S01.E03: Late

[Ms Blue Jay]

@marinw I used to think Life or Something Like it (starring Angelina Jolie) was such a bad movie.  Then Trump won.  Now it comforts me.  (It's a romantic comedy about a woman who is told she only has a week to live.  LOL!)  

[marinw]

On 5/12/2017 at 8:25 PM, Ms Blue Jay said:

@marinw I used to think Life or Something Like it (starring Angelina Jolie) was such a bad movie.  Then Trump won.  Now it comforts me.  (It's a romantic comedy about a woman who is told she only has a week to live.  LOL!)  

Sounds like a film starring Queen Latifah who's title I can't remember. 

Yes, reality is weirder than fiction right now. The Handmaid's Tale is terrifying because it feels so real, as others on the forum have so eloquently discussed. Simelar things have happened, just not in 21st Century North America. 

Edited May 14, 2017 by marinw

[kingshearte]

I feel like I want to add something to this conversation, but I don't even know how to put it into words. This is truly one of the most horrific pieces of fiction ever conceived. And they are doing a phenomenal job with it so far.

And speaking of phenomenal, I'll just add my own holy wow to the chorus of kudos for Alexis Bledel. Did she even have a single spoken line this episode? It suddenly occurs to me that I don't think she did, but she still said at least as much as Rory Gilmore ever did in an episode. Only once before have I ever been so spellbound by someone who didn't say a word, and that was live theatre. This was some truly stunning work.

[Eureka]

12 hours ago, marinw said:

Sounds like a film starring Queen Latifah who's title I can't remember. 

The Last Holiday. I love that movie.

[marinw]

2 hours ago, Eureka said:

The Last Holiday. I love that movie.

That's the one! Thank you.

[guilfoyleatpp]

That scene at the protest was a gut punch. This show is terrifying me.

[Guest]

This was the most heartbreaking episode yet. I started reading the book and couldn't really get into it so I thought starting the show would help. Boy did it. The emotions that went through me while Ofglen was in the van with her lover. It just really made me believe in my stance on LGBT+ marriage. My family is kind of homophobic, but I've always been the one who is more liberal out of them all. I wanted to cry so hard at that scene. Their faces telling the whole story since they couldn't speak. It was terrible, these two women just want to love each other. What is so wrong with that? It killed me.

[Milburn Stone]

On 4/26/2017 at 4:08 PM, Jael said:

I'm sure cues like "Don't You Forget About Me" are used to remind us that our current world isn't so far away from this one...

And not only the music cues. In some ways, the most jarring elements of the show for me (in a good way, a way the show absolutely intends) come when we see the physical settings--and realize that they are our world. This is not some "near-future dystopia." The computers in the office are current generation iMacs. The buildings on the street are the buildings that are on the street now. The coffee shops are the coffee shops of today. Etc. We can't avoid the danger. Or our complicity.

[Milburn Stone]

On 5/8/2017 at 1:19 PM, maystone said:

The scene with Moira, June, and Luke after the women had lost their jobs and their access to their money really hit home because of the exchange between Moira and Luke. He doesn't get it. Not then. His "It's OK. I'll take of you." is well-meant and earnest, but Moira has exactly the reaction I would have had. And have had. The issue isn't whether or not Luke will take care of June; the issue is why the hell is June (and Moira) put in a place where she's forcibly made dependent on men. This should not be happening.

I didn't read Luke's reaction that way, possibly because I'm a guy and a loving husband. When Luke says "I'll take care of you," he's not only being well-meaning and earnest, he's fully cognizant of the horror that's going on, and why it's so horrible. If he had the power to change it, he would. But he doesn't have that power. All he can offer (he thinks--he'll soon learn how little power he has) is protection until the crazy regime comes to an end. He not only has no complicity in the regime, he knows how fucked it is and hates it every bit as much as the women do for all the same reasons the women do. Moira could not see that; but June does.

[marinw]

On 5/21/2017 at 6:32 PM, Milburn Stone said:

If he had the power to change it, he would. But he doesn't have that power.

The men in this show have been described as complicit. Most of them certainly are. But many of the men don’t have  a lot of power. And to be fair, there were some men at the protest.

Edited May 23, 2017 by marinw

[laurakaye]

On 5/9/2017 at 1:35 AM, Ms Blue Jay said:

@marinw I do that too, I have to 'cleanse my palate' with other shows.  I have been watching King of Queens.  King of Queens and The Handmaids Tale, going together like some sick castle dream/nightmare world!  

