Jump to content
Forums forums
PRIMETIMER
ElectricBoogaloo

S02.E12: Postpartum

Recommended Posts

14 minutes ago, NoSpam said:

And I'm heartily tired of the glorification of biological motherhood on this show.

Glorification of biological motherhood? You mean where women are ritualistically raped and used as vessels so infertile couples  can steal their babies and then are cast off into the wilderness when their bodies are no longer useful? Where they are doomed to be torn from their newborns , watch as their children are reared by other women, powerless to do anything as their babies cry, unable to hold and soothe and love their own children? Yes, I see what you mean about  glorification. 

I thought it sick and depraved the way June was forced to pump milk for her own daughter, unable to hold her, to lay on the floor and hear her cry, to have to stand and watch as Fred dangled Holly in front of her while her breasts physically responded, to see Serena prancing around cooing and singing and dressing a stolen child as if she was the rightful mother. That’s disgusting to me.

Edited by GraceK
  • Like 17

Share this post


Link to post
29 minutes ago, ElectricBoogaloo said:

I think it’s less that he’s infatuated with her and more that he’s truly convinced that he’s a nice guy who is being kind to June. He reminds me of those people who are jerks all week but think they’re good people because they go to church on Sunday. Fred thinks that because he does things like let June see old magazines, he’s nice to her which conveniently leaves out that he rapes her. 

I've thought all the way back to those early Scrabble games that good old Commander Fred was looking for the girlfriend experience in a society that doesn't allow that anymore and so was trying to force June into that role instead.  It's interesting to me that his primary concern in the conversation with her after she's back in the house is whether she overheard his fight with Serena at the other house and what was said.  Like, say, Serena's accusation that he's infatuated with her.  He seemed relieved that she claimed not to have heard what was said and he instead pressed the issue of what a nice generous thing he'd done letting her see Hannah and didn't she want to thank him for that.  He seems to have an image of himself of a very big deal kind of guy capable of being magnanimous to a woman who at least feigns interest in him. 

It helps in Fred's particular situation that he confirmed in that big fight that he's hated Serena for awhile and that she doesn't have any real love for him.  And while he may not seem to care much about the baby beyond using that awful strained family portrait to rub Nick's nose in being her father of record, having her does net him that media job promotion he was going on about.  That's thanks to June, not Serena.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
59 minutes ago, GraceK said:

I don’t think anyone should be jumping to any conclusions about this new commander yet or his wife until we learn more. A lot of us were all on the “ Eden is timebomb and can bring danger to Nick “ bandwagon and it turns out she was the most innocent victim of all and ended up martyred.

A lot of us always saw her for the innocent victim she is. I've posted and I will post again, no one is more a danger to Nick and June than Nick and June. Nick has done so many things that should have had him killed already. Nothing Eden did or said about him was going to dent his plot armor. 

  • Like 10

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, GraceK said:

Glorification of biological motherhood? You mean where women are ritualistically raped and used as vessels so infertile women can steal their babies and then are cast off into the wilderness when their bodies are no longer useful?

No, I'm not talking about the Gilead treatment of biological mothers. I'm talking about  what the show has presented.

I mean how only Janine could cure her baby (after a respected neo natal doctor said nothing could be done). The whole june/Hannah reunion, where June is so overcome by seeing her that she puts all their lives at risk. The birthing in the house alone...all of the flashbacks to Hannah's birth. It's all been too melodramatic.

YMMV, Whatevs.

  • Like 16

Share this post


Link to post
54 minutes ago, Deputy Deputy CoS said:

When what Serena is doing is likened to adoption, that is normalization. There is no comparison between the two situation and I stand by that assertion. 

I didn't make it seem like an adoptive mother couldn't take care of a baby. That would be a ridiculous assertion to make. I was objecting to Serena inserting her breast into the baby's mouth. That is an adoptive parenting thing. It is not something someone who've gone through the pains to adopt a child would do to it. That adoption  has be used to explain the situation is normalizing it. 

As someone else pointed out a baby was kidnapped / stolen and the kid grew up to love the thief. It does not make it okay or normal. Just fact. Your exact words were:

Quote

Serena can't make the baby stop crying because she is a baby thief. Period. 

I only brought up adoption because you said:

Quote

The child is not being cared for by its mother, whom posses the necessary tools to make it stop crying.

A mother doesn't automatically possess this ability. Some mothers can't be bothered. An adoptive mother and even a baby thief can. It's not normal but it happens.

  • Like 17

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, NoSpam said:

mean how only Janine could cure her baby (after a respected neo natal doctor said nothing could be done). The whole june/Hannah reunion, where June is so overcome by seeing her that she puts all their lives at risk. The birthing in the house alone...all of the flashbacks to Hannah's birth. It's all been too melodramatic.

 

Agree about Hannah and June.

To be fair about the Janine situation  though, there was build up since her baby was born that Mrs Putnam was a crap mother. She resented the baby, didn’t have a maternal bone in her body, and from what was presented gave the impression she barely gave her any attention. Lack of warmth and love can absolutely make deprive a infant. I think that’s what the show was trying to present us with, was that you can force someone to be a mother in this Society but you can’t make them love the child. It was the fact that Janine LOVED that baby that made her well, not just the fact that she was biological mother. Serena might be a vile monster of a human but I have no doubt she will never mistreat or harm Nicole. She loves that baby. She’s sick in the head yes but she’s well intentioned towards children at least .

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
13 minutes ago, watchTV said:

A mother doesn't automatically possess this ability. Some mothers can't be bothered. An adoptive mother and even a baby thief can. It's not normal but it happens.

In this case, it was and she did posses the ability to comfort Holly Not!Nichol. She stopped crying and was content when she was taken by June, wasn't she? My comments are related to this show and this specific situation.

It is not a generalization but if we are going to generalize, I stand by my statement that baby thieves are ill equipped to care for infants.  And what Serena is and adoptive parents aren't the same. Adoptive parents don't go rape women and steal their babies. If that is how real life adoption works, I would hold the same assertion that they shouldn't take care of an innate object, let alone a baby.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
35 minutes ago, Deputy Deputy CoS said:

A lot of us always saw (Eden) for the innocent victim she is.

I always saw Eden as an innocent, but I also saw her as a danger. It was perfectly possible that she could have caused great harm to Nick, with or without malevolent intent. For me, characters in a drama need to have nuance to be interesting. If they are telegraphed as Pure Good or Pure Evil, they are simply not realistic.

