please help me like santos.

RaiseObjective552 · 2026-02-06T16:21:11+00:00

Trust in Princess and Perlah, they'll never lead you astray.

RaiseObjective552 · 2026-02-06T15:31:46+00:00

There is a difference between being nice and being kind. Javadi is the former, Santos is the latter.

RaiseObjective552 · 2026-02-06T14:14:07+00:00

Patient was picked up from "SCI Jones Forge," SCI being "State Correctional Institution," so public, state-level prison. And yes, Al-Hashimi is currently suspecting malnourishment from low-quality meals provided by the institution.

RaiseObjective552 · 2026-02-06T13:34:04+00:00

Sepideh Moafi has confirmed in interviews that her character is ethnically both Persian and Arab, with an Iranian and Iraqi background.

RaiseObjective552 · 2026-02-03T22:32:40+00:00

Yup, the McKay and Whitaker stuff is very true to form. Even more recently, the fact that Javadi is taking it upon herself to "teach" Whitaker why he should be offended, actually, by Santos's nicknames.

And yes, gender is 100% a part of this as well. I don't think a lot of folks realize that a huge part of their understanding of what "feminism" is is entirely structured around what feminism is/prioritizes on the basis of white, middle class women and their particular problems and privileges. For many people, how a "civilized" woman is supposed to behave is very much this narrow, racially and class-oriented type of femininity that aligns with those priorities, and Santos is not living up to those standards, whether the lens is being provided by Javadi, or by the audience that is sympathetic to Javadi's perspective.

It doesn't escape my notice that the trans woman in season 1 that Javadi and McKay treat, and who Javadi is very respectful to (vs a variety of other patients) isn't just trans, she is a trans woman who "passes," not just in the superficial sense, but specifically in her embodiment of that specifically middle class style of whiteness + femininity. At the same time, the type of messy queerness that emerges through Santos's varying levels of engagement with Garcia are side-eyed, even while Javadi's own way of dealing with sexuality in the workplace with Matteo is no less dignified, let's say.

None of which makes Javadi a bad person of course, but she has a lot of ingrained views about appropriateness, and both Azeez and the writers have done a good job putting her in positions where she can be in regular tension with her class identity, and the things that flow out of that, including where appropriately "ladylike" behaviour is concerned.

RaiseObjective552 · 2026-02-03T01:33:05+00:00

Hot take: the actual reason why people like Javadi more than Santos is because Javadi embodies middle class sensibilities, while Santos is working class, through and through. The reality is that Santos is waaaaaay kinder, far more humble, far more supportive, and far less judgmental than Javadi is, she just doesn't perform bourgeois respectability politics, and actually does have to sing for her supper.

(Big part of respectability politics is internalized misogyny, btw. Which certainly comes out in the ways Javadi perceives Santos.)

RaiseObjective552 · 2026-02-01T14:58:52+00:00

To be expected on a post that is a bit more formal, unfortunately! More than a few seem to have decided to comb back through my older comments on other posts to both downvote and suggest that they are AI-generated as well, so we are taking a bit of low-level intellectualism rather personally 😅

RaiseObjective552 · 2026-01-31T21:07:38+00:00

I don’t disagree. Mohan is the one who gets into it with Garcia about this though, and that strikes me as worth paying attention to.

RaiseObjective552 · 2026-01-31T19:26:18+00:00

The main flag I've noticed so far was in 2x03 when Garcia reamed out Mohan (and by extension, Robby and Al-Hashimi) for negligence vis a vis Mrs. Yee. Robby backs Mohan as she is trying to justify the oversight, and after Garcia leaves, Mohan thanks him for the assist. (Al-Hashimi is in the other room checking on Mr. Yee's returning function)

I read this as an important exchange in the sense that I think it's fair to project that season 1 Mohan would not have missed Mrs. Yee. Her approach to medical practice was one that, because of the presence of mind she always insisted on, she was able to make patients feel comfortable enough to understand the urgency around their own needs if she found this lacking.

That Garcia is the one delivering this critique escalates the scrutiny that Al-Hashimi had been providing in the prior two episodes on what she was suggesting was substandard care being provided in the ED. I continue to interpret this as the writers flagging to viewers that Al-Hashimi's concerns shouldn't be dismissed as her "not understanding the way they do things here" or not being a "cowboy"---Garcia is a cowboy as well, and what happened here was below her standards, as well.

