S03.E06: Household

[marinw]

17 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said:

1 hour ago, marinw said:

The Canadians must also be rolling their eyes at all the sanctimonious praying.

True for this Canuck. Religious fanatics frighten me.

And we will deal with the Nichole situation in our typically passive-aggressive way.

[AngelaHunter]

9 minutes ago, marinw said:

And we will deal with the Nichole situation in our typically passive-aggressive way. 

Too bad Chretien isn't around. He'd tell Gilead to go pound sand. Maybe Justin is still PM. He'll probably want to give them a  parade. 

I'm wondering if we're too hard on June. Yes, she does things that seem totally irrational, but I have to wonder how rational I would be after a protracted period of being enslaved, degraded, threatened with death, tortured and systematically raped. Probably not very. 

[Umbelina]

This whole Holly thing with Canada, Gilead, and Switzerland better just be bullshit.

It makes absolutely no sense, unless it's just a spy mission, which does make sense.  The EU and what's left of the USA trying to get a read on the power structure and intentions of the "black box."

Yes, I know they have probably talked to escapees and have some knowledge from them, but not real intel about who the true power players are, or what they want, or what they might do.

IF they wank this into Luke bargaining Holly for Hannah?  OMG.

I can see Luke doing that, or it being used as a ploy to extend the talks (spying) but if it's more than that?  BS.

[marinw]

13 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

I'm wondering if we're too hard on June. Yes, she does things that seem totally irrational, but I have to wonder how rational I would be after a protracted period of being enslaved, degraded, threatened with death, tortured and systematically raped. Probably not very. 

That's a very fair assesment. I still wonder why June choose not to escape to Canada, she may have been able to help Hannah more from outside Gilead than within it.

Edited July 2, 2019 by marinw

[AngelaHunter]

46 minutes ago, Umbelina said:

This whole Holly thing with Canada, Gilead, and Switzerland better just be bullshit.

Hard to imagine an international incident over one baby, being claimed by people who are not even related to her biologically. And June, who is her mother, when speaking to the Swiss says not a single word about the fate of females in Gilead - nothing about the sexual slavery, the abuse, the breeding, the mutilations or the murders? Are we being given to thinking nothing is known about this anywhere? Was she afraid to tell them? Can they not know, when they did seem to know everything about Nick?

53 minutes ago, Umbelina said:

IF they wank this into Luke bargaining Holly for Hannah?

Has he ever mentioned her in our hearing? Ever agonized about his child becoming a sex slave? If he has I do not recall, but my memory is flawed.

[ferjy]

5 hours ago, AnswersWanted said:

I think that’s it exactly, the writing team never thought we’d all think so logically, or so long, about this.

We were just to react like June did, horrified with hands over our mouths, and then the Swiss, Nick’s return, and CGI Lincoln was supposed to distract us later. 

That piece is similar to what I was thinking would have been a more believable option. A locking headpiece that can be removed, but does restrict speech when it’s locked in place and the wearer has no control over it. 

Again, there’s no question such devices have existed historically, but I have never seen anything like solid lip rings which pierce both lips and have no outward locking or connective features. 

They would be able to drink liquid foods, in theory, the rings wouldn’t restrict that bit of movement to part the lips to fit a straw in there, but as many have pointed out there’s no way that’d suffice for a woman meant to carry a healthy baby. And this is happening during a time when these women are mostly having so called “shredders” than viable infants on a good day.

And all the physical points you made, as have others, really highlight why those rings, removable or not, could still prove extremely dangerous and not worth all the potential risks to the handmaids.

Imagine a sneeze coming on and panicking as you try to remove three lip rings before your mouth gets potentially ripped open, or god forbid you get nauseous and have to throw up without warning. It’s a true logistical nightmare however you work it out.

These women are supposed to be kept alive, and healthy enough, to breed, why risk their lives on a stupid choking hazard? Or an oral bacterial infection? Or malnourishment? Etc, etc. I know they’re back to playing Gilead as a haven for handmaids and there’s a plethora of them around, but you still wouldn’t purposefully endanger such important members of your society. 

But I mean these writers have shown us before that they don’t always think through their ideas fully, so I’d not be surprised at all that this was the case here as well. 

It’s right up there with Serena’s bullet proof womb and Emily and Janine’s imperviousness to direct radiation poisoning. These truly are super women...

That’s what happens when you let your kids write the script for you. Children haven’t learned yet about consequences. 

[goldilocks]

5 hours ago, AnswersWanted said:

I think that’s it exactly, the writing team never thought we’d all think so logically, or so long, about this.

We were just to react like June did, horrified with hands over our mouths, and then the Swiss, Nick’s return, and CGI Lincoln was supposed to distract us later. 

That piece is similar to what I was thinking would have been a more believable option. A locking headpiece that can be removed, but does restrict speech when it’s locked in place and the wearer has no control over it. 

Again, there’s no question such devices have existed historically, but I have never seen anything like solid lip rings which pierce both lips and have no outward locking or connective features. 

They would be able to drink liquid foods, in theory, the rings wouldn’t restrict that bit of movement to part the lips to fit a straw in there, but as many have pointed out there’s no way that’d suffice for a woman meant to carry a healthy baby. And this is happening during a time when these women are mostly having so called “shredders” than viable infants on a good day.

And all the physical points you made, as have others, really highlight why those rings, removable or not, could still prove extremely dangerous and not worth all the potential risks to the handmaids.

Imagine a sneeze coming on and panicking as you try to remove three lip rings before your mouth gets potentially ripped open, or god forbid you get nauseous and have to throw up without warning. It’s a true logistical nightmare however you work it out.

These women are supposed to be kept alive, and healthy enough, to breed, why risk their lives on a stupid choking hazard? Or an oral bacterial infection? Or malnourishment? Etc, etc. I know they’re back to playing Gilead as a haven for handmaids and there’s a plethora of them around, but you still wouldn’t purposefully endanger such important members of your society. 

But I mean these writers have shown us before that they don’t always think through their ideas fully, so I’d not be surprised at all that this was the case here as well. 

It’s right up there with Serena’s bullet proof womb and Emily and Janine’s imperviousness to direct radiation poisoning. These truly are super women...

I’m an idiot. I thought they were semi-circles pierced in at the ends only, but reading about the”rings” gave me a forehead slapping moment. And a horrifying thought. I don’t think it’s been mentioned... can it be that the rings are pierced into the tongues inside their mouths? (I know, eek!) This way there is no way they could talk like we were assuming they would be able to if only the lips were pierced. And the locking mechanism could be inside and only accessible with certain tools. I know,  it sounds even more gross and dangerous but who knows with these Gilead monsters (and shock hungry writers).