For the record, I don't want or need for Serena or Fred or any other THT character to be "redeemed." They are who they are, they can change, learn, grow, as we all do, but conflict is an essential element of storytelling.There would be no Atwood novel or show if everyone was "good."

  • Like 10

Share this post


Link to post
19 hours ago, Umbelina said:

The breast pump!  I've honestly never seen one in action, that was...interesting.

They are hilarious. The one I had to use had clear cups - and let's just say it's pretty astonishing how the process actually works when you can see it.

 

18 hours ago, Umbelina said:

I'm thrilled with the new Commander, but I absolutely don't trust him.  I could be wrong, but I don't think it's the wife that's the nut in that family.

I love Bradley Whitford, but the last thing I saw him in was "Get Out" so I'm set for "caution." Also his question about Emily's surgery healing. One - that surgery was at least nine moths ago (before June was pregnant, right?), and two - it seemed (to me) to lead to the unstated "so you're useful" question. On the other hand, it really seems more like he's doing penance by having and/or rescuing a damaged Martha and Handmaiden.

16 hours ago, watchTV said:

This show is all sorts of mind twisting.

Which is what I love about it.

 

5 hours ago, Umbelina said:

Aunt Lydia is getting to be a little "all over the place" for me, even though I'm enjoying it.  She order's Fred's household around like she owns them, but doesn't mention anything in Emily's new house about the swearing, the lack of cleanliness, the "super" and the obviously NOT Gilead acceptable environment?

Suddenly she's accepting snark from Handmaid's?  Sometimes she's cozy and they confide in her and speak openly, and other times she's cutting out their tongues and all of them are terrified of her?

I mean, so far, I'm enjoying it, but it's skating pretty close to the "WTF" areas for me.

Seems to me that she mostly orders households around when there's a baby or pregnancy, and doesn't particularly involve herself otherwise. As for the cozy, cutting - yeah, she's like Serena in that regard (well, not cozy, but sometimes she's almost nice).

2 hours ago, rubinia said:

Also, as someone who wasn’t able to produce enough milk for my own baby, it kind of bugs that this idea of “low milk supply” is somehow new and different? Does every woman in Gilead that gives birth automatically produce a ton of milk?

I relate to that. The best I ever produced was a couple of ounces at a sitting. A woman in my Lamaze class was 8 ounces and more whenever she sat down. And the only time I ever had the "let down" experience, was when I was in the emergency room (for reasons unrelated to childbirth).

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

I am loving what Ann Dowd brought to this episode. So many layers. She’s a joy to watch, it’s like a master class in character. 

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post

I haven't finished reading all the comments on the episode yet but I am really surprised to seeing so many people saying they like the new commander.  When he asked Emily if she had healed properly and she had this tear filled horrified look on her face I felt a tendril of ice go down my spine.  I mean he is a welcome addition but not because I think he will be a good person.  Did no one else respond to that scene in the same way?

  • Like 15

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, NoSpam said:

Commander Bradley Whitford was too OTT for me to believe. No way he'd let his chaos be seen outside the house. Anyone could report them, he could end up losing a hand or on the wall, but here he is being disrespectful in front of Aunt Lydia, whom we know has power to get him in trouble. Put on a little pretense for the sake of staying alive, dude.

 

 

I don’t think he had anything to worry about because of the level of power he has.

Lydia works for him, could she rat him out, possibly, but what would she tell anyone that is not already known?

He is not hiding his intricacies, he didn’t even care to recite the usual Gilead bullshit greeting when meeting Emily. 

I took him to be a Commander that holds a position which leaves him mainly unbothered by typical Gilead laws. 

I wonder if he was close to Andrew or had many of the same privileges. 

I do believe there’s a lot of back history that explains why, and that intrigues me and I hope that it is up to the show might actually explore.

 

Quote

I haven't finished reading all the comments on the episode yet but I am really surprised to seeing so many people saying they like the new commander.  When he asked Emily if she had healed properly and she had this tear filled horrified look on her face I felt a tendril of ice go down my spine.  I mean he is a welcome addition but not because I think he will be a good person.  Did no one else respond to that scene in the same way?

 

I saw his talk with Emily as a sort of chess match, he kept making unexpected moves with her that caught her off guard.

I thought he intentionally wanted her to know that he knew a lot about her, both her life before Gilead and all that had happened since. 

She has no clue why he would care to know all that or how will he use it? Could he be setting her up for a fall and another trip to the colonies or worse next time? 

Lydia already put her on alert that her few, dwindling chances are running out. 

Also, I keep myself spoiled, heh, so I am also coming from the perspective of having peeked into the future. 

Edited by AnswersWanted
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, GraceK said:

 Serena might be a vile monster of a human but I have no doubt she will never mistreat or harm Nicole. She loves that baby. She’s sick in the head yes but she’s well intentioned towards children at least .

Yes! Like a lot of sociopaths. I’m thinking of Tony Soprano’s concern for children and animals. 

 

One thing I was thinking of when Serena attempted to nurse Holly/Nichole was the stories and articles I’d read about adoptive mothers attempting to induce lactation.

To my recollection, it can be done, but it’s a complicated process that requires a lot of time, effort, and sometimes medication. 

And then I thought “If SJ knew how painful nursing is at first, she’d be more reluctant to try that.”

Speaking of medication, I would have appreciated an exchange between June and Aunt Lydia about fenugreek or lactation cookies or smelling like maple syrup. 

I wondered if it was the writers or the Giladeans who were unaware of the “data exchange” that occurs between an infant’s saliva and the nursing mother’s body chemistry that causes it to make adjustments in the milk.

After more thought I feel like it just demonstrates the fact that the show runners are male and don’t really give a shit about those details any more than they care to show/tell us about “failure to thrive.”

I’m not even a lactation expert or particular advocate and my child is now 7 and the fact that I recall these things from my own journey and don’t see them addressed at all just irritates me. 

Edited by guilfoyleatpp · Reason: Phone didn’t catch spelling errors
  • Like 8

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, lesmisfits29 said:

Why does Serena hate June so much??? I get a little bit of jealousy but this is another level. She seemed so level headed a little earlier in the show and now she's just gone insane. I don't get it.

 

I think Serena is very uncomfortable with everything about Gilead's treatment of women.  She was obviously miserable having June's head on her pubic bone while her husband was thrusting into her during the earlier rapes.  Still, what really drove her around the bend was when she found out Fred took June to Jezebels, and gave her some of Serena's clothes to wear.  She felt very betrayed.

