Watching clips of this series, really reminds us all that it is the militarisation of a society that leads to the horrors and inequality in society and for the women depicted. Its concept really sought to explore if females are able to undertake such actions that men do, given their physical and biological propensity to produce children. Can women kill for their freedoms and family? ….. However I argue that this is just the perpetuation of male ideology of the erotic representing of the myriad of patriarchal offences against women. Probably ending with the necessary death of the female mother child or both. Spoiler alerts !!
This is the question at the heart of the entire series. Seeing female violence against men led entirely by a woman, whose child was removed as a punishment for being too emancipated. Is this the acceptable depiction of a response is the biggest question that the series for me explores woefully through the patriarchal lense. It has caused me to reflect on the history of England. Firstly the King who tired of having to murder his wives to move on, having no interest in the Roman delectation for sex with children. So he changed the Church. To the Church of England. Hugely unpopular move for the wider churches throughout the world. But it saved a few women from being murdered and allowed the King to divorce rather than becoming the most prolific serial killer of wives in history.
Then the female Queens…. divorce was not an option for them. Their husbands played away …. silent suffering was the order of the day. The progress of this was most definitely Patriarchal. Seeing a Queen divorce her husband and move on with the next would really have been the only way to show real progress…. However the female Queens of history although most certainly had some equality and some sexual exploits, the right to divorce, was not apparent at any point since Henry v111.
Yet since Henry V111 the biggest difference has been the attitudes towards childhood. The revulsion of the Roman empires male preference for sex with children and rape of women and slaves possibly moved things forward. Yet the ideological approach of the Roman men is replicated in England amongst the ranks of the military. Moreso because the military is steeped in history. A history of rivallry between regiments and training that was almost entirely male dominated. Interestingly the most secretive and dangerous military men ‘special forces’ were taken ONLY from the male population. It is fascinating that actually many of the most effective were very small in stature, so the argument that women were not physically able was lost in that respect, however the use of rape is really the underlying reason. It being not physically possible for women to undertake this quick effective violent assertion of dominance as a weapon. Although in international law this is not allowed, it has remained part of English military practice alongside its wider use in covert policing.
Never mind that, the Americans fought for independance and created a number of there own fundamentalist Christian Churches, with a governance that is God based. Likely from the massive influence of the Jewish communities. However what was not reflected was the equality for women. The country has never had a female leader. The obsession with racism in America is fascinating when one of the males e founding fathers was indeed a black man Hamilton. So although I do not comment on racism in America, its existence in England is part of a long history where women were also subjugated as slaves, Rape was widely used and has and does disporpertionately affect one race in the country, women and their children, usually female children. Probably because even now it is effectively decriminalised for women because the incidence rates are so high.
Rape is, aside from Murder,the crime that defines a nation. It is used by men in many parts of society. It is not the pastime of just heterosexual identifying men. Men attack males in the LGBTQ+ community. It is not sexual. Just an expression of dominance. Second only to murder, attempted murder or sexual assault perhaps comparative to GBH with intent. Yet unlike the non sexual , crimes, the prosecution rates for sexual offences committed against females is far below those of male victims. Rape and sexual assault is the crime that defines society, because it is the crime that defines women and childrens lived experience. Yet one gender receives equitable treatment in law, male survivors.
As a female survivor of Rape and sexual assault and abuse, I am cetain that the only way for society to provide equity and safety is to make these crimes socially unacceptable. The only way to do this is to openly discuss and shine a light on mens behaviours in this respect. Most of all make the rape of men and women equitably prosecuted. Rather than decriminalising rape for women and female children, both are equally unacceptable. The prosecution rates for males who commit sexual offences against men and boys are comparitively higher per incidence than for female victims. Mainly because these offences against women are considered legal in case law within the family. Male prostitutes comparative to female prostitutes are far more likely to have there perptrator prosecuted, because no stone is left unturned for male victims. If Jack the Ripper had targeted male prostitutes we most certainly would not have known his identity, he would have been hung, rather than museums celebrating his tenacity in avoiding prosecution.
As a real life Handmaid, In my opinion the show could really do with shining a light on male rape and minimising it. Not for sexual gratification or reproduction as it has represented the female experience of rape , that has at times bordered on gratuitous and voyeurisitc. The greatest triumph would be for male rape to be depicted and for no one to do anything about it or fight back. Violent depictions in American cinematography are usual, the depictions of female subjugation are nothing out of the ordinary. But depicting male rape in a similar fashion including the use of male child actors alongside the female contingent. Yet the lack of that depiction sums up why prosecutions for male rape as a comparative cohort are exponentially higher than for female victims. Producers like Weinstein and his supporters would find it impossible to depict the male child or adult being raped in much the same fashion as the females….. or maybe because the benefactors of the funds from Netflix may not want the narrative to move from gratuitous justificatory depiction of female subordination. Without sending the clear message to society that their allegiance is to the financial support of royalty and male privilege? ……. Anyone watched the Crown lately ?