[AngelaHunter]

1 hour ago, marinw said:

I still wonder why June choose not to escape to Canada, she may have been able to help Hannah more from outside Gilead than within it.

I don't really know. Maybe she figures the girl's father left her, and Hannah thinks her mother did too, so maybe she's determined she will not?

[Trillian]

I still find it implausible that they are pulling out all the stops for this one “child of Gilead”.  Seriously, Holly’s the only child who’s ever escaped?  Cut your losses and keep your atrocities secret. 

What about Oliver?  Why wasn’t he a child of Gilead?  Because he had a Canadian passport?  He was allowed to leave with Clea DuVall - the border guard doesn’t recognize that mother’s marriage to the other mother but somehow acknowledges Clea as mother to the child born of a Gileadean (?) citizen. I love this world where  Ego ad Canadian civis carries such weight. 

Btw, happy Canada Day, bitches.  We have power of which even Margaret Atwood never dreamed. 

[marinw]

2 hours ago, goldilocks said:

I  don’t think it’s been mentioned... can it be that the rings are pierced into the tongues inside their mouths? (I know, eek!) This way there is no way they could talk like we were assuming they would be able to if only the lips were pierced. And the locking mechanism could be inside and only accessible with certain tools.  I know,  it sounds even more gross and dangerous but who knows with these Gilead monsters (and shock hungry writers).

Wouldn't the woman choke on her own saliva? 

People can and do live on a liguid diet for limeted peiods of time for certian medical reasons, such as serious dental or gastrointestinal issues, but it's not ideal.

Edited July 2, 2019 by marinw

[AnswersWanted]

4 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

Too bad Chretien isn't around. He'd tell Gilead to go pound sand. Maybe Justin is still PM. He'll probably want to give them a  parade. 

I'm wondering if we're too hard on June. Yes, she does things that seem totally irrational, but I have to wonder how rational I would be after a protracted period of being enslaved, degraded, threatened with death, tortured and systematically raped. Probably not very. 

I didn’t mind June in season 1, in season 1 she was a very sympathetic character to me.

I understood her fear, her terror, her sometimes crazy, dangerous choices trapped in the Waterford’s house, sneaking around with Nick for comfort, getting close to Emily even though she was a resistance member. Just like the Offred in the book, this woman was flawed and human and so I could empathize with her sudden descent into this hellscape madness that was Gilead. 

But the past 2 seasons have done a lot, in my opinion, to strip away June’s purpose and potential as a character that tugs at our heartstrings. And I 100% blame the writers for that. 

In the first season her unpredictability was warranted, but now we see her activity acting stupid as if she shouldn’t already know better. Somehow they’ve regressed her development, she acts out in ways a woman with her history and past in Gilead, one would think, would never dare. I think the expectations a lot of viewers have for her are never met by the writing. 

I fully think June at this point would be more cautious, secretive, guarded, and trust absolutely, positively no one. Instead we have her showboating in a verbal sparring match with Serena in broad daylight, removing her requirement “gag”  without concern, and showing no fear of discovery by the large group around them. The show loves it for the dramatic effect of course, but character wise it’s just too much to even take seriously at this point, to take June seriously at this point I think. 

3 hours ago, marinw said:

That's a very fair assesment. I still wonder why June choose not to escape to Canada, she may have been able to help Hannah more from outside Gilead than within it.

I will fall back on one of my favorite sayings this season, because “season 3 gotta season 3”.

That decision was one made solely for the writers’ benefit who wanted to keep June inside of Gilead for plot purposes.

There’s no way June the character wouldn’t have known not escaping with Emily and Holly, after everything, meant that she was facing certain death. She never would have assumed she could possibly get to Hannah, she was going to get recaptured, probably tortured for info, then sent to Jezebel’s, the colonies, or she would have been hanging on the wall by morning. 

2 hours ago, ferjy said:

That’s what happens when you let your kids write the script for you. Children haven’t learned yet about consequences. 

Hah! Maybe one day we’ll see the scripts with crayon scribbles all over them. 

2 hours ago, goldilocks said:

I’m an idiot. I thought they were semi-circles pierced in at the ends only, but reading about the”rings” gave me a forehead slapping moment. And a horrifying thought. I don’t think it’s been mentioned... can it be that the rings are pierced into the tongues inside their mouths? (I know, eek!) This way there is no way they could talk like we were assuming they would be able to if only the lips were pierced. And the locking mechanism could be inside and only accessible with certain tools. I know,  it sounds even more gross and dangerous but who knows with these Gilead monsters (and shock hungry writers).

I have brought that fact up previously, the only way to truly restrict speech is through restricting the tongue. Otherwise their lips can part and speech, while hindered, is still possible.

The kicker is that if they actually have pieced their tongues, those handmaids have the shortest self life imaginable.

These women wouldn’t be able to swallow properly, manipulate their tongues in any way, the risk of infection from not having access to their teeth or gums to brush, even trying to rinse out their mouths would be nearly impossible and they’d probably end up choking to death. And we won’t get started on what vomiting would lead to.

The writers really stepped right in it with this ring angle, it is so implausible it’s laughable. 

39 minutes ago, Trillian said:

I still find it implausible that they are pulling out all the stops for this one “child of Gilead”.  Seriously, Holly’s the only child who’s ever escaped?  Cut your losses and keep your atrocities secret. 

And I am just going to put it out there: Holly’s a GIRL.

These fuckers in Gilead don’t exactly seem hard up to want plenty of illiterate princesses running around. 

If Holly was instead a Harry or Henry then I could definitely see them putting forth a lot more effort to get him back, to have a healthy baby boy added to the bunch. But a girl?

We cannot forget how lackadaisical they were when Janine’s baby fell ill right in their own backyard. 

This group settled on prayer and a shoulder shrug while she literally lay dying and none of the men, not even her own father, pressed the issue and fought to get her the help she needed, even if it proved futile.

So yeah, the show can shove it on this premise that Holly, a girl child, has mobilized the Gilead leadership in such a way and they’re determined to move heaven and earth to get her back. Are Serena’s tears just that powerful now? Ffs, man. 