She also misses sex.  One more reason?  Serena wanted a baby more than anything.  June can have them, and Serena has not been able to.  This latest "go see your daughter" move by her husband?  Another infuriating thing, that could have resulted in her death.  So...

4 hours ago, nodorothyparker said:

This episode was a frustrating hodgepodge of some truly interesting ideas and more frustration at the level of wheel spinning that it and the season as a whole has engaged in.  Like last week, I again came away thinking that if I had just seen only this particular episode and didn't have the larger sense that the showrunners couldn't really come up with enough material to justify 13 episodes but decided to forge on away that it was a pretty decent episode as far as the story it was trying to tell within that framework.

<snip>

 

Mrs. Lawrence may be the most sane person in this entire mess.  She can see what a complete and utter shitshow Gilead turned into, regardless of what better intentions they might have believed they had.  I was all in for the cluttery Victorian with books and art strewn everywhere.  I just wish they hadn't waited until the next to the last episode to introduce this story.

Loved your whole post but I just wanted to respond to these two things.

I think the blame for this lay solidly at the feet of the show-runner.  ALL of the episodes this season have been disjointed, and while good when watched as stand alone episodes, there is never any follow through on what happened previously.  That's not writing, that's the fault of the guy with the overview of a season.  The acting is stellar, the direction may be a little heavy on the close ups, the lighting is hit and miss, much too often miss, the individual episodes are actually pretty good.

BUT, huge but, there is no thru-line.  For example, Eden and Issac died this week.  Why didn't we see more of them in other episodes, at least feel that rush of new love?  Show Issac being decent instead of an asshole, and no, flirting and one kiss don't cut it here.  No repercussions from the bombing (other than colony women coming back) no follow up on Canada's fiasco, a bullshit hand wave about FRED ARRANGING A CLANDESTINE VISIT BETWEEN A HANDMAID AND HER BIO-DAUGHTER!~  WTF?  I could go on forever here.  A show-runner simply has to keep track of story arcs, long and short, and direct the writers appropriately.  This dude SUCKS.  No follow up about how Janine's kid is doing either, and Aunt Lydia is all over the place, depending on who wrote it.  One adulterer goes to the colonies, another was hung, and now two are drowned.  ?? Hello!  Continuity just a bit please?

I so agree, Mrs. Lawrence is the most sane wife we've ever had on this show.

3 hours ago, Pachengala said:

I am literally stunned by how much I find myself loving AB in this role. I’m on record, when I learned of her casting, as totally against it because she was so weak and annoying in Gilmore Girls, but holy shit she’s killed every single scene.

 

 

I never saw Gilmore Girls, but I loved her in Sisterhood, and especially loved her in Mad Men.  I'm always shocked when GG fans talk about her, because I've always thought she is so talented...she's great in this.

3 hours ago, nodorothyparker said:

The thing is that you can sort of see how Gilead took what our modern ideas about adoption and surrogacy were and threw the Old Testament stories like that of Rachel and Leah about women having their handmaids bear children for them into the blender and came up with this.  They had to be able to sell all of this to women who came from modern society that was supposed to have been like our own, so it feels almost deliberate that they would leave some basis for comparison.

 

Yes, I can see where they got it, and frankly, Gilead is certainly not the only society to do things like this.  I hope we get more scenes of the commanders laughing about the BS they came up with to "sell it to the wives."  All of whom must have been shocked.  I wonder if any ran?

3 hours ago, ElectricBoogaloo said:

 

I think it’s less that he’s infatuated with her and more that he’s truly convinced that he’s a nice guy who is being kind to June. He reminds me of those people who are jerks all week but think they’re good people because they go to church on Sunday. Fred thinks that because he does things like let June see old magazines, he’s nice to her which conveniently leaves out that he rapes her. 

 

I still think Fred is attracted to powerful, competent women, he actually prefers, or at least seems to love being outshone, to have the smartest chick on his arm, etc.  He was attracted to Serena after all, enough to marry her, and he never seemed threatened by her fame or skills, as a matter of fact, we saw that turn him on.

If the writing were better on this show I'd be working on a theory about that, which is when Serena told him to "BE A MAN" everything changed.  He was very cool with being the wind beneath her wings guy, until that moment, when he realized she considered him "less."  He's been making Serena pay for that ever since, and he's no longer sexually attracted to her either.  He knows she wants sex, but now he has all power, and he refuses it, and they both know that's not because he's religious.

With June, the moment he became more attracted to her was when she beat him at Scrabble.  His eyes spark when she snaps at him, not when she begs him.  He wants to make this particular somewhat powerful-nature woman WANT him, the way Serena used to, and most of all, he wants her to see him as powerful, and a "MAN" but also wants a bit of his former kinder self to be recognized by her, even though it doesn't exist anymore.

3 hours ago, Baltimore Betty said:

 

I wonder if Aunt Lydia will make a wellness check on that house on a daily basis.

 

The writers need to decide who and what Aunt Lydia is, and not just for one episode at a time.  I think we are supposed to think she is so in awe of him she's dismissing any issues.  She tells Emily what a big deal he is, but come on, she's putting one of "her girls" into a house like that?  This week?  SURE.  Two weeks ago?  NEVER happen.  Consistency issues again.

2 hours ago, Eureka said:

My thoughts, which I have seen some of you express on other episode threads. What did this season show us to advance this story? And why again was Eden even there? And what’s the deal with the Get Out-style Bradley Whitford? I know we have one episode left but last season was far superior. I am holding out for the epilogue, that is what I really want to see.

 

Another problem I think is two things.  A really bad show-runner, and trying to drag this cash-cow-award-winning surprise hit out for 10 seasons.  He has a fabulous cast, and he seems more interesting in taking advantage of that than telling a cohesive story, so he just writes cools shit for them to do on a week by week basis.

I'm spoiled so I can talk about why they bothered with Eden, but I think this episode had indications about possible "whys" if you look for them.

2 hours ago, nodorothyparker said:

I've thought all the way back to those early Scrabble games that good old Commander Fred was looking for the girlfriend experience in a society that doesn't allow that anymore and so was trying to force June into that role instead.  It's interesting to me that his primary concern in the conversation with her after she's back in the house is whether she overheard his fight with Serena at the other house and what was said.  Like, say, Serena's accusation that he's infatuated with her.  He seemed relieved that she claimed not to have heard what was said and he instead pressed the issue of what a nice generous thing he'd done letting her see Hannah and didn't she want to thank him for that.  He seems to have an image of himself of a very big deal kind of guy capable of being magnanimous to a woman who at least feigns interest in him. 

