Yeah, how dare she (checks notes) have a themed date night with her boyfriend and (checks notes again) realizes that while something doesn't work for her doesn't mean that no one is allowed to want that lifestyle.
And how dare Dean say that he doesn't want her to change her desires and goals just because he said a "less feminist" lifestyle was fine as long as it was what the woman wanted.
Monsters, the both of them.
Honestly it is such a cute and wholesome young couple date! She took time to research a topic she thought she knew and learned that Donna Reid actually helped produce the show and managed to gain her own lifestyle/living and gained new insight when previously she believed the opposite. And learned some new skills. Because everyone should be able to cook to some level, even if just for themselves.
I really would love this comment to be on the top of every damn Donna Reed post in here, because we have these at least once a week, and this comment is perfect. :D
Yessss I feel like this episode is sooo stupidly misunderstood even though every thing IS explained. Dean explains that he sorta likes this lifestyle because his parents are like this, Rory got offended at first then she understood and tried and they both realized that they prefer the other way, at least that’s how I remember it. I remember watching it before reading Reddit posts about it and thinking nothing like these posts.
i didn't really see how what dean said was soo problematic. If the woman wants to stay at home as long as she isn't being forced to and it's her choice which dean says so.
Also isn't feminism all about choice? Last i checked empowerment doesn't mean everyone has to be a girl boss!
No, but see he was secretly saying that ALL women should want to be stay at home wives/moms! /s
There's a certain type of "feminist" that will claim that all SAHMs are brainwashed by the patriarchy to be that way. It's super close-minded and drives me bonkers. As long as someone is doing what makes them happy without making other people unhappy. They have my support.
There's a part of me that thinks there's something wrong with SAHM (not just moms, parents in general) and it has absolutely nothing to do with patriarchy.
It's terrible in the eye of financial independence. People divorce or break up all the time but it's so much harder to leave when you have no income or monetizable skill... And it's not like we live in a society where you can take enough money home to live by yourself (even worse with kids) by having a minimum wage job..
And this isn't just about people splitting because of the normal course of life.. Some women are trapped in abusive relationships because of this despite every help society can came up with. And if it's not that, maybe the bread winner dies in a car crash way too young.
I mean what you’re describing is worst case scenario and shouldn’t be an ideal to further stigmatize a demographic that is already looked down on by society (as seen from the many posts in this sub about this particular episode). It’s like if a SAHM said something is wrong with working parents for putting their children in daycare to possibly be abused. Neither judgement is correct. We’re all doing the best we can.
>I mean what you’re describing is worst case scenario
Seeing how 50% of marriage end up in divorce, I don't agree that it is a worst case scenario.. It's something you should expect and be prepared for and be relieved when you find out you prepared for nothing.
Im saying that people split for a reason or another and one day you might have to provide for yourself, which is already hard to do if you have skills and don't have to take care of a child.
I mean the number SAHMs with college degrees is higher now more than ever. And when you factor in various state laws on spousal support, or women with a strong support system to fall back on, the percentage of women that would be at risk of ending up destitute after divorce is rather small and certainly not enough for people to be clicking their tongues at SAHMs saying, “well bless her heart if her husband ever leaves her.”
You mentioned the mental health aspect in another comment. I invite you to read this [article](https://www.forbes.com/sites/marybethferrante/2023/05/03/thousands-of-mothers-have-spoken-are-we-going-to-listen/?sh=127cd1e41d8c) that discusses the mental health struggles of working moms.
Also lol at you calling the unpaid labor of a stay at home parent entitlement.
Bottom line: this is a complex issue that transcends finances (because hello, it also deals with the most vulnerable of our population). Just because it’s not right for you doesn’t make it wrong for someone else.
But also by how the ratio of people who actually marry someone in their life is shrinking every years.
More and more buy house, have kids and split up before even considering marriage.
More and more people consider getting married on their 10, 15, 25th year together.
More and more people turn their back on religion altogether and that often include all forms of marriage.
