5.04 - Birthmarks

The possibilities regarding Blythe are: 1. She was abused by John too and was therefore powerless to stop him. I do not believe this. 2. She agreed with the way John treated Greg. 3. She was a stereotypical 1960s housewife who didn't believe in contradicting her husband. 4. John was the disciplinarian in the family and she was the one who made nice-nice. 5. She felt guilty about the affair and therefore did not oppose John's treatment. I can see #5 playing a role, but based on "Daddy's Boy", I see it primarily as #4. I can't buy #1 or #3 at all. We know House likes strong women, and for all his dad helped make him who he is, his mom did too. I don't think it's believable that he could be the iconoclast he is now if she didn't have a strong independent streak herself. The woman I saw in "Daddy's Boy" wasn't weak, submissive, or powerless at all; she held her own with John completely. I don't think it's unreasonable to say that of the three Houses in that ep (and this one), she was the one with the most power; she just wielded it with the traditional velvet glove. That may not have been the case when Greg was a child, when society would have held her back and John hadn't yet given up much of his power with age and retirement, but I just can't see her as cowed. And as Ariadne pointed out, she's transgressed herself, recently, not just ignored John's transgressions in the past. Noticed from the screencaps that it looks like almost all the people there were military, only a handful of civilians and those mostly seemed younger. Where are Blythe's friends?

Also, encouraged fan fiction: "House delayed the trip as much as possible, whenever he could, so the journey out took a bit longer than it might have. (In fact, if you'd like to believe House tried other tricks when they were off-screen, I would encourage you.)" It's admirable that Wilson got House to the funeral at all! Since she also said that the only reason House did relent was that he thought they would get there too late. John House was cruel to his sensitive son because he wanted to toughen him up. Sensitive? I wouldn't call House particularly sensitive. I thought the story about John House not speaking to his son for two months (which the author's said in sasmom's interview was a true story) as punishment for saying that James Bond was his real dad was telling. That's the kind of thing any parent, then or now, would punish. He didn't beat him or kick him out of the house. He simply didn't speak to him. Psychologically damaging, but not intended to be hurtful. That's how I've always seen John House so I was pleased when the writers said in that interview that he wasn't a monster, as I've so often seen him described in fandom. He loved his son and tried to raise him in what he mistakenly thought was the right way. As for John and Blythe's relationship, all we know is that Blythe didn't appear to be a cowed wife in 'Daddy's Boy' and John was taking her to Europe. I didn't get the sense she hated him, or that he resented her. I'm curious about something else. House said John "spent a year dying". House never saw him in that time, never tried to help? I wonder what he had.

I thought the story about John House not speaking to his son for two months (which the author's said in sasmom's interview was a true story) as punishment for saying that James Bond was his real dad was telling. That's the kind of thing any parent, then or now, would punish. He didn't beat him or kick him out of the house. He simply didn't speak to him. Psychologically damaging, but not intended to be hurtful. I'm a parent, and I wouldn't punish that. My oldest has said hurtful things to me, in anger at not getting her way. (Nothing as bad as what House probably said to his father.) I simply said, "I'm sorry you feel that way," left the room so we could both cool off, and talked about it later when emotions weren't so raw. There is no punishment in this family for expressing feelings. Giving your child the silent treatment for two months is absolutely damaging and hurtful, and a parent who does such a thing is absolutely being intentionally hurtful. How can a parent not know that this would be hurtful to his child? There are effective ways to deal with your child who says hurtful things to you. Ways that don't hurt the relationship or mess up your child. Silent treatment is not one of these effective ways. Any parent who gives their kid the silent treatment knows what he's doing; he does not live under any delusions that his actions are harmless. The intention behind the silent treatment, in fact, is to inflict pain. So your kid says something hurtful? As Doris Egan stated in her blog, the onus is on the parent to act responsibly... to act like an adult! You talk to your kid about it, you model effective and healthy ways of expressing anger, etc. You don't fly off the handle (that never solves anything!), you don't inflict harm on your child. I'm curious about something else. House said John "spent a year dying". House never saw him in that time, never tried to help? I wonder what he had. Presumably John had an illness that is incurable. Even House can't fix everything.

