Jump to content
Forums forums
PRIMETIMER

WendyCR72

S11.E12: The Murder Of The Meninist

Recommended Posts

The team investigates a body found in a car crash, and the remains belong to a founder of a men’s rights organization who may have been the victim of domestic abuse. As Brennan learns more about the tenets of the victim’s organization, which claims middle-aged white men are oppressed and feminists are man-haters, Brennan uncharacteristically loses her cool during an interrogation and assaults the organization’s co-founder. Meanwhile, Angela and the team struggle to deal with Hodgins’ post-wheelchair bitterness and Booth is convinced Brennan is a jinx for the Philadelphia Flyers.

Share this post


Link to post

A meninist? Like, a larxist meninist?

 

From the previews I assume they mean an MRA. It's still pretty funny.

Edited by Julia
  • Love 2

Share this post


Link to post

A meninist? Like, a larxist meninist?

I had to Google this. Hah! (Marxist Leninist)

I am so glad it looks like Hodgins' evil twin is gone next week. Poor Angela. I'm sure people with injuries like Hodgins do go through the anger stage, but it seems OOC for Hodgins to be so mean to Angela. He was equal to the guy Brennan punched. When he was wheeling out of the lab after telling Angela to go, I was thinking: Time to call in Angela's Dad to get him back in line. I know. Next week he will apologize and say he wanted her to leave because he didn't want her to be saddled with a parapalegic for the rest of her life. Still. Not an episode I will ever rewatch.

I missed who killed the victim and why.

  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post

The good:

 

There was a nice structural balance between the angsty paralysis plot and the silly sports jinx plot.

 

The awkwardness of the wheelchair in the diner was very well done.

 

Aubrey and Booth should always eat donuts and talk about sports jinxes. Also, of course Aubrey is a Cubs fan. Assigning the various characters sports teams/music preferences/etc. is actually a nice touch the show has always had.

 

Angela already knows that Hodgins lied to her in the previous episode and we won't be watching a half season of fallout over that.

 

Cam designing an experiment-- involving burning meat, no less-- to try to entice Hodgins is love. Hodgins not having it is realistic.

 

I don't think it can be said often enough that TJ Thyne always brings it. Hello, season 1 Hodgins.

 

Brennan punching the suspect essentially because she knows Booth wants to but can't is rather sweet in a screwed up way. I approve.

 

Brennan actually used sarcasm! It's almost like she's a real girl again! And the parts of the men's organization  that she supports (custody rights and drafting women) were 100% true to character. Booth not having any of it was equally true to his character.

 

Brennan doesn't look at Booth like he's a piece of meat. Because she's a vegetarian. Hee! Yeah, I'd hope she'd be kissing him between the Hodgins/Angela stuff and the Meninist stuff.

 

This show still isn't Sleepy Hollow. Or Castle (which I've never watched, but wow).

 

The bad:

 

Okay, with about two dozen episodes left I have no need to see any nameless squinterns who have no personality beyond one identifying factor. (Cuban!) Show Arastoo, Daisy, and Jessica Warren to the extent necessary to wrap up their stories with major characters. Otherwise, use Wendell and Clark Edison and no one else.

 

The nitpicking:

 

I don't believe for a fraction of a second that Hodgins would use his real name on an internet forum.


I missed who killed the victim and why.

 

The ex-wife and/or her current lover, because their coupledom would have affected his alimony payments. I don't think he/she/they precisely meant to kill him, just threaten him into behaving.

  • Love 2

Share this post


Link to post

Wow. Just... wow. This show has always been feminist to the very core, but at least they tried to be subtle about it. The only way they could possibly be more obvious this was a feminism episode is if they put the exact words "THIS IS A FEMINIST EPISODE" as the title of the episode plastered all over the opening in bright flashing neon. The MRA people are all completely sociopathic nutcases including the victim, everybody involved except Dr. Brennan acts like the very EXISTENCE of anything like the MRA is ridiculous rather than just some of the people, and the writers even had Hodgins go completely out of character and just so they could have him a jackass to everybody and especially Angela so they could try and equate that with the feminist narrative they spent this episode hammering in. A balanced view isn't even attempted, much less given correctly.

 

Ugh. This is easily the worst episode of this show I've ever seen, bar none on this alone.