It helps in Fred's particular situation that he confirmed in that big fight that he's hated Serena for awhile and that she doesn't have any real love for him.  And while he may not seem to care much about the baby beyond using that awful strained family portrait to rub Nick's nose in being her father of record, having her does net him that media job promotion he was going on about.  That's thanks to June, not Serena.

Yes!  Exactly. 

Fred wants to be loved and appreciated and respected.  Desperately.  I think he really thought he had all of that with Serena up until she told him to be a man.  Then Gilead pronounced men Gods, and he tried to feel OK with that, but he still needs a woman to make him feel whole, and "like a man."

2 hours ago, Ashforth said:

I always saw Eden as an innocent, but I also saw her as a danger. It was perfectly possible that she could have caused great harm to Nick, with or without malevolent intent. For me, characters in a drama need to have nuance to be interesting. If they are telegraphed as Pure Good or Pure Evil, they are simply not realistic.

For the record, I don't want or need for Serena or Fred or any other THT character to be "redeemed." They are who they are, they can change, learn, grow, as we all do, but conflict is an essential element of storytelling.There would be no Atwood novel or show if everyone was "good."

Exactly!  Well said.

People are more than one thing.  Eden was an innocent AND a threat.  All of the characters on this show are.  Frankly, some are about 5 things by now, because the writers seem to let their stories be completely disconnected from anything that went before, or will follow.

Edited by Umbelina
  • Like 12

Share this post


Link to post

No way was I watching the Waterford household drama play out again, or the lactation diaries, but I did watch the Emily/Bradley Whitford scenes. I think people who are fondly remembering Josh Lyman may be overlooking what seemed to me like a pretty blatant sadist at work, particularly when he asks about the surgery and sips his wine with a smug look on his face. I guess I was expecting a bit more subtlety after the Jane Eyre parallels that had been drawn.

(It’s possible the show will perform an equally ham-fisted bait-and-switch, the wife will turn out to have some sort of paranoia/delusions that her husband invented the colonies, dude will secretly be part of Mayday, whatever. But I doubt it. Generally, the engine that drives the show is making the handwives as miserable as possible, so I assume things will get worse for Emily. Again.)

  • Like 12

Share this post


Link to post
5 minutes ago, Umbelina said:

I think the blame for this lay solidly at the feet of the show-runner.  ALL of the episodes this season have been disjointed, and while good when watched as stand alone episodes, there is never any follow through on what happened previously.  That's not writing, that's the fault of the guy with the overview of a season.  The acting is stellar, the direction may be a little heavy on the close ups, the lighting is hit and miss, much too often miss, the individual episodes are actually pretty good.

BUT, huge but, there is no thru-line.  For example, Eden and Issac died this week.  Why didn't we see more of them in other episodes, at least feel that rush of new love?  Show Issac being decent instead of an asshole, and no, flirting and one kiss don't cut it here.  No repercussions from the bombing (other than colony women coming back) no follow up on Canada's fiasco, a bullshit hand wave about FRED ARRANGING A CLANDESTINE VISIT BETWEEN A HANDMAID AND HER BIO-DAUGHTER!~  WTF?  I could go on forever here.  A show-runner simply has to keep track of story arcs, long and short, and direct the writers appropriately.  This dude SUCKS.  No follow up about how Janine's kid is doing either, and Aunt Lydia is all over the place, depending on who wrote it.  One adulterer goes to the colonies, another was hung, and now two are drowned.  ?? Hello!  Continuity just a bit please?

There is almost too much in your post to address. Why is it that unpaid viewers of the show have more insight than the paid professionals about story arcs, character development, jaw-droppingly stupid plot points (where was Nick after he was detained? How did he get back? What was the story that was concocted to explain him taking nine months pregnant Offred on a drive hours from home?). 

Aunt Lydia. She was violent and terrifying in Season One. Now at the end of Season Two she's what, a gal pal to the Handmaids? I know that's an exaggeration, and I welcome character development, and I an in awe of Ann Dowd's talent, but some consistency, please.

  • Like 17

Share this post


Link to post
22 minutes ago, guilfoyleatpp said:

After more thought I feel like it just demonstrates the fact that the show runners are male and don’t really give a shit about those details any more than they care to show/tell us about “failure to thrive.”

I’m not even a lactation expert or particular advocate and my child is now 7 and the fact that I recall these things from my own journey and don’t see them addressed at all just irritates me. 

According to IMBd, this episode was written by showrunner Bruce Miller, so good call that he was probably not thinking of the nursing issue the same way a woman who's actually had experience at it would.  Other than the throwaway line about being offered a bran muffin at the beginning and Rita later commenting to June that potatoes would be a good food source for a nursing mother, there really wasn't anything there to make you think that any of these people had any awareness at all of the strain they were putting on June or her body.  But when you've already reduced a woman to breeding stock, I guess you'll have that in extending the cow metaphor.

 

14 minutes ago, Umbelina said:

I still think Fred is attracted to powerful, competent women, he actually prefers, or at least seems to love being outshone, to have the smartest chick on his arm, etc.  He was attracted to Serena after all, enough to marry her, and he never seemed threatened by her fame or skills, as a matter of fact, we saw that turn him on.

 

21 minutes ago, Umbelina said:

Fred wants to be loved and appreciated and respected.  Desperately.  I think he really thought he had all of that with Serena up until she told him to be a man.  Then Gilead pronounced men Gods, and he tried to feel OK with that, but he still needs a woman to make him feel whole, and "like a man."

I think all of this is true too.  Commander Fred is proving a terrific example of that old adage about what absolute power does to a person, in his case just because he's the man of the household.  Both Serena and June were smart well educated competent women who in some aspects might have been considered out of his league before.  But he has absolute power over them both now.  He can beat them or rape them or do pretty much whatever he wants to them without worrying too much about any real consequences.  Hell, he's screwed up on multiple fronts recently and still managed to be rewarded with a new prestigious job title because whatever he might internally feel about the knowledge that Nick is the one who actually fathered that baby, he's at least smart enough to not make a fuss about it and reap the rewards for his house producing one.  He's getting off on being "the man" now.

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
9 minutes ago, Ashforth said:

Aunt Lydia. She was violent and terrifying in Season One. Now at the end of Season Two she's what, a gal pal to the Handmaids? I know that's an exaggeration, and I welcome character development, and I an in awe of Ann Dowd's talent, but some consistency, please.