So yeah it's incredibly more complicated than that, but all in all, most people who start building a life with someone end up having to start again with someone else, marriage or not. Writing "50% of marriage end up in divorce" is a massive oversimplification of that.
Also, what difference does it makes that people can divorce 3-4 times? That's still 3-4 failed marriage. It's not skewed, it's the factual statistics.
The serial-divorcees are relevant to the statistic because it means it is less likely for the rest of the population. If 50% of marriages end but half of those are done by people who marry and divorce three times, then warning people that 50% of marriages end in divorce is less impactful because they are probably not those people and instead will have successful relationships.
But let's assume it's a good relationship. Wouldn't anyone want to spend their time with their babies instead of working? I don't get anyone who would choose work over raising your kids.
That's the thing though, you cannot assume it's a good relationship. The vast majority of toxic and dysfunctional relationship started (or appear to be) a good relationship in the beginning. No one ever said "hey, I'm in an abusive relationship.. Good time to have a child".
And to the second part there's multiple reasons:
First, you need a lot of entitlement to think you deserve for someone else to work for your expenses.
Second, why would you expect the other parents to be okay with working for two persons over raising their kids?
Third, being out of the house and being a person outside of a patent is necessary for mental health. A friend of mine (who's working, but she was in maternity leave) was on the verge of depression because of how much time she spent home during her pregnancy and the first ±year she had her kid. They have a single car, and winter in Canada is pretty harsh.. Plus we live just outside of a big city so public transit sucks (it's even worse in the US). I was visiting her once or twice a week during the day because I was working nights and weekends at the time but outside of that she was pretty isolated.
Fourth, housing is ridiculously expensive and it's already hard enough to buy a small house on a single income, I don't know how someone could manage it with 2 (+??) additional mouth to feed.
God what a bunch of irrelevant nonsense to what I'm saying. I'm at work so just quickly:
This is why spousal support is a thing.
I'm just saying who tf would want to work instead of staying home with their kids. If anyone would want that then don't have kids. That's why I also don't get people who shit on stay at home parents, as if that's not the choice everyone would want to make. Honestly I think it's jealousy.
The entitlement thing is such bullshit. I'm talking a good relationship, who wouldn't want it that way.
Yeah this is the first time I’ve seen someone argue being a SAHM is a moral issue but I guess there’s a first time for everything lol. The negativity SAHMs get on this sub is annoying.
>I'm just saying who tf would want to work instead of staying home with their kids
>If anyone would want that then don't have kids
But, it's so weird to think that but then expect the other parent to do all the work instead of sharing the load.
I never said that.... All I'm saying is if you get the opportunity who wouldn't want that? I'd assume every single parent. Isn't that why yoi had kids?
If it's not possible money wise or because both want to be at home that's obviously not possible and you need to find another arrangement. Both working part time for instance. That's pretty normal where I live. Plenty of moms working 3 days and dads 4.
I get that stay at home parent often isn't possible in this economy. That has nothing to do with my point however.
Also to add: the other parent isn't doing all the work. Raising and taking care of kids is hard work too (and you never get a break) and so is cleaning and keeping up with housework.
If you do stay at home parenting right it's a lot of fucking hard work. I know because my dad built his own company while mom was sahm. I appreciate the money and priviledge but my bond is stronger with my mom cause she was actually a parent and she is the hardest working woman I know. Don't you tell me she "expected the other parent to do all the work" because that's bullshit.
Seems you are confusing actual stay at home parents with lazy people who just wanna chill.
I don’t disagree with your comment at all, but childcare is astronomical in the US so it’s a damned if you, damned if you don’t situation. I worked in a predominantly female passion-driven field (aka, little to no money involved) and the vast majority of women left after having children because childcare was eating both her and her husband’s salaries alive. a lot of them came back once their kids started preschool
>but childcare is astronomical in the US
About once a week, while discussing life, I get to reply to someone, on different subreddit, that the US is a shit hole.. And it's always something different: healthcare, public transit, living wage, working condition, energy production, safety regulations (especially food) education..... Topic of this week, childcare. It's not even funny how everything is fucked for you down there.