Edited July 2, 2019 by AnswersWanted

[AngelaHunter]

8 minutes ago, AnswersWanted said:

I didn’t mind June in season 1, in season 1 she was a very sympathetic character to me.

I understood her fear, her terror, her sometimes crazy, dangerous choices trapped in the Waterford’s house, sneaking around with Nick for comfort

Yes, I did mention S01 June was a very sympathetic character to me, identifiable as I tried to put myself in her situation and did understand the things she did out of desperation, shock, and terror. Now, the story has gotten away from me and I don't understand a whole lot anymore.

10 minutes ago, AnswersWanted said:

Are Serena’s tears just that powerful now? Ffs, man. 

A perfect example of WTF?

I  must say I did like it when they were in Commander Meloni's house, laughing like normal people at stupid Fred playing with the stuffed animal, and then he looked down and saw the covering on Serena's severed finger, and had a "What have I done?" moment and it all came back to both of them. That brief, wordless exchange was, to me, more compelling than all the repetitive, faux-artistic, in-your-face crap ("Do you get it, people? DO YOU?") torture porn, and intrusive music we're given constantly. 

I also liked the "Oh. Shit!" expression on Fred's face when the Commander was getting touchy-feely with him. I'm sure it wasn't meant to be humorous since humour is verboten on this very very serious work, but I thought it was funny.

[Miles]

19 hours ago, Umbelina said:

Someone else did it though, if you enlarge you can see the balls.  I HAD to fill light it because the image was so dark, that's all I did, with a bit of sharpen since I also enlarged your image in order to get very close and see it properly.  I didn't ALTER the image, I made it visible. 

That picture is not enlarged, that's ensmalled... and there are still no balls there. Not sure what you are seeing.

Also "making it visible" is altering the image. If you blow it up you increase artifacts, if you brighten the image, you make artifacts more visible.

This is a digital image, sent through a mediocre codec, through the internet. That's what the whole problem with GoTs the long night was. Nobody could see anything, because the streaming services codec settings are crap. With your image manipulation you aren't making it better, you are making it worse.

18 hours ago, Umbelina said:

Yeah, still no balls. Just the same skin-holes you have on the upper lip as well.

Edited July 2, 2019 by Miles

[Kel Varnsen]

On 6/27/2019 at 12:12 PM, jcin617 said:

I don't know what is going on in their world with NATO (if the US exists, why isn't it helping?  Does it consider it a civil war?) -- but seems like Canada could just ask the UK or France to station a few nukes as insurance.   Not to mention US nukes that might still exist at bases in HI and AK.

The whole thing about the military being a threat to Canada made no sense when the Gilead military is struggling fighting a war they have now where the front is apparently Chicago. Plus you know a bunch of people in various countries are just itching for Gilead to show some aggression to another country to give them an excuse to side with the US and fight Gilead and get the actual US back in power. Plus as big as the US military is, it would be significantly smaller if you got rid of all the women serving (plus all the women working civilian defence/government jobs). And that is not even counting all the Catholics, Muslims and out LGBT people that Gilead would have gotten rid of.

10 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

The rings definitely pierce the skin, but so do all the bizarre piercings we see today, including safety pins and padlocks. I still say the ones on the handmaid have to be removable or else they would be utterly illogical and counterproductive in a society that cherishes healthy, fertile women.

Keep in mind that as much as the Gilead leaders talk about how much they value fertile women they have also showed many times that they are giant hypocrites.

As far as the Swiss thing goes why wouldn't June or more realistically the Swiss delegation just assume that their meeting room was being bugged? It was a Gilead government building.

[CouchPotatoNoLife]

22 hours ago, Lily H said:

I just watched this episode, and as a Canadian, I would have to say "Yes". That is exactly what a Canadian government would do. I knew they would cave and not risk offending the fascists.

As a fellow Canadian that is not fair. The us Military budget is about 30 times what Canada spends annually and has 10 times our population.

In episode 6 the Swiss diplomat states Gilead is an incredibly powerful nation militarily. This is logical as the only way the sons of Jacob could have established control over the North East of the United States after destroying Congress is if they had the support of a significant portion of the us Military before the attack. Otherwise the hundreds of thousands of us soldiers deployed around the globe would have reinvaded and defeated gilead. The fact that the rebels seem so weak and the Anchorage government seems so toothless is another indicator that Gilead was largely founded by a military coup.

Canada and the rest of NATO would lose against the us Military. It is honestly unrealistic how antagonistic Canada had been to Gilead representatives. Eg. When the Soviet Union existed it's diplomats were treated with respect because it would have been stupid to provoke a global superpower.

[CouchPotatoNoLife]

4 hours ago, Umbelina said:

This whole Holly thing with Canada, Gilead, and Switzerland better just be bullshit.

It makes absolutely no sense, unless it's just a spy mission, which does make sense.  The EU and what's left of the USA trying to get a read on the power structure and intentions of the "black box."

Yes, I know they have probably talked to escapees and have some knowledge from them, but not real intel about who the true power players are, or what they want, or what they might do.

IF they wank this into Luke bargaining Holly for Hannah?  OMG.

I can see Luke doing that, or it being used as a ploy to extend the talks (spying) but if it's more than that?  BS.

I think the writers are trying to convey that Gilead is a military power house. Which it would likely be. The US is a military power house and I believe Gilead was founded by a coup so Gilead probably retains  at least 25% of the military capabilities of the former US. which would still make gilead one of the most powerful nations in the world. It's realistic Canada and other European countries would want to avoid war at almost any cost.

The US is a very war obsessed nation. It's military budget is several times that of every other NATO country combined. No country would be itching to fight any government that had the military capability to take and hold the American north east.

Edited July 2, 2019 by CouchPotatoNoLife

[Miles]

4 hours ago, goldilocks said:

can it be that the rings are pierced into the tongues inside their mouths?

Not unless they also removed the teeth. Which would be reeally impractical, dangerous and completely stupid, but so are the rings themselves, so who knows. These wwriters come up with all sorts of unrealistic shit.

2 hours ago, AnswersWanted said:

There’s no way June the character wouldn’t have known not escaping with Emily and Holly, after everything, meant that she was facing certain death. She never would have assumed she could possibly get to Hannah, she was going to get recaptured, probably tortured for info, then sent to Jezebel’s, the colonies, or she would have been hanging on the wall by morning. 

this

Edited July 2, 2019 by Miles

[CouchPotatoNoLife]

1 hour ago, Kel Varnsen said:

The whole thing about the military being a threat to Canada made no sense when the Gilead military is struggling fighting a war they have now where the front is apparently Chicago. Plus you know a bunch of people in various countries are just itching for Gilead to show some aggression to another country to give them an excuse to side with the US and fight Gilead and get the actual US back in power. Plus as big as the US military is, it would be significantly smaller if you got rid of all the women serving (plus all the women working civilian defence/government jobs). And that is not even counting all the Catholics, Muslims and out LGBT people that Gilead would have gotten rid of.

