I assumed part of it was that getting that to the human rights organizations outside would give them specific people to be looking for and reuniting. Most of the women were mentioning their children by name, so I read it as a "please help me find my child" (or just "please save my child") sort of thing.

One of the things that struck me is how little actually has to change. The shape of society changed, sure (but that can happen easily when who's in charge changes), but the misogyny and the lack of control many women have over their bodies and their reproduction and their lives is already there, just not yet gone to…

Yeah, this was so dumb. Having the handmaids kill people helps cement their complicity and keep them down, and I guess having them see handmaids punished helps keep them in line. But everyone should have known that when those people are ones they *knew* (and pitied) that obedience is far less likely. You only set…

I was actually surprised by how little the thought of his marriage or his wife seemed to occur to anyone. In his trial scene he says he sinned against… and I was waiting for him to say "my wife, my vows," but he says god, country, and brothers. The wife and the marriage are apparently irrelevant.

I want to see something about what's going on with the normal people (Econowives and the normal guys they're married to). Largely because I assume it will basically be just like real life now (except that all the women are housewives) for everyone but the ruling class and their entourage, and that reminder should be…

It also seemed kind of like a bait-and-switch, because the first three episodes were so perfect, and now we're stuck with bland Luke and bland Nick.

Honestly, it's mainly because it's boring. Nick's backstory isn't interesting: someone offered him a job and he took it. Luke's escape is exactly how you would imagine it would be and doesn't need to be shown, especially with all the overlapping details from the first episode. I assume there are interesting stories to…

I got the impression that it was more the irony that despite enjoying sex, she turned out to be the primary architect of this real-sex-less society. One typically assumes that comes from men who are scared of women's sexuality and are trying to control them, but here's happy, sexual Serena Joy fucking it up for…

Another option is that she could be Jewish and just Gilead doesn't actually know everything, like how they apparently didn't know that Emily was gay despite her having been legally married to a woman before.

Ha, I've also been thinking about that tattoo for ages but now feel like I'd be part of a wave. But then, what better wave to be part of, eh? (I did deliberately wait until after that episode to make sure they didn't present it in a way that would make me regret it. Soon!)

What it sounded like to me (though probably wasn't from the timeline) was basically another Ceremony, one for married couples that didn't involve handmaids, that they were rushing through because they were hot for each other and still felt like that was important. But yeah, since I guess that scene came before the…

Except he doesn't believe in love! I can't imagine a way that the Christian patriarchy takes over that it would explicitly be the party line that love doesn't exist. Obviously they all have pretty weird ideas about it, but it's kind of crucial to at least pay lip service to.

The show hasn't gone into it much, but the book mentions "Econowives" (Wives, Handmaids, and Marthas all in one, or, basically, your average slightly oppressed woman in current times) who seem to just be normal people who are married to not-so-important men. Presumably they still can't read or own property, but I…

What do they do with them? They obviously can't just live on their own. Presumably they can't partner up for love. They've already been deemed unacceptable Wife material. Do they become Aunts (seems unlikely; you've kind of got to be a true believer for that) or Marthas?

Other commenters have said that, but I think that the church was her father's parish was the only thing she's actually said about her father. And to me, phrasing it that way (she doesn't say it's where "we" or "our family" went) is compatible with her parents not being together and her living with her mother.

It seems that Disqus ate one of my comments, but apologies if it's only temporary and two nearly identical comments post.

The fundamentalists I grew up among would see it as a perversion that has to do primarily with defiance, and thus the solution would be a punishment that would break the will. But granted, even though it seems clear to me that the fundamentalism of my childhood is what would lead straight to Gilead, I suppose there…

I guess I'm really just complaining about the specific words she uses, which don't seem even internally consistent to me. I agree that many Christians now who think homosexuality is a sin are more concerned about action than attraction or desire (although honestly I think that's mostly for social palatability reasons…

I say this not at all to try to pressure you, but I am really appreciating the show because it's taking all my fears about current events (and general feelings about gender and religion and societal structures and such) so seriously. It's very validating. It's less that it's entertainment and more that it's like,…

I think I appreciate the show more having read the book, but in the sense that it's one of my favorite books and I've read it a million times and I enjoy seeing how the show and the book fit together or deviate and thinking about each little difference. If you haven't read it, I don't think there's any need to read it…