Jump to content

Type keyword(s) to search

EC Amber

Member
  • Posts

    250
  • Joined

Posts posted by EC Amber

  1. I gotta lean into the idea that any pregnancy - indicates a fertile woman. And fertile women are nothing more than commodities. I genuinely don't think any Wife would be executed, but I do think her name will be stripped and she'll find a red tag in her ear. Can't let that ripe uterus go to waste when so few have that "blessing."

    • Love 1
  2. 1 hour ago, chocolatine said:

    I think all of the above. When June asked Fred about the women at Jezebels, he said they were lawyers, CEOs, etc. - "they like it better here". Nick's Martha friend at Jezebels said she was a James Beard award winner, ie. a very famous chef. We saw a woman dressed in a business suit hanging on the Wall. Emily had been a college professor.

    I totally agree, but I'm surprised that there are that many of them... it seems like when shit hit the fan, the ones with funds would get out ASAP. 

    Thing is - how many would Gilead even want, at least of the celebrities (there's a joke in there for the Kardashians)? Would they want Angelina Joile running up a head of steam with Bono? Or would they execute Oprah? Think they would give her a quiet exit thinking it would be easier to ignore her than to explain her sudden death or disappearance? 

    Pure speculation, but was musing about it... 

    • Love 4
  3. 10 hours ago, Brn2bwild said:

    If that's proven true with other countries, why shouldn't it be true of the US as well?

    Mmmm, I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. *What* specifically has been proven? My understanding is that nations tend to get involved when they are either feeling threatened directly or they have some incentive to get involved. Humanitarian reasons don't fall in either category. Gilead is too weak to be a legitimate threat to any country - including Canada and Mexico. And there really isn't much by way of incentive. As I pointed out - their resources have been damaged (so much so that people attempting to clean up the mess lose their skin "in sheets"), Gilead is a poor source of exports (so much that they are considering trading the only thing that has any value, and they don't have that many Handmaid's) and they are steeped in enforced ignorance and superstition. Gilead simply has very little to offer the world that would cause them to intervene. And the world has enough to deal with without taking on the problems of Gilead. 

     

    10 hours ago, Brn2bwild said:

    Even a wounded beast is still powerful... and dangerous.

    Sure, even more incentive to *not* get involved. North Korea is extraordinarily dangerous and powerful. Still, it's been over 7 decades of them starving and torturing their population. Anyone lift a finger for them? Not even the Red Cross/Red Crescent do anything aside of throw food at them when they aren't under sanction. Those who are helping the people *directly* can be counted without breaking the triple digits. The whole world condemns them. That doesn't actually amount of much by way of alleviating the situation. 

     

    10 hours ago, Brn2bwild said:

    As someone in a later comment noted, the countries mentioned have had decades of oppression, whereas Gilead has had only a few years to sink in.

    In the mid-late 40's the Korea's had been separated only a few years. In the 70's women could wear dresses and not wear the veil in Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan. 

    Every fascist regime has a Day One. 

     

    • Love 12
  4. 5 hours ago, marinw said:

    I think the term here is "Learned Helplessness"

    Agree. Atwood made a brilliant move by using only real life events for inspiration. We can see exactly what you describe in a variety of ways and degrees of severity today around the world. 

    • Love 10
  5. 2 hours ago, GenL said:

    In every major city I've been to in the US there has been areas that are pretty much all of one type of group or another- Italian, Irish, Jewish, Chinese, Greek, etc.  I think it's just natural for anyone immigrating to a new country to find solace in their "own kind". 

    Agree. It's a pretty normal trait of all humans. We move to a new place and to make adaptation easier we make it look familiar. I don't think that is an American trait... or any other nationality or culture. It's just being human. 

    • Love 5
  6. 57 minutes ago, Brn2bwild said:

    The former would prompt a headshake and condemnation.  The latter would, one would hope, prompt more direct intervention, if only by human rights groups. 

    I find this line of thinking rather fascinating. We Americans tend to think that we are so powerful and influential that should anything truly awful befall us we'll have many countries, or some countries, or a few at least coming to help us. 

    And maybe I'm just cynical, but I really don't think they will. If we were suffering from environmental disaster that were devastating and widespread then our value as a natural resource is damaged. With the loss of population we lose our manufacturing and with that our ability to trade. With the loss of science and rational thought we lose innovation and progress. 