For me, it's re-runs of Survivor or some Detroit Tigers baseball.  I have to space out The Handmaid's Tale, with several days passing between episodes.  I cannot binge on this show.  I need too much time to sit numbly, stare at the wall and process what I've just watched.

[LeGrandElephant]

On 4/26/2017 at 5:08 PM, Jael said:

This show is utter genius and I savor nearly every second of it, but this is the third episode of three with a jarring, aggressive music cue near the end of the episode and it is throwing me out of this world every single time. I'm sure cues like "Don't You Forget About Me" are used to remind us that our current world isn't so far away from this one, but I just find it too jarring to accept. It almost seems to be making light of what we're seeing. I really question that decision.

I was really bothered by that music too. It's so deep and serious otherwise; what are they thinking?

[Umbelina]

17 minutes ago, LeGrandElephant said:

I was really bothered by that music too. It's so deep and serious otherwise; what are they thinking?

Reminding us it's present day, and a short time ago this music would have been totally appropriate.

There is also an answer in the book questions thread if you want to see it.  All answers are spoiler tagged, so you can just look at the ones you want to know.

[LeGrandElephant]

7 minutes ago, Umbelina said:

Reminding us it's present day, and a short time ago this music would have been totally appropriate.

There is also an answer in the book questions thread if you want to see it.  All answers are spoiler tagged, so you can just look at the ones you want to know.

The music would have been appropriate a short time ago, but not played over scenes like that. 

I read the book many years ago so I'm not worried about spoilers, but I can't think how anything from the book could answer anything about music choices from the show. 

[Umbelina]

1 hour ago, LeGrandElephant said:

The music would have been appropriate a short time ago, but not played over scenes like that. 

I read the book many years ago so I'm not worried about spoilers, but I can't think how anything from the book could answer anything about music choices from the show. 

Well, since you read the book, I'll answer you here.  Very spoilerish, so other people don't read if you don't want to know.

Spoiler

In the book her tapes were preceded by "jarring" music of all kinds to disguise what they really were, a Handmaid's Tale.  So music that doesn't seem appropriate to some ears, really fits with what the scientists discovered in 2195 or whatever it was.

Edited May 23, 2017 by Umbelina
"

[LeGrandElephant]

15 hours ago, Umbelina said:

Well, since you read the book, I'll answer you here.  Very spoilerish, so other people don't read if you don't want to know.

  Hide contents

In the book her tapes were preceded by "jarring" music of all kinds to disguise what they really were, a Handmaid's Tale.  So music that doesn't seem appropriate to some ears, really fits with what the scientists discovered in 2195 or whatever it was.

Hmm, I'd forgotten that, but it still seems like a different enough context that it doesn't make me approve of the music choices in the show. 

[Eureka]

7 minutes ago, LeGrandElephant said:

Hmm, I'd forgotten that, but it still seems like a different enough context that it doesn't make me approve of the music choices in the show. 

I love it because it's setting viewers up for the end of the season. Because non-book readers don't know what that is :). I remember LOVING the very end of the book the first time I read it, because it was not what I expected. (Have I been vague enough? LOL)

[bijoux]

For the most of the episode I found the flashbacks much gloomier than the present day. Shit got serious fast in the flashbacks. When it started with jogging I thought it was another contrast to a more innocent time, but boy was I wrong. It quickly went from that hag giving June the stink eye for having the audacity that her breasts moved while she jogged to the misogynistic asshole barista, mass firings and taking away funds from women, and finally killing protesters. In contrast, in the present there was Emily finding a lover (I loved that she grabbed some piece of normalcy in that asylum they call a country), Janine biting the wife, and June standing up for Emily. She was my friend. It felt like a fist in the air moment. So it really felt weirdly triumphant to me, like these women still not giving up. Then of course we ended with June being banished to the tower, Emily being mutilated and Janine proved to be insane. Before she started off about her and her rapist being in love there was a moment in which I thought she may be the sanest of them all.

June's husband wasn't only ignorant about what Moira was talking about, he was also asleep as June put it. He thought the situation would go away quickly. And seeing as June's hair was significantly longer when they were trying to escape, it seemed he (possibly both of them) continued to think this way for a while longer.

