Reply to Barbie movie 'iconic' monologue is BS

Forum Index » Entertainment and Pop Culture

Reply to "Barbie movie 'iconic' monologue is BS"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]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. [/quote]

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. [/quote]

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?"[/quote]

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!

[/quote]

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.[/quote]

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.”
 :roll: 
Tiresome.[/quote]

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. [/quote]

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.[/quote]

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 [/quote]

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 [/quote]

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

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.[/quote]

+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? [/quote]

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.[/quote]

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[/quote]

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.[/quote]

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.[/quote]

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 [/quote]

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? 
[/quote]

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”.

[b]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..[/b]

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.[/quote]

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”?  [/quote]

We are discussing a movie about a fake doll, its call a discussion.[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics