The stark reality of ‘The Handmaid's Tale' in Trump's America
Margaret Atwood is often asked where she got the inspiration for her magnum opus, 'The Handmaid's Tale.' In interviews, she tends to answer the same way: 'The Handmaid's Tale' comes from real events. Everything in the novel, she'll say, looking straight into the camera or squarely into the face of a fan, has already occurred.
History repeats itself; that much we know. Everything in the novel is still occurring. It happened on the MSNBC franchise I write and produce: the Velshi Banned Book Club. Atwood sat down for an interview with host Ali Velshi and clearly elucidated that she was far more worried today than when she wrote the novel in 1985. Just one day later, the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade. Her worry, it seemed, was correctly placed.
It's hard not to think about that prescience, that condemning foresight, when watching the sixth and final season of the 15 Emmy award-winning Hulu adaptation of Atwood's novel.
While it's hard to say enough about Elizabeth Moss' stunning portrayal of June in Hulu's 'The Handmaid's Tale,' in this final season, which concluded Monday, what — or who — rings the truest to me in our present political moment is the character of Serena Joy, played by Yvonne Strahovski.
When the series debuted in 2017, there was no meaningful Trad Wife movement or any other so publicized return to traditionalism. We saw glimmers of an uptick in women-led conservatism, in the 52% of white women who voted for Donald Trump the first time he ran for office, for example. But Serena still felt paradoxical to me.
If you're somehow unfamiliar with the book, television, stage or film adaptation, 'The Handmaid's Tale' takes place in a near-future America called the Republic of Gilead, now governed by a theocratic dictatorship. With much of the population left infertile from environmental disasters, Gilead has implemented forced surrogacy and sexual slavery. (Indeed, the environmental component of the book has become alarmingly more relevant, but that is best left explored for another column.) Fertile 'handmaids,' a term and concept taken directly from the Book of Gensis in the Old Testament, are enslaved, raped by high-ranking officials, impregnated and then forced to surrender their children to their rapists and their complicit wives. Our hero, June, is one such handmaid. Strahovski's Serena, one of the show's most callous and complex antagonists, is the wife of Commander Waterford, to whom June is enslaved. The first season of the show follows the novel very closely, but the subsequent seasons are the creation of Bruce Miller with input from Atwood.
A true believer in Gilead, Serena is not a woman carried by the tide of a regressive Puritanical movement out of her control. Serena herself helped make the waves. It was her Cult of Domesticity-type polemic, her written work and public-facing persona, that helped create Gilead.
Season six opens with June and Serena, joined once again by fate, on a train with other women seeking refuge from Gilead. As the two women speak about the horrors they have experienced in Gilead with other refugees, someone exposes Serena by calling her by her notorious married name: Mrs. Waterford. The refugees want revenge, and Serena, now a war criminal for the role she played in Gilead, doesn't back down. 'Before Gilead, America was full of whores,' she tells them, with indignant eyes and gritted teeth. 'Women were getting raped and killed every day, and nobody cared, and that was your country. You were unfit. I am not responsible for your tragedies; your children were not taken from you, they weren't stolen, they were saved. God hated America because America turned their back on God, and God took your country away. God bless, America.'
Serena is always both an oppressor and a victim. This consistent duality, up until the very end when Serena marries another Gilead Commander under the false pretense that he is one of the good and progressive ones, is one of the most compelling aspects of the show. Why? Because Serena, as a phenomenon and as a woman, is real. Many American women perpetuate and then ultimately suffer under patriarchal structures. Their reasons for aligning themselves with an oppressor may be varied, but the outcome will always be the same. There is no room for women in a world like that. Serena proves that to us.
Like the increasingly popular conservative influencers who substantially profit from advocating a return to biblical subservience, Serena is incongruous. Crucially, 'The Handmaid's Tale' doesn't demand we view her in any one way. Serena is nuanced, willing to bend the rules of the society she created to meet her own needs and sometimes sympathetic. She, too, has suffered physical and emotional abuse.
In the final episode, Serena apologizes to June while boarding a bus bound for a U.N. refugee camp. Tearfully, holding her son, Noah, wrapped in blankets, she says, 'When I recall some of the things that were done to you and the things that I did and that I forced you to do, I'm ashamed.'
June forgives her, the two women embrace, and Serena gets on the bus. After, a U.S. Commander commends June's 'generous' forgiveness. June demurs and says, 'You have to start somewhere.' Like so much of this show and the source material, that small moment is thought-provoking. Is forgiveness the place to start?
Serena no longer feels improbable to me. Atwood warned us, in the pages and in the scenes of 'The Handmaid's Tale,' that women like Serena have existed and will continue to exist. I don't know why I didn't believe her.
This article was originally published on MSNBC.com
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
8 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump Border Czar Responds to Gavin Newsom's Arrest Taunt on ‘Morning Joe': ‘I'm Not Biting'
Trump border czar Tom Homan appeared Monday on MSNBC's 'Morning Joe' to justify ICE's immigration raids in Los Angeles and say he's 'not biting' on California Governor Gavin Newsom's taunt to arrest him. Homan began by defending ICE's controversial raids Friday at an L.A. Home Depot and in the city's fashion district. 'It wasn't an immigration raid. It was to service three criminal warrants at locations based on a large criminal conspiracy that ICE is investigating,' Homan said. 'This was a criminal investigation that they all responded to in the beginning. That's how it all started.' 'We took a lot of bad people off the street the last couple of days,' Homan continued. 'What ICE did the last couple of days is make Los Angeles safer by taking public safety threats off the street.' Watch the full 'Morning Joe' interview in the video below. Many would likely disagree with Homan's assessment, given that the protests between the city's residents and law enforcement officials over the weekend prompted President Trump to send in the National Guard. Around 300 troops arrived in the city Sunday. This, notably, marked the first time since the 1960s that a U.S. president had sent the National Guard to a state without first receiving a request from a governor. 'I support President Trump's decision,' Homan said of the National Guard's arrival in Los Angeles. 'They're there to protect property and life.' The border czar added, 'If [California officials] fail to control that city and we're there, we're going to do everything we can to protect our buildings, protect our officers. So calling up the National Guard I think is the right thing to do.' On Sunday, Newsom released a letter demanding that Trump's order be rescinded and that the National Guard be sent back. The California official accused Trump of creating further instability and pushing America one step closer to becoming an authoritarian nation. He also responded to comments from an interview with Homan in which the border czar said that anyone, including officials like Mayor Karen Bass and Newsom, would be arrested if they contributed to the impediment of ICE's raids. 'Come after me. Arrest me. Let's just get it over with, tough guy,' Newsom said in a Sunday interview. When asked on 'Morning Joe' about Newsom's taunt, Homan replied, 'I'm not biting on that.' The Trump official claimed that he had been misrepresented during his initial interview and that his words had been taken out of context. 'Here's what I said: They have a right to protest. They have the First Amendment rights, but they can't cross that line. They can't cross that line [into] impediment. They can't cross that line of putting their hands on officers,' Homan explained. 'I was clear [that Bass and Newsom] haven't crossed the line. But they're not above the law, either.' 'I never threatened to arrest Governor Newsom,' Homan concluded. The post Trump Border Czar Responds to Gavin Newsom's Arrest Taunt on 'Morning Joe': 'I'm Not Biting' | Video appeared first on TheWrap.
Yahoo
8 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump's troop deployment is a warning sign for what comes next, legal scholars fear
President Donald Trump's deployment of 2,000 National Guard troops to Los Angeles is stretching the legal limits of how the military can be used to enforce domestic laws on American streets, constitutional law experts say. Trump, for now, has given the troops a limited mission: protecting federal immigration agents and buildings amid a wave of street protests against the administration's mass deportation policies. To justify the deployment, Trump cited a provision of federal law that allows the president to use the National Guard to quell domestic unrest. But Trump's stated rationale, legal scholars say, appears to be a flimsy and even contrived basis for such a rare and dramatic step. The real purpose, they worry, may be to amass more power over blue states that have resisted Trump's deportation agenda. And the effect, whether intentional or not, may be to inflame the tension in L.A., potentially leading to a vicious cycle in which Trump calls up even more troops or broadens their mission. 'It does appear to be largely pretextual, or at least motivated more by politics than on-the-ground need,' said Chris Mirasolo, a national security law professor at the University of Houston. California Gov. Gavin Newsom called the deployment 'unlawful' and said he would sue Monday. 'This is about authoritarian tendencies. This is about command and control. This is about power. This is about ego,' Newsom, a Democrat, said Sunday on MSNBC. 'This is a consistent pattern.' At issue is the president's authority to deploy the military for domestic purposes. A federal law, the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878, generally bars the president from using federal troops — the Army, Navy, Marines, Air Force or Space Force — to enforce domestic laws. But there are exceptional circumstances when the president can use troops domestically. The most prominent exception is the Insurrection Act, which authorizes the president to deploy the military to suppress insurrections, 'domestic violence' or conspiracies that undermine constitutional rights or federal laws. At the end of Trump's first term, some of his most ardent supporters urged and expected him to invoke the Insurrection Act to push aside state election authorities and essentially void the 2020 presidential election results, although he never did so. During his 2024 campaign, he said he would invoke the act to subdue unrest if reelected. But so far, Trump has not invoked the Insurrection Act. Instead, in a Saturday order, he cited a different statutory provision: a terse section of the U.S. code that allows the president to use the National Guard — but not any other military forces — to suppress the 'danger of a rebellion' or to 'execute' federal laws when 'regular forces' are unable to do so. Notably, his order did not outright declare the unrest in L.A. to be a 'rebellion,' but suggested it was moving in that direction. 'To the extent that protests or acts of violence directly inhibit the execution of the laws, they constitute a form of rebellion against the authority of the Government of the United States,' the order said. California authorities and Trump critics say that local law enforcement was effectively managing the L.A. protests. And despite the National Guard's purportedly defensive role of protecting federal property and personnel, some experts see the deployment as throwing a lit match into a tinderbox. If the troops are drawn into violent confrontations, Trump might use the clashes as justification for invoking the Insurrection Act, which would pave the way for active-duty military forces to take more aggressive actions to subdue protesters and engage in law enforcement. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth on Saturday said Marines could be mobilized to L.A. if unrest continues, writing in a post on X that the troops 'are on high alert.' 'The laws in this area are somewhat unsettled and untested,' said Rosa Brooks, a Georgetown University law professor who served as a counselor to the undersecretary of defense for policy under President Barack Obama. 'Federalizing Guard troops in this situation — and raising the specter of also sending in active duty military personnel — is a political stunt, and a dangerous one.' Experts are also eyeing whether the Guard members accompany immigration authorities when they venture away from federal buildings — a move that could signal a willingness to use troops to actively aid immigration enforcement, rather than simply protect agents from protesters. Trump has fueled the fears of further escalation, actively commenting on the protests while attacking the state's response. 'Looking really bad in L.A.,' he posted early Monday morning, shortly after midnight. 'BRING IN THE TROOPS.' He also called for immediate arrests of any protesters wearing masks and repeatedly described them as 'insurrectionists.' However, when asked by reporters Sunday if the violence amounted to an insurrection, Trump said no. On Monday, Trump also endorsed the idea of arresting Newsom. Trump is not the first president to deploy the military over a governor's objection. But it's the first time since 1965, when President Lyndon Johnson ordered troops to protect civil rights protesters in Alabama. President Dwight Eisenhower similarly overrode objections from Alabama's governor, deploying troops to help enforce the desegregation of public schools. When presidents view state and local authorities as being ineffective or recalcitrant, those steps may be justified, some experts say. 