Things I Enjoy

She clearly states in S1 that she did not expect women not to be able to read, and thus not participate in any form of public life. Which is hilarious in a sense cos it is a misunderstanding of maternal feminism that positions the woman's place in the home only. (Like, yes, technically domestic feminism and maternal feminism are slightly different but they are related. And maternal feminism was the backbone for first wave feminism and the women's suffrage movement.) The idea of maternal feminism was that it was an honour to be a woman (wife/mother/housewife) but that it also proved women's worth in public affairs. Domestic feminism is a little closer to the mid-century conservative ideology that directly opposed second wave radical feminism, with the likes of Phyllis Schlafly and the opposition to the ERA (in the US sphere anyway), in which women belong only at home being wives and mothers and have no worth in the public sphere.

----

Her aversion to and disdain of the handmaid system (and handmaids themselves) was also clear from the pilot episode. (And we were shown whose idea it really was...)

----

I don't know about the nuclear bombs, since nothing like that was mentioned afaik -- caveat: I never watched S4 lmao. So if I'm wrong about something here, I will happily be corrected that canon said something about it in S4 or S5. (I only watched about half of S5, and even then, I sorta skimmed it for Serena scenes only. The only ep I have seen multiple times is 5x07.)

----

The no marital sex thing, again, she seems to be irritated to some degree by it but only so far as she is concerned about Fred's mental state and thinks she needs to prove herself/get his mind off Offred. Also, there is clearly a part of her that is touch-starved cos she is a human being despite her best efforts to prove otherwise. I do think the "no sex" thing, however, would be very predictable if you read the Bible. She would have known that if she's actually as devout as she performs. There is at least one passage about "wasting" seed on the ground (it's allegedly about anti-masturbation) but different faiths have different severity assigned to the interpretation of that part of Genesis. But there are many, many high-control groups, cults, and fundamentalist religions that prohibit "sex for pleasure" even within marriage, and it is relegated to only for procreation. So, imo, Serena would not be surprised by it. It's pretty common in fundie sects. I personally don't think she particularly seemed to care... except in those two eps of S1, but like I suggested, I think that has less to do with her love of sex, and more about her duty and wanting to "fix" Fred in the way she believes a wife should be able to. So, I mean, while it's true that foresight is not Serena's strongsuit lol, I think of all the things that developed in Gilead, it was the most obvious outcome for anybody who has read the Bible and participates in hardline Christianity or evangelism.

----

And, obviously she hates Jezebel's. Who wouldn't? I hate it and I'm not even a Wife or a Jezebel, lmao.

----

As for what Serena's original vision of Gilead was... I think that's a lot more vague. We got very little about what she wanted, and far more about what she didn't want. Most of the points you listed are not canon, afaik. It's just speculation. Which is fine! It's your fic and you can make up whatever backstory you want! That's the fun part of it.

Can I dig into them a bit? Not cos you're wrong by any means, just cos I think there's a little stuff Atwood has discussed that comes into play and would really help get into the heads of the people who formed Gilead.

I think first things first: Gilead was imagined, formed, and developed by men. It wasn't Serena. At all. That's canon. By the time Sons of Jacob were formed and gaining any significant standing and power, she was locked out. Whether or not she helped Fred behind the scenes, it's very possible that she did. It's implied that she had some ideas. We don't know what they were because they never let her speak. The men that did create it Fred, Pryce, Putnam, Lawrence, etc etc. are virulent women-hating misogynists and (also arguably in some cases) literal sociopaths.

----

I think it's safe to say the violent overthrow of American government is canon. That movie theatre scene shows that Fred is telling her that "they" are going ahead with "our" plans for eliminating Congress. Not clear who they is, or even who "our" refers to, whether it refers to his and Serena's suggestion, or the SOJ. I think it's purposefully ambiguous. A violent military coup is a requirement for Gilead's takeover. (And it would mean control of the US military, even though they didn't actually address this. There is no way to overthrow the US from the inside without the military onside. But I digress...)

----

I think it's also clear that it was a planned Christofascist state. Now, I'm not sure "orthodox" is the correct word to use however when discussing this particular flavour of fundamentalist American Christianity. Orthdoxy in Christianity already exists as the Eastern Orthodox Church (see: Greek Orthodox or Russian Orthodox as huge branches). It is closer in practice to Roman Catholicism than any Lutheran, Baptist, Protestant, Methodist, whatever western Christianity-type belief and practice. The concept of sin and salvation are quite distinctive from Protestantism.