 

 

I am so glad it looks like Hodgins' evil twin is gone next week. Poor Angela. I'm sure people with injuries like Hodgins do go through the anger stage, but it seems OOC for Hodgins to be so mean to Angela. He was equal to the guy Brennan punched. When he was wheeling out of the lab after telling Angela to go, I was thinking: Time to call in Angela's Dad to get him back in line. I know. Next week he will apologize and say he wanted her to leave because he didn't want her to be saddled with a parapalegic for the rest of her life. Still. Not an episode I will ever rewatch.

I'll give Hodgins a one episode pass on this, but I honestly do not find it justified on any level. I'm aware that he's adjusting and royally pissed off at the universe for the fact that he can't walk, but that's no excuse to be a total jackass to all of his friends while constantly pointing out that he can't walk and refusing to accept help when offered. If he is that pissed off at the world he should have stayed home. I was waiting the entire episode for somebody to slap him in the face and tell him to either fix his attitude or get the hell out of the Jeffersonian but it never happened. I guess the Jeffersonian group is still too much in the "I still pity him too much to call him on his jackassery" stage of this.

Edited by immortalfrieza
  • Love 2

Share this post


Link to post

I was waiting the entire episode for somebody to slap him in the face and tell him to either fix his attitude or get the hell out of the Jeffersonian but it never happened

I like to think Cam timed the opening of that furnace door so he would get slapped upside the head with pig guts (which happened). Although that moment was ruined for me because in reality he would have been scalded by the burning guts.
  • Love 2

Share this post


Link to post

I like to think Cam timed the opening of that furnace door so he would get slapped upside the head with pig guts (which happened). Although that moment was ruined for me because in reality he would have been scalded by the burning guts.

I thought he would have been scalded too. But the look on his face was perfect.

  • Love 2

Share this post


Link to post

Alimony only stops when the person receiving it remarries. It's not about sex, it's about financial support.

  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post

I hate this Hodgins paralyzed storyline. I just hate it. 

 

Agreed. There are a few silver linings for me-- the acting has mostly been excellent, and some of the supporting characters' reactions are a nice highlight of how much they've all grown together over the years. (Cam, who used to bitch out her subordinates about experiments to prove something that could have been proven mathematically, setting a pig person on fire? Booth, who viscerally disliked Bug Boy when he met him, trying to get him to come over for guys' night and being all sadly concerned when he got no for an answer? It touched my cold dead heart a little.) 

 

But there's no version of the story itself that I want to see. I don't want to see Hodgins taking his anger out on Angela. I don't want to see Angela glumly soldiering through. I especially don't want to see it lead to any sort of cheating. Frankly, I don't want any more life-altering misery for any of these people. 

  • Love 7

Share this post


Link to post

I always kind of enjoyed bitter conspiracy Hodgins from the early seasons, so that part doesn't bother me as much. The self-destructive acting out, blowing off rehab, doesn't seem like Hodgins to me, but that kind of life-changing event and the resulting anger and depression are going to affect people. But attacking Angela's intelligence and professional chops? #NotMyHodgins.

Edited by Julia
  • Love 2

Share this post


Link to post

I'm of two minds about Hodgins. Like the rest, I don't like seeing him act out in this way, and I don't like him taking it out on everyone. On the other hand, I kind of appreciate they're not having him do the "I'm a plucky survivor and it takes me no time at all to deal with this life altering blow." I think it's rare that anyone has such a serious life-changing event without going through hell to get to a more positive and accepting place - and the family goes through that hell also. I think it must be tiresome for people who've gone through it to only see "inspirational" versions which kind of make others think you should get over it quickly.

So, in that regard, I think it's a good thing to see. I like being reminded to look at the world and see how the spaces can challenge people who are in wheelchairs. I also like that Hodgins is being called out on his behavior in various ways, some direct and some not. I like that the others are being challenged in adjusting to his new reality. Unfortunately, Angela, as a spouse, will always get the brunt of it, and working together only makes it worse. On the other hand, it might give her something a bit more interesting to do on the show.

I don't think it will drag out too long, or at least I hope not.

  • Love 5

Share this post


Link to post

For better or worse does not mean you can abuse your partner.

 

Cam saying "You used the lift! How was it!" is stupider than even the usual stupidness people exhibit in the face of a chair user.

