Barbie movie 'iconic' monologue is BS

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I agree op.

I think a bunch of those individual statements aren’t even true.

Like, when have I ever answered for men’s bad behavior? Haven’t done that!!

A bunch of other things too, but I don’t have time to go back and refute them all.

Me again: “You have to never get old”

That is happening all around us all the time.

No one tells my mom or mil they are terrible people for growing old. They’re awesome and their character and actions shine through. People love them even more as they age.

If you read the monologue again, it sounds like this is Greta’s letter to Hollywood. But that’s Hollywood. She can always get out of there, or deal with the crap.

Outside of certain arenas, people and women are so much more free.

Are you sure nobody ever told them that their normal libido decline was not acceptable. Are u sure if they were told this you would have been included in that revelation.

WTF? Are you the same weird troll who has been twisting everyone's words and writing nonsensical posts? Find a hobby!
DP

Nothing of substance. Carry on.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I didn't like the monologue either especially the beginning..."it's literally impossible to be a woman"

It's not impossible. I am one everyday. So much of it was the helpless, victim role, but women never acknowledge how we feed into it especially things like beauty standards, plastic surgery, etc. Women put that pressure on themselves.

Did you never study even a little feminism? I mean, The Beauty Myth has many flaws but it covered this ground 30 years ago -- and was required reading in my high school in the 90s.

I agree with a PP who thought the movie was pretty dark (though fun!) and the monologue is not really the point of the story. I wouldn't be shocked if it was a late addition.

I think it is a generational thing. As a Boomer, I thought the monologue was directed to Gen X women. My Gen X friends found the monologue to be very moving and touching, while my Boomer friends and I thought, basically, "No sh!t, Sherlock", and "Didn't we figure this out 50 years ago?"

That’s an interesting take.
I’m a GenX-er and I let out an audible laugh at this monologue because to me, it feeds right into what the boomers were told would happen (usually by men who were not pleased with the whole “women in the workplace” thing). “You won’t like it….” “You can’t do it ALL”, “We have division of labor in a household for a reason”, “running a home is a full-time job! You can’t expect to work 8-10 hours a day and come home with energy left over to do all of the following: grocery shop, cook, do laundry, clean, take care of the kids/help with homework, volunteer in the community/school…you’ll hate it!”
But our moms said “no, no—we got this! Watch us!”

But it turns out the nay-sayers weren’t wrong. At all.

As evidenced by the monologue.

I chose to stay at home and pour all my energy into the full-time job there. And I don’t feel that “expectation” that America Ferrera ranted about.
It honestly comes off as someone whining about getting what you signed up for!

I think the “you can’t do it all” is just BS to make people who can’t work and take care of their family and feel better.

So in other words—you CAN do it all…you just need the recognition of being a martyr for it, righ?
That’s what the monologue is. It’s double-speak. “Don’t you dare tell me I can’t do it all”—that’s BS…
“But now I will complain about how miserable it makes me to do so and how terrible “the world” is to me for putting these “impossible expectations” on me.”

Tiresome.

Yes I can. But I can’t be a football player.

I’m not threatened by the fact someone can be a football player and you should not be threatened that I can “do it all”.

Btw, running a house is not a full time job.

Great! You seem very fulfilled at “doing it all” and extremely satisfied that none of this is an issue for you. That’s wonderful for you.
And I’m not threatened by that.
But I’d think if that were true then this monologue would seem quite silly to you in the first place.

It’s a movie about a plastic doll, of course it’s silly.

But you are misunderstanding the monologue.

I have it all and I’m criticizing. Like you are criticizing my ability to do it all. In your assertion, I must not be doing it all because I work so there is something that you think I’m not doing.

So you are doing exactly what the monologue says.

I was thin and told too thin, then I was a healthy weight and told I needed to lose weight, then I worked and criticized for not “always being home” even if my kid was literally sleeping or in school, and on and on

But I never said you SHOULD (or even COULD) do all those things. YOU did.
You are creating the dichotomy in your own mind. And then complaining about how it’s impossible to have it both ways. (Except something you are still claiming that YOU do it all. Except. You don’t.)

For example, you can’t work outside the home AND be the caregiver for your 3-year old. So you EITHER don’t work during that time OR you outsource the caregiving to someone else.
That isn’t doing it all. Because it’s literally not possible to be two places at once.
Your husband can do it while you go to work. But that’s division of labor, not “doing it all.”


And for some weird reason

You just posted that having a father raise his child is akin to outsourcing… wtf.

DP. Um, no - she didn't say that at all. She correctly called it "division of labor" - when one parent cares for the children while the other goes to work. That's the very opposite of outsourcing. You seem very confused, not to mention triggered.

+1. I also noticed this. I work F/T and division of labor and, more so, outsourcing childcare during working hours, allow me to work full time. I don’t care for my children full time and that’s ok, that’s a choice I’ve made. But I wouldn’t say that I do everything a sahm does because I don’t. They spend an extra 40+ hrs a week in which they can spend time with their kids and take care of their home.
Minimizing this isn’t fair to sahms or working moms as we all have to make compromises and pretending we don’t perpetuates this pressure to do both work and home at 100%. Why would we pretend that this is doable or even a “right” choice?

Depends.

I’m not sure SAHM’s have 40+ extra hours for example .., school aged kids, kids who nap or go to preschool. If a SAHM goes to a gym with a daycare are they not caring for their kids.

I have a friend who is a SAHM, she goes to the gym every morning and her H does morning routine, I’d say she does it all… you’d say she doesn’t.

Why?

What you’ve bought into is that you’re not doing it all if you spend one second away from your child.

That’s the lie you’ve bought into.

Dp I dont think that is whar mosr people talk about wgen they say " having it all" it is almost like you deliberately dont want to

Just to be clear you and I agree.

I said “I do it all” and a poster said, no you don’t. It’s impossible.

They said because my H does morning routine and I don’t slaughter my own meat it’s clear I don’t do it all. That’s insane thinking.

So you and I agree, some people “do it all”/“have it all”. Some insane outlier activity nobody cares about doesn’t mean you don’t.

That’s not what most people are talking about.

JFC. You have totally missed the point of many of these posts with your absurd fixation on one poster's analogy about meat, which was not meant to be taken literally. Honestly, I don't think anyone here agrees with you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I didn't like the monologue either especially the beginning..."it's literally impossible to be a woman"

It's not impossible. I am one everyday. So much of it was the helpless, victim role, but women never acknowledge how we feed into it especially things like beauty standards, plastic surgery, etc. Women put that pressure on themselves.

Did you never study even a little feminism? I mean, The Beauty Myth has many flaws but it covered this ground 30 years ago -- and was required reading in my high school in the 90s.