That can be explained by the difference between asymmetric/guerrilla warfare and conventional set-piece battles. A technologically-advanced force like the US military would have a huge advantage over any opponent in traditional set-piece battles. However most of those advantages are eliminated by use of guerrilla warfare. It's very believable that the us Military was part of a coup that helped found Gilead and is a major threat to bomb Canadian cities to ash, but struggles establishing absolute control over an area when faced with insurgents willing to use asymmetric warfare.

Eg. The real life example of the second Gulf War. The United States military very easily defeated the military of Saddam Hussein, occupied Baghdad and forced him into hiding in less than a month. However the US military was never able to establish full control over Iraq and continues to struggle with insurgency willing to use guerrilla warfare tactics. (Snipers shooting without warning, sneak attacks with bombs, etc.) 

I think the rebels are not able to confront Gilead in a conventional battle. I think they use tactics like suicide bombing and other sneak attacks.

In regards to your second point, the US has many more soldiers then every other NATO Nation combined and spends almost 6 times more on its military than every other NATO Nation combined. The only conceivable way Gilead could exist after bombing Congress is if they had the cooperation of the US Military before the attack. destroying Congress would not allow a group to take control of the American Northeast. The US has hundreds of thousands of troops that could be used to retake control, unless they agreed to supporting the sons of Jacob.

the Swiss diplomat seems to indicate that gilead had an extremely powerful military. This indicates that they inherited most of the US military's capabilities. As a Canadian I would not want to antagonize Gilead, because I don't think our military is up to the task. I suspect a similar sentiment would be true across Europe.

Edited July 2, 2019 by CouchPotatoNoLife

[Miles]

1 hour ago, Kel Varnsen said:

The whole thing about the military being a threat to Canada made no sense when the Gilead military is struggling fighting a war they have now where the front is apparently Chicago. Plus you know a bunch of people in various countries are just itching for Gilead to show some aggression to another country to give them an excuse to side with the US and fight Gilead and get the actual US back in power. Plus as big as the US military is, it would be significantly smaller if you got rid of all the women serving (plus all the women working civilian defence/government jobs). And that is not even counting all the Catholics, Muslims and out LGBT people that Gilead would have gotten rid of.

Problem is, they have nuclear bombs and they are crazy enough to use them, if pushed into a corner. The american rebels don't have much to lose. Other countries on the other hand, a lot.

[AnswersWanted]

17 minutes ago, Miles said:

Not unless they also removed the teeth. Which would be reeally impractical, dangerous and completely stupid, but so are the rings themselves, so who knows. These wwriters come up with all sorts of unrealistic shit.

this

Gah, you’re so right about the teeth needing to be removed, I forgot about that...no way these writers gave the rings any thought whatsoever, they just wanted to put a little “Saw” into THT. They should have just gone all the way and put the handmaids in some of these. 

[Ashforth]

I'm enjoying this season fairly well, even with the big plot holes and extraordinary suspensions of disbelief that are required. I don't watch "behind the scenes" or research what the producers and/or writers claim they meant. In a visual/oral/musical background medium like this, I only want to see and hear the show. I do used closed captioning because I find the dialogue muddy, but I don't have the issue of the screen being extremely dark.

Sorry to be "boards on boards," as they used to say on TWoP, but I am weary of the endless argument over the mouthrings. One person sees one thing, someone else sees another, let it go. The truth is, it's likely to be another forgotten moment in Gilead by the next episode.

I also don't care about the military strength issue. Yes, Canada seems flip-floppy. I don't think we're going to get any reasonable explanation of what Gilead's position is in worldwide politics.

I don't hate June and I am still intrigued by Serena (that's a lie - for reasons I don't understand, I LOVE the character of Serena and find her the most interesting of all). I'd like to see more of the underground Martha railroad. I'm puzzled that Nick is suddenly a BFD. I think that Luke and Moira and Emily will always be mostly peripheral (in part because the actors have other projects, but also because the focus of the show is in Gilead).

I'm still interested to see what happens next. 

[AnswersWanted]

My biggest issue with presuming Gilead’s military might is still so imposing and threatening an international force is then why hasn’t Gilead been swinging their weight around in general? 

They merely negotiate and work on trade deals, but these mf-ers should hold a clear upper hand over those like Canada.

Why haven’t they threatened them with retaliation for harboring refugees in the first place? Why is it even an option for those escaping Gilead to be granted shelter in Canada if Canada should be so wary of angering Gilead? 

If anything Canada would have a system that would immediately process and then return the refugees, right? Similar to many countries today who don’t want to offer a safe haven to those escaping their home country. Canada should be assisting Gilead with returning their people, no questions asked. 

The second they discovered Emily had “escaped and stolen a child of Gilead “ a red alert should have gone up. Emily would have immediately been detained and identified, along with Holly. Then they would have contacted Gilead leadership and Emily and the baby would have been returned the next day.

I really think the writers have not properly conceptualized Gilead’s power structure. Hell, I doubt they know anything about how the world powers as a whole are supposed to function. 

No feedback from China or Russia? Nothing from Japan? What about the Middle East? The UK? Or France? Where do these juggernauts stand in all of this? Are they just ignoring what’s happening in North America in general, waiting to see how it all plays out, or are they also struggling with the same problems at the same rate? Fertility, food, pollution, military coups, etc. 

In the book:

Spoiler

Atwood brought in the tourist angle, which the show has apparently skipped all the way over, that showed June watching a group from Japan, among them were women clearly free and ‘normal’ as US women once were, being led around to tour Gilead and gawk at all of its’ weirdness. So even in the book it appears Atwood implied that foreign countries overseas were definitely living and operating far differently than what had become of the US.

I personally think the show is leaving too much of this up to speculation, and it makes little sense to throw shit like “the Swiss have been brought to the table” in, when last we knew the table was out of options and desperate enough to trade handmaids with Mexico. 