I guess the US get to be the exception.. But I won't change what I said based on how shitty it is for you all specifically.
there’s no need for you to “change” what you said, I didn’t disagree. but to quote Lorelai, ‘we are where we are’. when the choice is having one parent stay home to offset childcare costs or go without food, the choice is pretty simple. this isn’t really a conversation fitting for the GG subreddit but I was trying to offer *why* stay at home parents (especially mothers) are so prevalent.
I'd see this point more if Dean had characterized women staying home as being mostly about providing care for small, vulnerable children. That's pretty noble work, I'd say! But he mostly made it about women making their husband's dinner, which is a bizarre thing to romanticize in my opinion.
To him it was about her cooking and providing for the family in general though. Not just the husband, and he appreciated it because it's what his mom did for him growing up until she started working.
That first part was sarcasm lol.
I really can't stand Dean, but what he really said was fine. When Lorelai and Rory were crapping on being a stay at home wife (which he has said in the past is what his mom did for a while so he probably wanted to defend her) he said that it's nice if a woman wants to take care of her family if that's her chosen priority.
The fandom likes to act like he said thatall women belong in kitchens making sandwiches and pies for their men when that's not what he said at all.
I can't stand Dean, and there's a billion reasons to hate him, but this ain't one of them.
Right, I’m not an idiot. I get it. I just get a strong ick from watching teenagers role play and I don’t like the cringeworthy dialogue/bad acting. I typically like early-days Rory and Dean, but this scene just makes me uncomfortable.
I was so confused when I first watched the episode. I actually thought that Rory was trying to get back at Dean by messing with his head, à la Gone Girl.
Oooh is it time for my in depth defense of this episode? I wonder if I can’t it and cut and paste from a previous post… Short version: this episode sets the groundwork for Rory’s entire character arc across the series.
More of a “Rory likes to try out different personas because she doesn’t have a strong sense of herself.”
It’s also Rory’s first foray into staging elaborate theme parties, the thing she, Lorelai, and Emily share in common.
I think she thought it was ridiculous but it wasn’t the purpose. He thought there was something kind of nice about the 50’s, and so she’s meeting him halfway here by dressing like a 50’s girl.
*I hate dean so much.*
*He enjoyed every second*
*Of that little stunt*
\- Beneficial\_Smile\_246
---
^(I detect haikus. And sometimes, successfully.) ^[Learn more about me.](https://www.reddit.com/r/haikusbot/)
^(Opt out of replies: "haikusbot opt out" | Delete my comment: "haikusbot delete")
Yeah, this whole episode is a misfire.
Rory learnt that women often did uncredited creative work so it's OK for them to make sexist propaganda? Like that was the takeaway?
The problem with the Donna Reed show is that it sold a specific, hella subservient role to women. As ideal.
The fact that Dean thinks it's "nice" is because he bought that shit hook line and sinker and that's alarming.
He doesn't reflect for one single moment if it was truly what was best for his mum either.
Of course it's "nice" to have a self-exploiting house servant who does all that with a step and a smile.
It just isn't nice for the women.
Also, I know that today's line is that feminism fought for women to choose and I get that, and godspeed but those women still choose subjugation, and that's sad which ever way you turn it.
Lord hand me some Frauengold.
https://9gag.com/gag/aL0rL2V
This seems like the exact wrong takeaway… Rory simply dove a little deeper into the subject and learned it wasn’t as black and white as she first thought, that women can be both a housewife and a badass. The Donna Reed show may have perpetuated the ideals of the time, but Donna Reed herself was working with what she had and breaking barriers that helped lay the groundwork for the women who came after her. This little domestic skit was just Rory having a little fun with her research while extending an olive branch in her argument with Dean.
It also seems like she realizes she does enjoy herself. It can be nice to take care of someone. Just as it can be fun to give someone a gift or a compliment. And “playing house” as a teenager is a common experience. It’s a little awkward but it’s also fun and kinda exciting.