Sometimes I feel like I’m watching the Real Housewives of Gilead.

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
7 hours ago, AnswersWanted said:

They are bound to cry for seemingly no reason whatsoever, but if you think a bottle might shut them up then by all means grab that bottle, you really have nothing to lose by trying. 

 

It could in this world.  I have no idea if they have formula but being a poor mom when I had my first you realize real quick you can't waste precious milk.  Once a baby puts their mouth on it or you warm it up you have 2 hours until the baby can't drink it because of bacteria developing.  If you only have breastmilk to give then you have to treat each bottle like it was your last. Of course none of that matters if the baby can drink straight from the source. 

Edited by Ragingviolet
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
12 minutes ago, Ashforth said:

There is almost too much in your post to address. Why is it that unpaid viewers of the show have more insight than the paid professionals about story arcs, character development, jaw-droppingly stupid plot points (where was Nick after he was detained? How did he get back? What was the story that was concocted to explain him taking nine months pregnant Offred on a drive hours from home?).

Well, a lot of times when people have been in the monkey house too long they don't realize how bad it smells in there.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
15 minutes ago, kieyra said:

No way was I watching the Waterford household drama play out again, or the lactation diaries, but I did watch the Emily/Bradley Whitford scenes. I think people who are fondly remembering Josh Lyman may be overlooking what seemed to me like a pretty blatant sadist at work, particularly when he asks about the surgery and sips his wine with a smug look on his face. I guess I was expecting a bit more subtlety after the Jane Eyre parallels that had been drawn.

(It’s possible the show will perform an equally ham-fisted bait-and-switch, the wife will turn out to have some sort of paranoia/delusions that her husband invented the colonies, dude will secretly be part of Mayday, whatever. But I doubt it. Generally, the engine that drives the show is making the handwives as miserable as possible, so I assume things will get worse for Emily. Again.)

 

‘Lactation Diaries ‘, that’s just gold. 

I would not say you missed anything important skipping the scenes, unless you enjoy baby squalling and a lot of lady nipple.

I think it’s fair to assume that one of the founding fathers of Gilead, a key architect of Gilead law and punishments guidelines, probably is a fairly shit person.  

But I think he isn’t as shit as he once was.

He has had to confront the monstrous society he helped bring to life and that has given him a new perspective and, just like his disorganized home, he is currently shifting through the chaos.

What happens next could be either very good or horrendously awful, it is Gilead after all. 

  • Like 9

Share this post


Link to post
9 minutes ago, AnswersWanted said:

 

‘Lactation Diaries ‘, that’s just gold. 

I would not say you missed anything important skipping the scenes, unless you enjoy baby squalling and a lot of lady nipple.

I think it’s fair to assume that one of the founding fathers of Gilead, a key architect of Gilead law and punishments guidelines, probably is a fairly shit person.  

But I think he isn’t as shit as he once was.

He has had to confront the monstrous society he helped bring to life and that has given him a new perspective and, just like his disorganized home, he is currently shifting through the chaos.

What happens next could be either very good or horrendously awful, it is Gilead after all. 

I'd love to be wrong. I'm among the many growing ... fatigued ... with the show's status quo. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
20 minutes ago, LordOfLotion said:
34 minutes ago, Ashforth said:

There is almost too much in your post to address. Why is it that unpaid viewers of the show have more insight than the paid professionals about story arcs, character development, jaw-droppingly stupid plot points (where was Nick after he was detained? How did he get back? What was the story that was concocted to explain him taking nine months pregnant Offred on a drive hours from home?).

I know.  I had a lot of this thread to catch up on, and found so many great posts to address that, all together?  Probably too much!  Sorry about that.

Share this post


Link to post
11 minutes ago, Ragingviolet said:

It could in this world.  I have no idea if they have formula but being a poor mom when I had my first you realize real quick you can't waste precious milk.  Once a baby puts their mouth on it or you warm it up you have 2 hours until the baby can't drink it because of bacteria developing.  If you only have breastmilk to give then you have to treat each bottle like it was your last. Of course none of that matters if the baby can drink straight from the source. 

 

 I don’t disagree with your point, but like you said June is right there and more than able to produce plenty of milk for the baby, at least enough to keep her satisfied, so I don’t believe that there was anything implying Serena was attempting to save the milk supply.

She was denying Holly access to the milk supply, and no good parent would pull that kind of shit, IMO, especially in Gilead where a healthy baby born is scarce and a healthy handmaid able to feed her should be seen as a gift from god. 

I can’t believe they have any formula lying around or else June’s breast milk would not be treated as the previous commodity that it is. 

The easy answer would have been for them to supplement if formula was available, and that really would have ended the crisis before it began. 

Serena wanted to keep her word to June that she would take Holly away from her immediately following birth.

Was that in the best interest of the child? Absolutely not, no one thought that, in fact it went directly against the suggested advice for caring for the child after birth, and that advice has existed since the dawn of man, a newborn needs milk and warmth first and foremost, but Serena didn’t care though.

She wanted June completely cut off from the baby and she was willing to risk the milk supply drying up, the baby’s only food source, because her pitiful pride couldn’t handle the truth. 

At least that was how I saw it, ymmv of course. 

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post

I shouldn’t tug on this thread too hard, but I really am curious about the formula situation. Sometimes mothers don’t produce enough or even produce at all. What happens then? Are there levels? Like at first they try with the breast milk and if it doesn’t work out, do they move onto level 2, where formula exists? They must have a contingency plan for emergencies, like whatif the mother dies in childbirth? There are a million reasons why formula would be necessary that has nothing to do with a showdown between a threatened wife and her rebellious handmaid. 

I’m looking for too much here, I know. 

Edited by VagueDisclaimer
  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
16 minutes ago, Umbelina said:

I know.  I had a lot of this thread to catch up on, and found so many great posts to address that, all together?  Probably too much!  Sorry about that.

Oh, I didn't mean to criticize your post, far from it.  No need to apologize. I find your opinions on this show quite insightful.

I have so many thoughts swirling in my mind about this episode. I think I need to watch it again (though I rarely do that with this show) because I watched it in the very early hours of July 4 and was pretty tired. At first I was thinking that the execution of Eden and Isaac was my last straw, but it turns out that it wasn't.

