Wednesday, May 10, 2006

House Spoilers, Because I'm in a Rage

Remember how I said I tried to be a nice person, see the positive side of anyone's story, tried to come to discussions from the angle that the misunderstanding/conflict may be due to me?
Or whatever sort of nonsense I spewed?
I am not that person today.
Today, I am in a livid, screaming rage at the writers, producers, and network suits of House.
Last night, one of the side diagnoses was post-partum psychosis. In fact, the woman smothered her son while suffering from it. House, with his patented mix of equal parts sense and lack of anything resembling tact, pointed out that the woman could no more have not listened to the voices in her head than a diabetic could tell her body to start producing insulin, dammit.
Regardless of what crazy movie stars claim, post-partum depression and psychosis are real diseases, of danger to both child and to mother. They are NOT, in any way, shape or form, due to some sort of "weakness" on the part of the mother, any more than a brain tumor is due to some "weakness" on the part of the cancer patient.
House went on to tell the father that he was just as responsible. "A person doesn't become crazy enough to kill someone without first becoming crazy enough to be noticed."
In my opinion, the father was not only equally responsible, but more at fault. He ignored all the warning signs, because they were too much. He was the one who showed weakness of mind; he was the one who had a choice to face difficult truths, the choice to do something hard, and who didn't do it. The wife didn't have a choice.
I'm getting to my point.
House the character said all these reasonable, sane, logical, ABSOLUTELY TRUE things.
The mother still kills herself out of guilt. And the father? What happens to him? He gets to tell the mother, when you see our son, tell him his father is sorry.
So what's the takeaway message?
That the mother is responsible, is at fault.
That she could have done something.
And don't tell me that's not the takeaway message. Some bloggers were discussing a Burrrr-gur Royalty ad, and the idea that the implication is men are being sissified by women, and they have to reclaim their higher ground by co-opting the liberation movement. And that the ad is a step backward, and people who have power, who still have power, shouldn't be complaining that they don't have any because a miniscule amount has been rightfully reclaimed from them.
I agree with that analysis. Especially the more thoughtful, clear, articulate version that the original parser put forth.
And I think it's subtle compared to this.


Post a Comment

<< Home