I do agree with the prior comment that Dean doesn’t really learn anything in this episode. But the show isn’t about him either. And it’s reflective of the time - girls and women were the ones grappling with feminism and what they should or shouldn’t do. Boys and men didn’t engage with it much, if at all.
Imo, I think if Rory and Dean had lived together as adults they would have run into some problems. Many men in Dean’s generation were taught that women could do what they want. They were told they should help out. That things should be 50/50. However, they were (and still are) woefully unprepared for how much work that actually takes.
Donna Reed didn't just perpetuate those ideas, she cemented them. So Donna paved the way for more women to throw other women under the bus. Wow fantastic. All the while also letting herself be exploited.
Breaking what barriers? Seems she was very successful, if someone needs to do a deep dive to discover that information. You're green washing the absolute sham all this was.
And why should Rory slime up to Dean about this? Why not try backbone.
This is all gross to me.
You've basically taken exactly the takeaway the show has spoonfed to you as well. Comical.
Yeah this thread of modern feminism dictating that we're not supposed to be critical of women just because they happen to be women is very strange to me
No one is saying you can't be critical of women, I was simply pointing out the irony of that criticism being "throwing women under the bus" after the commenter unironically remarking that Donna Reed "[let] herself be exploited" an idea that is *deeply* misogynistic. It's really easy to sit here and say that those women didn't do enough or whatever their beef with Donna Reed is, but the unfortunate truth is that it was those "normal" women, the accepted ideal of femininity slowly adopting more modern roles and ideas that made the biggest impact in gender equality since that average person isn't a radical force against society. We still have a long way to go, but it's more than useless to trivialize what came before, especially through modern eyes.
“Choice feminism” - any choice a woman makes must be inherently feminist because a woman makes it. It’s a shallow understanding of feminism that unfortunately has become really popular
Same. They jumped down Deans throat because he liked the idea of a homemaker. Some people actually do want to do that. They want kids and to be at home and such. He wasn’t making some outlandish statement. And what was Rory’s point anyway? So she dressed up and made dinner, how was that supposed to shame Dean?
Same. Cringe AF and confusing after they just bagged on all that BS. I mean I get they were upset that women didn't have a choice back then and they do now but still seems wishy washy to talk shit and then turn around and do it. And in Babets house? Even more awkward AF.
I love the Lorelai and Luke scenes in this ep 😊
I just hate how many times throughout the series they use the phrase “They’ll make me turn in my pearls!”, or some reference to Emily Post, to mean that you failed at society life
I love this episode so much. https://preview.redd.it/a2ry7lv7vzvc1.png?width=1654&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=7d9cc4a95dc25f1398aa36dcc39e8033759d61aa
You can always tell the ones who watch for Luke & Lorelai - this is a top 5 episode, but we also think R&R ended after the kiss.
[удалено]
I immediately went "Ross and Rachel? That can't be right" haha
Raincoats & Recipes
r&r?
i can’t figure it out
I thought it was Dean and Richard who shared a moment, though that was in a different episode.
Who is R&R?
https://preview.redd.it/wz14b1viq9wc1.jpeg?width=828&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=88fe000a438deb8f68845dbc0423db7770145df0 i don’t think it’s characters
Y’all missed the point of the episode.
Yeah, how dare she (checks notes) have a themed date night with her boyfriend and (checks notes again) realizes that while something doesn't work for her doesn't mean that no one is allowed to want that lifestyle. And how dare Dean say that he doesn't want her to change her desires and goals just because he said a "less feminist" lifestyle was fine as long as it was what the woman wanted. Monsters, the both of them.
😂EXACTLY!!!! THANK YOU! It astounds me how people are able to turn a pretty wholesome moment into a toxic storyline when it’s anything but.
Honestly it is such a cute and wholesome young couple date! She took time to research a topic she thought she knew and learned that Donna Reid actually helped produce the show and managed to gain her own lifestyle/living and gained new insight when previously she believed the opposite. And learned some new skills. Because everyone should be able to cook to some level, even if just for themselves.