Like, for instance in a visual sense:

This is the interior of an Orthodox church:

And this is an actual church used THT:

(It is a United Church (aka the liberal, inclusive version of mainline Protestantism, and in Canada anyway is a combo of Methodist, Presbyterian, Evangelical, and Calvinist.) Ironically enough, the United Church of Canada is fully gay-friendly, and basically the only religious denomination that has embraced homosexuality for decades and decades. Many of the United Churches in Toronto are what we call "gay church". The majority of gay marriages in Toronto are performed either by secular JPs or by officiants of the United Church. I just think that's funny for the production to use their churches as the setting for Gilead churches. Heh.)

Protestant (and similar denominations) are significantly different and more austere than Orthodox. Incidentally, all filming locations for what Gilead uses are Protestant, Anglican, and United churches. (Most regular new form Christian churches aren't even as ornate as the ones they used in the show.) Protestants love statues and portraits of real men. Like historical figures, politicians, and pastors -- not saints and Biblical figures to the same degee. (It's always so obvious when you're in a Protestant denomination church vs. a Catholic or Orthodox just by the decor alone, and further the differentiation of Catholic vs. Orthodox based on the style of art. Catholics LOVE sculptures; Orthodox love paintings. Protestants love statues of just any old white man. Side note: I walked into St. Patrick's Cathedral in Dublin once, not knowing much about it and thinking, well, St. Pat. I assume it's a Catholic church. Then I was met with a bunch of heraldry flags, a shit tonne of statues of like old dudes who aren't saints or anything, and... literally a GIFT SHOP in the actual nave lmao. I realised it was very much NOT a Catholic cathedral.) Orthodox are big on iconography of the Holy Trinity. So, it's safe to assume that it is not an Orthodox religion. Canonically, we know they destroyed all "historical" churches and cathedrals, especially Catholic ones.

The vibes of Orthodox Christianity are totally different to those of western (aka modern) Christianity.

Also, a huge issue: Gilead specifically has its own Bible. I don't know how this works but in all their prayers and passages, they never mention Jesus/Christ. This is actually a HUGE thing that tells me it is super not Orthodoxy. Orthodox Christians are focused on the Holy Trinity. You can't do that and take Christ out of the equation. I think that was what was most jarring about Gilead's version of religion: it is incredibly focused on the Old Testament, yet they do occasionally reference New Testament. There are no crosses anywhere -- except interestingly, in S3 which makes NO SENSE considering the rest of the series to that point. You don't see any Wives with crucifixes. Even Lutherans and Anglicans love crosses (they prefer them empty instead of the Catholic and some other denominations' tendency to put a whole ass bloody dying/dead Jesus on them, and Orthodox who turn them into icons rather than sculpture.) It's really fucking weird for a fundamentalist Christian theocracy to not have any connection to Jesus. It's basically some warped Mormonism-type thing lmao. Like... the entire word "Christian" is based on that dude. There is also no mention of the Mother of God (Mary), which also is evidence of a new denomination rather than Orthodoxy.

Generally, I think the writers aren't very educated about religion, period. So they sort of just mash a bunch of shit together and it doesn't make much sense. And it also explains why as the series progresses, Serena's Bible recantations become stupider and stupider. Cos there is no connection. They just Googled "what bible quotes for someone who is sad" and shoved in the first shit they read.

As for Atwood, she has said that Gilead's "religion" is based on American Puritanism, not true Christianity as such. She rebukes the idea that Gilead is Christian in anything other than assigned label. It has none of the foundational principles that Christianity should have at its core. Now, notably American Puritans were Protestants, specifically an offshoot of Anglicans, but like Gilead in many ways thought religion as it was needed reformation. Less weirdo Catholic-coded ritualistic nonsense, and more bare bones basics.

And also, those Puritans also had something called "City on a Hill" which is basically the idea that they alone would create a society so pure that it will serve as a perfect Christian model for all other nations to follow. Sounds a lot like Gilead's lipservice too. (I mean, tbh, most religions and cults say the same shit.)

