Follow TV Tropes

Following

History Headscratchers / DesperateHousewives

Go To

OR

Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
Answered some headscratchers

Added DiffLines:

**Probably the same (unseen) way they disposed of the killer sent to their home.


Added DiffLines:

**He went to rehab and was never seen again. Probably relapsed after getting out, since Paul was in prision and both Mike and Mary Alice were dead. The kid had no one left for him anymore. Maybe he went into an asylum and ate his own feces with Dave, who knows....


Added DiffLines:

**She will forever and ever stay at her maternal grandparent's house, eternally unmentioned and eternally a kid.

Added: 99

Changed: 456

Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
Answered a headscratcher.


* If Betty had gone through with killing Caleb, how exactly was she planning to dispose of his body?

to:

* If **I don't know about the ""best"" part of their friendship, but I think they discussed how, before Renee moved to Wisteria Lane, it was only Lynette that went to visit her/was invited to Renee's place. Lynette never invited Renee to stay in fairview, even when she went there during season 7, Renee just invited herself into Lynette's home. This likely has to do with how Lynette feels insecure about being less rich than Renee.
*If
Betty had gone through with killing Caleb, how exactly was she planning to dispose of his body?
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None


*** Lynette took over the restaurant because Tom threw out his back and had to stay bed ridden for a while. Tom then feared she was basically just commander the whole thing from him when he was in an infirmed state. And Lynette only allowed Tom to do the restaurant in the first place out of guilt for getting him FIRED. In the above example, Lynette was doing far more than being casual. She took over the conversation for herself because she loves advertising as well. Tom was not acting as he pleased. He was literally just trying to do his JOB and then Lynette took it over from him. He didn't even finish his presentation and said nothing as Lynette made him feel inferior. That is equally as bad as Tom did that to Lynette. And when he does get annoyed for doing it, she says he should have had better ideas, basically saying that Tom is bad his own job. That is Lynette ''not'' standing up for herself, that is Lynette putting Tom down by insulting him. Tom did not really get away with anything because Lynette would try to manipulate things behind back. Like when she asked his boss ''not'' to give him a promotion which then later lead to Tom getting fired. At best Tom only got permission to do things after Lynette screwed things up and no longer had a high ground to argue back. When Tom decides to be stay a home dad, Lynette can't refuse because she ruined Tom's job for him.


to:

*** Lynette took over the restaurant because Tom threw out his back and had to stay bed ridden for a while. Tom then feared she was basically just commander the whole thing from him when he was in an infirmed state. And Lynette only allowed Tom to do the restaurant in the first place out of guilt for getting him FIRED. In the above example, Lynette was doing far more than being casual. She took over the conversation for herself because she loves advertising as well. Tom was not acting as he pleased. He was literally just trying to do his JOB and then Lynette took it over from him. He didn't even finish his presentation and said nothing as Lynette made him feel inferior. That is equally as bad as Tom did that to Lynette. And when he does get annoyed for doing it, she says he should have had better ideas, basically saying that Tom is bad his own job. That is Lynette ''not'' Lynette standing up for herself, that is Lynette putting Tom down by insulting him. Tom did not really get away with anything because Lynette would try to manipulate things behind back. Like when she asked his boss ''not'' to give him a promotion which then later lead to Tom getting fired. At best Tom only got permission to do things after Lynette screwed things up and no longer had a high ground to argue back. When Tom decides to be stay a home dad, Lynette can't refuse because she ruined Tom's job for him.

Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None




to:

\n*** Lynette took over the restaurant because Tom threw out his back and had to stay bed ridden for a while. Tom then feared she was basically just commander the whole thing from him when he was in an infirmed state. And Lynette only allowed Tom to do the restaurant in the first place out of guilt for getting him FIRED. In the above example, Lynette was doing far more than being casual. She took over the conversation for herself because she loves advertising as well. Tom was not acting as he pleased. He was literally just trying to do his JOB and then Lynette took it over from him. He didn't even finish his presentation and said nothing as Lynette made him feel inferior. That is equally as bad as Tom did that to Lynette. And when he does get annoyed for doing it, she says he should have had better ideas, basically saying that Tom is bad his own job. That is Lynette ''not'' standing up for herself, that is Lynette putting Tom down by insulting him. Tom did not really get away with anything because Lynette would try to manipulate things behind back. Like when she asked his boss ''not'' to give him a promotion which then later lead to Tom getting fired. At best Tom only got permission to do things after Lynette screwed things up and no longer had a high ground to argue back. When Tom decides to be stay a home dad, Lynette can't refuse because she ruined Tom's job for him.

Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None


** Lynette had to take over at the restaurant, because Tom had NO idea how to run one and had insisted on spending their life savings to try. Had she not helped, they would’ve gone under within a month. How is that controlling? As for that “perfect example”, you didn’t quite tell the full story. Lynette was just having fun and casually added 1 idea, from the perspective of a mother, since that’s the idea Tom had come up with. She wasn’t trying to take over or butt in. Tom responded by basically telling her she was meant to be quiet and serve them all food. If she was “emasculating” for snapping back at him after he insulted her, what was Tom for speaking to her like she was to be a subservient housewife, with no ideas of her own?


to:

** **** Lynette had to take over at the restaurant, because Tom had NO idea how to run one and had insisted on spending their life savings to try. Had she not helped, they would’ve gone under within a month. How is that controlling? As for that “perfect example”, you didn’t quite tell the full story. Lynette was just having fun and casually added 1 idea, from the perspective of a mother, since that’s the idea Tom had come up with. She wasn’t trying to take over or butt in. Tom responded by basically telling her she was meant to be quiet and serve them all food. If she was “emasculating” for snapping back at him after he insulted her, what was Tom for speaking to her like she was to be a subservient housewife, with no ideas of her own?

own? It seems to me that people think Tom was perfectly justified to act however he pleased and if Lynette ever stood up to him or tried to help, she was “emasculating” and “controlling”. Tom got his way 90% of the time, yet still had the nerve to say Lynette always got her way.

Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None



*** Lynette had to take over at the restaurant, because Tom had NO idea how to run one and had insisted on spending their life savings to try. Had she not helped, they would’ve gone under within a month. How is that controlling? As for that “perfect example”, you didn’t quite tell the full story. Lynette was just having fun and casually added 1 idea, from the perspective of a mother, since that’s the idea Tom had come up with. She wasn’t trying to take over or butt in. Tom responded by basically telling her she was meant to be quiet and serve them all food. If she was “emasculating” for snapping back at him after he insulted her, what was Tom for speaking to her like she was to be a subservient housewife, with no ideas of her own?


to:

\n*** ** Lynette had to take over at the restaurant, because Tom had NO idea how to run one and had insisted on spending their life savings to try. Had she not helped, they would’ve gone under within a month. How is that controlling? As for that “perfect example”, you didn’t quite tell the full story. Lynette was just having fun and casually added 1 idea, from the perspective of a mother, since that’s the idea Tom had come up with. She wasn’t trying to take over or butt in. Tom responded by basically telling her she was meant to be quiet and serve them all food. If she was “emasculating” for snapping back at him after he insulted her, what was Tom for speaking to her like she was to be a subservient housewife, with no ideas of her own?

Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None


*** Lynette had to take over at the restaurant, because Tom had NO idea how to run one and had insisted on spending their life savings to try. Had she not helped, they would’ve gone under within a month. How is that controlling?
As for that “perfect example”, you didn’t quite tell the full story. Lynette was just having fun and casually added 1 idea, from the perspective of a mother, since that’s the idea Tom had come up with. She wasn’t trying to take over or butt in. Tom responded by basically telling her she was meant to be quiet and served them all food. If she was “emasculating” for snapping back at him after he insulted her, what was Tom for speaking to her like she was to be a subservient housewife, with no ideas of her own? Or is it ok when men do the female version of “emasculation”?


to:

*** Lynette had to take over at the restaurant, because Tom had NO idea how to run one and had insisted on spending their life savings to try. Had she not helped, they would’ve gone under within a month. How is that controlling?
controlling? As for that “perfect example”, you didn’t quite tell the full story. Lynette was just having fun and casually added 1 idea, from the perspective of a mother, since that’s the idea Tom had come up with. She wasn’t trying to take over or butt in. Tom responded by basically telling her she was meant to be quiet and served serve them all food. If she was “emasculating” for snapping back at him after he insulted her, what was Tom for speaking to her like she was to be a subservient housewife, with no ideas of her own? Or is it ok when men do the female version of “emasculation”?

own?

