to the backslide of women rights in Afghanistan, it may have been related to the fall of the USSR and/or the nascent beginnings of the Taliban (probably from the power vacuum left by the fall of the USSR). Our rights are not secure just because we have them now.

[sierraleone]

 

So going back to the Commander I don’t think he’s genuine when he says that he wants Offred’s life to be bearable, at least not truly genuine. He wants Offred’s life to be bearable so that it benefits him (so that his mare will produce a calf) but also because I strongly suspect that it makes him feel good about himself. Not that he feels guilty about the society he not only directly benefits from but also helped establish and continues to run but that it makes him feel like he’s a good master who is looking out for his flock.

I think it can be both, humans are complicated creatures 😉

It does make me think about when I read/hear people saying how slavery was not all bad, because it would not be good for a slave owner, in the long run, to harm his slaves. Sure, some slave owners treated their slaves well, in the context of being slaves, does that make slavery okay? Does that make the slave-owner not complicit in the inherent harms of slavery because they were “benevolent” slave owners, and did the bare minimum of human decency to someone who’s fate was in their hands? Yikes. Also reminds me of a recent news story, of a Senator claimed that Residential Schools (for Native Americans/First Nations) had some good that came out of them…. So, yeah, because the kids that were force-ably separated from their parents, so as to strip them of their family, language, culture, and religion…. because they weren’t all heaped with more abuse then that (which many were), and they were fed and clothed and educated (yeah, their parents wouldn’t have?), yeah, we should talk more about the *good* those schools did….. I am sure some of the people working in those schools were just employees who were trying to make the best of a bad situation, and makes those kids lives a little better in whichever small way was available… However it doesn’t undo the on-going wrong that was going on right in front of them.

It is not that people can’t be the bare minimum amount of decent in those situations, but some people can’t be, and that is why we shouldn’t have it codified that any people have that kind of absolute control and power over another.

[RumplesGirl]

I’m a wee bit behind but some passing thoughts on 1×05 “Faithful”

–I really enjoyed the show exploring more of the dynamics between different sets of women, particularly the pairing of Serena Jo/Offred and Commander Steven’s Wife/OfSteven. Both Wives are claiming to help out the Handmaid’s but there’s a very different feel to these interactions. Serena’s motivation is still about a child and what that child will mean for her and Fred. The other Wife comes from seemingly a place of compassion. The show uses visuals like touch to highlight differences, like Serena dragging Offred to Luke and the other Wife gently touching OfSteven’s shoulder. (Of course I’ll note here that it’s also a warped sense of compassion because the Wife can’t do anything about Emily’s captivity and withholding the rape for this month does nothing about the rapes in the future months)

–Along with that dynamic we have Offred/OfGlen and Offred/OfSteven. It’s hard to wrap your head around someone being happy with this current situation but OfGlen seems fairly content because her former life–the one being highly romanticized by Offred in her flashbacks (holy lens flairs, batman)–was not the bright and sunny one June had. What’s institutionalized rape when you’re used to selling your body to live anyway, right? At least the Ceremony is only once a month and in between you get a warm bed, food, and a roof over your head. It’s hard to stomach because of course I don’t want to think that anyone would ever be okay with this type of life but then again I live a life of relative privilege. I’ve never not had a roof, I’ve never not had enough to eat, and my body has never been a commodity. Women like June and Emily are fighting very hard for the life they once had, but women like OfGlen are fighting to keep this life they have now. I still wonder where to put Serena Joy–she’s benefiting from the current situation but she’s not entirely pleased either and she too has her moments of rebellion, like trying to be intimate with Fred and taking Offred to Nick.

–Speaking of: Nick and June’s first sexual encounter is about as cold and horrible as it can be. Obviously that’s the point but I think in June’s head this is the first time she might actually use the word rape. She distances herself from what’s going on with the Commander once a month; she doesn’t trust him, she doesn’t care for him. But Nick has seen another side of Offred–he’s actually seen June. The time she screamed, her coy smiles, the flash of her knee when no one was looking. So for Nick to play lover like that and then turn around and use her body for a different end must feel like a violation on a different scale. I think that scene was harder to watch than the first time I saw the Ceremony.