But the main take-away is that Gilead was NEVER meant to be a true theocracy based on true Christian spirituality. That is just the cover. The men in power had no intention of being spiritual leaders. The used it as a weapon of control, not as a faith practice. The church itself is a performative tool, a justification, and a way to convince people to follow Gilead's lead. As churches always have been. So, it being completely inconsistent sort of tracks.

So, yeah, anyway, I would personally never use "orthodox" to describe Gilead's faith structure.

I think you're right that with enough time, she had some belief that people will understand that Gilead's God/religion is The One True Way and everyone who follows it faithfully will be rewarded in this life and the next. Most (all) religious people think that way. Praising God and living in a godly way leads to fewer bad things and more good things happening. This actually follows too from New England puritanism, in that in the new covenant with God, they (the followers of it) would prosper as long as they remained steadfast in their commitment to this new religion. So, that's essentially what I think Serena could believe as well.

----

I have no idea about the forced labour or executions. AFAIK, Serena never talks about that at all. I mean, she's totally fine with having house slaves if that's what you mean by forced labour. Frankly, I'm not convinced Serena particularly thought about the inner workings and day-to-day activities and practical function of the entire society as a whole. I never got the impression she particularly cared what Econopeople do or how they live. She didn't know and didn't care. That was more the realm of Commanders like Lawrence. Serena actively chose not to think about even Handmaids and the Red Centres.

I'm not even convinced that Gilead has forced labour for benign crimes. ALL labour in Gilead seems to be forced, whether you have committed a "crime" or not. It's a very Communist sort of mechanism. (The type used by totalitarian Soviet regimes, for example. Same goes for executions.) Again, without insights from S4 (if any) about what Serena thought about, I wouldn't think she thought much about crime and punishment for the whole of Gilead. Only herself and the birth rate crisis itself (those players involved aka mothers, wives, fertile women, etc). What did she envision in HER idea of the perfect society? Well, who knows. She's an idiot and thought God would be a strong enough argument. Anything is pure speculation, imho.

Now, Atwood talked about her inspirations for a lot of the world-building and she read and researched a bunch of totalitarian regimes in modern history -- keeping in mind HER modern history could only go up to 1985. She was not drawing on anything that happened since the early 80s -- cos that would be impossible with the book being published in 1985. But at that time, and in decades prior, certain global and national conflicts were far more present. Atwood has repeatedly talked shit about radical feminists of the 70s and 80s (yeah, those evil women who wanted equal pay, abortion access, and no fault divorce! How dare they!) so it was partly in reaction to what she viewed as reactionary feminism of her time as well as the conservative opponents to that same feminism (ever the darling, man-loving centrist), and also specifically dictatorships primarily in Europe, and especially those where "birth rate" was a concern. She has explicitly mentioned Cambodia, Philippines, Soviet Union, and Romania for her framework for Gilead's fascist structure.

I personally think that by the time Gilead was established to such a point where they were hashing out laws and punishments, Serena was fully excluded. I don't think she had any say in that, or was even privy to the brainstorming. She maybe envisioned a penal system similar to Biblical punishments? But frankly, I don't think she was at all concerned about who got what type of punishment and for what crimes. The thing about Serena is she is incredibly myopic and self-centered. If it wasn't about her and what she wants, I don't think she bothered. I honestly don't think she cared as long as it wasn't about her.

----

Back to Romania, for a second. What you mentioned about birth control and abortion is very explored in Romania under Decree 770. Atwood specifically talks about that law itself. So, yes, I am absolutely sure Serena envisioned no birth control and no abortion. How very Catholic of her, heh. (They should have stuck with Catholicism, tbh. It's way harsher and more their style. But Catholics worship women to some degree, so that's bad.) Any regime that wants to increase birth rates ALWAYS limits birth control and abortion. But the abortion thing does get a little weird, cos like... Nazism for example was very concerned with growing the Aryan race exponentially (and killing everyone else), so birth control and abortion were banned for white, Christian Germans -- unless there was potential for racial mixing. Then abortions are great! All the abortions! They called it "racial hygiene" and it severely limited contraception and abortion for German white women in order to boost the birth rate. It was very much not a religious law in intent. I won't digress into THT's issues with race and how unrealistically they dealt with it, especially in America. But I think Serena would definitely see something very similar to Nazi Germany as the ideal in terms of reproductive policy. Same shit in Romania. And Argentina. And Chile... although Chile is an interesting example under Pinochet, because it is quite similar to Gilead as well that not only did they ban contraception and abortion, but they forced women out of the (external) labour force and into the home, in their "proper place". It was all about returning to tradition. So, really, THT draws from so many existing historical records of exactly the same shit, just the majority of these did not bother with the mask of religion. They just used military force. And essentially, that is true for Gilead as well. They didn't win the people over with religion; they did it through violent, military force. They put lipstick on the pig, but it's still a pig.

