It’s actually a very thoughtful thing to say. She just isn’t breaking down her statement, filling in the gaps that she used to spend hours agonizing over what she ate, if she was small enough, if a certain part was good enough. I knew exactly what she meant right away. Women, especially women in the spotlight and/or…

In previous episodes, Elenore was medicated, wasn't she? She started acting erratically as soon as Beth was unable to find medication for her.

It was brutal watching June make the decision to let Elenor die. It feels like the right tactical decision—Elenor’s outburst in the prayer circle was this close to giving away their intentions and getting them killed—but it still feels cold. Kudos to the show for making it feel like a situation with no right answer.

So is June. They have equal amounts of agency within Gilead.
Perhaps a better way to say it is why are so many commentors denying her agency? People seem to think June is the only character capable of making a choice.

People are always saying “June got X killed,” but June is making people an offer. They agree to go with…

Yes, she’s a war criminal too, but that doesn’t mean that punishing her is the best diplomatic decision. A woman of Serena’s stature could make a huge statement against Gilead. She is more valuable as an icon than a prisoner.

June has mostly acted out in situations where she’d take someone down with her. Serena and Fred can’t turn her in for the kidnapping because they’re complicit in it.

I saw Meloni’s character more as someone who gets off on manipulating his power dynamic. He hinted at seducing Fred because he could. It’s the same with June. He knows he has power over her and he wants to use it. When she defies his power, he reacts with violence. That’s often the case.

Yes, I found Serena and Fred’s dynamic especially compelling here. Her love for him is as clear as her anger and resentment. Fred is never an especially interesting character, but Serena is, and their dynamic is something we rarely see. This woman helped create the world that subjugated her and she sees that world…

Why is everyone robbing Natalie’s character of her agency by claiming June got a Martha killed? Natalie informed on the Martha. A Martha who chose to go along with June. Maybe that was a bad choice, but it was her choice. Don’t deny her character’s role in this.

Yeah, but that wasn't a thought out punishment. It was an in the moment reaction of one guardian, in an emergency situation where other fertile women's lives are at risk.

There’s a pretty consistent logic to June’s safety. It’s not the strongest part of the show (and, really, if you’re going to watch it you should just accept that she’s going to survive. It ain’t gonna change), but it does make sense. Last season, the Waterfords had to protect her or they’d go down too (which bled into…

June didn’t get that Martha or OfMathew killed. OfMathew chose to report back to Aunt Lydia. Gilead is what got them killed, but if anyone on the show got that Martha killed, it’s OfMathew. The then chose to rub that act in June’s face. She had the agency that made this happen (as much as any woman in Gilead has…

It’s really not that bad. Maybe these critics are having trouble following a show they’ve given up on, but I found the episode both clear and coherent.

I never liked Tom either. Were were supposed to like Tom? (I also found Ron’s I LOVE MEAT ISN'T THAT FUNNY thing tiring but he eventually developed other traits).

Would you prefer rapey? Or interested in consent in the streets, uninterested in consent in the sheets? (It needs work, I admit). Overly forceful?

The last season is my favorite. It has a lot of gems. Even in 2019, The Wizard holds up when it comes to white people’s fear of discussing race:

I understand it, but I don’t like it. The characterization of the core four as cruel and selfish doesn’t really jive with huge chunks of the show, as the characters often go out of their way to help others. They're ineffective, afraid of conflict, and oblivious, but they're never malicious.

Is attending a protest really more effective than donating to an organization trying to help a cause? I have a hard time believing that.

I’m pretty neutral on superheroes in general. Some are okay. Some are boring. Some are great. I have a certain fondness for Spider-Man, in part because he is more scrappy. His stakes are more relatable and everyday.

I think the issue—at least with JJ and DD; I haven’t watched LC or IF—is more that the shows keep one toe in super hero over the top-ness. I mean, does anyone think ninjas worked in the context of DD season one and three? It’s a wildly different scope/stakes/storytelling style.