I agree with a PP who thought the movie was pretty dark (though fun!) and the monologue is not really the point of the story. I wouldn't be shocked if it was a late addition.

I think it is a generational thing. As a Boomer, I thought the monologue was directed to Gen X women. My Gen X friends found the monologue to be very moving and touching, while my Boomer friends and I thought, basically, "No sh!t, Sherlock", and "Didn't we figure this out 50 years ago?"

That’s an interesting take.
I’m a GenX-er and I let out an audible laugh at this monologue because to me, it feeds right into what the boomers were told would happen (usually by men who were not pleased with the whole “women in the workplace” thing). “You won’t like it….” “You can’t do it ALL”, “We have division of labor in a household for a reason”, “running a home is a full-time job! You can’t expect to work 8-10 hours a day and come home with energy left over to do all of the following: grocery shop, cook, do laundry, clean, take care of the kids/help with homework, volunteer in the community/school…you’ll hate it!”
But our moms said “no, no—we got this! Watch us!”

But it turns out the nay-sayers weren’t wrong. At all.

As evidenced by the monologue.

I chose to stay at home and pour all my energy into the full-time job there. And I don’t feel that “expectation” that America Ferrera ranted about.
It honestly comes off as someone whining about getting what you signed up for!

I think the “you can’t do it all” is just BS to make people who can’t work and take care of their family and feel better.

So in other words—you CAN do it all…you just need the recognition of being a martyr for it, righ?
That’s what the monologue is. It’s double-speak. “Don’t you dare tell me I can’t do it all”—that’s BS…
“But now I will complain about how miserable it makes me to do so and how terrible “the world” is to me for putting these “impossible expectations” on me.”

Tiresome.

Yes I can. But I can’t be a football player.

I’m not threatened by the fact someone can be a football player and you should not be threatened that I can “do it all”.

Btw, running a house is not a full time job.

Great! You seem very fulfilled at “doing it all” and extremely satisfied that none of this is an issue for you. That’s wonderful for you.
And I’m not threatened by that.
But I’d think if that were true then this monologue would seem quite silly to you in the first place.

It’s a movie about a plastic doll, of course it’s silly.

But you are misunderstanding the monologue.

I have it all and I’m criticizing. Like you are criticizing my ability to do it all. In your assertion, I must not be doing it all because I work so there is something that you think I’m not doing.

So you are doing exactly what the monologue says.

I was thin and told too thin, then I was a healthy weight and told I needed to lose weight, then I worked and criticized for not “always being home” even if my kid was literally sleeping or in school, and on and on

But I never said you SHOULD (or even COULD) do all those things. YOU did.
You are creating the dichotomy in your own mind. And then complaining about how it’s impossible to have it both ways. (Except something you are still claiming that YOU do it all. Except. You don’t.)

For example, you can’t work outside the home AND be the caregiver for your 3-year old. So you EITHER don’t work during that time OR you outsource the caregiving to someone else.
That isn’t doing it all. Because it’s literally not possible to be two places at once.
Your husband can do it while you go to work. But that’s division of labor, not “doing it all.”


And for some weird reason

You just posted that having a father raise his child is akin to outsourcing… wtf.

DP. Um, no - she didn't say that at all. She correctly called it "division of labor" - when one parent cares for the children while the other goes to work. That's the very opposite of outsourcing. You seem very confused, not to mention triggered.

+1. I also noticed this. I work F/T and division of labor and, more so, outsourcing childcare during working hours, allow me to work full time. I don’t care for my children full time and that’s ok, that’s a choice I’ve made. But I wouldn’t say that I do everything a sahm does because I don’t. They spend an extra 40+ hrs a week in which they can spend time with their kids and take care of their home.
Minimizing this isn’t fair to sahms or working moms as we all have to make compromises and pretending we don’t perpetuates this pressure to do both work and home at 100%. Why would we pretend that this is doable or even a “right” choice?

Depends.

I’m not sure SAHM’s have 40+ extra hours for example .., school aged kids, kids who nap or go to preschool. If a SAHM goes to a gym with a daycare are they not caring for their kids.

I have a friend who is a SAHM, she goes to the gym every morning and her H does morning routine, I’d say she does it all… you’d say she doesn’t.

Why?

What you’ve bought into is that you’re not doing it all if you spend one second away from your child.

That’s the lie you’ve bought into.

Dp I dont think that is whar mosr people talk about wgen they say " having it all" it is almost like you deliberately dont want to

Just to be clear you and I agree.

I said “I do it all” and a poster said, no you don’t. It’s impossible.

They said because my H does morning routine and I don’t slaughter my own meat it’s clear I don’t do it all. That’s insane thinking.

So you and I agree, some people “do it all”/“have it all”. Some insane outlier activity nobody cares about doesn’t mean you don’t.

That’s not what most people are talking about.

DP. You are an absolute nutjob. Seriously.

+100

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I didn't like the monologue either especially the beginning..."it's literally impossible to be a woman"

It's not impossible. I am one everyday. So much of it was the helpless, victim role, but women never acknowledge how we feed into it especially things like beauty standards, plastic surgery, etc. Women put that pressure on themselves.

Did you never study even a little feminism? I mean, The Beauty Myth has many flaws but it covered this ground 30 years ago -- and was required reading in my high school in the 90s.

I agree with a PP who thought the movie was pretty dark (though fun!) and the monologue is not really the point of the story. I wouldn't be shocked if it was a late addition.

I think it is a generational thing. As a Boomer, I thought the monologue was directed to Gen X women. My Gen X friends found the monologue to be very moving and touching, while my Boomer friends and I thought, basically, "No sh!t, Sherlock", and "Didn't we figure this out 50 years ago?"

That’s an interesting take.
I’m a GenX-er and I let out an audible laugh at this monologue because to me, it feeds right into what the boomers were told would happen (usually by men who were not pleased with the whole “women in the workplace” thing). “You won’t like it….” “You can’t do it ALL”, “We have division of labor in a household for a reason”, “running a home is a full-time job! You can’t expect to work 8-10 hours a day and come home with energy left over to do all of the following: grocery shop, cook, do laundry, clean, take care of the kids/help with homework, volunteer in the community/school…you’ll hate it!”
But our moms said “no, no—we got this! Watch us!”

But it turns out the nay-sayers weren’t wrong. At all.

As evidenced by the monologue.

I chose to stay at home and pour all my energy into the full-time job there. And I don’t feel that “expectation” that America Ferrera ranted about.
It honestly comes off as someone whining about getting what you signed up for!

I think the “you can’t do it all” is just BS to make people who can’t work and take care of their family and feel better.