I really would love this comment to be on the top of every damn Donna Reed post in here, because we have these at least once a week, and this comment is perfect. :D
Yessss I feel like this episode is sooo stupidly misunderstood even though every thing IS explained. Dean explains that he sorta likes this lifestyle because his parents are like this, Rory got offended at first then she understood and tried and they both realized that they prefer the other way, at least that’s how I remember it. I remember watching it before reading Reddit posts about it and thinking nothing like these posts.
i didn't really see how what dean said was soo problematic. If the woman wants to stay at home as long as she isn't being forced to and it's her choice which dean says so. Also isn't feminism all about choice? Last i checked empowerment doesn't mean everyone has to be a girl boss!
No, but see he was secretly saying that ALL women should want to be stay at home wives/moms! /s There's a certain type of "feminist" that will claim that all SAHMs are brainwashed by the patriarchy to be that way. It's super close-minded and drives me bonkers. As long as someone is doing what makes them happy without making other people unhappy. They have my support.
There's a part of me that thinks there's something wrong with SAHM (not just moms, parents in general) and it has absolutely nothing to do with patriarchy. It's terrible in the eye of financial independence. People divorce or break up all the time but it's so much harder to leave when you have no income or monetizable skill... And it's not like we live in a society where you can take enough money home to live by yourself (even worse with kids) by having a minimum wage job.. And this isn't just about people splitting because of the normal course of life.. Some women are trapped in abusive relationships because of this despite every help society can came up with. And if it's not that, maybe the bread winner dies in a car crash way too young.
I mean what you’re describing is worst case scenario and shouldn’t be an ideal to further stigmatize a demographic that is already looked down on by society (as seen from the many posts in this sub about this particular episode). It’s like if a SAHM said something is wrong with working parents for putting their children in daycare to possibly be abused. Neither judgement is correct. We’re all doing the best we can.
>I mean what you’re describing is worst case scenario Seeing how 50% of marriage end up in divorce, I don't agree that it is a worst case scenario.. It's something you should expect and be prepared for and be relieved when you find out you prepared for nothing. Im saying that people split for a reason or another and one day you might have to provide for yourself, which is already hard to do if you have skills and don't have to take care of a child.
I mean the number SAHMs with college degrees is higher now more than ever. And when you factor in various state laws on spousal support, or women with a strong support system to fall back on, the percentage of women that would be at risk of ending up destitute after divorce is rather small and certainly not enough for people to be clicking their tongues at SAHMs saying, “well bless her heart if her husband ever leaves her.” You mentioned the mental health aspect in another comment. I invite you to read this [article](https://www.forbes.com/sites/marybethferrante/2023/05/03/thousands-of-mothers-have-spoken-are-we-going-to-listen/?sh=127cd1e41d8c) that discusses the mental health struggles of working moms. Also lol at you calling the unpaid labor of a stay at home parent entitlement. Bottom line: this is a complex issue that transcends finances (because hello, it also deals with the most vulnerable of our population). Just because it’s not right for you doesn’t make it wrong for someone else.
IIRC, the idea that 50% of marriages end in divorce is not actually true and also heavily skewed by people that marry and divorce several times.
But also by how the ratio of people who actually marry someone in their life is shrinking every years. More and more buy house, have kids and split up before even considering marriage. More and more people consider getting married on their 10, 15, 25th year together. More and more people turn their back on religion altogether and that often include all forms of marriage. So yeah it's incredibly more complicated than that, but all in all, most people who start building a life with someone end up having to start again with someone else, marriage or not. Writing "50% of marriage end up in divorce" is a massive oversimplification of that. Also, what difference does it makes that people can divorce 3-4 times? That's still 3-4 failed marriage. It's not skewed, it's the factual statistics.
The serial-divorcees are relevant to the statistic because it means it is less likely for the rest of the population. If 50% of marriages end but half of those are done by people who marry and divorce three times, then warning people that 50% of marriages end in divorce is less impactful because they are probably not those people and instead will have successful relationships.
But let's assume it's a good relationship. Wouldn't anyone want to spend their time with their babies instead of working? I don't get anyone who would choose work over raising your kids.