'Usually the President calls out the troops with the cooperation of the governor, which happened in LA itself during the Rodney King riots,' said John Yoo, a legal counselor to President George W. Bush. 'But there have been times when governors have been tragically slow, as during Hurricane Katrina, or actually resistant to federal policy, as with desegregation, or, arguably, in this case. ' Trump, when speaking about the decision with reporters Sunday, said he warned Newsom a few days earlier of the possibility. 'I did call him the other night,' Trump said. 'I said you've got to take care of this, otherwise I'm sending in the troops.' Newsom has railed against Trump's unilateral action, saying it will inflame rather than ease tensions on the streets and that state and local law enforcement were appropriately responding to the unrest outside federal buildings. Newsom got backup from Democratic governors across the country, who signed a letter calling Trump's National Guard deployment an 'alarming abuse of power.' 'The military appears to be clashing with protesters in the streets of our country. That's not supposed to happen,' said Elizabeth Goitein, a national security law expert at New York University's Brennan Center. 'It's such a dangerous situation. It's dangerous for liberty. It's dangerous for democracy.' The promised lawsuit from California will set up yet another high-stakes courtroom test of Trump's multifaceted bid to expand executive power in his second term. The last major political fight over the president's powers to call up the National Guard in an emergency came almost two decades ago, following a decision by President George W. Bush not to activate the National Guard to restore order in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina. Bush reportedly balked at calling up the National Guard due to the objection of Louisiana Gov. Kathleen Blanco and uncertainty over the legality of the president doing so without her consent. In response, Congress passed an appropriations rider in 2007that explicitly granted the president that authority during 'a natural disaster, epidemic, or other serious public health emergency, terrorist attack or Incident' and in reaction to an 'insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy.' While some legal experts said the measure simply reiterated existing law, an unusually broad coalition — including all 50 U.S. governors — called for repeal of the amendment. And the following year, Congress did repeal it, allowing the law to revert to language in place since the 1950s.
Politico
15 minutes ago
- Politico
Trump's troop deployment is a warning sign for what comes next, legal scholars fear
President Donald Trump's deployment of 2,000 National Guard troops to Los Angeles is stretching the legal limits of how the military can be used to enforce domestic laws on American streets, constitutional law experts say. Trump, for now, has given the troops a limited mission: protecting federal immigration agents and buildings amid a wave of street protests against the administration's mass deportation policies. To justify the deployment, Trump cited a provision of federal law that allows the president to use the National Guard to quell domestic unrest. But Trump's stated rationale, legal scholars say, appears to be a flimsy and even contrived basis for such a rare and dramatic step. The real purpose, they worry, may be to amass more power over blue states that have resisted Trump's deportation agenda. And the effect, whether intentional or not, may be to inflame the tension in L.A., potentially leading to a vicious cycle in which Trump calls up even more troops or broadens their mission. 'It does appear to be largely pretextual, or at least motivated more by politics than on-the-ground need,' said Chris Mirasolo, a national security law professor at the University of Houston. California Gov. Gavin Newsom called the deployment 'unlawful' and said he would sue Monday. 'This is about authoritarian tendencies. This is about command and control. This is about power. This is about ego,' Newsom, a Democrat, said Sunday on MSNBC. 'This is a consistent pattern.' At issue is the president's authority to deploy the military for domestic purposes. A federal law, the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878, generally bars the president from using federal troops — the Army, Navy, Marines, Air Force or Space Force — to enforce domestic laws. But there are exceptional circumstances when the president can use troops domestically. The most prominent exception is the Insurrection Act, which authorizes the president to deploy the military to suppress insurrections, 'domestic violence' or conspiracies that undermine constitutional rights or federal laws. At the end of Trump's first term, some of his most ardent supporters urged and expected him to invoke the Insurrection Act to push aside state election authorities and essentially void the 2020 presidential election results, although he never did so. During his 2024 campaign, he said he would invoke the act to subdue unrest if reelected. But so far, Trump has not invoked the Insurrection Act. Instead, in a Saturday order, he cited a different statutory provision: a terse section of the U.S. code that allows the president to use the National Guard — but not any other military forces — to suppress the 'danger of a rebellion' or to 'execute' federal laws when 'regular forces' are unable to do so. Notably, his order did not outright declare the unrest in L.A. to be a 'rebellion,' but suggested it was moving in that direction. 