–On the other hand, the second sexual encounter was hot. It’s not meant to titillate but it’s meant to arouse strong feelings. This is June’s biggest rebellion, not just sex but deciding when she gets to have it, with whom, and under what circumstances. It’s not cold and a chore, but it’s really sexy, fully unclothed, her on top, clearly achieving orgasm. I thought it was really well shot. I think the director has done some work for Outlander, which helps explain the beauty of the scene.

–Is it wrong that I cheered when Emily drove over that Eye?

–“I heard there was a bit of a commotion in the marketplace.” “…a bit.” Elisabeth Moss giving a straight up Peggy Olsen delivery on this snarky line.

–I continue to think that the Commander is really just looking out for himself and not really interested in any sort of genuine compassion for anyone else. He even talks about compassion in regards to Emily saying that what they did to her was compassionate because, hey!, they could have just straight up murdered her. That’s not how compassion works and if someone thinks they are merciful and compassionate because they chose the “lesser” of two evils to inflict on another person…I dunno. That’s some warped sense of self identity right there.

–“Better never means better for everyone. It always means worse, for some”

Hoping to get to episode 6 later this week!

"He was a lot of things to me" "The only conclusion was love"

[nevermore]

Serena’s motivation is still about a child and what that child will mean for her and Fred. The other Wife comes from seemingly a place of compassion. The show uses visuals like touch to highlight differences, like Serena dragging Offred to Luke and the other Wife gently touching OfSteven’s shoulder. (Of course I’ll note here that it’s also a warped sense of compassion because the Wife can’t do anything about Emily’s captivity and withholding the rape for this month does nothing about the rapes in the future months)

The thing that stood out to me is the different ages of the two wives. Steven’s Wife seems post-reproductive, in a way that hints at a shift in the stakes of sexuality, or the nature of what intimacy looks like, not only for her but possibly for her husband. This is the first time we get a sense that at least some of this social elite of Commanders and Wives also feel trapped by the rituals of their self-imposed reproductive imperative.

I think Serena’s motivation is more complicated than just a child. Fred’s little speech to June about women’s biological destiny, or what have you, hints at Serena’s double-bind. She is, by the rules of the very society she and women like her helped usher in, a failure. What’s so interesting is the open secret that the men are likely infertile — or at least bear a similar burden of infertility.

For some reason, the part of the episode that made me most uncomfortable — maybe more than Ofglen’s first encounter with Nick — was the stuff with the Commander. There was something about his insistence on intimacy that felt like itself a form of violation — or a breach of agreement — only made worse by that final confrontation in his office. It’s like suddenly the blinders are off, and right, this man does not see Ofglen as fully human, and yet demands a connection from her.

[RumplesGirl]

The thing that stood out to me is the different ages of the two wives. Steven’s Wife seems post-reproductive, in a way that hints at a shift in the stakes of sexuality, or the nature of what intimacy looks like, not only for her but possibly for her husband. This is the first time we get a sense that at least some of this social elite of Commanders and Wives also feel trapped by the rituals of their self-imposed reproductive imperative.

It’s been awhile since I read the book but the age factor you bring up is a good point. I can’t remember if there’s a cut off for families to receive a Handmaid or not (the fact that older parents aren’t around long enough to raise a child to maturity).

There was something about his insistence on intimacy that felt like itself a form of violation — or a breach of agreement — only made worse by that final confrontation in his office. It’s like suddenly the blinders are off, and right, this man does not see Ofglen as fully human, and yet demands a connection from her.

Yes. June’s not a person or human. She’s an object there for his pleasure and it pleases him to have her play Scrabble and smile and joke and be grateful for magazines. And it pleases him to think that she welcomes his touches during the Ceremony. But it has nothing to do with her actual tangible happiness.

"He was a lot of things to me" "The only conclusion was love"

[nevermore]

Yes. June’s not a person or human. She’s an object there for his pleasure and it pleases him to have her play Scrabble and smile and joke and be grateful for magazines

Yes — have you thought about the reason for the magazines? I mean, there’s something so poignant about the way that June is perfectly cognizant that this is trashy reading, nowhere near fulfilling to her intellectual capacity, but starved for any reading, it’s this incredibly powerful motivator. And it’s unclear whether the commander is giving them to her because that’s literally what he thinks she’s intellectually capable of, or because it’s this subtle form of psychological torture because they index a different life.

[Author]

Posts