[Whimsy]

6 minutes ago, bijoux said:

It quickly went from that hag giving June the stink eye for having the audacity that her breasts moved while she jogged to the misogynistic asshole barista, mass firings and taking away funds from women, and finally killing protesters.

The problem for me about this was that it seemed like all this happened literally minutes ago.  June & Moira were confused and stunned at the reactions.  If this had been slowly percolating up, they would've been a bit more aware.  In other words, their confusion confused me.

[bijoux]

I found it believable in light of their comments about other restrictions introduced until the 'terrorists' were defeated. They were buying what was being sold to them, so I can absolutely see how they felt blindsided even as things had been percolating for a while.

[Xcptnl]

Quick question.  I know this was filmed in Toronto but references are to Boston.  It seems weird they really did not try and portray Boston.  Does any one know why that is?  Easier maybe?  

[OtterMommy]

6 minutes ago, Xcptnl said:

Quick question.  I know this was filmed in Toronto but references are to Boston.  It seems weird they really did not try and portray Boston.  Does any one know why that is?  Easier maybe?  

Actually, I think it takes place in Cambridge (or at least that is where the Waterfords live)...right?  

Anyway, I actually felt like it captured the Boston area fairly well.  The shots along the river and some of the wide shots definitely looked like Boston to me.  

I mean, it was better than a lot of shows that are filmed in one place but take place in another (I saw one show that took place in Seattle but was filmed in Vancouver, and not only did we not get a single Space Needle shot, but they were completely unapologetic about showing the Vancouver skyline....)

[Xcptnl]

1 minute ago, OtterMommy said:

Actually, I think it takes place in Cambridge (or at least that is where the Waterfords live)...right?  

Anyway, I actually felt like it captured the Boston area fairly well.  I mean, it was better than a lot of shows that are filmed in one place but take place in another (I saw one show that took place in Seattle but was filmed in Vancouver, and not only did we not get a single Space Needle shot, but they were completely unapologetic about showing the Vancouver skyline....)

Yes it's Cambridge but in Cambridge you see so much of the Boston skyline.   I think either Brighton or Brookline was mentioned as well-they are on the Boston side of the river. 

[secnarf]

42 minutes ago, OtterMommy said:

Actually, I think it takes place in Cambridge (or at least that is where the Waterfords live)...right?  

Anyway, I actually felt like it captured the Boston area fairly well.  The shots along the river and some of the wide shots definitely looked like Boston to me.  

I mean, it was better than a lot of shows that are filmed in one place but take place in another (I saw one show that took place in Seattle but was filmed in Vancouver, and not only did we not get a single Space Needle shot, but they were completely unapologetic about showing the Vancouver skyline....)

The scenes by the river/wall are Cambridge, the Waterfords' house is in Hamilton, the particicution scenes are in Coronation Park in Oakville, and there are scenes in Toronto as well.

[Keener]

On 5/8/2017 at 0:09 PM, maystone said:

The scenes on the bridge and by the river were shot in Cambridge, ON. I had no idea that the show was shot in ON, so I had a "Wait. What?! I know that place!" reaction while I was watching. I went to grad school in Cambridge, MA, too, so in addition to the dystopian aspect of the show, I'm having some general cognitive dissonance with place names and geography.

Yes! I knew I recognized that location. It's very near to the Antiques market I frequent on occasion.  But in response to the OP, I do think that the court house was from U of T. It looks like the "new" science facility that was built or the new residence. (I say new, but it's probably been 15 years by now...) 

[Elle Driver]

On 4/27/2017 at 4:06 PM, Stiggs said:

This book changed my life when I was 19, so I have been WAY excited about this series. When I saw that Alexis Bledel was going to play Ofglen, my first thought was, "Well, at least she'll be gone quickly." (I didn't think of the show actually following Ofglen after she disappeared.) Cuz I didn't want Rory Gilmore ruin this for me, but DUDE. I had no idea she had it in her. My god. She killed me in so many ways. The scene in the van and the last scene made me cry and made me sick - she was absolutely fantastic. And I thought Joseph Fiennes was a weird choice for the commander, but I'm not bothered by him, either. 

I tell ya, it's one thing to read it and imagine it - seeing it...I had to pause each episode a few times and walk outside. Intense. So far, I'm digging it. Well done. 