So in other words—you CAN do it all…you just need the recognition of being a martyr for it, righ?
That’s what the monologue is. It’s double-speak. “Don’t you dare tell me I can’t do it all”—that’s BS…
“But now I will complain about how miserable it makes me to do so and how terrible “the world” is to me for putting these “impossible expectations” on me.”

Tiresome.

Yes I can. But I can’t be a football player.

I’m not threatened by the fact someone can be a football player and you should not be threatened that I can “do it all”.

Btw, running a house is not a full time job.

Great! You seem very fulfilled at “doing it all” and extremely satisfied that none of this is an issue for you. That’s wonderful for you.
And I’m not threatened by that.
But I’d think if that were true then this monologue would seem quite silly to you in the first place.

It’s a movie about a plastic doll, of course it’s silly.

But you are misunderstanding the monologue.

I have it all and I’m criticizing. Like you are criticizing my ability to do it all. In your assertion, I must not be doing it all because I work so there is something that you think I’m not doing.

So you are doing exactly what the monologue says.

I was thin and told too thin, then I was a healthy weight and told I needed to lose weight, then I worked and criticized for not “always being home” even if my kid was literally sleeping or in school, and on and on

But I never said you SHOULD (or even COULD) do all those things. YOU did.
You are creating the dichotomy in your own mind. And then complaining about how it’s impossible to have it both ways. (Except something you are still claiming that YOU do it all. Except. You don’t.)

For example, you can’t work outside the home AND be the caregiver for your 3-year old. So you EITHER don’t work during that time OR you outsource the caregiving to someone else.
That isn’t doing it all. Because it’s literally not possible to be two places at once.
Your husband can do it while you go to work. But that’s division of labor, not “doing it all.”


And for some weird reason

You just posted that having a father raise his child is akin to outsourcing… wtf.

DP. Um, no - she didn't say that at all. She correctly called it "division of labor" - when one parent cares for the children while the other goes to work. That's the very opposite of outsourcing. You seem very confused, not to mention triggered.

+1. I also noticed this. I work F/T and division of labor and, more so, outsourcing childcare during working hours, allow me to work full time. I don’t care for my children full time and that’s ok, that’s a choice I’ve made. But I wouldn’t say that I do everything a sahm does because I don’t. They spend an extra 40+ hrs a week in which they can spend time with their kids and take care of their home.
Minimizing this isn’t fair to sahms or working moms as we all have to make compromises and pretending we don’t perpetuates this pressure to do both work and home at 100%. Why would we pretend that this is doable or even a “right” choice?

Depends.

I’m not sure SAHM’s have 40+ extra hours for example .., school aged kids, kids who nap or go to preschool. If a SAHM goes to a gym with a daycare are they not caring for their kids.

I have a friend who is a SAHM, she goes to the gym every morning and her H does morning routine, I’d say she does it all… you’d say she doesn’t.

Why?

What you’ve bought into is that you’re not doing it all if you spend one second away from your child.

That’s the lie you’ve bought into.

Dp I dont think that is whar mosr people talk about wgen they say " having it all" it is almost like you deliberately dont want to

Just to be clear you and I agree.

I said “I do it all” and a poster said, no you don’t. It’s impossible.

They said because my H does morning routine and I don’t slaughter my own meat it’s clear I don’t do it all. That’s insane thinking.

So you and I agree, some people “do it all”/“have it all”. Some insane outlier activity nobody cares about doesn’t mean you don’t.

That’s not what most people are talking about.

JFC. You have totally missed the point of many of these posts with your absurd fixation on one poster's analogy about meat, which was not meant to be taken literally. Honestly, I don't think anyone here agrees with you.

You are only proving the point of the PP that stated the whole movie is about women putting women down women for their own experiences .

Embrace your experiences and stop trying to make everyone own your experience.

Someone might have it all, it’s okay it doesn’t devalue the fact that you don’t

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I didn't like the monologue either especially the beginning..."it's literally impossible to be a woman"

It's not impossible. I am one everyday. So much of it was the helpless, victim role, but women never acknowledge how we feed into it especially things like beauty standards, plastic surgery, etc. Women put that pressure on themselves.

Did you never study even a little feminism? I mean, The Beauty Myth has many flaws but it covered this ground 30 years ago -- and was required reading in my high school in the 90s.

I agree with a PP who thought the movie was pretty dark (though fun!) and the monologue is not really the point of the story. I wouldn't be shocked if it was a late addition.

I think it is a generational thing. As a Boomer, I thought the monologue was directed to Gen X women. My Gen X friends found the monologue to be very moving and touching, while my Boomer friends and I thought, basically, "No sh!t, Sherlock", and "Didn't we figure this out 50 years ago?"

That’s an interesting take.
I’m a GenX-er and I let out an audible laugh at this monologue because to me, it feeds right into what the boomers were told would happen (usually by men who were not pleased with the whole “women in the workplace” thing). “You won’t like it….” “You can’t do it ALL”, “We have division of labor in a household for a reason”, “running a home is a full-time job! You can’t expect to work 8-10 hours a day and come home with energy left over to do all of the following: grocery shop, cook, do laundry, clean, take care of the kids/help with homework, volunteer in the community/school…you’ll hate it!”
But our moms said “no, no—we got this! Watch us!”

But it turns out the nay-sayers weren’t wrong. At all.

As evidenced by the monologue.

I chose to stay at home and pour all my energy into the full-time job there. And I don’t feel that “expectation” that America Ferrera ranted about.
It honestly comes off as someone whining about getting what you signed up for!

I think the “you can’t do it all” is just BS to make people who can’t work and take care of their family and feel better.

So in other words—you CAN do it all…you just need the recognition of being a martyr for it, righ?
That’s what the monologue is. It’s double-speak. “Don’t you dare tell me I can’t do it all”—that’s BS…
“But now I will complain about how miserable it makes me to do so and how terrible “the world” is to me for putting these “impossible expectations” on me.”

Tiresome.

Yes I can. But I can’t be a football player.

I’m not threatened by the fact someone can be a football player and you should not be threatened that I can “do it all”.

Btw, running a house is not a full time job.

Great! You seem very fulfilled at “doing it all” and extremely satisfied that none of this is an issue for you. That’s wonderful for you.
And I’m not threatened by that.
But I’d think if that were true then this monologue would seem quite silly to you in the first place.

It’s a movie about a plastic doll, of course it’s silly.

But you are misunderstanding the monologue.

I have it all and I’m criticizing. Like you are criticizing my ability to do it all. In your assertion, I must not be doing it all because I work so there is something that you think I’m not doing.

So you are doing exactly what the monologue says.

I was thin and told too thin, then I was a healthy weight and told I needed to lose weight, then I worked and criticized for not “always being home” even if my kid was literally sleeping or in school, and on and on

But I never said you SHOULD (or even COULD) do all those things. YOU did.
You are creating the dichotomy in your own mind. And then complaining about how it’s impossible to have it both ways. (Except something you are still claiming that YOU do it all. Except. You don’t.)