It would be absolutely mind-blowing if Serena didn't envision that same methodology. It's textbook "birthrate crisis" fix.

----

She definitely envisioned a stay-at-home mom legal framework. Now, it's not really defined in the TV series, which is hilarious. But in the novel Offred remembers Serena from before Gilead and gives us a lot more insight into Serena's motives.

Her speeches were about the sanctity of the home, about how women should stay home. Serena Joy didn’t do this herself, she made speeches instead, but she presented this failure of hers as a sacrifice she was making for the good of all.

I mean, TV!Serena says something a little similar in 2x08 with the I hate knitting comment and justification for her misery. "A small price to pay to be accepted back into God's grace." It's bullshit. Even she knows it's bullshit. You can see it. Similarly, it's a concept in 1x03 as well when she implies that the "terrible things" they do together are for the good of all and women should just accept their misery.

Honestly though, that passage in the book is almost lifted directly from Schlafly. That was her entire shtick.

----

I left the environmental shit for the end cos I think it's the most compelling and the most vague, yet is referenced the most by Serena. Other than religion, ofc.

I don't know what you mean by "old-timey environmentally friendly stuff" tbh. That sounds rather dismissive of environmentalism and ecological activism. And I don't necessarily think Serena would be "old-fashioned" in her approach to climate change (I don't even know what that means, tbh), or in her words, "ecological collapse". These are scientific, literally real things happening right now. We currently have many ecological disasters happening simultaneously, including impending collapses of entire ecosystems and food chains. Pollution isn't talked about much anymore, but that doesn't make it "old timey" either as a concern or something to address. Most people just think it's solved. Sigh.

(I'm sorry. I have a degree in Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, so I am going to get real defensive of this, especially in the areas I studied most (conservation biology and environmental psychology, avian biology, marine biology, and mycology.))

The theory that environment plays a role in fecundity is studied in other animals. I know a lot of people here mock the right-wing crackpots who talk about "gay frogs" and "all female crocodile societies". But environmental toxins and pollution have significantly impacted certain species sex demographics. I don't have time to get into all the examples of pollution and hormones in water tables effecting many species, but it is a studied thing. Endocrine disruption due to pollution in wild animals is real. Steriodogenesis issues in alligators, EDCs and pesticides in amphibian species in aquatic environments, limb deformities in frogs due to unfiltered pharmaceuticals aka EPPPs (birth control and progesterone) in water, pesticides and microplastics disrupting hormones in seabirds, thyroid disruption in river birds, bioaccumulation of EDCs, PCBs, and nanoplastics in large mammals (especially marine mammals) leading to failure of reproduction, etc. I can literally go on and on with actual science. There is a wealth of research about hormone disruption, mimicry, hormone blocking by EDCs, metabolic interference, reproductive vulnerability. (And I don't want anyone to think this pollution only effects sex hormones. It is the full scope of all hormones, from the brain down to the individual sex organs/glands.) I think everyone is very aware of the case of the peregrine falcon and DDT.

There is an accepted concept that removing EDCs and pollution on the whole (PCBs, pesticides, insecticides, micro/nanoplastics, heavy metals, particulates, VOCs, etc.) will positively correlate with healthier populations. Overall health does correspond to higher reproductive success.

This is why I am pretty convinced that Serena was very in-tune with some warped type of materialist ecofeminism, or even "ecoterrorism".

And the lack of environmental consideration of global healthy birth rate "crises" has historically been a severe shortcoming. When you can see the relationship of environmental contamination caused by human activity impacting the hormones and reproduction success/fecundity every type of species from insects to fish to reptiles to amphibians to birds to marine mammals and somehow believe that humans are immune to that, it's just arrogance.