So for a nitpick: Eden's hands were chained together when she was thrown into the pool, but after she drowned they were floating over her head. Hello, Show, I think gravity is probably still in effect in Gilead - otherwise, why put the weights on her feet? #askingforafriend

Despite all of my nitpicks and gripes, this show is still engaging me.

Edited by Ashforth
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
6 minutes ago, kieyra said:

I'd love to be wrong. I'm among the many growing ... fatigued ... with the show's status quo. 

 

I feel you, and  I will be honest if I were not spoiled I would probably have stopped watching by now.

The show really does not do itself any favors, imo, with how it keeps everything so bleak feeling and sounding and looking. 

We have gotten so little relief from one emotional devastation to the next.

I think there hasn’t been enough effort put into balancing those hard knocks and now we’re basically left with the assumption that everything is just going to go to shit, and because it already been shit you just have to imagine what other shit is there, what else can they put us and the characters through? 

Losing faith is just natural, and I do believe that the show has squandered a lot of good faith with many viewers, sure we can go along for the ride but there comes a time when you just want to get off the misery train.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

I doesn't make sense to me that they'd execute Eden and therefore waste a potential baby maker.  It would make more sense had they made her a handmaid instead.  They could have had the same dramatic effect if her lover was executed in front of her, and then she ended up committing suicide.

  • Like 11

Share this post


Link to post
30 minutes ago, VagueDisclaimer said:

I shouldn’t tug on this thread too hard, but I really am curious about the formula situation. Sometimes mothers don’t produce enough or even produce at all. What happens then? Are there levels? Like at first they try with the breast milk and if it doesn’t work out, do they move onto level 2, where formula exists? They must have a contingency plan for emergencies, like whatif the mother dies in childbirth? There are a million reasons why formula would be necessary that has nothing to do with a showdown between a threatened wife and her rebellious handmaid. 

I’m looking for too much here, I know. 

 

 

I think that the show is utilizing reality in certain situations where mother’s milk is not available or enough but yet there is no formula option either.

In the same way that they have addressed child brides and arranged marriage, genital mutilation, systematic rape, religious oppression, these problems still exist in today’s world, the issue of newborns lacking food is very real and in a lot of places around the world the outcome is the grimiest imaginable. 

If the baby cannot be breast-fed and there is no other reasonable food source to provide them, that baby will die. 

We have never heard the word “formula” brought up in conversation, I think if formula was a real option to use then they could just take the baby right away from the handmaid once the baby’s born, but they specifically say that they are to remain with the nursing mother until they are weaned.

If they can come up with the elaborate  birthing foolishness with the wives, where they mimic labor, I can definitely see those women more than happy to take “their” child away from the handmaid as soon as possible, and if they could feed them independently they would be.

 Even though it sounds absolutely ridiculous, this is Gilead, they might actually have decreed that formula should not be given to a child in place of the mother’s milk, if her milk supply is not available for some reason, there is no back up plan. 

Formula is created synthetically, it is a form of science, all of that technology was banned from Gilead.  

Well to a certain degree, of course, the men still wanted their tech toys to play with. But as for the women and children? They seem shit out of luck. 

However, I would assume that animal milk would probably be the closest substitution if the mother wasn’t able to feed the baby in Gilead, but of course that is pretty much a crapshoot as to whether or not the child could actually survive. 

I would hope they would try that at least, if there was nothing else.

These are the same people who had to pull handmaids back from toxic waste death camps because they had no “Plan B” after the bombing, thinking ahead with reasonable “what if’s“ does not appear to be their strong suit. 

Edited by AnswersWanted
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, WearyTraveler said:

It's not new and/or different, there are plenty of women today who experience this problem and it has many causes. But perhaps this problem might be even worse in Gilead and the same thing that is causing their infertility problem could also be causing a problem in lactation.

I just meant that they didn’t even suggest using formula to at least supplement the milk supply. If Serena was so against having June near the baby, I’d think she would be all for formula use. They just seemed so “The milk supply is low, what can we possibly do about it?”

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
19 minutes ago, AnswersWanted said:

 

I think that the show is utilizing reality in certain situations where mother’s milk is not available or enough but yet there is no formula option either.

In the same way that they have addressed child brides and arranged marriage, genital mutilation, systematic rape, religious oppression, these problems still exist in today’s world, the issue of newborns lacking food is very real and in a lot of places around the world the outcome is the grimiest imaginable. 

If the baby cannot be breast-fed and there is no other reasonable food source to provide them, that baby will die. 

We have never heard the word “formula” brought up in conversation, I think if formula was a real option to use then they could just take the baby right away from the handmaid once the baby’s born, but they specifically say that they are to remain with the nursing mother until they are weaned.

If they can come up with the elaborate  birthing foolishness with the wives, where they mimic labor, I can definitely see those women more than happy to take “their” child away from the handmaid as soon as possible, and if they could feed them independently they would be.

 Even though it sounds absolutely ridiculous, this is Gilead, they might actually have decreed that formula should not be given to a child in place of the mother’s milk, if her milk supply is not available for some reason, there is no back up plan. 

Formula is created synthetically, it is a form of science, all of that technology was banned from Gilead.  

Well to a certain degree, of course, the men still wanted their tech toys to play with. But as for the women and children? They seem shit out of luck. 

However, I would assume that animal milk would probably be the closest substitution if the mother wasn’t able to feed the baby in Gilead, but of course that is pretty much a crapshoot as to whether or not the child could actually survive. 

I would hope they would try that at least, if there was nothing else.

These are the same people who had to pull handmaids back from toxic waste death camps because they had no “Plan B” after the bombing, thinking ahead with reasonable “what if’s“ does not appear to be their strong suit. 

You make excellent points here that I didn’t think about. I keep thinking about this place as the modern world playing pretend, but I forget sometimes the reality of their world. They do pick and choose what they kept and gave up. Formula has a shelf life and they’re likely not producing and definitely not importing anything like that. Keeping up their control over women and their bodies is much more important than children surviving, so there can be no compromise there. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, Ragingviolet said:

I haven't finished reading all the comments on the episode yet but I am really surprised to seeing so many people saying they like the new commander.  When he asked Emily if she had healed properly and she had this tear filled horrified look on her face I felt a tendril of ice go down my spine.  I mean he is a welcome addition but not because I think he will be a good person.  Did no one else respond to that scene in the same way?