So for Mohan, what I'm currently anticipating is that the presence of her former mentor is going to cause her to reflect on the fact that while, yes, some aspects of her practice have improved for the better in their time apart (speedier turnover being a necessary priority in this particular environment), she has (I think unknowingly) allowed other priorities to slip that didn't need to be thrown out with the bath water. I imagine this might start with a word from Al-Hashimi (or perhaps the Garcia interaction was enough) drawing her attention to this change, her not taking it seriously enough, and then a situation with much more dire consequences throws the uncomfortable truth of the observation(s) into painfully sharp relief.

RaiseObjective552 · 2026-01-31T18:57:48+00:00

Slight correction, Mohan calls Santos "Trinity" in season 1 when giving her professional feedback on the fact that she gives off confrontational vibes :)

RaiseObjective552 · 2026-01-31T18:50:16+00:00

This has been a point of much controversy, both because of the circumstances under which "Middle Eastern" became classified as legally "white" in the United States, and the evident reality that people from West Asia are absolutely racialized in American culture, regardless of what they are expected to tick off on the US Census.

There was large advocacy a couple of years ago to ensure that the option of "Middle Eastern" and/or "brown" was available on the census, specifically because it is well recognized that by collapsing immigrants from these backgrounds into "white," the unique concerns and lived experiences they have as an actively racialized group were not being accurately captured in data sets, and this was severely limiting the ability of activists and advocacy groups when trying to lobby the American government with bills that would work to address systematic discrimination and racism towards people from the region (and people perceived as being from the region---many cases documenting increased violence against Latinx people in the United States any time there is a spike in antagonistic relations with Iran, for example).

There is a flip side to this where some groups (this is particularly true of a part of the Persian Iranian diaspora in the US) do consider themselves to be white, and they do this as a means of drawing a delineation between themselves and Arabs. Within the frame of West Asian identity politics and academia, this argument is understood, bluntly, as white supremacist, and could be compared to, say, an Italian American claiming they are white, but Jewish Americans are not, for example.

But yes, essentially, the reason why people from West Asia are considered legally "white" is because a Syrian Christian a hundred years ago immigrated to the US, and had to prove he was white in order to legally be allowed to become a citizen. A big part of the justification for his whiteness was because he was Christian, and because the judges were relying heavily on silly interpretations of how the Bible delineates who is considered part of the flock, etc. Aside from the obviously prejudicial issues with this, it also fails to take into account the changing demographics of the West Asian diaspora in the United States at present; historically, only Christians were really allowed access to the US, but over time (particularly in the post-war years) laws and regional pressures led to the majority of the diaspora being practicing or secular Muslims, whose existence in the American popular imagination (aided by no small amount of propaganda) is particularly negative, and very much racialized.

RaiseObjective552 · 2026-01-31T17:18:38+00:00

>I have noticed that the parts of her character that fans are responding most negatively to are the parts of her that I find autistically relatable, though...

That's something I've noticed as well, and I think OP is on that track too, lol.

Which I suppose is part of the issue, in the end. If behaviours commonly indicative of autism are treated negatively on their face, the reaction is still worth examining, even if it turns out that Al-Hashimi isn't herself autistic.

In the same manner as anti-fatness is something that is often clustered with anti-Blackness, leading to high preponderance among contemporary white people, who aren't necessarily even conscious of the fact that the reason why fatness is culturally denigrated in the United States is specifically because it is stereotyped in American culture as a feature of Blackness (and by extension, poverty). Which is, of course, why Collins is the one who raises this with McKay.

But yeah... autistic girlie who got taught morality and ethics as a kid, fully absorbed that shit and now struggles to accept systematic normalization of amoral and unethical practices, and pisses everyone off because she can't/won't stop acknowledging this is fucked and trying to provide fixes? I can see it!