'To the extent that protests or acts of violence directly inhibit the execution of the laws, they constitute a form of rebellion against the authority of the Government of the United States,' the order said. California authorities and Trump critics say that local law enforcement was effectively managing the L.A. protests. And despite the National Guard's purportedly defensive role of protecting federal property and personnel, some experts see the deployment as throwing a lit match into a tinderbox. If the troops are drawn into violent confrontations, Trump might use the clashes as justification for invoking the Insurrection Act, which would pave the way for active-duty military forces to take more aggressive actions to subdue protesters and engage in law enforcement. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth on Saturday said Marines could be mobilized to L.A. if unrest continues, writing in a post on X that the troops 'are on high alert.' 'The laws in this area are somewhat unsettled and untested,' said Rosa Brooks, a Georgetown University law professor who served as a counselor to the undersecretary of defense for policy under President Barack Obama. 'Federalizing Guard troops in this situation — and raising the specter of also sending in active duty military personnel — is a political stunt, and a dangerous one.' Experts are also eyeing whether the Guard members accompany immigration authorities when they venture away from federal buildings — a move that could signal a willingness to use troops to actively aid immigration enforcement, rather than simply protect agents from protesters. Trump has fueled the fears of further escalation, actively commenting on the protests while attacking the state's response. 'Looking really bad in L.A.,' he posted early Monday morning, shortly after midnight. 'BRING IN THE TROOPS.' He also called for immediate arrests of any protesters wearing masks and repeatedly described them as 'insurrectionists.' However, when asked by reporters Sunday if the violence amounted to an insurrection, Trump said no. On Monday, Trump also endorsed the idea of arresting Newsom. Trump is not the first president to deploy the military over a governor's objection. But it's the first time since 1965, when President Lyndon Johnson ordered troops to protect civil rights protesters in Alabama. President Dwight Eisenhower similarly overrode objections from Alabama's governor, deploying troops to help enforce the desegregation of public schools. When presidents view state and local authorities as being ineffective or recalcitrant, those steps may be justified, some experts say. 'Usually the President calls out the troops with the cooperation of the governor, which happened in LA itself during the Rodney King riots,' said John Yoo, a legal counselor to President George W. Bush. 'But there have been times when governors have been tragically slow, as during Hurricane Katrina, or actually resistant to federal policy, as with desegregation, or, arguably, in this case. ' Trump, when speaking about the decision with reporters Sunday, said he warned Newsom a few days earlier of the possibility. 'I did call him the other night,' Trump said. 'I said you've got to take care of this, otherwise I'm sending in the troops.' Newsom has railed against Trump's unilateral action, saying it will inflame rather than ease tensions on the streets and that state and local law enforcement were appropriately responding to the unrest outside federal buildings. Newsom got backup from Democratic governors across the country, who signed a letter calling Trump's National Guard deployment an 'alarming abuse of power.' 'The military appears to be clashing with protesters in the streets of our country. That's not supposed to happen,' said Elizabeth Goitein, a national security law expert at New York University's Brennan Center. 'It's such a dangerous situation. It's dangerous for liberty. It's dangerous for democracy.' The promised lawsuit from California will set up yet another high-stakes courtroom test of Trump's multifaceted bid to expand executive power in his second term. The last major political fight over the president's powers to call up the National Guard in an emergency came almost two decades ago, following a decision by President George W. Bush not to activate the National Guard to restore order in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina. Bush reportedly balked at calling up the National Guard due to the objection of Louisiana Gov. Kathleen Blanco and uncertainty over the legality of the president doing so without her consent. In response, Congress passed an appropriations rider in 2007 that explicitly granted the president that authority during 'a natural disaster, epidemic, or other serious public health emergency, terrorist attack or Incident' and in reaction to an 'insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy.' While some legal experts said the measure simply reiterated existing law, an unusually broad coalition — including all 50 U.S. governors — called for repeal of the amendment. And the following year, Congress did repeal it, allowing the law to revert to language in place since the 1950s.