[Kel Varnsen]

58 minutes ago, CouchPotatoNoLife said:

In regards to your second point, the US has many more soldiers then every other NATO Nation combined and spends almost 6 times more on its military than every other NATO Nation combined. The only conceivable way Gilead could exist after bombing Congress is if they had the cooperation of the US Military before the attack. destroying Congress would not allow a group to take control of the American Northeast. The US has hundreds of thousands of troops that could be used to retake control, unless they agreed to supporting the sons of Jacob.

the Swiss diplomat seems to indicate that gilead had an extremely powerful military. This indicates that they inherited most of the US military's capabilities. As a Canadian I would not want to antagonize Gilead, because I don't think our military is up to the task. I suspect a similar sentiment would be true across Europe.

But the Gilead isn't the US. Like I said above right off the top their military is reduced by 15% because of no women. And that doesn't even factor in  the people on the other side or those who refused to fight or those that Gilead killed or those stationed in Hawaii or overseas. Plus all the extra security people you see on the street hassling handmaids are fewer people who could serve in the military.

I just picture a situation where if the US did end up in a civil war pretty much every legislature around the world would be debating whether or not they take sides or not. Gilead attacking a neighbor would really push that debate.

[BrindaWalsh]

I thought we saw the tourists in season 1 or 2?  Am I imaging that?  They walked by June by the wall?

Regarding the world reaction (or lack thereof) IMO the book makes it pretty clear in the epilogue:  

Spoiler

Canada did not want to provoke its militarily powerful neighbor to the south.  This is enough of an explanation in my eyes - they had the means to slaughter the government, they have the human forces willing to fire on their own people, they have the codes to the largest nuclear arsenal in the world, not to mention the rest of the U.S military assets.  So, I don't see Canada, coming to the rescue.  I dont even see NATO coming to the rescue.  And given that we know in the book that Gilead lasts 200 years, and we are on what?  Year 5?  

For a current day perspective, look how long it took to "defeat" ISIS in Iraq and Syria?  Look at the atrocities of North Korea?  How about the oppressive and religous Saudi regime?  I don't know that I would expect the world to step in and save Americans from Gilead given that these are the people who took down a world superpower.  Or at least, not in a traditional "blow their shit to pieces" kind of way.

As for Nick, I never thought he was a good guy.  I also never thought he was a bad super bad guy.  I think he takes care of himself, simple as that.  I do think he loves June, hence why he gave over the letters, but I don't know if that makes him a double agent, or just somebody that follows the tide.  

Edited July 2, 2019 by BrindaWalsh

[Magoo]

I may have missed this as a discussion point, but has anyone mentioned the Hulu extras from this episode where Warren Littlefield says “some of the handmaids in DC have chosen a vow of silence.”  Have chosen? What the actual fuck Warren Littlefield?  Pretty sure not a single one of those women willingly chose to have their mouths barbarically clamped shut. Please go fuck yourself far away from this once-great show. 

[AnswersWanted]

17 minutes ago, BrindaWalsh said:

I thought we saw the tourists in season 1 or 2?  Am I imaging that?  They walked by June by the wall?

No, we had the Mexico group come in at the end of season 1. But aside from seeing the Swiss make an appearance in Gilead this episode, Gilead has been totally off limits to visitors from anywhere. Probably due to their concerns of being infiltrated by "terrorists", "spies", etc. 

If Gilead still has nukes, the rest of the world is going to want to either keep them in check or work with them and avoid conflict, same as we often see today. Nuclear technology is always that big game changer for diplomacy.

That's why I feel the other nuclear powers, at the very least, would have made their presence known by now. Either by forcing a meeting like they had with the Swiss or a teleconference, something. They would not trust Gilead, this fanatic, fractured group, with nukes and just hope they don't get too stupid. 

19 minutes ago, Magoo said:

I may have missed this as a discussion point, but has anyone mentioned the Hulu extras from this episode where Warren Littlefield says “some of the handmaids in DC have chosen a vow of silence.”  Have chosen? What the actual fuck Warren Littlefield?  Pretty sure not a single one of those women willingly chose to have their mouths barbarically clamped shut. Please go fuck yourself far away from this once-great show. 

Oh I saw that...the words these showrunners commonly use about these characters or the horrific things that happen to them are often ridiculous and unbelievable.

Handmaids are slaves, they have no rights, therefore they cannot "take a vow" to even shit when they want to, let alone pledge themselves to a life of servitude in silence. It's actually disgusting to me that he would try and frame it in such a gentile manner.

The fact that he and Miller are the two headlining this show baffles me. How does anyone listen to them and their ideas yet no one seems to "WTF????" them out of the room. How are they taken seriously? I just don't know.

[ferjy]

20 minutes ago, Magoo said:

I may have missed this as a discussion point, but has anyone mentioned the Hulu extras from this episode where Warren Littlefield says “some of the handmaids in DC have chosen a vow of silence.”  Have chosen? What the actual fuck Warren Littlefield?  Pretty sure not a single one of those women willingly chose to have their mouths barbarically clamped shut. Please go fuck yourself far away from this once-great show. 

 Of course they chose. “Ok girls, will it be the mouth clamp or would you prefer to lose a finger/eye/clit? You choose.” 🙄  I had the same reaction when it was quoted here. Even if they aren’t all clamped shut and it’s only the mouth covering they all have to wear, you can be sure they didn’t “choose” anything. They wouldn’t have chosen the silence at all. What a bad choice of words. How about “the handmaid’s were inflicted with the vow of silence? No wonder these guys can’t write a proper script. 

[CouchPotatoNoLife]

57 minutes ago, Kel Varnsen said:

But the Gilead isn't the US. Like I said above right off the top their military is reduced by 15% because of no women. And that doesn't even factor in  the people on the other side or those who refused to fight or those that Gilead killed or those stationed in Hawaii or overseas. Plus all the extra security people you see on the street hassling handmaids are fewer people who could serve in the military.

I just picture a situation where if the US did end up in a civil war pretty much every legislature around the world would be debating whether or not they take sides or not. Gilead attacking a neighbor would really push that debate.

I don't think Gilead is a strong as the United States was. In fact I would be surprised if they were even 70% of what the US was militarily. I am saying that even 25% of the US's military capabilities would make gilead stronger than every nation other than China and Russia.

The Swiss diplomat described Gilead as extremely powerful militarily. I can't imagine a reason he would lie to June about that. The US has thousands of nukes and advanced missiles to deliver them. Gilaed would probably the single most dangerous country in the world.

the absence of the United States would change the global balance of power around the world. Eg. NATO countries in Western Europe would probably be concerned with Russian expansion without the US as a deterrent. Japan and South Korea would probably be afraid of Chinese expansion in the South China Sea.