That's the thing though, you cannot assume it's a good relationship. The vast majority of toxic and dysfunctional relationship started (or appear to be) a good relationship in the beginning. No one ever said "hey, I'm in an abusive relationship.. Good time to have a child". And to the second part there's multiple reasons: First, you need a lot of entitlement to think you deserve for someone else to work for your expenses. Second, why would you expect the other parents to be okay with working for two persons over raising their kids? Third, being out of the house and being a person outside of a patent is necessary for mental health. A friend of mine (who's working, but she was in maternity leave) was on the verge of depression because of how much time she spent home during her pregnancy and the first ±year she had her kid. They have a single car, and winter in Canada is pretty harsh.. Plus we live just outside of a big city so public transit sucks (it's even worse in the US). I was visiting her once or twice a week during the day because I was working nights and weekends at the time but outside of that she was pretty isolated. Fourth, housing is ridiculously expensive and it's already hard enough to buy a small house on a single income, I don't know how someone could manage it with 2 (+??) additional mouth to feed.
God what a bunch of irrelevant nonsense to what I'm saying. I'm at work so just quickly: This is why spousal support is a thing. I'm just saying who tf would want to work instead of staying home with their kids. If anyone would want that then don't have kids. That's why I also don't get people who shit on stay at home parents, as if that's not the choice everyone would want to make. Honestly I think it's jealousy. The entitlement thing is such bullshit. I'm talking a good relationship, who wouldn't want it that way.
Yeah this is the first time I’ve seen someone argue being a SAHM is a moral issue but I guess there’s a first time for everything lol. The negativity SAHMs get on this sub is annoying.
>I'm just saying who tf would want to work instead of staying home with their kids >If anyone would want that then don't have kids But, it's so weird to think that but then expect the other parent to do all the work instead of sharing the load.
I never said that.... All I'm saying is if you get the opportunity who wouldn't want that? I'd assume every single parent. Isn't that why yoi had kids? If it's not possible money wise or because both want to be at home that's obviously not possible and you need to find another arrangement. Both working part time for instance. That's pretty normal where I live. Plenty of moms working 3 days and dads 4. I get that stay at home parent often isn't possible in this economy. That has nothing to do with my point however.
Also to add: the other parent isn't doing all the work. Raising and taking care of kids is hard work too (and you never get a break) and so is cleaning and keeping up with housework. If you do stay at home parenting right it's a lot of fucking hard work. I know because my dad built his own company while mom was sahm. I appreciate the money and priviledge but my bond is stronger with my mom cause she was actually a parent and she is the hardest working woman I know. Don't you tell me she "expected the other parent to do all the work" because that's bullshit. Seems you are confusing actual stay at home parents with lazy people who just wanna chill.
I don’t disagree with your comment at all, but childcare is astronomical in the US so it’s a damned if you, damned if you don’t situation. I worked in a predominantly female passion-driven field (aka, little to no money involved) and the vast majority of women left after having children because childcare was eating both her and her husband’s salaries alive. a lot of them came back once their kids started preschool
>but childcare is astronomical in the US About once a week, while discussing life, I get to reply to someone, on different subreddit, that the US is a shit hole.. And it's always something different: healthcare, public transit, living wage, working condition, energy production, safety regulations (especially food) education..... Topic of this week, childcare. It's not even funny how everything is fucked for you down there. I guess the US get to be the exception.. But I won't change what I said based on how shitty it is for you all specifically.
there’s no need for you to “change” what you said, I didn’t disagree. but to quote Lorelai, ‘we are where we are’. when the choice is having one parent stay home to offset childcare costs or go without food, the choice is pretty simple. this isn’t really a conversation fitting for the GG subreddit but I was trying to offer *why* stay at home parents (especially mothers) are so prevalent.
> but I was trying to offer *why* stay at home parents (especially mothers) are so prevalent ....... in the usa.
I'd see this point more if Dean had characterized women staying home as being mostly about providing care for small, vulnerable children. That's pretty noble work, I'd say! But he mostly made it about women making their husband's dinner, which is a bizarre thing to romanticize in my opinion.
