Easy to imagine Gilead lumping both homosexuality and trans in the Gender Treachery category. Fundamentalists treat the two as amounting to the same thing, as rebellions against some notion of a god’s plan for the sexes.
Based on FLDS and similar societies, my theory is that the usual form of polygamy is merely a consequence of a tiny elite of men monopolizing all the power. While that type of society does reduce the other men and all women to objects, in the case of the latter they become symbols of the elite’s wealth and power, like a collection of expensive cars. The lower-status men become threats to the elite. From what I know of history, Orwell’s Goldstein was right that hierarchical societies have used ongoing warfare to squelch dissent, and perhaps the lower-status men sent off to fight were encouraged to rape women on the other side, as a substitute for competing for the elite’s women.
Treachery is a strange word in this context, because it suggests that Gilead viewed nonconformance to gender rules as a betrayal of trust rather than a simple rule violation.
no subject
Based on FLDS and similar societies, my theory is that the usual form of polygamy is merely a consequence of a tiny elite of men monopolizing all the power. While that type of society does reduce the other men and all women to objects, in the case of the latter they become symbols of the elite’s wealth and power, like a collection of expensive cars. The lower-status men become threats to the elite. From what I know of history, Orwell’s Goldstein was right that hierarchical societies have used ongoing warfare to squelch dissent, and perhaps the lower-status men sent off to fight were encouraged to rape women on the other side, as a substitute for competing for the elite’s women.
Treachery is a strange word in this context, because it suggests that Gilead viewed nonconformance to gender rules as a betrayal of trust rather than a simple rule violation.