If humanity was experiencing a drastic decline in fertility and fecundity, as well as healthy live births, and a spike in infant mortality despite modern medical interventions, of course environment has to be considered seriously. I know people would rather point fingers at politics and feminism -- but if there was an obvious biological problem also contributing to healthy births, then it would be wholly irresponsible to ignore pollution, industry, diet, and lifestyle.

Serena seems pretty hung up on two main factors in the crisis: ecology and the treatment of women -- both of which come out a lot more in S6. If you listen to her speeches in the flashbacks, she isn't evangelicalising it. It isn't "Just follow the Lord Almighty and He will show us the way!" Her line is "Society itself is broken! You're all spoiled brats who are ruining the planet and each other because you won't accept your biological duty!" Now, of course, society is broken also because it is not godly enough, yes. She does have that belief, but it's complex cos it appears all tied in together. In that speech, there is nothing about God at all. Yet her speech there is only about healthy birth rates and privileged, educated women not "pulling their weight", so to speak. In order to inspire more women to have babies (and thus healthy ones), she tries to use epidemiological statistics. A return to traditional values is the way to help women brainwash themselves into this duty to humanity. It's a really interesting approach. And it's incredibly fucking typical of any nation that has historically attempted to do this, and ubiquitous in most world religions.

If you choose this more traditional way of life and give yourself over to the power of the Lord, the things you think are important that are negatively influencing the planet and each other will disappear.

If you go back to 2x03 and watch Lydia's lesson at the RC, it is almost entirely focussed on environmental destruction and how following God's path will return the planet to full health (and thus humans). It is textbook ecotheology. This is another funny "ends justify the means" sort of argument. Like, do we accept a theocracy if that is the only path back to a healthy planet? Is that a proportional price to pay?

(Obviously, it is incredibly flawed because religion itself is never about true spirituality and always about enhancing patriarchal power structures. Environmental regeneration is more of a side-effect of a totalitarian government severely limiting personal freedoms (many of which contribute to climate change lbr), rather than God's graces. As much as it was wildly misogynistic of the show to suggest women's obsession with cool fashion is to blame for ecological collapse as it was, it does hint at the fact that personal freedoms can contribute to environmental destruction in ways we don't fully comprehend, or are fairly indifferent about. And you can see it reflected in current society very easily.

Furthermore, the sheer hypocrisy of Gilead's own approach to environmentalism is at odds with both Serena's conceptualisation of it and her scientific understanding of the mechanisms at play in Gilead. She constantly talks about how successful Gilead's environmental reforms have been, but we see in other episodes that Gilead really has not done much -- not to mention the nuclear explosions and war being absolutely insanely huge ecological disasters. Nothing about war makes pollution go away. The upswing in healthy births has far more to do with industrialised rape than anything environmental. Whether or not Serena is actually aware of this is debateable. It may be a hear no evil, see no evil thing. Wilful blindness.)

When Serena crashes out on the train, as ridiculous as that was, she interestingly says something that echoes a sentiment said by Lydia in the Red Center in June's flashback about rape being so prevalent in modern society and the lack of respect for women is one of societies greatest downfalls. I mean, it was framed in the RC as a personal failing of women (like when they got Janine to say her gang-rape was her fault), but Serena's comment that "women were getting raped and killed every day and nobody cared!" was really jarring. Not only cos of her complete cognitive dissonance that the same was happening in her precious rape-state Gilead -- and even worse. It is also just such an incredibly FEMINIST sentiment. And in the midst of her seriously deranged rant, that is the first thing she brings up? Really?

She doesn't bring up the birth rate crisis, she doesn't bring up God (right away), she doesn't bring up the environment -- all the common things she (and Gilead) has talked about in the past. She brings up rape and femicide rates. And implies that it was a symptom of a sick society (it is! Any feminist will agree!) that lost touch with God (not true), and the children were taken because such a sick, sexually violent society is unsafe for children. She's not entirely wrong... but her alternative is absolutely worse for children lol.

And Serena's thing about sexual violence rates is an interesting sort of callback to the 2x03 flashback (a lot happened in that episode for background) when little June goes to the Take Back The Night rally with her mother and says,

"Later, my mom told me they were writing down the names of their rapists. And I remember thinking there were so many pieces of paper. So many. It was like snow."

It's a comparison, but also a message. Nothing has changed.