For example, you can’t work outside the home AND be the caregiver for your 3-year old. So you EITHER don’t work during that time OR you outsource the caregiving to someone else.
That isn’t doing it all. Because it’s literally not possible to be two places at once.
Your husband can do it while you go to work. But that’s division of labor, not “doing it all.”


And for some weird reason

You just posted that having a father raise his child is akin to outsourcing… wtf.

DP. Um, no - she didn't say that at all. She correctly called it "division of labor" - when one parent cares for the children while the other goes to work. That's the very opposite of outsourcing. You seem very confused, not to mention triggered.

+1. I also noticed this. I work F/T and division of labor and, more so, outsourcing childcare during working hours, allow me to work full time. I don’t care for my children full time and that’s ok, that’s a choice I’ve made. But I wouldn’t say that I do everything a sahm does because I don’t. They spend an extra 40+ hrs a week in which they can spend time with their kids and take care of their home.
Minimizing this isn’t fair to sahms or working moms as we all have to make compromises and pretending we don’t perpetuates this pressure to do both work and home at 100%. Why would we pretend that this is doable or even a “right” choice?

Depends.

I’m not sure SAHM’s have 40+ extra hours for example .., school aged kids, kids who nap or go to preschool. If a SAHM goes to a gym with a daycare are they not caring for their kids.

I have a friend who is a SAHM, she goes to the gym every morning and her H does morning routine, I’d say she does it all… you’d say she doesn’t.

Why?

What you’ve bought into is that you’re not doing it all if you spend one second away from your child.

That’s the lie you’ve bought into.

Dp I dont think that is whar mosr people talk about wgen they say " having it all" it is almost like you deliberately dont want to

Just to be clear you and I agree.

I said “I do it all” and a poster said, no you don’t. It’s impossible.

They said because my H does morning routine and I don’t slaughter my own meat it’s clear I don’t do it all. That’s insane thinking.

So you and I agree, some people “do it all”/“have it all”. Some insane outlier activity nobody cares about doesn’t mean you don’t.

That’s not what most people are talking about.

JFC. You have totally missed the point of many of these posts with your absurd fixation on one poster's analogy about meat, which was not meant to be taken literally. Honestly, I don't think anyone here agrees with you.

You are only proving the point of the PP that stated the whole movie is about women putting women down women for their own experiences .

Embrace your experiences and stop trying to make everyone own your experience.

Someone might have it all, it’s okay it doesn’t devalue the fact that you don’t

What is having “it all” mean to you? Do you think others might define it differently?

What is doing “it all” mean to you? Do you think others might define it differently?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I didn't like the monologue either especially the beginning..."it's literally impossible to be a woman"

It's not impossible. I am one everyday. So much of it was the helpless, victim role, but women never acknowledge how we feed into it especially things like beauty standards, plastic surgery, etc. Women put that pressure on themselves.

Did you never study even a little feminism? I mean, The Beauty Myth has many flaws but it covered this ground 30 years ago -- and was required reading in my high school in the 90s.

I agree with a PP who thought the movie was pretty dark (though fun!) and the monologue is not really the point of the story. I wouldn't be shocked if it was a late addition.

I think it is a generational thing. As a Boomer, I thought the monologue was directed to Gen X women. My Gen X friends found the monologue to be very moving and touching, while my Boomer friends and I thought, basically, "No sh!t, Sherlock", and "Didn't we figure this out 50 years ago?"

That’s an interesting take.
I’m a GenX-er and I let out an audible laugh at this monologue because to me, it feeds right into what the boomers were told would happen (usually by men who were not pleased with the whole “women in the workplace” thing). “You won’t like it….” “You can’t do it ALL”, “We have division of labor in a household for a reason”, “running a home is a full-time job! You can’t expect to work 8-10 hours a day and come home with energy left over to do all of the following: grocery shop, cook, do laundry, clean, take care of the kids/help with homework, volunteer in the community/school…you’ll hate it!”
But our moms said “no, no—we got this! Watch us!”

But it turns out the nay-sayers weren’t wrong. At all.

As evidenced by the monologue.

I chose to stay at home and pour all my energy into the full-time job there. And I don’t feel that “expectation” that America Ferrera ranted about.
It honestly comes off as someone whining about getting what you signed up for!

I think the “you can’t do it all” is just BS to make people who can’t work and take care of their family and feel better.

So in other words—you CAN do it all…you just need the recognition of being a martyr for it, righ?
That’s what the monologue is. It’s double-speak. “Don’t you dare tell me I can’t do it all”—that’s BS…
“But now I will complain about how miserable it makes me to do so and how terrible “the world” is to me for putting these “impossible expectations” on me.”

Tiresome.

Yes I can. But I can’t be a football player.

I’m not threatened by the fact someone can be a football player and you should not be threatened that I can “do it all”.

Btw, running a house is not a full time job.

Great! You seem very fulfilled at “doing it all” and extremely satisfied that none of this is an issue for you. That’s wonderful for you.
And I’m not threatened by that.
But I’d think if that were true then this monologue would seem quite silly to you in the first place.

It’s a movie about a plastic doll, of course it’s silly.

But you are misunderstanding the monologue.

I have it all and I’m criticizing. Like you are criticizing my ability to do it all. In your assertion, I must not be doing it all because I work so there is something that you think I’m not doing.

So you are doing exactly what the monologue says.

I was thin and told too thin, then I was a healthy weight and told I needed to lose weight, then I worked and criticized for not “always being home” even if my kid was literally sleeping or in school, and on and on

But I never said you SHOULD (or even COULD) do all those things. YOU did.
You are creating the dichotomy in your own mind. And then complaining about how it’s impossible to have it both ways. (Except something you are still claiming that YOU do it all. Except. You don’t.)

For example, you can’t work outside the home AND be the caregiver for your 3-year old. So you EITHER don’t work during that time OR you outsource the caregiving to someone else.
That isn’t doing it all. Because it’s literally not possible to be two places at once.
Your husband can do it while you go to work. But that’s division of labor, not “doing it all.”


And for some weird reason

You just posted that having a father raise his child is akin to outsourcing… wtf.

DP. Um, no - she didn't say that at all. She correctly called it "division of labor" - when one parent cares for the children while the other goes to work. That's the very opposite of outsourcing. You seem very confused, not to mention triggered.

