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.

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.

I think you may have misunderstood, I am not saying that spending a second away from your child means that you don’t care for them I’m saying that you are either your child’s primary caretaker during the week or you are not. Neither choice is better in every instance and no one should feel like they have to do everything all the time as that would be totally impossible and unreasonable. I don’t think your friend or you or me is doing It All. Hopefully we are all doing what’s working for us and our families.

The lie is that doing it all is possible. We should pretend to or feel shame that we don’t.

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.

I mean, most people can't do it all, in that there are only so many hours in the day. So if you have two spouses with high-powered careers, and tons of travel, and you also want three kids and want home cooked meals and to personally shuttle those kids to their activities - yeah, very few people can make that work.

Now, if you adjust your expectations - one spouse steps back, or they take turns, or you outsource, or you have one kid instead of three - more doable. I prefer the saying that you can't do it all at the same time. Life ebbs and flows. Which is not always apparent to youngsters of 22 or even 28.

So? So what if you can’t do it all. Do what makes you happy.

The fact that you describe “adjust your expectations “ as not having 2 high power jobs shows you’ve been socialized to do exactly what the Barbie movie points out.

You think a nurse is not a job? Or teacher? Or a government lawyer? Or a psychologist? Or a dentist? None of those are high power.

I don’t think going to school is outsourcing do you? I don’t slaughter my own beef, is that outsourcing.

You’ve got yourself all twisted up, relax.

Do what makes you happy and just stop twisting yourself all up
Over others expectations.

So what if I’m thin and workout, own my own business, have a H that is <fillin blank successfully job>, and we raise our kids and coach their teams and cook at home and are home every night and do it well.

Who care why does that bother you so much.

Lady you are super defensive. You clearly aren’t doing it all. No one does it all. Did you know some people DO slaughter their own beef? Grow their own food? Homeschool their kids?

You’re doing exactly what it is you want to be doing, which is great, but don’t kid yourself that you’re doing it all. There is a lot more you could be doing and many other people do.

I am also guessing, based on the quality of your writing, that your “business” is some sort of MLM.

No I am an engineer and my business is not an MLM not that there’s anything wrong with MLM’s and once again, you are doing exactly what the Barbie movie says you do, which is tell women that they aren’t good enough, even when they are killing it.

You are the crazy one if you think you’re not “doing it all” if you don’t slaughter your own food.

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.

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Feel like you are WAAAY overthinking it.

From my perspective as a late 40s gen xer, it’s really simple: it’s a lot easier for a mediocre white man to get ahead or achieve success than for a mediocre or even above average woman.

Doesn’t mean that mediocre or above average women won’t get ahead… Or that every mediocre white man will achieve success… It’s just the odds are stacked against women for a number of reasons. I wouldn’t say America is an anti-woman hell scape, but I do think the playing field is not level, and day after day a year after year, it can get to you.

Genuinely curious to hear your thoughts as to what, specifically, is not level about the playing field in 2023z

Equal pay for equal work.

Who is not being paid equally for equal work? What jobs/industries? Please be specific.

All of them. You can google it.

2 people in the exact same job, doing the exact same thing, with the exact same experience will be paid differently, depending on their gender.

The NCAA did a study to see if they gave girls softball the same about a marketing as they did one of the men’s sports would it have equal viewership and equal ad money. When they put the same amount of marketing into softball, it became a big moneymaker.

That’s just one small minor very simple example.

And yet they've tried to market the WNBA for years and years and keep trying to jam it down our throats on ESPN and TV, yet all it does is lose money. The WNBA only exists because they can leech off the NBA.

The WNBA has only been televised since 1997. In recent years, it is doubled its revenue every three years which is better than any other investment you can make now.

Women’s tennis makes more money than men’s tennis.

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

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Feel like you are WAAAY overthinking it.

From my perspective as a late 40s gen xer, it’s really simple: it’s a lot easier for a mediocre white man to get ahead or achieve success than for a mediocre or even above average woman.

