Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Weird that pp is defending the way both of these women treat their helpers.

I suspect that it's the expat/nanny/helper employer DCUM crowd feeling triggered and guilty

I’m one of the posters who sees the mistakes both Hilary and Margaret have made in their relationships with their “helpers,” but I don’t think either of them are these terrible villains some of you are making them out to be. OTC, I think there are a few of you who seem to be taking this *fictional* show extremely personally. I could opine on why that is - as you did - but I’m not that presumptuous.

And FYI - never had a nanny/household help and never been an expat. I am, however, able to detect nuance and hold the belief that these small slip ups do not define a person.

I agree that small slip ups do not define a person. But this isn't real life. The showrunners chose to show these small slip ups to give insight on a character.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They aren't brief slip ups, they are just further examples of how they treat the helpers. This dynamic is seen in every single episode.

Yes, the difference with this episode was that it showed the interactions from the perspective of the helpers. For me, prior to this episode I might have agreed with the people defending Hilary, but after watching this one I can't. I feel differently about Margaret -- her situation is different because Essie has a relationship with her kids and the situation with Gus is impacting everyone in weird ways. I really respect her self-awareness about why she left Essie behind that day and the fact that she felt the need to explain it to Essie and at least try to relieve Essie of any guilt she might be feeling about Gus. She's not perfect but she demonstrates empathy, at least, and I think wants to do the right thing.

Hilary is a narcissist and consistently uses her helper to try and triangulate her messed up relationship with her crappy husband. No thank you. She's not a "villain" but she sucks.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Weird that pp is defending the way both of these women treat their helpers.

I suspect that it's the expat/nanny/helper employer DCUM crowd feeling triggered and guilty

I’m one of the posters who sees the mistakes both Hilary and Margaret have made in their relationships with their “helpers,” but I don’t think either of them are these terrible villains some of you are making them out to be. OTC, I think there are a few of you who seem to be taking this *fictional* show extremely personally. I could opine on why that is - as you did - but I’m not that presumptuous.

And FYI - never had a nanny/household help and never been an expat. I am, however, able to detect nuance and hold the belief that these small slip ups do not define a person.

Anonymous wrote:They aren't brief slip ups, they are just further examples of how they treat the helpers. This dynamic is seen in every single episode.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Weird that pp is defending the way both of these women treat their helpers.

Agreed. I think part of the issue is imagining being one of the helpers, versus being Margaret or Hilary. I just think the whole helper role is exploitative by its nature. Any role where your job is simply to meet the needs, generally, of your employer is dangerous because it can be very hard to draw lines. It is much better if someone has a clear professional role. I just think Puri and Essie are in these very powerless roles, and it's culturally reinforced because the economics of Hong Kong reinforce the idea that these women exist to serve the wealthy. Remember the scene on the boat from earlier in the series where the other women are telling Margaret that you "have" to be demanding or stern with the helpers because "it's what they respond to." Like they are dogs.

The interesting thing to me is that as Americans, I think Hilary and Margaret are both aware that this dynamic is not particularly healthy. Unlike someone raised in Hong Kong or from another country with a similar underclass of people who do this kind of work for low wages, they are from a country where it is no longer considered appropriate to have this kind of employment relationship. In the US, nannies and housekeepers and landscapers and similar have more professionalized roles and in many cases can demand very good wages, especially when working for highly demanding, wealthy employers. There is not this attitude here of "well that's what people like this are for." But in HK, as well as in a number of other countries, that attitude is rampant. There is more of a hierarchy and a sense of fundamental entitlement to the labor of poor people.

But I think in their discomfort with the dynamic, they run into pitfalls. It's hard for them to operate in HK at their socioeconomic level and not rely on their helpers the way other women do. And both Hilary and Margaret attempt to fix the dynamic by befriending their helpers, but this is actually a bad impulse because all it does is create more obligation on the part of Essie and Puri, to do more emotional labor for their employers and make them feel okay about their relationship.

It's just a messed up dynamic. You can't fix it. By hiring a helper, you're buying into a corrupt system of how society is supposed to work.

I can see that. Hilary’s HK friend’s way is colder but healthier for everyone in the end, not personal. I could not have helpers of any kind bc I’d feel unable to detach from the personal dimension.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Weird that pp is defending the way both of these women treat their helpers.

I suspect that it's the expat/nanny/helper employer DCUM crowd feeling triggered and guilty

Anonymous wrote:Weird that pp is defending the way both of these women treat their helpers.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Weird that pp is defending the way both of these women treat their helpers.