+1. I also noticed this. I work F/T and division of labor and, more so, outsourcing childcare during working hours, allow me to work full time. I don’t care for my children full time and that’s ok, that’s a choice I’ve made. But I wouldn’t say that I do everything a sahm does because I don’t. They spend an extra 40+ hrs a week in which they can spend time with their kids and take care of their home.
Minimizing this isn’t fair to sahms or working moms as we all have to make compromises and pretending we don’t perpetuates this pressure to do both work and home at 100%. Why would we pretend that this is doable or even a “right” choice?

Depends.

I’m not sure SAHM’s have 40+ extra hours for example .., school aged kids, kids who nap or go to preschool. If a SAHM goes to a gym with a daycare are they not caring for their kids.

I have a friend who is a SAHM, she goes to the gym every morning and her H does morning routine, I’d say she does it all… you’d say she doesn’t.

Why?

What you’ve bought into is that you’re not doing it all if you spend one second away from your child.

That’s the lie you’ve bought into.

Dp I dont think that is whar mosr people talk about wgen they say " having it all" it is almost like you deliberately dont want to

Just to be clear you and I agree.

I said “I do it all” and a poster said, no you don’t. It’s impossible.

They said because my H does morning routine and I don’t slaughter my own meat it’s clear I don’t do it all. That’s insane thinking.

So you and I agree, some people “do it all”/“have it all”. Some insane outlier activity nobody cares about doesn’t mean you don’t.

That’s not what most people are talking about.

JFC. You have totally missed the point of many of these posts with your absurd fixation on one poster's analogy about meat, which was not meant to be taken literally. Honestly, I don't think anyone here agrees with you.

You are only proving the point of the PP that stated the whole movie is about women putting women down women for their own experiences .

Embrace your experiences and stop trying to make everyone own your experience.

Someone might have it all, it’s okay it doesn’t devalue the fact that you don’t

What is having “it all” mean to you? Do you think others might define it differently?

What is doing “it all” mean to you? Do you think others might define it differently?

Remember we are discussing it in context of the movie.

It’s defined by society as being skinny but not too skinny, being healthy but then you need to lose weight to be more skinny.

Etc

The whole point is that there is a definition, and it’s ambiguous, and if you meet the expectation the goal post moves, then you meet those new expectations then they move again.

So… nobody can “have it all” by the simple fact that society has “told you so”.

I don’t define myself by societies definition. I have it all and it doesn’t matter what it means to you, or you, or you..

When you need to wonder is why when a woman”has it all” in her definition. You have to twist yourself a knots to prove she doesn’t.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I didn't like the monologue either especially the beginning..."it's literally impossible to be a woman"

It's not impossible. I am one everyday. So much of it was the helpless, victim role, but women never acknowledge how we feed into it especially things like beauty standards, plastic surgery, etc. Women put that pressure on themselves.

Did you never study even a little feminism? I mean, The Beauty Myth has many flaws but it covered this ground 30 years ago -- and was required reading in my high school in the 90s.

I agree with a PP who thought the movie was pretty dark (though fun!) and the monologue is not really the point of the story. I wouldn't be shocked if it was a late addition.

I think it is a generational thing. As a Boomer, I thought the monologue was directed to Gen X women. My Gen X friends found the monologue to be very moving and touching, while my Boomer friends and I thought, basically, "No sh!t, Sherlock", and "Didn't we figure this out 50 years ago?"

That’s an interesting take.
I’m a GenX-er and I let out an audible laugh at this monologue because to me, it feeds right into what the boomers were told would happen (usually by men who were not pleased with the whole “women in the workplace” thing). “You won’t like it….” “You can’t do it ALL”, “We have division of labor in a household for a reason”, “running a home is a full-time job! You can’t expect to work 8-10 hours a day and come home with energy left over to do all of the following: grocery shop, cook, do laundry, clean, take care of the kids/help with homework, volunteer in the community/school…you’ll hate it!”
But our moms said “no, no—we got this! Watch us!”

But it turns out the nay-sayers weren’t wrong. At all.

As evidenced by the monologue.

I chose to stay at home and pour all my energy into the full-time job there. And I don’t feel that “expectation” that America Ferrera ranted about.
It honestly comes off as someone whining about getting what you signed up for!

I think the “you can’t do it all” is just BS to make people who can’t work and take care of their family and feel better.

So in other words—you CAN do it all…you just need the recognition of being a martyr for it, righ?
That’s what the monologue is. It’s double-speak. “Don’t you dare tell me I can’t do it all”—that’s BS…
“But now I will complain about how miserable it makes me to do so and how terrible “the world” is to me for putting these “impossible expectations” on me.”

Tiresome.

Yes I can. But I can’t be a football player.

I’m not threatened by the fact someone can be a football player and you should not be threatened that I can “do it all”.

Btw, running a house is not a full time job.

Great! You seem very fulfilled at “doing it all” and extremely satisfied that none of this is an issue for you. That’s wonderful for you.
And I’m not threatened by that.
But I’d think if that were true then this monologue would seem quite silly to you in the first place.

It’s a movie about a plastic doll, of course it’s silly.

But you are misunderstanding the monologue.

I have it all and I’m criticizing. Like you are criticizing my ability to do it all. In your assertion, I must not be doing it all because I work so there is something that you think I’m not doing.

So you are doing exactly what the monologue says.

I was thin and told too thin, then I was a healthy weight and told I needed to lose weight, then I worked and criticized for not “always being home” even if my kid was literally sleeping or in school, and on and on

But I never said you SHOULD (or even COULD) do all those things. YOU did.
You are creating the dichotomy in your own mind. And then complaining about how it’s impossible to have it both ways. (Except something you are still claiming that YOU do it all. Except. You don’t.)

For example, you can’t work outside the home AND be the caregiver for your 3-year old. So you EITHER don’t work during that time OR you outsource the caregiving to someone else.
That isn’t doing it all. Because it’s literally not possible to be two places at once.
Your husband can do it while you go to work. But that’s division of labor, not “doing it all.”


And for some weird reason

You just posted that having a father raise his child is akin to outsourcing… wtf.

DP. Um, no - she didn't say that at all. She correctly called it "division of labor" - when one parent cares for the children while the other goes to work. That's the very opposite of outsourcing. You seem very confused, not to mention triggered.

+1. I also noticed this. I work F/T and division of labor and, more so, outsourcing childcare during working hours, allow me to work full time. I don’t care for my children full time and that’s ok, that’s a choice I’ve made. But I wouldn’t say that I do everything a sahm does because I don’t. They spend an extra 40+ hrs a week in which they can spend time with their kids and take care of their home.
Minimizing this isn’t fair to sahms or working moms as we all have to make compromises and pretending we don’t perpetuates this pressure to do both work and home at 100%. Why would we pretend that this is doable or even a “right” choice?

Depends.