My exact thoughts, I never thought Alexis Bledel was a good actress (I love Gilmore Girls but she wasn't great in the role) beautiful for sure but not great. She's been amazing, she should get an Emmy nod for sure. I love the music choices Heart of Glass over the protest scene really moved me (nice touch using an acapella version). I was hoping this show would be as good as the book and I honestly think its better I'm not familiar with Elizabeth Moss ( i never watched Mad Men but i'll probably check it out) she's exactly how I pictured Offred, shes amazing.

[Guest]

Mad Men is terrific and if you have access to it, also check out Top of the Lake, another wonderful Elizabeth Moss starring role.  

[John Potts]

I'm still having trouble believing the timeline (you'd expect more "cheese paring" of women's rights than the apparent "Big Bang" it looked like) and I find it hard to believe people would be acting so apparently calmly when "Congress had been blown up." But I guess it's hard to show how the situation developed unless they wanted to make a much greater emphasis on what would be a prequel to the book storyline.

On ‎26‎/‎04‎/‎2017 at 5:12 PM, cuppasun said:

I just kept thinking: in the unfolding of a coup like that, what would any of us--no matter how sensible, thoughtful, or intelligent we thought we were--actually do? When would we recognize life-altering danger? What could we do, and would it be too late once we'd decided?

Exactly. It's easy to say, "I'd stand up before it got that bad" but the fact is that, most people don't. They think it "won't happen to them" "it will all blow over" "they don't want to make a fuss" or "they have their own problems". And that assumes that TPTB won't react to protests by gunning down the protesters, which they did. Clearly, there will be people prepared to make a stand even in the face of death - but they're pretty rare.

As somebody who never normally notices makeup (I'm a guy, OK!) I did like the contrast between "before" when June WAS made up and her washed out look in "today's" Gilead - except when the bruises were showing.

Serena Joy got some humanising moments (even throwing herself over June to protect her child), but also just how scary she could be. Kudos to Yvonne Strahovski for a nuanced performance from creepily caring to genuinely concerned to dangerously angry in one episode.

On ‎27‎/‎04‎/‎2017 at 0:33 AM, legxleg said:

Damn, Rory, I had no idea you could act like *this*.

Even more impressive given (I think) she didn't say a word in the episode. But how fitting that at their trial their defence isn't just hopeless, they're physically prevented from speaking. I also was unsure why the Elders of Gilead thought Female Genital Mutilation would "cure" lesbianism (they follow Ancient Greek theories on women's emotions being generated in the womb?), though I can see it making sense as a punishment. On the other hand, it's not as if the Elders are fans of science either, so it doesn't really have to make sense.

On ‎26‎/‎04‎/‎2017 at 10:08 PM, Jael said:

Can't tell whether I'm more scared for the "batshit-insane" Ofwarren or of her.

In all the other scary-craziness of this episode, I'd forgotten about her.

On ‎21‎/‎05‎/‎2017 at 10:32 PM, Milburn Stone said:

I didn't read Luke's reaction that way, possibly because I'm a guy and a loving husband. When Luke says "I'll take care of you," he's not only being well-meaning and earnest, he's fully cognizant of the horror that's going on, and why it's so horrible.

Well I read it as him going, "I agree it's wrong, but it will probably blow over and in the meantime I'll use my (male) status to protect you." But I guess it's all down to interpretation.

[secnarf]

13 minutes ago, John Potts said:

Even more impressive given (I think) she didn't say a word in the episode. But how fitting that at their trial their defence isn't just hopeless, they're physically prevented from speaking. I also was unsure why the Elders of Gilead thought Female Genital Mutilation would "cure" lesbianism (they follow Ancient Greek theories on women's emotions being generated in the womb?), though I can see it making sense as a punishment. On the other hand, it's not as if the Elders are fans of science either, so it doesn't really have to make sense.

The FGM in this episode was removal of Emily's clitoris - therefore eliminating much of the pleasure from sex, and Aunt Lydia's comment, "You won't want what you can't have". It had nothing to do with her uterus - they wouldn't dare compromise that.

[John Potts]

Yes, but I don't see how removal of the clitoris would make a difference either way. "You'll no longer enjoy sex, so getting raped by men will seem more attractive than your deviant desires?" As a pure punishment, it makes sense, but I'm unsure what the reasoning is in "curing" her lesbianism.

[secnarf]

9 minutes ago, John Potts said:

Yes, but I don't see how removal of the clitoris would make a difference either way. "You'll no longer enjoy sex, so getting raped by men will seem more attractive than your deviant desires?" As a pure punishment, it makes sense, but I'm unsure what the reasoning is in "curing" her lesbianism.