John House was cruel to his sensitive son because he wanted to toughen him up. Sensitive? I wouldn't call House particularly sensitive. I thought the story about John House not speaking to his son for two months (which the author's said in sasmom's interview was a true story) as punishment for saying that James Bond was his real dad was telling. That's the kind of thing any parent, then or now, would punish. He didn't beat him or kick him out of the house. He simply didn't speak to him. Psychologically damaging, but not intended to be hurtful. That's how I've always seen John House so I was pleased when the writers said in that interview that he wasn't a monster, as I've so often seen him described in fandom. He loved his son and tried to raise him in what he mistakenly thought was the right way. ITA. Hearing the child you've raised as your son deny you as a parent is very hurtful, and the silent treatment is a very understandable reaction. The silent treatment for two months? That's an overreaction, which is what DE pointed out. I think it's sad that the only time we ever hear about House's parents is when it is in a negative context. Surely it couldn't have bad 100% of the time House was living at home. Not to say that the Houses ever resembled the Cleaver family, but I think House's reaction at the end of the episode showed that House didn't only feel hatred for the man. "Birthmarks" was a great look into the nature versus nurture debate. How do our parents shape us? Are we biologically programmed to repeat their mistakes? Are we even biologically programmed to love them? ETA: I think John's two-month silent treatment reminds me a lot of his son. John obviously took this situation and made it all about him without much regard for his son's feelings. House does this all the time. He took Wilson's resignation and made it all about him (I mean, it was about him, but follow my argument). Instead of trying to support his friend in his time of need, House threw a major temper tantrum in the form of walking out of the hospital. House probably never saw this as an overreaction or as hurtful to Wilson, but we know that it was. Just as we know that John's abuse of House was hurtful to his son, in many ways, I don't know that John saw it as an overreaction.

Sensitive? I wouldn't call House particularly sensitive. Wow...seriously? I would call him extremely sensitive!! My take on House is that he feels everything so much and that things affect him so much that he's gotta always come up with all kinds of ways to protect himself...like by pushing people away by being rude to them so he won't get too close to them and end up getting burned. I think Wilson and Cuddy and the old duckies have his number on that one too.

Oh, House is absolutely incredibly sensitive. He picks up on the tiniest clues and behavioral anomalies and makes sense of them, but not just that, he also feels things very deeply and understands other people's feelings and motivations. Or what hughsblues said.

I think John's two-month silent treatment reminds me a lot of his son. John obviously took this situation and made it all about him without much regard for his son's feelings. House does this all the time. He took Wilson's resignation and made it all about him (I mean, it was about him, but follow my argument). Instead of trying to support his friend in his time of need, House threw a major temper tantrum in the form of walking out of the hospital. House probably never saw this as an overreaction or as hurtful to Wilson, but we know that it was. Just as we know that John's abuse of House was hurtful to his son, in many ways, I don't know that John saw it as an overreaction. I think House is sensitive, but it's very much in an "it's all about me" way. Most of the time. But when the season began, Wilson had been on a 2-month leave. He had asked House to leave him alone during that time and House had. Wilson returned and said "I'm leaving" and House's first reaction was that Wilson was going to take more leave. It wasn't until Wilson said he was quitting his job that House stopped supporting Wilson. House knew that in this case it was, indeed, all about him. People loose loved ones all the time. Most don't quit their jobs. Especially jobs like department head in a teaching hospital. Obviously House was the reason Wilson was quitting.

House is sensitive in that he is intuitive and picks up bits of information and details that others miss. But he's not "sensitive" in terms of internalizing everything and worrying about what other people think about him or acting in ways that others will approve of (in my opinion, of course). He doesn't care if people don't like him. He doesn't care what people call him -- as long as they respect his brain and his abilities. He's a guy that gets even, rather than going all emo over every slight. It's the reason why he didn't care that Chase ratted him out to Vogler. (OK, I admit, I hate how some branches of fandom have created an "emo House" that has to be protected from the harsh, harsh world -- especially his friends.) So when House said he is what his father made him, for good or bad, I do think that John gave him that tough inner core that believes in himself and his abilities, that's able to ignore the comments of others. Maybe House developed that because of his father, more likely in spite of him, but it's certainly there. I'm a parent, and I wouldn't punish that. My oldest has said hurtful things to me, in anger at not getting her way. (Nothing as bad as what House probably said to his father.) I simply said, "I'm sorry you feel that way," left the room so we could both cool off, and talked about it later when emotions weren't so raw. There is no punishment in this family for expressing feelings. I do wonder how much of the differences in opinions as to John House is a generational thing. Yes, obviously today it would be clear that that's not the way you do things. But 40 years ago, the attitude was different. Dr. Spock wasn't as widely accepted. They might have said: "Well, that's harsh, but at least he's not beating his kid." Psychological abuse? In John House's world of the 1960s and early 70s, that would be what happened to John McCain in Vietnam as a POW, not something that happens to your kid if you don't talk to him. But then I was raised in a family and an age and a culture in which corporal punishment was not only accepted, it was encouraged. "Spare the rod and spoil the child" wasn't just a saying. Nowadays, some might say that the spankings in our family was child abuse, not punishment.