Added: 229

Changed: 229

Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
Edited a mistake


*** Lynette had to take over at the restaurant, because Tom had NO idea how to run one and had insisted on spending their life savings to try. Had she not helped, they would’ve gone under within a month. How is that controlling?

to:

***
****
Lynette had to take over at the restaurant, because Tom had NO idea how to run one and had insisted on spending their life savings to try. Had she not helped, they would’ve gone under within a month. How is that controlling?


Added DiffLines:

Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None


** Lynette had to take over at the restaurant, because Tom had NO idea how to run one and had insisted on spending their life savings to try. Had she not helped, they would’ve gone under within a month. How is that controlling?
As for that “perfect example”, you didn’t quite tell the full story. Lynette was just having fun and casually added 1 idea, from the perspective of a mother, since that’s the idea Tom had come up with. She wasn’t trying to take over or butt in. Tom responded by basically telling her she was meant to be quiet and served them all food. If she was “emasculating” for snapping back at him after he insulted her, what was Tom for speaking to her like she was to be a subservient housewife, with no ideas of her own?

to:

** **** Lynette had to take over at the restaurant, because Tom had NO idea how to run one and had insisted on spending their life savings to try. Had she not helped, they would’ve gone under within a month. How is that controlling?
As for that “perfect example”, you didn’t quite tell the full story. Lynette was just having fun and casually added 1 idea, from the perspective of a mother, since that’s the idea Tom had come up with. She wasn’t trying to take over or butt in. Tom responded by basically telling her she was meant to be quiet and served them all food. If she was “emasculating” for snapping back at him after he insulted her, what was Tom for speaking to her like she was to be a subservient housewife, with no ideas of her own?
own? Or is it ok when men do the female version of “emasculation”?

Added: 512

Changed: 228

Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
Added an opinion



to:

** Lynette had to take over at the restaurant, because Tom had NO idea how to run one and had insisted on spending their life savings to try. Had she not helped, they would’ve gone under within a month. How is that controlling?
As for that “perfect example”, you didn’t quite tell the full story. Lynette was just having fun and casually added 1 idea, from the perspective of a mother, since that’s the idea Tom had come up with. She wasn’t trying to take over or butt in. Tom responded by basically telling her she was meant to be quiet and served them all food. If she was “emasculating” for snapping back at him after he insulted her, what was Tom for speaking to her like she was to be a subservient housewife, with no ideas of her own?
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None

Added DiffLines:

* What happens to Paul Young?
** Presumably he goes back to jail but for a much shorter time due to confessing.
* What happens to Zack?
* What happens to Kayla?
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None



to:

*** Not always, but yes, Lynette's way had to always the *right* way. Tom did not quit his job. He LOST his job. Twice in fact. And both times were due to Lynette's actions. Tom then simply wanted to get back at her by staying at home and letting her go back to work. Even when Lynette does try to support him, she ends up commandeering things herself to make sure they work out, which is a common trait of a control freak. They don't trust anyone else to do it. And when she does, she is quick to take authority over Tom. This is what she does with the restaurant, despite not even wanting to do it. Tom fears Lynette gives him no say in things. Another perfect example is from Season 1. Tom invited his boss over to dinner to go over some new ad ideas. When Tom starts talking about his idea, Lynette(who is not working at this stage) butts in and starts giving her own ideas to use, impressing Tom's boss and basically stealing Tom's presentation. When Tom later complains to Lynette about doing this, she just retorts that Tom should have ''better ideas''. That all sounds very emasculating.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None


*** the above example doesn’t prove that Lynette was too controlling though. It proved that she could be controlling, which isn’t something the op denied. The point was that Lynette was portrayed as always getting her own way, typically due to controlling situations. The problem is - the opposite was actually true. Tom was the one who typically got his own way, from quitting his job and forcing Lynette back into work, to throwing their life savings into a restaurant he couldn’t even run properly (complaining when Lynette had the nerve to step in and get a license to sell alcohol since he couldn’t) - Tom got his own way a LOT for someone who was portrayed as a poor little controlled husband, who was ruled by his horrible wife.

to:

*** the The above example doesn’t prove that Lynette was too controlling though. It proved proves that she could be controlling, which isn’t something the op denied. The point was that Lynette was portrayed as someone who always getting got her own way, typically due to controlling situations. The problem is - the opposite was actually true. Tom was the one who typically got his own way, from quitting his job and forcing Lynette back into work, to throwing their life savings into a restaurant he couldn’t even run properly (complaining when Lynette had the nerve to step in and get a license to sell alcohol since he couldn’t) couldn’t), to Lynette putting up with the horrible woman he had a child with, to Lynette then having to put up with his horrible abusive daughter, to Tom going back to college - Tom got his own way a LOT for someone who was portrayed as a poor little controlled husband, who was ruled by his horrible wife.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None


** I don’t think anyone is saying that Lynette was never controlling. The point is that she was always said to be controlling, but Tom always got away with acting like a little child, pushing Lynette into doing things she didn’t want to do (throwing their life savings into a restaurant that Tom didn’t even know how to run properly) and generally getting his own way. For a women who was allegedly too controlling, she didn’t half let Tom get away with doing stupid things.

to:

** I don’t think anyone is saying *** the above example doesn’t prove that Lynette was never controlling. The point is too controlling though. It proved that she was always said to could be controlling, but Tom always got away with acting like a little child, pushing which isn’t something the op denied. The point was that Lynette was portrayed as always getting her own way, typically due to controlling situations. The problem is - the opposite was actually true. Tom was the one who typically got his own way, from quitting his job and forcing Lynette back into doing things she didn’t want work, to do (throwing throwing their life savings into a restaurant that Tom didn’t he couldn’t even know how to run properly) properly (complaining when Lynette had the nerve to step in and generally getting get a license to sell alcohol since he couldn’t) - Tom got his own way. For way a women LOT for someone who was allegedly too controlling, she didn’t half let Tom get away with doing stupid things.portrayed as a poor little controlled husband, who was ruled by his horrible wife.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None




to:

\n** I don’t think anyone is saying that Lynette was never controlling. The point is that she was always said to be controlling, but Tom always got away with acting like a little child, pushing Lynette into doing things she didn’t want to do (throwing their life savings into a restaurant that Tom didn’t even know how to run properly) and generally getting his own way. For a women who was allegedly too controlling, she didn’t half let Tom get away with doing stupid things.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None


* If Betty had gone through with killing Caleb, how exactly was planning on disposing of his body?

to:

* If Betty had gone through with killing Caleb, how exactly was she planning on disposing to dispose of his body?
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None

Added DiffLines:

* If Betty had gone through with killing Caleb, how exactly was planning on disposing of his body?
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None




to:

\n** Except that Lynette ''is'' shown to be too controlling, not just with Tom but with many aspects of her life. A perfect example is the end of Season 1. Lynette is not happy that Tom's ex-girlfriend is working as his partner at work. Lynette insists Tom get rid of her, but Tom refuses. So, Lynette takes matters into her own hands and tries to set Tom's ex up at new firm. This, however, backfires and Tom ends up losing his own job. So that was not Tom being childish in any way. Lynette is the one who inferred and damaged his career. It's not a monolithic routine of course. Sometimes Tom is too irresponsible but Lynette at times was too overbearing. This co-dependency simply got worse in the last few seasons.

Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None

Added DiffLines:

* The show frequently told us that Lynette always got her own way and Tom never did, when really it was the opposite way around. Lynette gave in to his childish whims much too often, usually after he whined about being “emasculated”. Why was she portrayed as the bad guy, when he always made childish decisions and rarely thought through his schemes? Lynette was just being responsible, but she was portrayed as “controlling”.

Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None

Added DiffLines:

** Maybe she went prematurely grey?


Added DiffLines:

** My theory is that Paul decided very early on that the safest thing to do would be to move him and his son as far away as possible. While it's not likely the pool would be dug up any time ''soon'', there's no guarantee it '''never''' would be. Digging up that chest isn't as stupid as it seems at first provided he then put it somewhere more secure. So the better question would be why Paul then proceeded to throw the airtight, unweighted box into a river where it would obviously be found quickly...

Added: 4

Changed: 1

Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None


* If Renee is Lynette's best friend and has been since college (as Lynette says to Tom when mad at him over sleeping with her) why have her children never met her before? Especially as she is so keen to rub Renee's face in her beautiful family

to:

* If Renee is Lynette's best friend and has been since college (as Lynette says to Tom when mad at him over sleeping with her) why have her children never met her before? Especially as she is so keen to rub Renee's face in her beautiful familyfamily.
----

Top