    America in these circumstances would be far less valuable to maintain and support... and if she falls under what we from the show there really isn't that much incentive to go help. Which means we rely on the milk of human kindness, on the intervention of others on a moral basis. 

    North Korea 

    Humans will let each other oppress, torture, and murder each other on a national level for generations without lifting a finger. There really isn't much by way of human kindness in terms of international intervention. 

    This is why the idea that given time the Martha's and Handmaid's and Econowives and the men who don't get "assigned a woman" won't successfully rise up... not for a long time. Again, North Korea... the entire country is full of walking wounded, people traumatized, generations starved. The psyche of North Korea has been forever marred because of the grueling decades of a fascist regime. What do you think the psyche of women in places like Afghanistan must be like? How many generations will that follow them...?  I suspect the same will be seen with Gilead. Decades, generations of women oppressed and powerless. 

    • Love 15
  7. On 6/14/2017 at 4:37 PM, bijoux said:

    What about the wives' all green get ups?

    I believe it is supposed to be blue... which represents Mary (the mother, not the follower/supporter). She did not bear Jesus, but was his mother - very similar to the position of wives in Gilead. 

    • Love 4
  8. 6 minutes ago, JasonCC said:

    My personal theory is that The Colonies are out west and likely contain some or all of California.

    I would put forward the idea that The Colonies are in Nevada and parts of New Mexico and Arizona - places that have seen both nuclear testing and sites for "disposal" of nuclear waste. At least in part. That's where I tend to see them... 

    • Love 5
  9. Point of interest: if certain users have habits that you find distracting, annoying or frustrating you can hover over their avatar - that will give you a pop up where you can ignore the user. Presto! Forum enjoyment to be had by all!

    • Love 7
  10. 47 minutes ago, GreekGeek said:

    In a really extreme patriarchy like this one, you would expect that there would be some groans of disappointment that it wasn't a boy.

    Generally true, but I think Gilead closely resembles the splinter groups of the LDS church. Generally the FLDS, but also including the more isolated cults like the one run by J. Warren. 

    In those boy children are not as welcome as they are seen as future threats to mating. Frequently when the boys begin to show interest in the girls they are rounded up, driven for miles and literally left on the side of the road. 

    • Love 7
  11. 5 minutes ago, NutMeg said:

    That's very interesting, I had no idea there were Canadians who didn't want to be considered part of America.

    Well, no, but (!) they are part of the North American continent. But they are an entirely separate, sovereign country that functions and operates independently of America. 

    In fact, Canada is *more* European in that they are a Commonwealth British Territory with the Queen as head of state and a Governor General who represent HRM. 

    • Love 6
  12. 7 minutes ago, greekmom said:

    But as a Canadian we are overly polite and will just correct you, eh ;-)

    It's wonderfully charming, all too lacking and much needed in this world. 

    American who loves her Canadian neighbors (I'm biased, I'm half Canadian myself). 

    • Love 3
  13. Well, for those of us on the North American continent, generally there are "The Americas" to refer broadly to the geographical area that encompasses all of Canada, United States, Mexico and Central America. 

    "America" is used to refer to "the States" or USA. 

    Canada is, of course, Canada. 

    I'm sure those who are not on this hemisphere have their own colloquialisms. This doesn't mean it's particularly accurate - only that culturally they have their own terms. 

    Much like I'm not a fan of hearing the word "f**" as a reference to a cigarette. But I consider that unique to the other side of the pond and nothing for me to dictate to them what their language is or should be according to my sensibilities. 

    • Love 7
  14. 1 hour ago, Stillhoping said:

    Check the film "Magdaline Laundries"..."fallen" women...unmarried mothers...rape victims.. Sometimes just headstrong girls were kept by the nuns ....their babies were given to Irish American couples ...many in Boston..for generous "donations". Some got out but many spent their wholenlives there...wearing uniforms . living like the handmaids.. The nuns were like the aunts...older ladies in the laundry were like Marthas...and in the past few years they have found hundreds bodies buried under convents. 

    It is a true story film...excellent but horrible and tragic.Sadly real

    Brilliant citation. I'd forgotten that... To put a bit of perspective - the last laundry closed around 20 years ago. Your comparison is spot on!

    • Love 5
  15. :-) There was all kinds of truth telling in that last episode. June got to (finally) tell SJ was kind of deplorable, wretched monster she is. SJ got to tell Fred that the baby isn't his. 

    I kind of want to see Putnam back with the other Commanders. Wonder how he feels being "damaged." 