Doesn’t mean that mediocre or above average women won’t get ahead… Or that every mediocre white man will achieve success… It’s just the odds are stacked against women for a number of reasons. I wouldn’t say America is an anti-woman hell scape, but I do think the playing field is not level, and day after day a year after year, it can get to you.

Genuinely curious to hear your thoughts as to what, specifically, is not level about the playing field in 2023z

Equal pay for equal work.

Who is not being paid equally for equal work? What jobs/industries? Please be specific.

All of them. You can google it.

2 people in the exact same job, doing the exact same thing, with the exact same experience will be paid differently, depending on their gender.

The NCAA did a study to see if they gave girls softball the same about a marketing as they did one of the men’s sports would it have equal viewership and equal ad money. When they put the same amount of marketing into softball, it became a big moneymaker.

That’s just one small minor very simple example.

I don’t understand your example. They put the same amount of money into marketing women’s softball as men’s softball (so let’s be generous and say baseball) and then the women’s softball team brought in as much money as men’s baseball team?

NCAA do not televise women’s softball until 30 years ago because “they didn’t make money”. They were sued under Titke IX. They decided they would do a test and women softball was the test.

Now women’s softball makes more money than any other men’s sports except football, basketball, and baseball. They’ve only been televising it for about a decade, and this year they had more of your viewership than men’s baseball.

It’s simply proved that women’s sports can make money if treated seriously. The reason it wasn’t making money is because it wasn’t advertised not because people weren’t interested.

I think this is awesome. I think it’s far removed from the speech. Far far removed. Bullet point for me the sentences of the speech that have anything to do with your example.

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Questions for those who found the monologue accurate:

Who had these expectations of you?
Who is putting this pressure on you in your life?

My parents
My friends
My colleagues
My boss
Teachers at my kids school

When I was younger it was also the men in my dating pool and some of my male friends and colleagues, especially around expectations of appearance, needing to look sexually appealing but also to never cross an invisible line into "trashy" or to appear to be working too hard at looking attractive. Also my dad is very misogynist and he has always had really unrealistic expectations for me to "act like a man" which he thinks means having no feelings or problems, but also to fulfill a "traditionally" feminine role of always taking care of OTHER people's feelings and problems (which my dad does not perceive himself to have because of the aforementioned misogyny).

But as I've gotten older, and as I've gotten better and resisting those pressures, I think the pressure of expectations has shifted to come almost (but not quite) entirely from other women. Especially around motherhood. The judgment, criticism, and contradictory expectations from other women around being a mom suck. I wound up culling my friends after I had a baby because I had several friends who were just nothing but criticism and judgment and who needs that? No one, that's who.

I call BS on this. There is zero chance that all of those people are/were actually putting any pressure on you to be perfect in your real life. You’re most likely putting that pressure on yourself and then projecting. (I mean, why on Earth do you think your kids’ teachers give a single hoot about you?)

(And trying to look attractive but not trashy for a date just seems… reasonable?)

This monologue most likely resonated with you because you are an over sensitive and dramatic individual.

I'm not the PP to whom you're responding but: You seem to need there to be extremely literal, in-your-face, actual statements of pressure on women, for you to believe any such pressures are real. You don't seem to believe in the idea of societal pressures that insidiously creep into daily life in many small ways and which are not some bluntly articulated statement like "You should look sexier in the office, but don't look slutty, or we'll lose clients." I think only that level of statement would work for your mind to believe it's pressure. The PP to whom you're being so nasty actually gets the fact that pressure on women rarely actually takes that blunt a form but is a cumulative thing in words, looks, media (social and traditional). But I'm putting this out here for that PP's sake, not yours, since I think nothing would ever sway you from your core belief that Women Are Just Playing Victim if they acknowledge such pressures exist.

I am saying the often the “pressure” is as real as you allow it to be. (And in many cases it’s as real as you want it to be.)