I want to say that Serena's own behaviour in 2x10 really fucked her up. I don't think Serena was fully aware, in the sense that none of us were (and I'll get to this), that the Ceremony is brutal rape. Like, of course it is, we know that but we don't know that, you know? In 2x11, when she's screaming at Fred is the first time she seems to accept what it is as rape and is horrified by it. Incidentally, it is the last time she ever does it and refuses to participate ever again, and is horrified by the rape plan in 3x10 -- although still rather passive. Now, the point I talked about back when 2x10 aired is firstly to pay attention to Serena in the aftermath, and secondly that even as the audience, we had been lulled into a sort of comfortable acceptance of The Ceremony. Like, sure, we watched it over and over and it was uncomfortable, but very, very few of us had such a visceral reaction as we did in 2x10. Why? Because June was passive. It was easier to just accept -- which is the entire point of the RC and the ritual and the religious justifications: to make it palatable, even if discomforting. When June screams and begs for Serena to stop (which is absolutely fascinating, btw!) WE AND SERENA are suddenly directly confronted with what the Ceremony truly is when the masks are removed. [And that's not even touching on Serena's own marital rape by Fred in the previous episode, and how that intersects with her decision, dismissal of severity of rape, and emotional volatility in 2x10. Or the dynamic she has with Eden in S2, especially in relation to submission to the husband, her grooming her into sexual duty, AND her crazy, almost blasphemous quoting of the Song of Solomon. THERE IS JUST SO MUCH GOING ON WITH SERENA IN S2 IT MAKES ME INSANE. I am so angry that energy didn't carry through the rest of the series.]

I would not claim Serena becomes empathetic and enlightened about rape suddenly, but something does shift that clearly takes years to fully materialise (after a lot of backwards action and denial that she did anything wrong). All of S6 is her mission essentially to dismantle the rape state. I mean, it's once again, not very clear or envisioned by her particularly well, but it's there. It's just a tiny little thread that I found really quite strange to scream about over everything else in 6x01 when cornered. Sexual violence against women and children is at the forefront of her consciousness at that point, and it carried through the entire season.

(Side note: hilariously, my spellchecker does not recognise "femicide" as a word. If that doesn't say everything, I don't know what does. It tries to correct it to "germicide". Which is creepy as fuck.)

----

But overall, I think trying to speculate on what Serena herself saw for Gilead is just going to end up being headcanon, especially based on the TV series. There's very little we are actually given in canon about specifics, and I think that was definitely on purpose.

I have always said that the absolute most important thing to understanding Serena and maybe making guesses about where her head was at prior to Gilead is to look at similar women in real history, and to look at women's conservative (and some liberal) movements in real life. What do these women actually see as the ideal future? What do they say they want? What are they really acting upon? What are the short-comings of their ideals?

Especially look at the real women Atwood based Serena on: Phyllis Schlafly and Tammy Faye Baker. Look at the current women doing the same.

And two important books to really dig into Serena's character:

Andrea Dworkin's "Right Wing Women"

Susan Faludi's "Backlash: The Undeclared War Against American Women"

These have given me FAR more insight into Serena as a character than any tumblr meta post or reddit essay. These women -- and those like them -- explicitly describe their perfect society. You can extrapolate from that what Serena envisioned. I truly do not think Schlafly pictured a military state. She wanted a return to hardline, strict conservative traditionalism. Not a christofascist junta.

Serena in the TV series does present as more extreme in that movie theatre scene, but I don't know... sometimes I watch that scene and think about Jan 6 and current anti-democratic insurrectionists (terrorists) and see a woman who has no idea what violent overthrow of Congress and their suggestions actually mean. Like, they see this as some sort of solution but haven't thought it through. I think for Serena especially this rings true in the book. Incredibly myopic. Her glee in the cinema at Fred's news struck me as an idiot who has no idea what is actually about to happen, but is excited that something is happening at least. Like, by the end of the novel, Serena is a wreck of alcoholism and misery which Offred equates to a sinking town.

It’s no longer a flawless cut-paper profile, her face is sinking in upon itself, and I think of those towns built on underground rivers, where houses and whole streets disappear overnight, into sudden quagmires, or coal towns collapsing into the mines beneath them. Something like this must have happened to her, once she saw the true shape of things to come.