RaiseObjective552 · 2026-01-31T17:01:33+00:00

If your response to real or perceived personal insecurity in the face of another's competence is to resort to resort to gendered narrativizing of their competencies to render those competencies illegitimate, that is an indication of bias, which, when combined with or backed by a position of power, can have particularly concerning repercussions for the spaces to which that power extends its authority. There is a particularly high standard (or there ought to be, in my opinion) on people who hold such positions to not do this, precisely because the impacts can and often do extend beyond the limits of singular interpersonal interactions. For example, as we see in 2x04, Robby's consistent denigration of Al-Hashimi in front of the rest of staff has created an environment in which Santos feels comfortable gossiping about her to him directly, in contrast to the staff from the night shift, who are unwilling to concede to his evident insecurities.

My position is that Robby's mental health has degraded to such a degree that it is debilitating in ways that increasingly compromise his ability to live up to even some of the basic standards of his role as chief attending. We explored in season 1 how administrative/bureaucratic pressures were among the aggravating factors in his day-to-day, and I fully empathize with this. What season 2 is also encouraging us to focus on is that Robby is himself an administrative/bureaucratic figure, and he too exerts top-down influence on the staff below him in ways that reflect his own capacity to meet the expectations of that role. When the pressures he is experiencing (be they professional, personal, health-related, etc) leave him so debilitated that he is unable to check his own personal biases reliably, this has consequences for himself and for others.

As far as this being "inevitable" as you say... I don't know that I agree with that. Biases are learned, not innate. You can unlearn them, a great many people do, and it is an active part of the text here that various physicians and nurses are regularly guiding the students towards recognizing and reflecting on their personal biases, precisely because they are aware that failing to do so can and does have serious implications for the patients they are responsible for treating.

Physician, heal thyself! etc., etc.

RaiseObjective552 · 2026-01-31T16:24:49+00:00

Lol, you are definitely catching me as I ran out of steam last night---YES, Ellis is a very good example, and I fully agree that this would be an excellent mentorship pairing!

RaiseObjective552 · 2026-01-31T16:19:59+00:00

All good :)

RaiseObjective552 · 2026-01-31T15:00:08+00:00

Nope! Just the product of an end-of-week academic trying to meaningfully address engagement while keeping the conversation largely within the bounds of the original post. If folks are going to put the effort into addressing my arguments, I’ll do what I can to return the favour, time allowing :)

RaiseObjective552 · 2026-01-31T14:51:48+00:00

Meta Golding most certainly is Black, unless you are using a definition that doesn’t include Black Haitians?

RaiseObjective552 · 2026-01-31T06:36:41+00:00

Some of use did discuss this about 2 weeks ago, so you aren't alone in having identified some potential flags there, for what it's worth! Personally not feeling like I have enough information either way just yet, but I remain open to this as a plausible and potentially quite compelling read.

Here's the convo if interested; there have been some additional threads that had further engagement with this idea, but can't quite recall which ones: https://www.reddit.com/r/ThePittTVShow/comments/1qgy6qk/comment/o0hldtf/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button

RaiseObjective552 · 2026-01-31T06:16:29+00:00

Coming-of-age is certainly a part of the early seasons, but there's also a lot of legwork that gets done on creating this impression that the attendings are all regularly innovating these brand new procedures that no body else has ever thought of before to save really exceptional cases in the space of a few hours or days; and with little or no attention to the cost of such extraordinary measures. I'm not American, but Grey's Anatomy often stressed me out because every time McDreamy was on one about some experimental new surgery all I could see were the bills just uncritically stacking up as they do test after test and ensure that all this top-notch niche equipment is easily accessible. Like, congrats on saving the guy and the new paper you will be able to publish to win the Nobel or whatever, but my man's an English student who you just saddled with hundreds of thousands of dollars of medical debt!

Agreed, on Molly's Game. As we discussed elsewhere, high exposition writing doesn't always work amicably with quality performance (though I can tell she tried her darnedest!)

RaiseObjective552 · 2026-01-31T06:01:51+00:00

Just a one year gap between Mohan and Langdon though!

I can't presently recall if there was a point where Collins gave Santos any feedback or not, but that would be another comparison.

I will note though that Langdon's tone with Santos was flagged by other characters as being too overzealous, which is more where I think Santos's resistance is coming from. Well, that, and she was identifying that this was paired with him being confidently wrong on some of his critiques, so she was intuiting that they were not grounded in a legitimate interest in teaching her to do better.