It bothered me but I am still witholding judgment until we get more. I can't pass judgment on a character until they get more than 2 scenes. When I take in everything else that he did in this episode as a whole, I am willing to pass that particular line off as "social awkwardness" until he does something that I hate. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
24 minutes ago, VagueDisclaimer said:

You make excellent points here that I didn’t think about. I keep thinking about this place as the modern world playing pretend, but I forget sometimes the reality of their world. They do pick and choose what they kept and gave up. Formula has a shelf life and they’re likely not producing and definitely not importing anything like that. Keeping up their control over women and their bodies is much more important than children surviving, so there can be no compromise there. 

 

  It was due to your post and your great questions that triggered me thinking about it more in-depth, which I haven’t done yet either. 

I absolutely agree with you, Gilead wants to keep the Internet and have a media director, but when it comes to something as simple as do they have access to formula if a baby needs it? It’s horrifying to think they don’t and that it could very well be by choice. 

Formula is incredibly temperamental, like you said, it has a very select shelflife, and who knows how much the rest of the world is producing right now, are they willing or even able to share any without hindering their own populations. 

Your last statement is so chilling and so right on with the Gilead mindset.

 They savor power over anything else, including the survival rate of the future, which they claim is the one and only purpose for implementing their society in the first place.

 The utter hypocrisy that surrounds this place is stunning to me. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, NoSpam said:

 

And I'm heartily tired of the glorification of biological motherhood on this show.

Since we've been warned against talking about the "soothing" aspect, I won't go there but I wanted to say that I agree with this statement. It is making me VERY uncomfortable for the exact reasons that you mention in another post. 

Lawrence was kind of over the top. That

Spoiler

and the spoilers that we know about episode 13

kept me from taking him seriously over anything. 

6 hours ago, Pachengala said:

I am literally stunned by how much I find myself loving AB in this role. I’m on record, when I learned of her casting, as totally against it because she was so weak and annoying in Gilmore Girls, but holy shit she’s killed every single scene.

I want to believe in Commander Bradley Whitford but him shoving his wife into her room was really visceral and upsetting. They’re going to need to explain that if they plan to make him a hero figure. 

Finally, please @mamadrama, I have to know: is your affection for Joseph Fiennes going to survive this season intact? Because I’ve actually gotten to the point where I avert my eyes whenever he’s onscreen; that’s how much he’s repulsively inhabiting this role. 

I don't know, I'm getting pretty nervous right about now! I don't know what's worse-when he's being an abusive bully to Serena, a lecherous sleazeball to June, or a complete and utter moron to everyone else. 

I may have to have a double showing of THE VERY THOUGHT OF YOU and SHAKESPEARE IN LOVE as an antidote. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, watchTV said:

 

Are we dismissing the part where his wife said he created the colonies? I guess he could rid her to the place he created. I bet all those condemned to work and deteriorated to death there were appreciative. I'm just not sure an arsonist gets credit for putting out a fire. And how much do you think Emily enjoyed recalling all the sadistic things done to her? He went over them one by one. Why? A normal person would simply sympathize with, "You've been through some harsh situations. Sorry."

Not dismissing the colonies thing. I've seen him in scenes totaling approximately 4 1/2 minutes at this point, though. Maybe he had an ulterior motive for questioning Emily about those things-maybe there's more to him than what we saw in this episode. There are far too many other people on my screen to hate on at the moment; I'm reserving my judgment for him.

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, AnswersWanted said:

He has had to confront the monstrous society he helped bring to life and that has given him a new perspective and, just like his disorganized home, he is currently shifting through the chaos.

Rewatching the episode and the part where he talks about losing a child is like losing a limb... he seems off in space, lost for a second.

I think he may have lost a child? Perhaps even if its a grown child that is in Canada, was executed for being gay or breaking some other Gilead law, or didn’t agree with his work and disowned him. 

Maybe this evoked a change in him? Just a thought. He seemed lost in his thoughts for a second. (These are total speculations and not based on any spoiler.)

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
57 minutes ago, mamadrama said:

Not dismissing the colonies thing. I've seen him in scenes totaling approximately 4 1/2 minutes at this point, though. Maybe he had an ulterior motive for questioning Emily about those things-maybe there's more to him than what we saw in this episode. There are far too many other people on my screen to hate on at the moment; I'm reserving my judgment for him.

I also think it’s less about giving him credit and more about this being the first example of anyone from Gilead possibly showing some culpability, maybe some guilt and shame, too. That doesn’t absolve him of anything, but considering everyone else has doubled down on their pride over their involvement in this society, it’s refreshing to see someone seemingly burdened by his original involvement, who might want to actually help instead of hinder. 

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, Ruby said:

I doesn't make sense to me that they'd execute Eden and therefore waste a potential baby maker.  It would make more sense had they made her a handmaid instead.  They could have had the same dramatic effect if her lover was executed in front of her, and then she ended up committing suicide.

This has been discussed on other threads as well, but it has been established that a woman is only made a handmaid if she has been proven fruitful: given birth. Every handmaid has has a child previously, proving they are fertile. Eden has not, so this is why Gildead would not make her a handmaid. 

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
24 minutes ago, LittleRed84 said:

Rewatching the episode and the part where he talks about losing a child is like losing a limb... he seems off in space, lost for a second.

I think he may have lost a child? Perhaps even if its a grown child that is in Canada, was executed for being gay or breaking some other Gilead law, or didn’t agree with his work and disowned him. 

Maybe this evoked a change in him? Just a thought. He seemed lost in his thoughts for a second. (These are total speculations and not based on any spoiler.)

 

I noticed that bit too and commented on it, I definitely got the impression that was potential foreshadowing for his backstory.

I like your ideas, it would be something if maybe he thought bringing Gilead into being would force his family, or child, to live the life that he thought they should be living, but the child rebelled and ended up fleeing or murdered and he has to live with that guilt. 

That circumstance would also definitely be weighing on his marriage and give further dimension to his wife’s bitterness and hatred towards him. 

I did get the sense that Lawrence is a plagued man, and there is more than enough to speculate about what exactly alls him. 

I just hope that when we find out about what and why it all makes sense.

Share this post


Link to post
28 minutes ago, VagueDisclaimer said:

I also think it’s less about giving him credit and more about this being the first example of anyone from Gilead possibly showing some culpability, maybe some guilt and shame, too. That doesn’t absolve him of anything, but considering everyone else has doubled down on their pride over their involvement in this society, it’s refreshing to see someone seemingly burdened by his original involvement, who might want to actually help instead of hinder. 