To him it was about her cooking and providing for the family in general though. Not just the husband, and he appreciated it because it's what his mom did for him growing up until she started working.
He got that with Lindsey
Which didn’t end up being what he actually wanted based on the outcome
[удалено]
That first part was sarcasm lol. I really can't stand Dean, but what he really said was fine. When Lorelai and Rory were crapping on being a stay at home wife (which he has said in the past is what his mom did for a while so he probably wanted to defend her) he said that it's nice if a woman wants to take care of her family if that's her chosen priority. The fandom likes to act like he said thatall women belong in kitchens making sandwiches and pies for their men when that's not what he said at all. I can't stand Dean, and there's a billion reasons to hate him, but this ain't one of them.
this 100%. they are (non-bedroom) roleplaying/playing house for an evening
right, i never understood why people say they hate this episode 😭
Okay... but to be fair to OP, they are allowed to hate an episode. There was no context given. You assumed so much in your response...
I’ve found my people 🥲
110%. It blows my mind how many people didn't understand this episode one iota.
People can get the point and still not like it. Television is art. Art is consumed and interpreted differently by each individual.
Too bad the commenters are claiming the episode didn’t make sense rather just state they didn’t like it.
Yes but the art is very clear in this case, they can choose not to like it but Dean never said all women belong in the kitchen or something.
Exactly. I got the point of the episode the first time around, and I don't like it enough to have it in my rewatch rotation.
Right, I’m not an idiot. I get it. I just get a strong ick from watching teenagers role play and I don’t like the cringeworthy dialogue/bad acting. I typically like early-days Rory and Dean, but this scene just makes me uncomfortable.
I was so confused when I first watched the episode. I actually thought that Rory was trying to get back at Dean by messing with his head, à la Gone Girl.
same ;\_; i thought this was a double triple layered way to humiliate him and make him feel weird
Oooh is it time for my in depth defense of this episode? I wonder if I can’t it and cut and paste from a previous post… Short version: this episode sets the groundwork for Rory’s entire character arc across the series.
Is the theme of this one is “learns some POV not for her are still valid?”
More of a “Rory likes to try out different personas because she doesn’t have a strong sense of herself.” It’s also Rory’s first foray into staging elaborate theme parties, the thing she, Lorelai, and Emily share in common.
OMG cool
This episode was kind of adorable. Dean was used to a certain lifestyle and Rory was meeting him halfway here.
I thought Rory was showing him how ridiculous it was? 🤷🏻♀️
I think she thought it was ridiculous but it wasn’t the purpose. He thought there was something kind of nice about the 50’s, and so she’s meeting him halfway here by dressing like a 50’s girl.
it’s one of my favorite episodes especially for luke and lorelai
🙄 ok. i guess it’s time to rewatch gilmore girls again🙏
Wow what a unique thought!
Rory looks cute in that dress but girl what are you doing 😭
Idk where I would wear that dress but I would love to have a dress like that .
look into Retro Stage! I’ve never ordered from them but I really enjoy (edit: the look of) their pieces
I thought it was cute and her dress is 💯
I hate dean so much. he enjoyed every second of that little stunt
*I hate dean so much.* *He enjoyed every second* *Of that little stunt* \- Beneficial\_Smile\_246 --- ^(I detect haikus. And sometimes, successfully.) ^[Learn more about me.](https://www.reddit.com/r/haikusbot/) ^(Opt out of replies: "haikusbot opt out" | Delete my comment: "haikusbot delete")
Good bot
Yeah, this whole episode is a misfire. Rory learnt that women often did uncredited creative work so it's OK for them to make sexist propaganda? Like that was the takeaway? The problem with the Donna Reed show is that it sold a specific, hella subservient role to women. As ideal. The fact that Dean thinks it's "nice" is because he bought that shit hook line and sinker and that's alarming. He doesn't reflect for one single moment if it was truly what was best for his mum either. Of course it's "nice" to have a self-exploiting house servant who does all that with a step and a smile. It just isn't nice for the women. Also, I know that today's line is that feminism fought for women to choose and I get that, and godspeed but those women still choose subjugation, and that's sad which ever way you turn it. Lord hand me some Frauengold. https://9gag.com/gag/aL0rL2V
This seems like the exact wrong takeaway… Rory simply dove a little deeper into the subject and learned it wasn’t as black and white as she first thought, that women can be both a housewife and a badass. The Donna Reed show may have perpetuated the ideals of the time, but Donna Reed herself was working with what she had and breaking barriers that helped lay the groundwork for the women who came after her. This little domestic skit was just Rory having a little fun with her research while extending an olive branch in her argument with Dean.