It's not that this will make being raped by men more attractive - they don't care what any of the handmaids think/feel about that. The point is that it's supposed to make sex with women less attractive/rewarding. Similar thought process to giving opioid addicts a drug that blocks the opioids from working (buprenorphine), or giving people addicted to smoking a drug that prevents nicotine from working in the brain (varenicline). You can still DO it, you just won't feel the same pleasure that you used to, and the logic there is that since you no longer get the 'reward', you won't have the same desire for the activity. The Gilead TPTB don't want Emily engaging in a lesbian relationship - that's really all they care about preventing.

Edited July 9, 2017 by secnarf

[Scarlett45]

20 minutes ago, secnarf said:

It's not that this will make being raped by men more attractive - they don't care what any of the handmaids think/feel about that. The point is that it's supposed to make sex with women less attractive/rewarding. Similar thought process to giving opioid addicts a drug that blocks the opioids from working (buprenorphine), or giving people addicted to smoking a drug that prevents nicotine from working in the brain (varenicline). You can still DO it, you just won't feel the same pleasure that you used to, and the logic there is that since you no longer get the 'reward', you won't have the same desire for the activity. The Gilead TPTB don't want Emily engaging in a lesbian relationship - that's really all they care about preventing.

Yes exactly. It's a punishment AND a cure. Take away the major source of her sexual pleasure and she won't be tempted to engage in romantic/sexual relationships any longer. The same reason they used to chemically and physically castrate gay men- the logic that their sex drive is perverted, if you take away the sex drive you take away the perversion. 

[chocolatine]

25 minutes ago, secnarf said:

You can still DO it, you just won't feel the same pleasure that you used to, and the logic there is that since you no longer get the 'reward', you won't have the same desire for the activity.

 

2 minutes ago, Scarlett45 said:

Yes exactly. It's a punishment AND a cure. Take away the major source of her sexual pleasure and she won't be tempted to engage in romantic/sexual relationships any longer. The same reason they used to chemically and physically castrate gay men- the logic that their sex drive is perverted, if you take away the sex drive you take away the perversion. 

And of course, backwards and messed up as Gilead ideology is, they completely disregarded the emotional aspect of attraction/attachment. Because what I saw in the van scene were two women who loved each other. FGM is not going to change that.

[Scarlett45]

Just now, chocolatine said:

 

And of course, backwards and messed up as Gilead ideology is, they completely disregarded the emotional aspect of attraction/attachment. Because what I saw in the van scene were two women who loved each other. FGM is not going to change that.

Well yes because women, especially gay women don't have FEELINGS, they are just animals driven by whats in their pants. The backwards Gilead ideology comes from "real life"- how often were gay people and same sex relationships reduced to "sexual kinks", how much progress has the LGBT rights movement made by focusing on "Love is love", having to REMIND the public at large that they have "feelings" and it's not just about sex. 

 

IMO the scariest thing about The Handmaid's Tale is that it looks so much like our world. 

[marinw]

7 hours ago, Scarlett45 said:

IMO the scariest thing about The Handmaid's Tale is that it looks so much like our world. 

IIRC Margaret Atwood said she was careful not to put anything in the novel that hadn’t already happened or was happening (in 1985 when the novel was published). This type of oppression hasn’t happened in North America (yet?) but has happened elsewhere (Iran comes to mind). This is what makes HT terrifying.

Edited July 10, 2017 by marinw

[dleighg]

7 minutes ago, marinw said:

IIRC Margaret Atwood said she was careful not to put anything in the novel that hadn’t already happened or was happening (in 1984 when the novel was published). This type of oppression hasn’t happened in North America (yet?) but has happened elsewhere (Iran comes to mind). This is what makes HT terrifying.

I am (re) reading the book after watching the series (I read it as a grad student when it was "fresh" but not since). It is truly more terrifying now. I feel like at the time, the moral majority and all that was scary. But then "we got past that" so to speak. But now the scare is more the shutting down of a free press, of identicards "to keep us safe," of blaming "Islamists" for bad things happening. And many people going along to get along. 

[John Potts]

17 hours ago, Scarlett45 said:

Well yes because women, especially gay women don't have FEELINGS, they are just animals driven by whats in their pants.