I’m not sure SAHM’s have 40+ extra hours for example .., school aged kids, kids who nap or go to preschool. If a SAHM goes to a gym with a daycare are they not caring for their kids.

I have a friend who is a SAHM, she goes to the gym every morning and her H does morning routine, I’d say she does it all… you’d say she doesn’t.

Why?

What you’ve bought into is that you’re not doing it all if you spend one second away from your child.

That’s the lie you’ve bought into.

Dp I dont think that is whar mosr people talk about wgen they say " having it all" it is almost like you deliberately dont want to

Just to be clear you and I agree.

I said “I do it all” and a poster said, no you don’t. It’s impossible.

They said because my H does morning routine and I don’t slaughter my own meat it’s clear I don’t do it all. That’s insane thinking.

So you and I agree, some people “do it all”/“have it all”. Some insane outlier activity nobody cares about doesn’t mean you don’t.

That’s not what most people are talking about.

JFC. You have totally missed the point of many of these posts with your absurd fixation on one poster's analogy about meat, which was not meant to be taken literally. Honestly, I don't think anyone here agrees with you.

You are only proving the point of the PP that stated the whole movie is about women putting women down women for their own experiences .

Embrace your experiences and stop trying to make everyone own your experience.

Someone might have it all, it’s okay it doesn’t devalue the fact that you don’t

What is having “it all” mean to you? Do you think others might define it differently?

What is doing “it all” mean to you? Do you think others might define it differently?

Remember we are discussing it in context of the movie.

It’s defined by society as being skinny but not too skinny, being healthy but then you need to lose weight to be more skinny.

Etc

The whole point is that there is a definition, and it’s ambiguous, and if you meet the expectation the goal post moves, then you meet those new expectations then they move again.

So… nobody can “have it all” by the simple fact that society has “told you so”.

I don’t define myself by societies definition. I have it all and it doesn’t matter what it means to you, or you, or you..

When you need to wonder is why when a woman”has it all” in her definition. You have to twist yourself a knots to prove she doesn’t.

If “having it all” is a completely subjective feeling with no real definition then I guess I’m not sure why you would feel attached to the phrase. If “it all” is whatever you want it to be and you aren’t using social or cultural expectations as a reference, than everyone and no one has it all. Why would it be important to your happiness that people believe you “have it all” if there is no definition for it? Would you assume any person who is doing what makes them happy “has it all”?

[Anonymous]

One example of the monologue in action for me is in workplace feedback.

When I started working (big tech), I often was told I had “pointy elbows” or needed to “soften my tone.” I have always been direct but no more so than men I work with. I’ve never heard that same feedback lobbied at a man but have heard it many times towards women. On the other hand, I have also heard many women described during the performance review process as needing to be more assertive… seems there is a perfect balance point for women that doesn’t exist for men.

There was a report issued by McKinsey a few years ago that described this phenomenon in more detail, summary here:

https://www.betterup.com/blog/performance-rev...der-bias?hs_amp=true

Maybe you haven’t explicitly felt this OP, but there are definitely still societal pressures put on women in the workplace

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I didn't like the monologue either especially the beginning..."it's literally impossible to be a woman"

It's not impossible. I am one everyday. So much of it was the helpless, victim role, but women never acknowledge how we feed into it especially things like beauty standards, plastic surgery, etc. Women put that pressure on themselves.

Did you never study even a little feminism? I mean, The Beauty Myth has many flaws but it covered this ground 30 years ago -- and was required reading in my high school in the 90s.

I agree with a PP who thought the movie was pretty dark (though fun!) and the monologue is not really the point of the story. I wouldn't be shocked if it was a late addition.

I think it is a generational thing. As a Boomer, I thought the monologue was directed to Gen X women. My Gen X friends found the monologue to be very moving and touching, while my Boomer friends and I thought, basically, "No sh!t, Sherlock", and "Didn't we figure this out 50 years ago?"

That’s an interesting take.
I’m a GenX-er and I let out an audible laugh at this monologue because to me, it feeds right into what the boomers were told would happen (usually by men who were not pleased with the whole “women in the workplace” thing). “You won’t like it….” “You can’t do it ALL”, “We have division of labor in a household for a reason”, “running a home is a full-time job! You can’t expect to work 8-10 hours a day and come home with energy left over to do all of the following: grocery shop, cook, do laundry, clean, take care of the kids/help with homework, volunteer in the community/school…you’ll hate it!”
But our moms said “no, no—we got this! Watch us!”

But it turns out the nay-sayers weren’t wrong. At all.

As evidenced by the monologue.

I chose to stay at home and pour all my energy into the full-time job there. And I don’t feel that “expectation” that America Ferrera ranted about.
It honestly comes off as someone whining about getting what you signed up for!

I think the “you can’t do it all” is just BS to make people who can’t work and take care of their family and feel better.

So in other words—you CAN do it all…you just need the recognition of being a martyr for it, righ?
That’s what the monologue is. It’s double-speak. “Don’t you dare tell me I can’t do it all”—that’s BS…
“But now I will complain about how miserable it makes me to do so and how terrible “the world” is to me for putting these “impossible expectations” on me.”

Tiresome.

Yes I can. But I can’t be a football player.

I’m not threatened by the fact someone can be a football player and you should not be threatened that I can “do it all”.

Btw, running a house is not a full time job.

Great! You seem very fulfilled at “doing it all” and extremely satisfied that none of this is an issue for you. That’s wonderful for you.
And I’m not threatened by that.
But I’d think if that were true then this monologue would seem quite silly to you in the first place.

It’s a movie about a plastic doll, of course it’s silly.

But you are misunderstanding the monologue.

I have it all and I’m criticizing. Like you are criticizing my ability to do it all. In your assertion, I must not be doing it all because I work so there is something that you think I’m not doing.

So you are doing exactly what the monologue says.

I was thin and told too thin, then I was a healthy weight and told I needed to lose weight, then I worked and criticized for not “always being home” even if my kid was literally sleeping or in school, and on and on

But I never said you SHOULD (or even COULD) do all those things. YOU did.
You are creating the dichotomy in your own mind. And then complaining about how it’s impossible to have it both ways. (Except something you are still claiming that YOU do it all. Except. You don’t.)

For example, you can’t work outside the home AND be the caregiver for your 3-year old. So you EITHER don’t work during that time OR you outsource the caregiving to someone else.
That isn’t doing it all. Because it’s literally not possible to be two places at once.
Your husband can do it while you go to work. But that’s division of labor, not “doing it all.”


And for some weird reason

You just posted that having a father raise his child is akin to outsourcing… wtf.

DP. Um, no - she didn't say that at all. She correctly called it "division of labor" - when one parent cares for the children while the other goes to work. That's the very opposite of outsourcing. You seem very confused, not to mention triggered.