I am kind of waiting for that. We know that he created those  concepts, but how does he feel about them NOW? I leave room open for these things. And yes, I am very interested in seeing someone who might feel burdened and conflicted about the Gilead that has taken root. 

I watch this show with quite a bit open space for the gray areas. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

What the hell did I just watch?

What was the point of the past episode? What was the point of Isaac and Eden gumming up the works if they're just going to neatly take care of them in the deep end? What was the point of telling June that she would no longer be living at the Waterfords after she gives birth if they're just going to stash her back in her closet three weeks later? What was the point of the Nick-Nabbing?

No, really. What was the point? What's the plot? I don't even know anymore.

Go Emily? I guess? Yay, Rita got more than three lines? I have no clue.

  • Like 10

Share this post


Link to post
8 hours ago, Deputy Deputy CoS said:

no one is more a danger to Nick and June than Nick and June.

I agree - as a couple, they moronically keep talking to each other very bluntly about things like THEIR BABY and running away at regular volume in the house where Fred and Serena live. That's just Stupid 101. They have been careless since they began sleeping together but this season they have pushed it even further (like Nick walking into her bedroom at night). If anyone is going to bring about their demise, it's Nick and June themselves.

  • Like 13

Share this post


Link to post
On 7/3/2018 at 10:26 PM, AnswersWanted said:

 

What show was it, I think it was American Horror Story during one of their first seasons where they had a character, a serial killer if I am not mistaken, that enjoyed breast-feeding.

I try to keep myself good and spoiled with this show, but for a second there I thought we were going to transition from Fred trying to proposition June with how she could show her “appreciation” to him more for arranging the Hannah meet up and suddenly we were going to be in his office where he’s curled up on the couch nursing from her.

I am so grateful that did not happen I cannot put it into words.

I do wonder if Lydia might have her suspicions about which Commanders actually fathered their blood babies or not.

I wouldn’t be surprised if she knew exactly which girls found, or in June’s case were forced to accept, whatever viable source was available to them, but just like everyone else drinking the kool-aid in Gilead it’s just the way things are, something to know but to never speak of.

It allows them to keep up the pretense that the system is actually working.

I was thinking the same thing about Commander Fred longing to nurse on June.  The way he looked at her when she got engorged while looking at her baby gave me the creeps!  Ewwww!   

I think Eden and Isaac’s public drowning was not keeping with prior punishments we’ve seen.  They just DON’T kill fertile females ... especially not when they’re forced to bring in breeders from the colonies (where they were exposed to poisons) to supply babies!  Didn’t make sense.  Isaac should have been hung on the wall of shame and Eden should have been forced into Handmaid service.  Maybe even to carry a second child for Serena.  Now, THAT would have been a real punishment!  I felt the lovers’ death scene was gratuitous and only there to make the inevitable comparison to Romeo and Juliet.  Ahh ... Star-crossed lovers ....

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Callaphera said:

What the hell did I just watch?

What was the point of the past episode? What was the point of Isaac and Eden gumming up the works if they're just going to neatly take care of them in the deep end? What was the point of telling June that she would no longer be living at the Waterfords after she gives birth if they're just going to stash her back in her closet three weeks later? What was the point of the Nick-Nabbing?

No, really. What was the point? What's the plot? I don't even know anymore.

Go Emily? I guess? Yay, Rita got more than three lines? I have no clue.

What was the point of any episode all season long? Every episode got "reset" with the next. The bomb, the letters getting released, the 'extra violent' rape, June's spirit gets broken, June begs everyone to look out for the baby because Fred is dangerous, June tells Fred he's not the father... None of it mattered because hey, June's right back at the Waterford manse, Nick is single again, and we're exactly where we were a season ago.

  • Like 10

Share this post


Link to post
8 hours ago, Ragingviolet said:

I haven't finished reading all the comments on the episode yet but I am really surprised to seeing so many people saying they like the new commander.  When he asked Emily if she had healed properly and she had this tear filled horrified look on her face I felt a tendril of ice go down my spine.  I mean he is a welcome addition but not because I think he will be a good person.  Did no one else respond to that scene in the same way?

I did. That is something abusive, manipulative people do.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
7 hours ago, Ruby said:

I doesn't make sense to me that they'd execute Eden and therefore waste a potential baby maker.  It would make more sense had they made her a handmaid instead.  They could have had the same dramatic effect if her lover was executed in front of her, and then she ended up committing suicide.

I agree that it would make more sense but I don't think Margaret Atwood would have forgiven Eden. Gilead is a fundamentalist society and fundamentalists usually give more weight to the sins than to the possibilities. Gilead would rather kill a vessel, which is what women are to them, than forgive her sins. 

Obviously, Gilead totally forgive the sins of the powerful, and the sins of the ones who commit sins to the pleasure of the powerful.

Since the writers don't really care about the stories they tell anymore, I wish they had explored Eden a little more. 

6 hours ago, AnswersWanted said:

absolutely agree with you, Gilead wants to keep the Internet and have a media director, but when it comes to something as simple as do they have access to formula if a baby needs it? It’s horrifying to think they don’t and that it could very well be by choice. 

I think Gilead does't have a lot of food and supplies readily available and distribute that very carefully. The newborns all belong to the commanders so it is not like they are taking away from the masses to supply the elites. Things like baby formula would create infighting 

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, LittleRed84 said:

This has been discussed on other threads as well, but it has been established that a woman is only made a handmaid if she has been proven fruitful: given birth. Every handmaid has has a child previously, proving they are fertile. Eden has not, so this is why Gildead would not make her a handmaid. 

Moira was going to be a handmaid but she doesn't have children. 

Share this post


Link to post
12 minutes ago, alexvillage said:

Moira was going to be a handmaid but she doesn't have children. 

She was a surrogate. 

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
On 7/4/2018 at 1:08 AM, AnswersWanted said:

 

I love how she actually was naive, frankly stupid, enough to believe a hungry baby would or could be soothed by a dry feeding.

Little Ms. Holly was not having it, heh,  I can just envision a thought bubble above her little head saying: “ This one is empty! Fuck! Where’s my milk, dammit!!  I don’t need your shit apologies, lady, I need FOOD!”. 

It does soothe sometimes. I had a problem with my milk (which I found out about later, when she wasn’t gaining weight) but my daughter would suckle contentedly and fall asleep. Sometimes it’s just a comfort thing more than for food. That’s what Serena was probably hoping. It may not have worked with Serena because she’s not the birth mother. They say newborns remember their mother’s smell. Baby probably thought who the F are you? 

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×