That's what's puzzling me. I mentioned the Greek (particularly Athenian) view that women were incapable of rational thought because their wombs got in the way (the word "hysteria" and "hysterectomy" have the same Greek root) and maybe the Founding Fathers subscribe to something along those lines, but you'd think they'd attempt to purge the minds of "deviant" women with some form of Aversion Therapy. And if that meant they had to torture opponents of the regime, I'm sure they'd see that as a "fortunate" bonus.

[Pepper the Cat]

I've watched this episode at least 3 times maybe 4. 

To me, it has 3 very powerful scenes where very few words ar exchanged.

first is the scene in the back of the van between Emily and her Martha lover. Such compassion, so much love between those two.

then the scene about the protests. Again, no words are spoken, but you understand what the protest is about, and clearly understand the publics reactuion to the government

Finalllly, the last scene when a Emily realizes just what was done to her. Wow. 

[Joe Hellandback]

What I find interesting is that politically the series doesn't seem to know where it wants to go. It was written in the mid 80s when the Reagan revolution was in full swing and Iran was still reeling from the Iranian Revolution (including people being publicly hanged from cranes  in Tehran, a trope HT has adopted). It was also a time of the AIDS hysteria against homosexuals, rampant televangelism, nutball militias setting up in backwoods American and the rise of the religious right, arguably all in a backlash against the malaise of the 1970s. The author basically took what happened in Iran and transposed it to the US with fundamentalist Christianity rather than fundamentalist Islam, the ultimate extremism of Reaganism. What is ironic of course is that the whole Gilead seizing power by faking a terrorist attack and declaring a national emergency is right out of the nutball rightwing militia handbook, it's their paranoid theory, not normally the left wing's. Equally the massacre of the marchers is straight out of Tiananmen Square (passive resistance only works against democracies, if you're free to protest against a police state you don't actually live in a police state).

   But I honestly cannot think of a time in history when the whole Gilead scenario is LESS LIKELY. People who look at the Handmaid's tale and say 'Oh this is what's happening in Trump's America' puzzle me greatly. This is a president who appeared on the cover/videos of Playboy, married a nude fashion model and appoints women to key positions of power not to mention his Jewish son in law. Rather than trying to build fences/restrict air travel to keep people in he's trying to do it to keep people out. The religious right is in terminal decline, the militias are a ghost of what they once were, homosexuals are more free than ever before and pretty much everyone has more civil liberty than ever before. The threat from terrorism is extremely real and it truly embodies the evils demonstrated in HT. But I guess it's easier to look inwardly and try to 'blame America first' than confront an implacable alien enemy who cannot be reasoned with or brought down by peaceful means?      

[AmandaUnbidden]

On 10/29/2017 at 3:41 AM, Joe Hellandback said:

What I find interesting is that politically the series doesn't seem to know where it wants to go. It was written in the mid 80s when the Reagan revolution was in full swing and Iran was still reeling from the Iranian Revolution (including people being publicly hanged from cranes  in Tehran, a trope HT has adopted). It was also a time of the AIDS hysteria against homosexuals, rampant televangelism, nutball militias setting up in backwoods American and the rise of the religious right, arguably all in a backlash against the malaise of the 1970s. The author basically took what happened in Iran and transposed it to the US with fundamentalist Christianity rather than fundamentalist Islam, the ultimate extremism of Reaganism. What is ironic of course is that the whole Gilead seizing power by faking a terrorist attack and declaring a national emergency is right out of the nutball rightwing militia handbook, it's their paranoid theory, not normally the left wing's. Equally the massacre of the marchers is straight out of Tiananmen Square (passive resistance only works against democracies, if you're free to protest against a police state you don't actually live in a police state).

   But I honestly cannot think of a time in history when the whole Gilead scenario is LESS LIKELY. People who look at the Handmaid's tale and say 'Oh this is what's happening in Trump's America' puzzle me greatly. This is a president who appeared on the cover/videos of Playboy, married a nude fashion model and appoints women to key positions of power not to mention his Jewish son in law. Rather than trying to build fences/restrict air travel to keep people in he's trying to do it to keep people out. The religious right is in terminal decline, the militias are a ghost of what they once were, homosexuals are more free than ever before and pretty much everyone has more civil liberty than ever before. The threat from terrorism is extremely real and it truly embodies the evils demonstrated in HT. But I guess it's easier to look inwardly and try to 'blame America first' than confront an implacable alien enemy who cannot be reasoned with or brought down by peaceful means?      