+1. I also noticed this. I work F/T and division of labor and, more so, outsourcing childcare during working hours, allow me to work full time. I don’t care for my children full time and that’s ok, that’s a choice I’ve made. But I wouldn’t say that I do everything a sahm does because I don’t. They spend an extra 40+ hrs a week in which they can spend time with their kids and take care of their home.
Minimizing this isn’t fair to sahms or working moms as we all have to make compromises and pretending we don’t perpetuates this pressure to do both work and home at 100%. Why would we pretend that this is doable or even a “right” choice?

Depends.

I’m not sure SAHM’s have 40+ extra hours for example .., school aged kids, kids who nap or go to preschool. If a SAHM goes to a gym with a daycare are they not caring for their kids.

I have a friend who is a SAHM, she goes to the gym every morning and her H does morning routine, I’d say she does it all… you’d say she doesn’t.

Why?

What you’ve bought into is that you’re not doing it all if you spend one second away from your child.

That’s the lie you’ve bought into.

Dp I dont think that is whar mosr people talk about wgen they say " having it all" it is almost like you deliberately dont want to

Just to be clear you and I agree.

I said “I do it all” and a poster said, no you don’t. It’s impossible.

They said because my H does morning routine and I don’t slaughter my own meat it’s clear I don’t do it all. That’s insane thinking.

So you and I agree, some people “do it all”/“have it all”. Some insane outlier activity nobody cares about doesn’t mean you don’t.

That’s not what most people are talking about.

JFC. You have totally missed the point of many of these posts with your absurd fixation on one poster's analogy about meat, which was not meant to be taken literally. Honestly, I don't think anyone here agrees with you.

You are only proving the point of the PP that stated the whole movie is about women putting women down women for their own experiences .

Embrace your experiences and stop trying to make everyone own your experience.

Someone might have it all, it’s okay it doesn’t devalue the fact that you don’t

What is having “it all” mean to you? Do you think others might define it differently?

What is doing “it all” mean to you? Do you think others might define it differently?

Remember we are discussing it in context of the movie.

It’s defined by society as being skinny but not too skinny, being healthy but then you need to lose weight to be more skinny.

Etc

The whole point is that there is a definition, and it’s ambiguous, and if you meet the expectation the goal post moves, then you meet those new expectations then they move again.

So… nobody can “have it all” by the simple fact that society has “told you so”.

I don’t define myself by societies definition. I have it all and it doesn’t matter what it means to you, or you, or you..

When you need to wonder is why when a woman”has it all” in her definition. You have to twist yourself a knots to prove she doesn’t.

If “having it all” is a completely subjective feeling with no real definition then I guess I’m not sure why you would feel attached to the phrase. If “it all” is whatever you want it to be and you aren’t using social or cultural expectations as a reference, than everyone and no one has it all. Why would it be important to your happiness that people believe you “have it all” if there is no definition for it? Would you assume any person who is doing what makes them happy “has it all”?

We are discussing a movie about a fake doll, its call a discussion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:One example of the monologue in action for me is in workplace feedback.

When I started working (big tech), I often was told I had “pointy elbows” or needed to “soften my tone.” I have always been direct but no more so than men I work with. I’ve never heard that same feedback lobbied at a man but have heard it many times towards women. On the other hand, I have also heard many women described during the performance review process as needing to be more assertive… seems there is a perfect balance point for women that doesn’t exist for men.

There was a report issued by McKinsey a few years ago that described this phenomenon in more detail, summary here:

https://www.betterup.com/blog/performance-rev...der-bias?hs_amp=true

Maybe you haven’t explicitly felt this OP, but there are definitely still societal pressures put on women in the workplace

It’s amazing the bias at work.

My boss told me I needed to soften my tone in meetings. He asked how I received that feedback and I told him I didn’t plan to change and I’d share an article with him on why he judged my assertiveness so harshly and might want to change his perspective. lol, he retired the next year and I got a promotion. OTOH, I found people with previous military experience did not perceive directness as aggressiveness. 1/2 our staff is former military (cyber tends to lean heavy on former military)

Here is an article on what happened when a man pretended to be a woman for 2 weeks in email.

https://www.newsweek.com/male-and-female-cowo...-faced-sexism-566507

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I didn't like the monologue either especially the beginning..."it's literally impossible to be a woman"

It's not impossible. I am one everyday. So much of it was the helpless, victim role, but women never acknowledge how we feed into it especially things like beauty standards, plastic surgery, etc. Women put that pressure on themselves.

Did you never study even a little feminism? I mean, The Beauty Myth has many flaws but it covered this ground 30 years ago -- and was required reading in my high school in the 90s.

I agree with a PP who thought the movie was pretty dark (though fun!) and the monologue is not really the point of the story. I wouldn't be shocked if it was a late addition.

I think it is a generational thing. As a Boomer, I thought the monologue was directed to Gen X women. My Gen X friends found the monologue to be very moving and touching, while my Boomer friends and I thought, basically, "No sh!t, Sherlock", and "Didn't we figure this out 50 years ago?"

That’s an interesting take.
I’m a GenX-er and I let out an audible laugh at this monologue because to me, it feeds right into what the boomers were told would happen (usually by men who were not pleased with the whole “women in the workplace” thing). “You won’t like it….” “You can’t do it ALL”, “We have division of labor in a household for a reason”, “running a home is a full-time job! You can’t expect to work 8-10 hours a day and come home with energy left over to do all of the following: grocery shop, cook, do laundry, clean, take care of the kids/help with homework, volunteer in the community/school…you’ll hate it!”
But our moms said “no, no—we got this! Watch us!”

But it turns out the nay-sayers weren’t wrong. At all.

As evidenced by the monologue.

I chose to stay at home and pour all my energy into the full-time job there. And I don’t feel that “expectation” that America Ferrera ranted about.
It honestly comes off as someone whining about getting what you signed up for!

I think the “you can’t do it all” is just BS to make people who can’t work and take care of their family and feel better.

So in other words—you CAN do it all…you just need the recognition of being a martyr for it, righ?
That’s what the monologue is. It’s double-speak. “Don’t you dare tell me I can’t do it all”—that’s BS…
“But now I will complain about how miserable it makes me to do so and how terrible “the world” is to me for putting these “impossible expectations” on me.”

Tiresome.

Yes I can. But I can’t be a football player.

I’m not threatened by the fact someone can be a football player and you should not be threatened that I can “do it all”.

Btw, running a house is not a full time job.

Great! You seem very fulfilled at “doing it all” and extremely satisfied that none of this is an issue for you. That’s wonderful for you.
And I’m not threatened by that.
But I’d think if that were true then this monologue would seem quite silly to you in the first place.

It’s a movie about a plastic doll, of course it’s silly.