NightOwl, I didn't say two months of the silent treatment was the RIGHT way to handle it. I meant that he didn't use it as an excuse for violence. He was not a sadist. And MMV on what the correct response WOULD be. My family would handle it differently than yours, but I'm not getting into a debate on child rearing. John House's method was wrong, we can all agree on that. I think you missed my point. I'm also not getting into a debate about raising children. What you said in your other post was, "That's the kind of thing any parent, then or now, would punish. He didn't beat him or kick him out of the house. He simply didn't speak to him. Psychologically damaging, but not intended to be hurtful." That is what I responded to. You were downplaying the two-month silent treatment, as though it were an understandable thing to do, as though John was not intending to hurt Greg. My point is, it's not an understandable thing to do to one's child, and he was intending to hurt Greg. That's the whole point of the silent treatment. I'm a parent, and I wouldn't punish that. My oldest has said hurtful things to me, in anger at not getting her way. (Nothing as bad as what House probably said to his father.) I simply said, "I'm sorry you feel that way," left the room so we could both cool off, and talked about it later when emotions weren't so raw. There is no punishment in this family for expressing feelings. I do wonder how much of the differences in opinions as to John House is a generational thing. Yes, obviously today it would be clear that that's not the way you do things. But 40 years ago, the attitude was different. Dr. Spock wasn't as widely accepted. They might have said: "Well, that's harsh, but at least he's not beating his kid." Psychological abuse? In John House's world of the 1960s and early 70s, that would be what happened to John McCain in Vietnam as a POW, not something that happens to your kid if you don't talk to him. Dr. Spock is soooo a generation ago. :lol: Nobody reads that anymore; there are far better parenting books, such as those written by Dr. Sears, Adele Faber/Elaine Mazlish, Jan Hunt, etc. Regardless, I realize that things were different in John House's generation, but I don't think that a two-month silent treatment would have been acceptable by anyone's standards, even in the 1970s when Greg was 12 and said those painful things to John. They would have punished by grounding the kid for a long time and taking away privileges (or beating the kid, but again, that's abusive and not acceptable). But I don't think anyone of that generation would have said, "Way to go, John! Ignore that foul-mouthed kid of yours for as long as you can! That'll learn him!"

Regardless, I realize that things were different in John House's generation, but I don't think that a two-month silent treatment would have been acceptable by anyone's standards, even then. They would have punished by grounding the kid for a long time and taking away privileges. But I don't think anyone of that generation would have said, "Way to go, John! Ignore that foul-mouthed kid of yours! That'll learn him!" I'm not saying that anyone was cheering him on. What I'm saying is that what we now see as "abuse" was not quite so clearly defined at that time.

I was raised in that generation, too, and I would say that the silent treatment for two months over a hurtful question from a 12 year old would not have been looked at as normal punishment nor as a mature response. I think it would have been recognised as very hurtful to the child--shunning is not a new concept and it's always been known to be very hurtful. Most people of that generation would not have blinked at a spanking, but would certainly have blinked at shunning your child for that length of time. John House chose punishment methods that meant that he wasn't risking outside authorities getting involved in his business--not that that happened very readily in that era, anyway--but I don't believe he was choosing methods that the neighbours would have thought perfectly ordinary and what they would do themselves. Even in that era. Ice baths, locking out of the house at night, withholding food, shunning . . . Even in the sixties, John House's discipline methods were abusive, just not physically abusive.

I do think ice baths qualify as physically abusive. House is sensitive in that he is intuitive and picks up bits of information and details that others miss. But he's not "sensitive" in terms of internalizing everything and worrying about what other people think about him or acting in ways that others will approve of (in my opinion, of course). He doesn't care if people don't like him. He doesn't care what people call him -- as long as they respect his brain and his abilities. So when House said he is what his father made him, for good or bad, I do think that John gave him that tough inner core that believes in himself and his abilities, that's able to ignore the comments of others. Maybe House developed that because of his father, more likely in spite of him, but it's certainly there. I do think that trait is a result of John's treatment. He learned as a child that you shouldn't look to others for validation because you are not going to get it. Guaranteed. The fact that in Son of a Coma Guy he said the one thing he would like to hear from his father was "You were right. You did the right thing." means John remained the one person he did want validation from. I wonder if he inherited his intelligence from his genetic father or if he would be a cuckoo in the nest in that respect regardless.

View Full Version: 5.04 - Birthmarks