    • Love 3
  16. 8 minutes ago, chocolatine said:

    I think he's known all along that she's been lying and pretending to enjoy everything he's made her do - he's not a complete idiot. He'd just been getting off on having a woman not being able to say no to him, sick bastard that he is.

    So what made this time different? June's pregnancy? I don't think it would be that... that is just more of his fantasy. 

    I think it was SJ calling him out, telling him it wasn't his to begin with combined with the realization that if he does get caught "just being human" then she might have some power to exert over his punishment. I think he realized his position wasn't as fortified as he thought. 

    • Love 4
  17. 22 minutes ago, catrox14 said:

    She's really not lying though.  If he had asked her if the baby was his offspring, then maybe it's a lie but technically, according to their system, it is his child. 

    I don't think that kind of hair splitting is recognized or appreciated by the elite of Gilead. 

    What I think is odd about that statement from Fred is how did he manage to have this startling insight? June has been giving him the absolute least interaction possible "Mm-hmm." "Yes, thank you Fred." "Here I am" is about the most enthused she's been able to muster towards her rapist. She's been lying through gritted teeth this whole time... and he's happily lapped it up. That ridiculous scene where she commented that it's because they recognize a leader and he says "You understand me so well." Really?? I mean... really?!? 

    Was it realizing that they would suffer some kind of consequence? That SJ actually did have some power over his destiny? Was that what prompted him to look at June without using the filter of living his fantasy?

    • Love 2
  18. As a side note, with the exception of the trade delegate banquet the only children we've seen living under the control of Gilead is in the beginning when June was looking for her daughter while walking to shop - all of those children are dressed in pink, presumably all girls. I suspect they tend to keep the male and female separated during their formative years. 

    I would really like to know what kind of bizarre crap they are indoctrinating those children with. Though truthfully, it can't be much further from some of the things kids are taught *now* in this country. Scary stuff. 

    • Love 11
  19. 11 minutes ago, secnarf said:

    But weren't the older children that were taken from Handmaids (like Hannah) given to the Gilead elite?

    I don't think we can definitively say that. We saw Hannah brought out of a large brick building. Could be a school (what would they teach)? Could simply be an orphanage. 

     

    • Love 3
  20. My thoughts are *most* of the older children are likely the ones taken by Gilead from the Handmaid's when they were being forced into the role. Those female will be raised to be more Handmaid's. They have no familial bonds to otherwise protect them. 

    The daughter of Commanders will likely be groomed to be good wives, demure, bland and without aspiration. And those that resist, those who are not claimed to be a wife, those who are rejected - Handmaid's. The true trouble makers will go off to Jezebel's. 

    So, how about when a Commander sees his daughter being abused by his peers? Give the system sufficient time and it'll happen. 

    • Love 4
  21. 14 hours ago, Becks said:

    I know she was in a hurry and her hiding places are almost non-existent, but what if they got wet?

    Some of those tales seemed to be written on fabric, which would make it worse. I get not hiding them in her room - clearly people go in there and wander through her things (are they even "hers")? I love that she passed them on to Rita... and I hope we really get to see what Rita does with them. If they draw her into working for Mayday as well. 

    What bothered me was her disregard for all those other handmaids who desperately wanted their voices to be heard. Her thoughtlessness could have silenced them all. 

    • Love 3
  22. 3 hours ago, Becks said:

    I felt like all those 'handmaid's tales' were a little tip of the hat to the book itself, and the way Offred told her story not knowing where it would end up or who would hear it.

    I hadn't considered that, but what a beautiful way to pay homage to the book itself. 

    I'm still irritated with June for just laying on the ground surrounded by these tales in a kind of stupor. 

    • Love 6
  23. 6 hours ago, bijoux said:

    Why the hell wasn't he around when Janine was giving birth?

    Women must suffer during childbirth. Which is a bit flip, I admit. They (leadership of Gilead), being men, have draped virtually all of procreation in a variety of state-controlled ritual. The handmaid's aid the handmaid giving birth, the wives see to the wives. Childbirth is women's work. 

     

    On 6/1/2017 at 3:40 AM, NoSpam said:

    Also the point of Gilead was to oppress women, not really to repopulate the Earth. But that discussion is better for the Book thread.

    It seems pretty clear that is a driving element of the tv show. Seems relevant for discussion... 

    • Love 3
×
×
  • Create New...