But you are misunderstanding the monologue.

I have it all and I’m criticizing. Like you are criticizing my ability to do it all. In your assertion, I must not be doing it all because I work so there is something that you think I’m not doing.

So you are doing exactly what the monologue says.

I was thin and told too thin, then I was a healthy weight and told I needed to lose weight, then I worked and criticized for not “always being home” even if my kid was literally sleeping or in school, and on and on

But I never said you SHOULD (or even COULD) do all those things. YOU did.
You are creating the dichotomy in your own mind. And then complaining about how it’s impossible to have it both ways. (Except something you are still claiming that YOU do it all. Except. You don’t.)

For example, you can’t work outside the home AND be the caregiver for your 3-year old. So you EITHER don’t work during that time OR you outsource the caregiving to someone else.
That isn’t doing it all. Because it’s literally not possible to be two places at once.
Your husband can do it while you go to work. But that’s division of labor, not “doing it all.”


And for some weird reason

You just posted that having a father raise his child is akin to outsourcing… wtf.

DP. Um, no - she didn't say that at all. She correctly called it "division of labor" - when one parent cares for the children while the other goes to work. That's the very opposite of outsourcing. You seem very confused, not to mention triggered.

+1. I also noticed this. I work F/T and division of labor and, more so, outsourcing childcare during working hours, allow me to work full time. I don’t care for my children full time and that’s ok, that’s a choice I’ve made. But I wouldn’t say that I do everything a sahm does because I don’t. They spend an extra 40+ hrs a week in which they can spend time with their kids and take care of their home.
Minimizing this isn’t fair to sahms or working moms as we all have to make compromises and pretending we don’t perpetuates this pressure to do both work and home at 100%. Why would we pretend that this is doable or even a “right” choice?

Depends.

I’m not sure SAHM’s have 40+ extra hours for example .., school aged kids, kids who nap or go to preschool. If a SAHM goes to a gym with a daycare are they not caring for their kids.

I have a friend who is a SAHM, she goes to the gym every morning and her H does morning routine, I’d say she does it all… you’d say she doesn’t.

Why?

What you’ve bought into is that you’re not doing it all if you spend one second away from your child.

That’s the lie you’ve bought into.

Dp I dont think that is whar mosr people talk about wgen they say " having it all" it is almost like you deliberately dont want to

Just to be clear you and I agree.

I said “I do it all” and a poster said, no you don’t. It’s impossible.

They said because my H does morning routine and I don’t slaughter my own meat it’s clear I don’t do it all. That’s insane thinking.

So you and I agree, some people “do it all”/“have it all”. Some insane outlier activity nobody cares about doesn’t mean you don’t.

That’s not what most people are talking about.

JFC. You have totally missed the point of many of these posts with your absurd fixation on one poster's analogy about meat, which was not meant to be taken literally. Honestly, I don't think anyone here agrees with you.

You are only proving the point of the PP that stated the whole movie is about women putting women down women for their own experiences .

Embrace your experiences and stop trying to make everyone own your experience.

Someone might have it all, it’s okay it doesn’t devalue the fact that you don’t

What is having “it all” mean to you? Do you think others might define it differently?

What is doing “it all” mean to you? Do you think others might define it differently?

Remember we are discussing it in context of the movie.

It’s defined by society as being skinny but not too skinny, being healthy but then you need to lose weight to be more skinny.

Etc

The whole point is that there is a definition, and it’s ambiguous, and if you meet the expectation the goal post moves, then you meet those new expectations then they move again.

So… nobody can “have it all” by the simple fact that society has “told you so”.

I don’t define myself by societies definition. I have it all and it doesn’t matter what it means to you, or you, or you..

When you need to wonder is why when a woman”has it all” in her definition. You have to twist yourself a knots to prove she doesn’t.

If “having it all” is a completely subjective feeling with no real definition then I guess I’m not sure why you would feel attached to the phrase. If “it all” is whatever you want it to be and you aren’t using social or cultural expectations as a reference, than everyone and no one has it all. Why would it be important to your happiness that people believe you “have it all” if there is no definition for it? Would you assume any person who is doing what makes them happy “has it all”?

It’s so weird how women are wired; that you perceive that it matters that someone “believe you”.

You should try to go through life just believing in yourself. Every time someone expresses their opinion it’s not a battle to convince them of your own opinion, that’s called being controlling.

Try it, next time someone expresses an opinion you don’t agree with, just take it in, don’t argue against it. You can state your opinion too without trying to change the other person.

It will be very freeing… and your H will certainly appreciate it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:One example of the monologue in action for me is in workplace feedback.

When I started working (big tech), I often was told I had “pointy elbows” or needed to “soften my tone.” I have always been direct but no more so than men I work with. I’ve never heard that same feedback lobbied at a man but have heard it many times towards women. On the other hand, I have also heard many women described during the performance review process as needing to be more assertive… seems there is a perfect balance point for women that doesn’t exist for men.

There was a report issued by McKinsey a few years ago that described this phenomenon in more detail, summary here:

https://www.betterup.com/blog/performance-rev...der-bias?hs_amp=true

Maybe you haven’t explicitly felt this OP, but there are definitely still societal pressures put on women in the workplace

It’s amazing the bias at work.

My boss told me I needed to soften my tone in meetings. He asked how I received that feedback and I told him I didn’t plan to change and I’d share an article with him on why he judged my assertiveness so harshly and might want to change his perspective. lol, he retired the next year and I got a promotion. OTOH, I found people with previous military experience did not perceive directness as aggressiveness. 1/2 our staff is former military (cyber tends to lean heavy on former military)

Here is an article on what happened when a man pretended to be a woman for 2 weeks in email.

https://www.newsweek.com/male-and-female-cowo...-faced-sexism-566507

That story is so good-- it really rings true. I think especially in a job where you never see clients in person, people are particularly subject to stereotypes, and the assumption that men "know more" than women is a common one.

[Anonymous]

Our experience of doing the same thing, thinking the same thing, and being the same way is not the same as yours.

Read it. https://www.newsweek.com/male-and-female-cowo...-faced-sexism-566507

[Anonymous]

The issue with the monologue is it’s too binary: this or that, black or white…harsh opposites. No nuance, no middle ground.

But it’s not surprising as that’s where American society is right now: extreme opposite ends of the spectrum. Pick a side and dig in! You are either with us or against us.

It’s just dumb.

And I’m a Gen X woman with a big DC job and a handful of kids. I live with the challenges every GD day.

PS - I thought the movie would have been better without the real world character subplot. I also thought Barbie lacked empathy for Ken. She came across as a vapid, self-centered user and she never redeemed herself imho.

[Anonymous]

Sounds like the script writer needs mental help.