For example:

If you want to stay home with your kids but your husband wants you to keep working, that’s real pressure.

If you want to stay home with your kids, your husband supports that decision, but you’re afraid of what your mom’s group or friends or colleagues will think because of what you read in online articles or anonymous message boards, that’s nothing.

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

Anonymous wrote:I was watching Lessons in Chemistry and reminded how shi**y women had it in the 50s. To think that it took the total humiliation and re-traumitizing Anita Hill in 1992 to get the public to even consider there could be a thing called sexual harrassment in the workplace, then to think it took until less than a decade ago to get a few powerful men accountable for raping and blacklisting women (Harvey), and subjecting young interns to interviews in his bathrobe so he could flash them (a very old and gross Charlie Rose) is astonishing to me.

Yes we've made progress but it's been painful and hard for many and an uphill climb.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Feel like you are WAAAY overthinking it.

From my perspective as a late 40s gen xer, it’s really simple: it’s a lot easier for a mediocre white man to get ahead or achieve success than for a mediocre or even above average woman.

Doesn’t mean that mediocre or above average women won’t get ahead… Or that every mediocre white man will achieve success… It’s just the odds are stacked against women for a number of reasons. I wouldn’t say America is an anti-woman hell scape, but I do think the playing field is not level, and day after day a year after year, it can get to you.

Genuinely curious to hear your thoughts as to what, specifically, is not level about the playing field in 2023z

Equal pay for equal work.

Who is not being paid equally for equal work? What jobs/industries? Please be specific.

All of them. You can google it.

2 people in the exact same job, doing the exact same thing, with the exact same experience will be paid differently, depending on their gender.

The NCAA did a study to see if they gave girls softball the same about a marketing as they did one of the men’s sports would it have equal viewership and equal ad money. When they put the same amount of marketing into softball, it became a big moneymaker.

That’s just one small minor very simple example.

And yet they've tried to market the WNBA for years and years and keep trying to jam it down our throats on ESPN and TV, yet all it does is lose money. The WNBA only exists because they can leech off the NBA.

The WNBA has only been televised since 1997. In recent years, it is doubled its revenue every three years which is better than any other investment you can make now.

Women’s tennis makes more money than men’s tennis.

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Feel like you are WAAAY overthinking it.

From my perspective as a late 40s gen xer, it’s really simple: it’s a lot easier for a mediocre white man to get ahead or achieve success than for a mediocre or even above average woman.

Doesn’t mean that mediocre or above average women won’t get ahead… Or that every mediocre white man will achieve success… It’s just the odds are stacked against women for a number of reasons. I wouldn’t say America is an anti-woman hell scape, but I do think the playing field is not level, and day after day a year after year, it can get to you.

Genuinely curious to hear your thoughts as to what, specifically, is not level about the playing field in 2023z

Equal pay for equal work.

Who is not being paid equally for equal work? What jobs/industries? Please be specific.

All of them. You can google it.

2 people in the exact same job, doing the exact same thing, with the exact same experience will be paid differently, depending on their gender.

The NCAA did a study to see if they gave girls softball the same about a marketing as they did one of the men’s sports would it have equal viewership and equal ad money. When they put the same amount of marketing into softball, it became a big moneymaker.

That’s just one small minor very simple example.

I don’t understand your example. They put the same amount of money into marketing women’s softball as men’s softball (so let’s be generous and say baseball) and then the women’s softball team brought in as much money as men’s baseball team?

NCAA do not televise women’s softball until 30 years ago because “they didn’t make money”. They were sued under Titke IX. They decided they would do a test and women softball was the test.

Now women’s softball makes more money than any other men’s sports except football, basketball, and baseball. They’ve only been televising it for about a decade, and this year they had more of your viewership than men’s baseball.

It’s simply proved that women’s sports can make money if treated seriously. The reason it wasn’t making money is because it wasn’t advertised not because people weren’t interested.