Agreed. I think part of the issue is imagining being one of the helpers, versus being Margaret or Hilary. I just think the whole helper role is exploitative by its nature. Any role where your job is simply to meet the needs, generally, of your employer is dangerous because it can be very hard to draw lines. It is much better if someone has a clear professional role. I just think Puri and Essie are in these very powerless roles, and it's culturally reinforced because the economics of Hong Kong reinforce the idea that these women exist to serve the wealthy. Remember the scene on the boat from earlier in the series where the other women are telling Margaret that you "have" to be demanding or stern with the helpers because "it's what they respond to." Like they are dogs.

The interesting thing to me is that as Americans, I think Hilary and Margaret are both aware that this dynamic is not particularly healthy. Unlike someone raised in Hong Kong or from another country with a similar underclass of people who do this kind of work for low wages, they are from a country where it is no longer considered appropriate to have this kind of employment relationship. In the US, nannies and housekeepers and landscapers and similar have more professionalized roles and in many cases can demand very good wages, especially when working for highly demanding, wealthy employers. There is not this attitude here of "well that's what people like this are for." But in HK, as well as in a number of other countries, that attitude is rampant. There is more of a hierarchy and a sense of fundamental entitlement to the labor of poor people.

But I think in their discomfort with the dynamic, they run into pitfalls. It's hard for them to operate in HK at their socioeconomic level and not rely on their helpers the way other women do. And both Hilary and Margaret attempt to fix the dynamic by befriending their helpers, but this is actually a bad impulse because all it does is create more obligation on the part of Essie and Puri, to do more emotional labor for their employers and make them feel okay about their relationship.

It's just a messed up dynamic. You can't fix it. By hiring a helper, you're buying into a corrupt system of how society is supposed to work.

Anonymous wrote:Weird that pp is defending the way both of these women treat their helpers.

Anonymous wrote:Weird that pp is defending the way both of these women treat their helpers.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't understand why so many people are defending Hilary. She was awful in that episode. Granted, she is reeling from discovering her husband's affair and then finding out about the pregnancy (and then finding out it's Mercy). So yes, some grace. But some of how she treats Puri is obviously really gross and I think it's very strange people are defending it:

The worst thing she does is drag Puri into that fight with her husband. That scene was so cringeworthy to me. Hilary *demands* that Puri stay for the fight even though David asks her to leave them and it's obvious Puri feels uncomfortable (who wouldn't?). But then Hilary specifically uses Puri in the fight, telling David that it's the "Hong Kong curse," that men come to Hong Kong and are waited on hand and foot by women like Puri and it ruins their marriages. She literally points at Puri and calls her David's "servant" (I mean, she is a servant but there's a reason they are called helpers instead -- no one wants to be pointed at and called servant). And then Hilary lists things Puri does for David as though this is the reason they are having marital issues. It's really, really gross, and viewing that scene from Puri's point of view made me really dislike Hilary.

The fact that she then basically orders Puri to spend the evening drinking with her because she doesn't want to be alone makes it even worse. It's very clear that this is not something Puri and Hilary have ever done together or that Puri feels comfortable with. It's definitely a weird boundary violation because while Puri is there to help them, Hilary here is looking for Puri to be her friend and confidant, which really should be outside Puri's job description.

The fact that in the morning Hilary appears to forget that Puri has the morning off for her competition is just kind of icing, and I am not surprised that Puri didn't feel comfortable saying "actually, you said I could take the morning off" in that moment because between the fight with David, the general volatility in the household, and Hilary's kind of manic/overly intimate behavior the night before, I imagine Puri feels like she needs to tread lightly.

I can't imagine watching that episode and thinking Hilary was "kind" to Puri. Why, because she does her makeup and insists Puri puts on one of her designer gowns? Puri didn't want to do that stuff in the first place and Hilary wasn't doing it out of kindness, she was doing it because she was desperate for intimacy and connection and was using the woman in her employment to fill that purpose for the time being. It's understandable Hilary felt that way but that doesn't make it right or good. That whole sequence of events sucked for Puri.

I agree with a lot of what you’ve written - but not the part about the morning of Puri’s competition. Hilary made many missteps the night before, but to claim she’s mean or somehow awful to Puri is ridiculous. She has always been kind and respectful to Puri - she had a bad night. If Puri had simply reminded Hilary of the competition - that Hilary was SUPER SUPPORTIVE of, btw - Hilary would have been embarrassed that she forgot and would of course have told Puri to go.

I think you’re really painting Hilary as some kind of villain when she’s not.