So did she truly see those laws and punishments? I don't know. I don't think so. She certainly didn't see the strict oppression of women of her class. (Oppression of other women was a-okay tho!). But even in her conversation with Lydia in S6, Serena admits she was awful cos she was miserable and just trying to survive like every other woman. Lydia accurately calls her out on her extremes, to which then Serena lobs a hardcore truth-zinger back at her. (Frankly, Serena has far more excuse than Lydia, imo. Who to me is both an insane zealot and an actual sadist.)

Serena seemed almost exclusively focused on birth rate, because of her own issues with motherhood -- which is a massive topic I don't even want to get into here. Anything she did and envisioned was means to an end in order to gain power and get a baby.

I'm going to post a link, not cos I think it is the best analysis ever done (in fact, it kinda feels a bit AI-generated at times, though it could just be written by someone trying to dumb things down. The formatting and stock/AI images doesn't help either), but it touches on a lot of Serena's character in a short-form way.

More than anything, those two actual books I mentioned are far more helpful if you're serious about teasing apart what Serena's motivations and goals were for her activism. Also, reading essays by anti-feminists like Schlafly, Marabel Morgan, Christine Hoff Summers, and Sally Quinn are enlightening to figure out how these women think, but also keeping in mind their own hypocrisy. That Quinn op-ed sounds like it could be written by Serena herself, at some early stage in her ideological development. And The Total Woman by Marabel Morgan is almost identical to the concept that Serena settles on. The similarities between Morgan and Serena are incredible, and I am surprised she isn't discussed more when exploring Serena. She has it all! Evangelicalism, traditional values, rampant misogyny, a call for women to leave the workforce, and stay at home popping out babies and pleasing their husbands! Morgan is what Serena wishes she truly believed, imo. (I don't believe she truly does which is her fundamental conflict, but she wants to.)

If you can't stomach reading a whole book about that drivel, here is a short summary. (If you can ignore this idiot constantly misspelling her name, and the fact it is very much a tradwife blog.)

I don't think it is as easy to understand Serena's ideal society by reading current tradwife content, cos most of it is incoherent aesthetic fantasy with no actual belief system behind it, but reading these sorts of "vintage" tradwife activists like Morgan can help, imo.

But all that said, if it's for fic, the thing is -- you're free to make up whatever you want. Readers don't have to agree. It's your take, your fiction, your narrative choice.

----

Just for a little fun, which has literally nothing to do with your ask really, but since I am dropping a bunch of references, just some food for thought that I find very helpful:

Andrea Dworkin, "Right-Wing Women"

Andrea Dworkin, "Woman-Hating"

Sallie McFague, "The Body of God: An Ecological Theology"

Susan Faludi, "Backlash: The Undeclared War Against American Women"

Merle H. Weiner, "Faludi Fights Back: A Review Of Backlash: The Undeclared War Against American Women"

Beth Allison Barr, "The Making of Biblical Womanhood"

Constance W Moss, "I Was A Trad Wife in the 80s" (references to Levin's "The Stepford Wives" (1972) is apt.)

Marabel Morgan, "The Total Woman"

Christine Hoff Summers, "Who Stole Feminism? How Women Have Betrayed Women"

Phyllis Schlafly, "The Power of the Positive Woman"

Rosemary Radford Ruether, "Gaia and God: An Ecofeminist Theology of Earth Healing"

Sally Quinn, "Who Killed Feminism?"

Anita Bryant, "The Anita Bryant Story: The Survival of Our Nation's Families and the Threat of Militant Homosexuality"

Vanessa Scaringi, "The False Escapism of Soft Girls and Tradwives"

Daniel L. Brunner, Jennifer L. Butler & A.J. Swoboda, "Introducing Evangelical Ecotheology: Foundations in Scripture, Theology, History, and Praxis"

Jeremy D. Yunt, "The Ecotheology of Paul Tillich: Spiritual Roots of Environmental Ethics"

Musings of MJ, "The Blueprint of a Woman: God’s Design in a Culture That Forgot"

Beverly LaHaye marks three decades of promoting traditional values through CWA

Note: Many of these are difficult and infuriating to read. But if you want to understand how someone like Serena could possibly think and what she could have possibly envisioned, you have to read women who are like her or who Atwood based her on, and see how they think.

And just in case anybody is still acting dumb and ridiculous and wary of reading Dworkin in this day and age...