I know this is an old post but I still wanted to respond to this. I do understand what you are trying to say but there have been some real threats recently to both women and LGBT’s freedoms.

All the planned parenthood in my state, TX, have been shut down by being defunded. Also, in my state as well as other Republican dominated states, you can send your child to gay conversion therapy (I highly recommend watching “Kidnapped for Christ” for more on gay conversion therapy camps). There are camps like this in TX that are completely legal and active today. Also, Mike Pence, our current Vice President, has supported these camps in the past.

Also under our current administration, they have made it where companies do not have to cover birth control in their health insurance. That is insane and down right frightening all on its own! Birth control isn’t just used for preventing pregnancy. It’s also used for treating many female hormonal problems. Yes, we can still get birth control but TPTB have just made it much harder on us. These things should not be happening in 2018. They just shouldn’t. And it does scare me that our country has just let these things happened by turning a blind eye. It’s sickening and does make something like The Handmaid’s Tale all the more real to me.

Edited May 3, 2018 by AmandaUnbidden
The documentary is called Kidnapped for Christ

[Joe Hellandback]

3 hours ago, AmandaUnbidden said:

I know this is an old post but I still wanted to respond to this. I do understand what you are trying to say but there have been some real threats recently to both women and LGBT’s freedoms.

All the planned parenthood in my state, TX, have been shut down by being defunded. Also, in my state as well as other Republican dominated states, you can send your child to gay conversion therapy (I highly recommend watching “Kidnapped for Christ” for more on gay conversion therapy camps). There are camps like this in TX that are completely legal and active today. Also, Mike Pence, our current Vice President, has supported these camps in the past.

Also under our current administration, they have made it where companies do not have to cover birth control in their health insurance. That is insane and down right frightening all on its own! Birth control isn’t just used for preventing pregnancy. It’s also used for treating many female hormonal problems. Yes, we can still get birth control but TPTB have just made it much harder on us. These things should not be happening in 2018. They just shouldn’t. And it does scare me that our country has just let these things happened by turning a blind eye. It’s sickening and does make something like The Handmaid’s Tale all the more real to me.

I take your point, I was recently reading that Iowa had introduced some of the most restrictive abortion laws ever. But again even if something happens to Donald and you have President Pence it seems exaggerated, Roseanne has a gay grandson, Will and Grace is back on TV, the liberal ethos of the US is incredibly powerful and overwhelming to an almost absurd degree, emotional support animals on planes, safe spaces at universities and people wanting to rip down statues and rewrite the past. In many ways US society at the moment is less of a rise of the right than a backlash against the ascendant left.  

[DrSparkles]

On 5/3/2018 at 4:33 AM, Joe Hellandback said:

I take your point, I was recently reading that Iowa had introduced some of the most restrictive abortion laws ever. But again even if something happens to Donald and you have President Pence it seems exaggerated, Roseanne has a gay grandson, Will and Grace is back on TV, the liberal ethos of the US is incredibly powerful and overwhelming to an almost absurd degree, emotional support animals on planes, safe spaces at universities and people wanting to rip down statues and rewrite the past. In many ways US society at the moment is less of a rise of the right than a backlash against the ascendant left.  

I couldn’t disagree more.

[Joe Hellandback]

On ‎18‎/‎05‎/‎2018 at 2:39 AM, DrSparkles said:

I couldn’t disagree more.

Well then explain why?

[Roseanna]

On ‎22‎.‎5‎.‎2017 at 12:32 AM, Milburn Stone said:

I didn't read Luke's reaction that way, possibly because I'm a guy and a loving husband. When Luke says "I'll take care of you," he's not only being well-meaning and earnest, he's fully cognizant of the horror that's going on, and why it's so horrible. If he had the power to change it, he would. But he doesn't have that power. All he can offer (he thinks--he'll soon learn how little power he has) is protection until the crazy regime comes to an end. He not only has no complicity in the regime, he knows how fucked it is and hates it every bit as much as the women do for all the same reasons the women do. Moira could not see that; but June does.

I understand that Luke meant well and he really proved his words by trying to flee to Canada.  

Yet, Luke's words were patronizing. Let's suppose that he was in June's position and she in his - how would he react if she said "I'll take care of you"? Only, women don't say that, because they aren't suppose to protect their husbands - and even when they do, they often pretend not to do it on order not to hurt his pride.