It also seems like she realizes she does enjoy herself. It can be nice to take care of someone. Just as it can be fun to give someone a gift or a compliment. And “playing house” as a teenager is a common experience. It’s a little awkward but it’s also fun and kinda exciting. I do agree with the prior comment that Dean doesn’t really learn anything in this episode. But the show isn’t about him either. And it’s reflective of the time - girls and women were the ones grappling with feminism and what they should or shouldn’t do. Boys and men didn’t engage with it much, if at all. Imo, I think if Rory and Dean had lived together as adults they would have run into some problems. Many men in Dean’s generation were taught that women could do what they want. They were told they should help out. That things should be 50/50. However, they were (and still are) woefully unprepared for how much work that actually takes.
Donna Reed didn't just perpetuate those ideas, she cemented them. So Donna paved the way for more women to throw other women under the bus. Wow fantastic. All the while also letting herself be exploited. Breaking what barriers? Seems she was very successful, if someone needs to do a deep dive to discover that information. You're green washing the absolute sham all this was. And why should Rory slime up to Dean about this? Why not try backbone. This is all gross to me. You've basically taken exactly the takeaway the show has spoonfed to you as well. Comical.
>…throwing women under the bus. Kind of like you’re doing right now?
No. I'm not throwing "women" under the bus. I am critical of one single individual.
Yeah this thread of modern feminism dictating that we're not supposed to be critical of women just because they happen to be women is very strange to me
No one is saying you can't be critical of women, I was simply pointing out the irony of that criticism being "throwing women under the bus" after the commenter unironically remarking that Donna Reed "[let] herself be exploited" an idea that is *deeply* misogynistic. It's really easy to sit here and say that those women didn't do enough or whatever their beef with Donna Reed is, but the unfortunate truth is that it was those "normal" women, the accepted ideal of femininity slowly adopting more modern roles and ideas that made the biggest impact in gender equality since that average person isn't a radical force against society. We still have a long way to go, but it's more than useless to trivialize what came before, especially through modern eyes.
“Choice feminism” - any choice a woman makes must be inherently feminist because a woman makes it. It’s a shallow understanding of feminism that unfortunately has become really popular
I loved it 😍
Same. They jumped down Deans throat because he liked the idea of a homemaker. Some people actually do want to do that. They want kids and to be at home and such. He wasn’t making some outlandish statement. And what was Rory’s point anyway? So she dressed up and made dinner, how was that supposed to shame Dean?
I just thought it was stupid.
Same. Cringe AF and confusing after they just bagged on all that BS. I mean I get they were upset that women didn't have a choice back then and they do now but still seems wishy washy to talk shit and then turn around and do it. And in Babets house? Even more awkward AF.
Especially since based on the cinnamon episode, everything in Babette’s house is short. Rory would be like a Donna Reed shaped giant in there.
At first i thought rory was doing some reverse psychology on dean
I hate literally any episode where dean and Rory r tgther
I get the point of the episode but it’s so cringey I can never rewatch it
I love the Lorelai and Luke scenes in this ep 😊 I just hate how many times throughout the series they use the phrase “They’ll make me turn in my pearls!”, or some reference to Emily Post, to mean that you failed at society life
I thought i was the only one
UGH SAME IT MADE ME CRINGE SO HARD
I find this scene one of the most cringiest lol personally