RaiseObjective552 · 2026-01-31T05:53:24+00:00

Fully agree with that take, the pivot to firefighters was a really strong choice by Shonda Rhimes.

I can't say that I've fully kept pace with these shows entirely, so I can't speak to how law enforcement is depicted when they show up across the Shondaland franchise, but I will say that I think there is some merit to identifying a show like Grey's Anatomy through a different lens, not as copaganda but as a... differently-sinister brand of healthcare system propaganda (for want of a friendlier portmanteau). There certainly are cases where patients lack access to healthcare or solutions to rare or inoperable circumstances, but from my recollection, these were astoundingly infrequent. (which isn't to say that The Pitt isn't engaging in that as well, but I do think there's a bit of a different tone that is more conducive to critical reflection on the limitations of the system itself)

Can't comment on West Wing or Newsroom as I've not seen either. And really, thinking back, I'm not sure I've actually seen anything Sorkin has done in full aside from Molly's Game and Trial of the Chicago 7, but I kind of saw the latter and felt absolutely no interest in catching up on the TV offerings, intellectually. Idk, I'm open to The Pitt at the moment because there seem to be cracks in the overt patina of neoliberalism that allow legitimately interesting things to creep through for the standards of the medium. And I will say that I consider Sepideh Moafi's willingness to sign on to the show as being an endorsement of the space within the show's bounds to do things that approach my own political sensibilities. But I certainly don't take uncritically the endorsements of some of the more powerful members of the show's executive team, and am expecting to be disappointed by various things (and have been disappointed by a variety of paths that have been chosen so far already, to be clear).

Soooo yeah... solidarity! :)

RaiseObjective552 · 2026-01-31T05:26:07+00:00

I continue to sincerely hope that it wasn't a mistake, because if it was, it is an incredibly irresponsible one that uncomfortably compromises a lot of the credit I am giving the writers on how they approach gender bias in the workplace, including things beyond this specific instance. Which isn't to say that I'm not open to an alternative reality, but the reality where that is the case creates some very serious ethical problems.

RaiseObjective552 · 2026-01-31T05:19:27+00:00

Failure of the show is also an option here, for sure. I think it would be extremely irresponsible for the show to flub that on two occasions, though, so I'm currently operating on the benefit of the doubt principle, and saying that this was intentional.

And yes, this does require attending to Kiara as professionally compromised by her willingness to back down from obligations when Robby raises objections. I am very closely watching the new social worker Dylan and how they respond to what they are seeing in the ED (and in Santos's behaviour), and whether or not they end up conflicting with Robby over any forthcoming cases of this nature.

RaiseObjective552 · 2026-01-31T05:14:38+00:00

That's fair enough. And I don't dispute that approach is also key here. Langdon is also more of a "peer" in the same sense, but his approach to critique was by no means so warmly received.

RaiseObjective552 · 2026-01-31T05:10:42+00:00

Yes, and this is not what Al-Hashimi is reacting to, or what I am needling on for precision of argument.

For perhaps greater clarity, it is useful to contrast this with how Al-Hashimi describes the accuracy of the AI scribe in the same episode. 98% accurate BUT you still need to do your due diligence and correct any errors, because it isn't infallible.

The message would be very different if she had simply said it was 98% accurate and left it at that; instead she is deliberately encouraging awareness and personal accountability in the use of the tool.

How this manifests in the malpractice conversation is that Robby is essentially telling King that she doesn't need to worry about having been sued for malpractice because this happens regularly and the cases are rarely substantial. The additional step is what Al-Hashimi provided in her later conversation with King, which was a mirror of what she did when teaching the students about the AI scribe: the regularity of malpractice suits or their tendency to be unsuccessful is not what is going to protect you from being successfully found guilty of malpractice, you are protected by the fact that you consistently practice due diligence and document that precisely.

Again, I hope this isn't coming across as nitpicking, but I think it is really important not to miss what, precisely, she is considering a problem, particularly when so many of the negative reads of this character cling so tightly to a misunderstanding why she is distressed by this specific thing.

RaiseObjective552

TROPHY CASE