I don't really think these things are essential to the story. This is an exploration of a society where women have no rights, not a geopolitical story. I think the writers just want to impart the message that Gilead is strong enough that there's not going to be foreign intervention to take it down.

[ferjy]

2 hours ago, Miles said:

Not unless they also removed the teeth. Which would be reeally impractical, dangerous and completely stupid, but so are the rings themselves, so who knows. These wwriters come up with all sorts of unrealistic shit.

What? Stick your tongue out a little and it fits nicely into the ring! (Refer to crayon pic #1.) You watch, they’ll say exactly that. I don’t think anything from these dolts will surprise me at this point. 

[jenn31]

OMG, these threads are so much more entertaining than the show. I haven’t seen  the clips of Laurel and Hardy Littlefield and Miller. I don’t think I’ll bother. 

[AllyB]

5 hours ago, AnswersWanted said:

The second they discovered Emily had “escaped and stolen a child of Gilead “ a red alert should have gone up. Emily would have immediately been detained and identified, along with Holly. Then they would have contacted Gilead leadership and Emily and the baby would have been returned the next day.

I think in a 'real world' scenario, Emily would have been allowed to stay as her marriage would have been considered valid. She's the wife of a Canadian citizen and as such would have been given leave to stay and allowed to apply for a spousal visa. Anyone who escaped to Canada and had citizenship rights to another country (a lot of Boston residents would qualify for Irish citizenship, for example) would probably have been given temporary leave to stay while they applied for their non-US passport or at least safe passage through to the country they have rights to live in.

[alexvillage]

6 hours ago, Magoo said:

I may have missed this as a discussion point, but has anyone mentioned the Hulu extras from this episode where Warren Littlefield says “some of the handmaids in DC have chosen a vow of silence.”  Have chosen? What the actual fuck Warren Littlefield?  Pretty sure not a single one of those women willingly chose to have their mouths barbarically clamped shut. Please go fuck yourself far away from this once-great show. 

A man said that (it is a man, right)? Color me not surprised at all. Do we even need to dwell on the reasons why? A man implying women are responsible for all the bad things that happen to them?

[Trillian]

2 hours ago, AllyB said:

I think in a 'real world' scenario, Emily would have been allowed to stay as her marriage would have been considered valid. She's the wife of a Canadian citizen and as such would have been given leave to stay and allowed to apply for a spousal visa. Anyone who escaped to Canada and had citizenship rights to another country (a lot of Boston residents would qualify for Irish citizenship, for example) would probably have been given temporary leave to stay while they applied for their non-US passport or at least safe passage through to the country they have rights to live in.

I have a crazy theory, based on very little, that Emily used to live in Canada with Clea Duvall and that Oliver was born there.  He’d be a Canadian citizen even if born in the U.S., of course, since one of his mothers is a Canadian, but it’s a grasping thought that helps keep my head from exploding over why Gilead let him leave. 

As for international relations in Gilead, I’m still finding it ridiculous to think that only U.S. citizens are trapped in Gilead. I read a stat that, at any given time, there are over a million Canadians in the U.S..  There are other foreign nationals as well, of course, probably also in huge numbers.  And who knows how many Americans married to foreigners, with children who are dual citizens.  What happened to them?  Did they all get out?  Surely some were killed or forced into servitude and their children stolen. There’s your international incident right there.  While Fred is appealing to the world for the return of one of Gilead’s people, how many countries should be saying back : “fine, then. Give us our people back”. 

I just can’t with this silliness. 

[AnswersWanted]

Just wanted to leave this in here since it covers this episode and some of the specific issues we’ve had. 

The Handmaid's Tale EPs Answer Our Burning Episode 6 Questions (Rings! Winslow! Marthas! Nick?!?)

So now they want to make it clear the mouth piece is removable, sure. Just hope those handmaids have lighting quick reflexes whenever they need to sneeze or things could get real messy. 

Also, their “coy” talk about Commander Keller (my personal favorite role of his) and his sexuality was super annoying. Why are they talking about him “discovering himself” like this is some after school special? They just want him to tap back into the role he played so incredibly on OZ, real original guys. 

And their comments about Rita “bonding” with Serena...the fuck? She is her SLAVE!

It’s like I am reading one of those old accounts from slavery when a slave was considered “close” to their master or mistress and it was portrayed as this tender, loving bond.

Because of course, once you get to a point where you fully are immersed in your slave role, knowing you have no choice or opportunity to regain your freedom, and this person literally controls and owns you like a piece of goddamn furniture, you eventually learn to make the best of things. 

Get all the fucking way out of here with that insulting bullshit. Stop trying to make it sweet and normal that these women are growing closer when it’s due to genocide, slavery, and rape. This is not something to celebrate, you assholes, gah.

Plus, now it also amounts to Rita backing off her Marthas’ underground operation so she can take care of Serena...I just can’t. 

And the Nick bs is laughable. Do they really think they’re setting him and June up for this epic love story? And I find it funny they want to say it’d be dumb if Nick had been playing June all along but she didn’t recognize that he was...seriously? Have they watched their own show before?

You mean just like she’s done with Fred and Serena how many times now? Yeah, June is so impervious to being manipulated and taken advantage of, sure. I swear they are trolling us so hard, just so damn hard right now. 

2 hours ago, alexvillage said:

A man said that (it is a man, right)? Color me not surprised at all. Do we even need to dwell on the reasons why? A man implying women are responsible for all the bad things that happen to them?

Oh he is a special one...the article I just linked here is full of his, and Miller’s, nonsense. 

I am beginning to think these guys are secretly members of the Sons (though SOBs does work as well) of Jacob, they are pulling some epic reverse psychology right now. 

Slaves can form the most trusting, loving bonds with their owners, women trapped in a breeding program and held as sex slaves can willing take up “vows of silence”, it’s getting beyond creepy for me to see them speak about these topics the way they do. Their uncanny ability to find a “silver lining” is all types of fuckery. 

Edited July 2, 2019 by AnswersWanted

[BrindaWalsh]

Okay that interview is messed up.

A random question - if so many children were taken from their parents and distributed to the SOJ couples, why did Stabler get 6 kids and the Waterfords, who started out as really high up there, get none?  