Anonymous wrote:I don't understand why so many people are defending Hilary. She was awful in that episode. Granted, she is reeling from discovering her husband's affair and then finding out about the pregnancy (and then finding out it's Mercy). So yes, some grace. But some of how she treats Puri is obviously really gross and I think it's very strange people are defending it:

The worst thing she does is drag Puri into that fight with her husband. That scene was so cringeworthy to me. Hilary *demands* that Puri stay for the fight even though David asks her to leave them and it's obvious Puri feels uncomfortable (who wouldn't?). But then Hilary specifically uses Puri in the fight, telling David that it's the "Hong Kong curse," that men come to Hong Kong and are waited on hand and foot by women like Puri and it ruins their marriages. She literally points at Puri and calls her David's "servant" (I mean, she is a servant but there's a reason they are called helpers instead -- no one wants to be pointed at and called servant). And then Hilary lists things Puri does for David as though this is the reason they are having marital issues. It's really, really gross, and viewing that scene from Puri's point of view made me really dislike Hilary.

The fact that she then basically orders Puri to spend the evening drinking with her because she doesn't want to be alone makes it even worse. It's very clear that this is not something Puri and Hilary have ever done together or that Puri feels comfortable with. It's definitely a weird boundary violation because while Puri is there to help them, Hilary here is looking for Puri to be her friend and confidant, which really should be outside Puri's job description.

The fact that in the morning Hilary appears to forget that Puri has the morning off for her competition is just kind of icing, and I am not surprised that Puri didn't feel comfortable saying "actually, you said I could take the morning off" in that moment because between the fight with David, the general volatility in the household, and Hilary's kind of manic/overly intimate behavior the night before, I imagine Puri feels like she needs to tread lightly.

I can't imagine watching that episode and thinking Hilary was "kind" to Puri. Why, because she does her makeup and insists Puri puts on one of her designer gowns? Puri didn't want to do that stuff in the first place and Hilary wasn't doing it out of kindness, she was doing it because she was desperate for intimacy and connection and was using the woman in her employment to fill that purpose for the time being. It's understandable Hilary felt that way but that doesn't make it right or good. That whole sequence of events sucked for Puri.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I liked the newest episode. I’m glad we got to see the helpers POV.
It seemed like everyone got a little crazy during the storm and then went back to normal when it cleared in the morning. I’m confused about puri, did she miss the competition? They didn’t show it either way so I thought she could still be going? She just realized her friend was right - you aren’t friends with your employers. No matter how much she wanted it to be true.
And why won’t Essie just say no if she doesn’t want to go to the us? It doesn’t sound like Margaret is forcing it and knows it is a big decision. If she wants to go home so bad just say no, it’s kind of a perfect time/opportunity to break free.

My read on the ending:

Puri was supposed to get the morning off for her competition (she mentions to her friends that Hilary has given her the morning off for it). So Hilary asking for breakfast and being very hungover and saying nothing about it does not bode well for Puri going. I think the resigned look on her face indicates that she's not even going to try. It's really sad.

Regarding Essie, from her conversation with Puri about Gus and the family, it's clear she has a very strong feeling of responsibility towards the family and is genuinely worried about the kids (who she has helped raise for the last several years). Essie tells Puri that her kids are telling her she should retire and move back to Manila to be near them and her grandchildren, but that Essie hasn't done it because especially with Gus's disappearance, she can't bring herself to leave the family. Kind of in the same way that the family is having a hard time leaving Hong Kong without Gus because it feels like giving up on them.

I don't think Margaret was pressuring her, necessarily, but I did find it presumptuous that it doesn't seem to occur to her that Essie has children and grandchildren in Manila who it would become very hard for her to see if she moved to the US. Unclear how often she sees them now but from her conversation with Puri, it sounds like they speak often and are very much in touch. Manila is about 2.5 hours from Hong Kong and flights can be found pretty cheap. But from the US you are talking about a really difficult time difference and travel to see them would cost thousands. It is strange to me that Margaret doesn't even seem to have considered this -- perhaps to offer to pay for her to travel to Manila every year or something, I don't know. Margaret says she knows it's a big ask, but it's just felt like a bizarre myopia about Essie's own family, given what Margaret has been through with Gus. Essie would be leaving all her children and grandchildren behind. To not acknowledge that feels callous or at least oblivious.

I don’t share this view at all. Essie is a much older women with grown children (or
maybe just the one grown child we’ve seen?). It’s not rude/clueless/cruel/whatever for Margaret to not be peppering Essie with questions about her kids (or grandkid(s) - and grandkids aren’t the same as kids in terms of one’s responsibilities anyway) or have that top of mind. People in this thread seem to be bending over backwards to find things to criticize about the westerners here.

DP. Also agree with this! Margaret was lovely to Essie. She told her how much she loved her! And she didn’t pressure Essie to come to the US at all.

No. Margaret shows her true colors when essie comes home from her day off and margaret tells her to make pizza for the kids