Handmaid's Tale Season 3

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You can see countries responding to infertility differently. A different country might choose to “go high” and just be truly supportive of women and children.....

It's an interesting question to think if you stopped having babies when would you experience major economic and labor market disruptions etc. Maybe Canada is just not there yet?


But for whatever reason an American Civil War would be hugely disruptive to Canada I think.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:https://www.facebook.com/handmaidsonhulu/videos/1308840252623271/

14 sec's in - and a second one I didnt notice the first time about relaunching the mercantile system in developed nations...religion and economy....gives some insight into his background

I guess those were all the books he wrote.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You can see countries responding to infertility differently. A different country might choose to “go high” and just be truly supportive of women and children.....

It's an interesting question to think if you stopped having babies when would you experience major economic and labor market disruptions etc. Maybe Canada is just not there yet?


But for whatever reason an American Civil War would be hugely disruptive to Canada I think.

Canada has a much smaller population than the US to begin with and has been more immigrant friendly for the past 30 years. I think they could handle it all better.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are all Martha's infertile? How is this known before they are designated their roles? Most seem quite young enough to still be able to bear children.

They test all the women, but not the men as men cannot be infertile.

How do they test the women?

Possibly they had their tubes tied or had hysterectomies before Gilead. At least some must had had diagnosed infertility, but were not married to high status men like SJ.

I think this is another example of the show taking some liberties with casting. I believe in the book the Marthas were post menopausal. In the book, Serena Joy is definitely older and past childbearing age. I was pretty surprised when they cast a 30 something Yvonne to play her.

Also, handmaids are only women who had sinned + were fertile/had previously had a child. So technically a marrtha could be young but not a "sinner" so not relegated to be a handmaid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are all Martha's infertile? How is this known before they are designated their roles? Most seem quite young enough to still be able to bear children.

They test all the women, but not the men as men cannot be infertile.

How do they test the women?

Possibly they had their tubes tied or had hysterectomies before Gilead. At least some must had had diagnosed infertility, but were not married to high status men like SJ.

I think this is another example of the show taking some liberties with casting. I believe in the book the Marthas were post menopausal. In the book, Serena Joy is definitely older and past childbearing age. I was pretty surprised when they cast a 30 something Yvonne to play her.

Also, handmaids are only women who had sinned + were fertile/had previously had a child. So technically a marrtha could be young but not a "sinner" so not relegated to be a handmaid.

Good point. How do the Econowives figure in with the Marthas? If you're a young, fertile Martha wouldn't they want you paired up? Can the Marthas be women who were not married (Econowives) prior to Gilead?

[Anonymous]

Martha’s were either too old to bare children or not in a committed, unsinning (not divorced or gay) relationship. Some may have been widows.

Most of them (from the books) may have sinned by their choice of careers too.

[Anonymous]

Seeing Emily read to her son, and her son’s super hero picture were so sweet. I teared up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I clearly am not familiar at all with the trauma that Emily experienced, and the aftermath of processing it, but didn't it feel odd to anyone else that she wouldn't stay in her wife's home and begin the process of re-establishing herself with her family? I just found it so strange that she'd stay in a hotel. The emily scenes broke my heart into tiny pieces.

I think at little space upon reentry allows everyone to process emotions at their own speed and helps avoid overwhelming both Emily and their son. It seemed a little odd to me too at first and maybe would be IRL but it helps to illustrate how difficult the readjustment processes would be.

I teared up when her kid said that he’s not supposed to hug her until she’s ready.

Me too. When the kid leaned into her when she was reading I ugly cried.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I clearly am not familiar at all with the trauma that Emily experienced, and the aftermath of processing it, but didn't it feel odd to anyone else that she wouldn't stay in her wife's home and begin the process of re-establishing herself with her family? I just found it so strange that she'd stay in a hotel. The emily scenes broke my heart into tiny pieces.

I think at little space upon reentry allows everyone to process emotions at their own speed and helps avoid overwhelming both Emily and their son. It seemed a little odd to me too at first and maybe would be IRL but it helps to illustrate how difficult the readjustment processes would be.

I think it's this. I didn't think it was that odd. She's undergone tremendous trauma, I wouldn't expect for her to bounce right back into everyday life and a romantic relationship. I think space gives her some room to process the trauma in a healthy way. She basically doesn't know her son, who knows what's happening with the wife, she's undergone torture and rape for years....space and re-acclimating in smaller doses with solid alone time to process seems smart.

During those scenes, I couldn’t help but remember the time Emily spent in the colonies. Unlike June and Miora, she’s the only survivor of Gillead who has been subject to the toxic waste and the mindF that goes with it.

I’m sure that is one of the biggest things that she has to grapple with upon re-entry to normal life. The colonies were supposed to be a death sentence. I believe that she thought that she was going to die soon from cancer anyway, so what did she have to lose attacking Aunt Lydia? Then she’s immediately swept up in something like a miracle and finds herself safe from Gilead, and the doctor gives her a clean bill of health (!) How to process going from a death camp to hearth, home, and loving family in the snap of a finger?

Also she killed the wife at the colonies. Poisoned her.

[Anonymous]

^^^not her wife. One of the commanders wives that was sent there.

[Anonymous]

So, episode 5. Spoilers ahead. . .







This was the best of the season so far, I think. One of the great things about this show is how complex the characters are. In almost every scene, I couldn't predict how they would react or know what they were really thinking. Serena, Fred, Joseph Lawrence and his wife, June's walking partner-- they all seem to be in a state of flux, reevaluating what they believe and what their role should be.

I was surprised that June trusted the Waterfords enough to let them see Nichole, but it made more sense when she decided the risk was worth the possibility of using it to get a promise of a future favor. It really shows how deep June's relationship with Serena now goes.

Now I'm wondering what's up with that video appeal they made at the end of the episode. Are the Waterford's doing it to keep their role in/knowledge of the truth about the kidnapping hidden? It seemed like June was assuming their appeal to Canada was sincere. My sense from that big meeting of Commanders at the start of the episode was that the Gilead leadership had already decided they were going to make this a cause celebre.

Such a heart wrenching episode. Especially the audio message to Luke. I cried like a baby.

[Anonymous]

Or Serena gone bad again, crossed over to the dark side.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Or Serena gone bad again, crossed over to the dark side.

Hard to say. In the preview for the next episode June casually asks Serena how many videos Fred is going to make asking for the baby’s return, making it look like they’re on the same side. But Serena also said that seeing the baby “changed everything.” Does that mean that both Waterfords officially joined the good side, or that Serena decided that she wants the baby back in Gilead after all? I’m pulling for the good side.

Maybe the Waterfords are trying to set up a military confrontation to put an end to Gilead. Or not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Or Serena gone bad again, crossed over to the dark side.

I think Luke’s disdain/not bothering to understand how Serena felt, and then holding the baby again totally put her over the edge. She went there with the idea of saying goodbye, but now she just wants back in the ‘mother’ role again.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Or Serena gone bad again, crossed over to the dark side.

Hard to say. In the preview for the next episode June casually asks Serena how many videos Fred is going to make asking for the baby’s return, making it look like they’re on the same side. But Serena also said that seeing the baby “changed everything.” Does that mean that both Waterfords officially joined the good side, or that Serena decided that she wants the baby back in Gilead after all? I’m pulling for the good side.

Maybe the Waterfords are trying to set up a military confrontation to put an end to Gilead. Or not.

One small thing makes me think that Serena's "changed everything" attitude is for the good. When she walked away from Nichole at the airport and broke down sobbing by herself, her purse spilled, revealing that she had June's package for Luke. We see later that she must have made the decision after that to somehow get the package to him.