[AnswersWanted]

2 minutes ago, BrindaWalsh said:

Okay that interview is messed up.

A random question - if so many children were taken from their parents and distributed to the SOJ couples, why did Stabler get 6 kids and the Waterfords, who started out as really high up there, get none?  

I honestly would believe that was a fake interview, a prank piece, were it not that’s just how those two really are. 

Well in the book:

Spoiler

the Waterford’s are a much older couple and not nearly as highly ranked, and Atwood never really got into how the stolen children of Gilead got dispersed out anyhow. So the idea they would be left barren unless a handmaid did get pregnant makes a lot more sense.

As for the show, Imma guess “reasons”, because it doesn’t make any sense a couple as young as Fred and Serena, and as powerful as they once were, wouldn’t have had a kid or two given to them straight off.

Serena has always seemed baby hungry enough to accept a child through any means. Except for legal surrogacy, fostering, or adoption apparently before Gilead took over, but I digress...

Or the show is trying to imply only the super most high in Gilead leadership got dibs on the stolen babies and those like the Waterford’s just lucked out, it really doesn’t compute. 

Are we meant to think commanders like Commander Keller could frankly hoard so many kids all to himself instead of giving at least four other families a child to raise? Why not share, it’s not like these guys don’t also have handmaids to rape and impregnate. 

Just like the show keeps inflating its’ number of handmaids, they’re doing the same with the kids within Gilead. Wouldn’t there be enough remaining children for most, if not all, commanders to have their share? And it doesn’t seem to be a rank issue either, such as only the lower ranked commanders have handmaids or have stolen children and aren’t given the chance to have their own biological child.

Someone really needs to bring up this subject to the drivel twins, Miller and Littlefield, see what kind of bs answer we get. 

[Miles]

9 hours ago, ferjy said:

What? Stick your tongue out a little and it fits nicely into the ring! (Refer to crayon pic #1.) You watch, they’ll say exactly that. I don’t think anything from these dolts will surprise me at this point. 

That would mean that they would have their teeth apart constantly, like you would when you you normally open your mouth. Your teeth are in betwenn your tounge and your lips afterall.

it doesn't look like that is the case. You'd see it. Also they would probably bite off their tounges in their sleep if that was the case.

So again, removing the front teeth is the only way possible to pierce the lips and the tounge with the same rings.

Edited July 2, 2019 by Miles

[Miles]

9 hours ago, CouchPotatoNoLife said:

Eg. NATO countries in Western Europe would probably be concerned with Russian expansion without the US as a deterrent.

Eh, we outspend Russia by a lot and we have nukes. I think we're fine without the socialist program, that is the US military.

[Miles]

1 hour ago, AnswersWanted said:

The Handmaid's Tale EPs Answer Our Burning Episode 6 Questions (Rings! Winslow! Marthas! Nick?!?)

from the article:

Quote

IS COMMANDER WINSLOW GAY? | “He might be. There’s this fraternity and connection that he has with Fred,” Littlefield says. “We later see his sexuality toward a woman… We talked a lot about how much we lean into that. It’s absolutely within him, which is also the fascination of what’s going on. This is a choice he made, but what’s sitll inside him, what are those urges, and what comes out? We thought that was another layer to play, particularly in Chris [Meloni], who’s so masculine that it’s pretty fascinating.”

Uuuuuuuurghhhh.

There is a german expression: I can't eat as much as I want to vomit!

How does him being masculine make this 'fascinating'? Because he's not a "sissy boy", your stuck in the 1800s, old, rotten brain imagines all gay men to be!?

Gay men come in all shapes, sizes and amount of femininity/masculinity, you ignorant, crusty, old in the brain twats!

Sincerely a broad shouldered, 6'8", bearded, hairy man who loves to suck dick.

[marinw]

So far, the two non-shredder babies born in Gilead that we know of are female (Nichole and Angela). That's a small sample size, but what if the environment is causing the birth of way more healthy girls than bosy? Assumeing Gilead survives that long (according to the Atrwood  source material) what will that mean in a generation? The more women there are to control in proportion to the men, the more repressive the regieme will become. The Mouth Covering thing (if not the grotesque lip peircings) may become standard beyond Washington.

Edited July 2, 2019 by marinw

[AngelaHunter]

11 hours ago, AnswersWanted said:

Gah, you’re so right about the teeth needing to be removed, I forgot about that...no way these writers gave the rings any thought whatsoever, they just wanted to put a little “Saw” into THT. They should have just gone all the way and put the handmaids in some of these. 

LOL! Yes, but that would be hard to cover this up with the little dickey collars.

1 hour ago, AnswersWanted said:

It’s like I am reading one of those old accounts from slavery when a slave was considered “close” to their master or mistress and it was portrayed as this tender, loving bond.

I didn't quote your entire post but agree with every. single. word. Yes, some slaves may have been favoured "pets" with owners who could give them a treat, or a pat on the head if in a good mood,  or a blow or a kick or remove a body part, if in a bad mood.  The slave never knows which is coming. Serena might give June a cigarette or a slap across the face.  I think any "close, loving" relationships we see here between slave and master are more like Stockholm Syndrome, merely a survival strategy. The instinct to survive is our strongest.

1 hour ago, AnswersWanted said:

Stop trying to make it sweet and normal that these women are growing closer when it’s due to genocide, slavery, and rape.

I'm noticing a trend. Same thing on the Walking Dead, where women are turned into a harem of sex slaves, coerced and blackmailed into submitting to sex - which IS rape - and the rapist is seen as a Galahad because he never physically forces them by beatings, tying up, etc. This kind of thinking on both shows by male PTB is kind of alarming.

[BrindaWalsh]

Quote

The Mouth Covering thing (if not the grotesque lip peircings) may become standard beyong Washington.

I read an article somewhere that said something about this - particularly as it pertained to Aunt Lydia.  By showing her horror, yet fascination, with the lip piercings, even though she says now that she wouldn't ever want that, it is the first step in laying the groundwork for that to be a possibility in her district. 

Quote

 I think any "close, loving" relationships we see here between slave and master are more like Stockholm Syndrome, merely a survival strategy. The instinct to survive is our strongest.

I think that they are trying to somehow paint this "love will always win" picture in Gilead (which goes in line with a Hulu promo piece on instagram right now about how love is their resistance).  But they are doing it completely wrong.  Where did we see love?  Right before they slaughtered Emily's Martha.  When June comforted Jeannine immediately after they took Angela from her.  When Emily watched her wife and son leave for Canada.  When June told Luke to save Hannah.