 

I thought parental consent would be enough to authorize circumcision of an infant. When they said doctors are losing cases brought on the basis of non-consensual circumcisions, I had a hard time believing that. On the other hand, if they were saying doctors were doing the procedure without parental consent, that's actually an interesting premise. Most of the time, I think doctors are off the hook (legally) if what they do is considered "standard of care" but I suppose it's also true that a lot of routine things are not supposed to be done with/to kids without a parent's knowledge/permission, so maybe circumcision is in that category. I for sure thing parents should be able to decide and not have circumcision forced on their families. It seems like it would be something the parents would sue over, though, not the adult decades later. But maybe not. I know the show plays loosely with all kinds of things, but when they were talking about this, I thought we were meant to think it was true.

Share this post


Link to post

I thought parental consent would be enough to authorize circumcision of an infant. When they said doctors are losing cases brought on the basis of non-consensual circumcisions, I had a hard time believing that. On the other hand, if they were saying doctors were doing the procedure without parental consent, that's actually an interesting premise.

I would have thought parental consent was enough as well - and if a guy wanted to sue, he should sue his parents. It has been so much a "norm" in the US in the latter half of the 20th century, that uncircumcised males were unusual ones. When I was pregnant in the 80's, I had long discussions with my husband about whether or not to circumcise if we had a boy. Interestingly, I was against circumcision, my argument being these are the bodies we create and we shouldn't just snip off parts willy nilly (no pun intended). He was for. Fortunately, we had girls so we didn't have to argue about it. Edited by clanstarling

Share this post


Link to post

I wonder if, "back in the day" -- say 30-40 years ago -- doctors automatically circumcised baby boys unless the parents explicitly objected. In other words, they didn't do on direction from the parents; the parents weren't part of the question.

 

That would explain why these losers... I mean, victims... are suing the doctors and not the parents.

Share this post


Link to post

I wonder if, "back in the day" -- say 30-40 years ago -- doctors automatically circumcised baby boys unless the parents explicitly objected. In other words, they didn't do on direction from the parents; the parents weren't part of the question.

 

That would explain why these losers... I mean, victims... are suing the doctors and not the parents.

That's a good point. Since I didn't have a boy, I don't know what the standard was (except knowing that most boys were circumcised, and I didn't want it to happen to mine.)

If I recall correctly, those of us pregnant in those days were questioning the conventions - from routine episiotomies, to getting drugs while in labor (which I was against until I was in labor - and by the time I said "gimme drugs!" it was too late), and a whole host of "routine" processes.

Edited by clanstarling
  • Love 2

Share this post


Link to post

Well, without getting into the rights and wrongs of circumcision (which is neck and neck with breastfeeding as the trigger for the nastiest battles I've ever seen on the internet), the rationale for it was that having a foreskin increases the chance of developing a condition which is linked statistically to various cancers in men and their partners. It was presented to parents as a way to protect their children, and it was included in the release the parents signed for routine care. 

  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post

Well, without getting into the rights and wrongs of circumcision (which is neck and neck with breastfeeding as the trigger for the nastiest battles I've ever seen on the internet), the rationale for it was that having a foreskin increases the chance of developing a condition which is linked statistically to various cancers in men and their partners. It was presented to parents as a way to protect their children, and it was included in the release the parents signed for routine care.

Thanks, Julia. I knew there was some sort of rationale, but not what it was.

I never cared whether or not anyone else did it - and never knew it was a battle (unlike breastfeeding, which I certainly did). Of course, I had my kids in pre-internet days - though there was still a fair amount of battling about parenting. Some of the more viral internet battles on parenting have popped up on sites I view, but I try to avoid reading them.

  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post

That's a good point. Since I didn't have a boy, I don't know what the standard was (except knowing that most boys were circumcised, and I didn't want it to happen to mine.)If I recall correctly, those of us pregnant in those days were questioning the conventions - from routine episiotomies, to getting drugs while in labor (which I was against until I was in labor - and by the time I said "gimme drugs!" it was too late), and a whole host of "routine" processes.

Yep. Those were the days. I was relieved when my 3rd was another girl so I didn't have to learn how to parent a boy and didn't have to decide about circumcision.

I guess the episode's Meminist beef about circumcision annoyed me most because it's not like the parents always did it on autopilot.

Edited by shapeshifter
  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post

I have two boys a year apart. The oldest is 38. I can say for a fact that we had to sign releases for both of them. The hardest part of the decision back then was cost. It was not covered by insurance (considered elective surgery) & cost a whopping $150 each.

  • Love 2

Share this post


Link to post

Just a quick reminder that the board will be undergoing an important upgrade tomorrow, beginning at approximately 9:00 a.m., give or take. This may take most of the day.

Share this post


Link to post
×
×
  • Create New...

Customize font-size