What's not love?  Rita suddenly giving a rat's ass that Serena is sad and forming a bond.  

They need to stop trying to mansplain the dynamics of female relationships.

[AnswersWanted]

31 minutes ago, Miles said:

from the article:

Uuuuuuuurghhhh.

There is a german expression: I can't eat as much as I want to vomit!

How does him being masculine make this 'fascinating'? Because he's not a "sissy boy", your stuck in the 1800s, old, rotten brain imagines all gay men to be!?

Gay men come in all shapes, sizes and amount of femininity/masculinity, you ignorant, crusty, old in the brain twats!

Sincerely a broad shouldered, 6'8", bearded, hairy man who loves to suck dick.

Tell the truth. 

I literally could hardly believe that shit was a direct quote, and it was left in!

What’s next, are they going to have him put Fred in a slinky dress and heels, like Fred did to June, just so you know he really is a macho, macho man? 

I am really starting to think these guys are plants, they’re conducting a social experiment or something, this cannot be real life for them to say what they say with a straight face and not expect to infuriate people.  

27 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said:

LOL! Yes, but that would be hard to cover this up with the little dickey collars.

I didn't quote your entire post but agree with every. single. word. Yes, some slaves may have been favoured "pets" with owners who could give them a treat, or a pat on the head if in a good mood,  or a blow or a kick or remove a body part, if in a bad mood.  The slave never knows which is coming. Serena might give June a cigarette or a slap across the face.  I think any "close, loving" relationships we see here between slave and master are more like Stockholm Syndrome, merely a survival strategy. The instinct to survive is our strongest.

I'm noticing a trend. Same thing on the Walking Dead, where women are turned into a harem of sex slaves, coerced and blackmailed into submitting to sex - which IS rape - and the rapist is seen as a Galahad because he never physically forces them by beatings, tying up, etc. This kind of thinking on both shows by male PTB is kind of alarming.

Maybe the wives could knit large enough cozies, heh. 

Exactly, Rita is in survival mode, she either appeases her masters or she could end up sent off to Jezebel’s, the colonies, or the wall. 

But hearing this bunch describe it as Rita choosing, how does a slave have a choice, to care for and bond with Serena because they have formed this special connection through motherhood and losing a child? That shit just infuriates me. Serena Joy is a big part of the reason Rita lost her child and her freedom, for crying out loud, just make it stop already. 

It truly trivializes what is actually happening and the power structure that exists between these two people. One is the owner, the master, and the other is chattel, property, there is nothing balanced or fair about this relationship. There is nothing right, moral, or good.

Rita can’t just stop treating Serena well, she can’t just unfriend her on Facebook or stop texting her back or taking her calls. She is her Martha, her house slave, and therefore all that she can do is try to stay alive, meaning she must please Serena’s every whim, ffs, do these guys have any rationally thinking people in the writers’ room anymore?

Agreed, this way of taking and twisting situations that are so obviously corrupt and evil into understandable happenstances is very concerning, especially coming from the very sort of men in real life who strongly resemble those who are depicted in Gilead. 

[AngelaHunter]

43 minutes ago, AnswersWanted said:

What’s next, are they going to have him put Fred in a slinky dress and heels, like Fred did to June,

I hate it when people put stuff in my head. Sorry about this (even though I would like to see it happen to the little shit)

[The Mighty Peanut]

Thanks to everyone who blew up/lighted the mouth ring shot. Partly because it clarified if they're removable, partly because I'm having a crappy day and reading "you can clearly see the balls" so many times made my inner 12-year-old happy.

Edited July 2, 2019 by The Mighty Peanut

[Dorne2.0]

I'm new to this show, I read the book and didn't think I could bear watch it. I just want to say something, OMG, I though Serena was being played by Portia De Rossi. Wow. They look identical. I was thinking, wow, Portia still looks so young!

Edited July 2, 2019 by Dorne2.0

[Umbelina]

5 hours ago, BrindaWalsh said:

Okay that interview is messed up.

A random question - if so many children were taken from their parents and distributed to the SOJ couples, why did Stabler get 6 kids and the Waterfords, who started out as really high up there, get none?  

Waterford was never THAT high up.  First of all, he was in Boston, not at the power center, which we now know is (honestly as expected) DC.  Second he was under surveillance by one of the guys who was apparently a "top dog" in Boston, and had Nick spying on him.  Who was conveniently killed in the Handmaid bombing of the new center, JUST as Nick was going to expose him and take him down.

Fred was a small to medium sized fish in a medium sized pond who was continually fucking up everything from the Canadian Trade Deal to keeping his former handmaid from hanging herself to his wife reading in public and trying to change the laws about females being allowed to read.  He continued to shrink and is basically is just another cog in the wheel, powerful only among his slaves, and running to stay in place among his colleagues. 

Glad to see they confirmed the mouth rings are removable.

The rest of that interview was insulting on so many levels I don't even want to comment on those asshole showrunners, besides, you have all already done so well.

What a pity such a story is in their hands.  Very sad, frustrating, and infuriating.

Edited July 2, 2019 by Umbelina
clarity

[Cranberry]

Because it's pretty relevant in this forum: Please take a look at Primetimer's updated politics rule and make sure your posts don't violate it. Thank you!

[kieyra]

So, also on Hulu, Harlots is actually created by and run by women, and at this point is somehow actually more nuanced than THT. Season 3 starts a week from tomorrow. 

[alexvillage]

6 hours ago, Miles said:

from the article:

Uuuuuuuurghhhh.

There is a german expression: I can't eat as much as I want to vomit!

How does him being masculine make this 'fascinating'? Because he's not a "sissy boy", your stuck in the 1800s, old, rotten brain imagines all gay men to be!?

Gay men come in all shapes, sizes and amount of femininity/masculinity, you ignorant, crusty, old in the brain twats!

Sincerely a broad shouldered, 6'8", bearded, hairy man who loves to suck dick.

Where to start with what these people say? Seriously, I can't even begin to try to make sense of any of what he said. It is not only ridiculous, it seems to be coming from someone who has never seen a gay person, or heard about one. Pretty much everywhere people - some at least - are trying to understand how there is not only one gender, how sexual orientation is not the same as gender identity, the Merrian-Webster has had singular "they" for a few years now, and all this guy has is a pre-1950's suburban stereotype (sorry about the suburban, I am trying to convey the bias of some other long ago time)?