to think Rachel should have gone to Paris?

[Aworryingtrend]

I watched (for the hundredth time) the last episode of Friends last night, and once again thought how unfair it was that Rachel gave up on her dream job in Paris to stay with needy Ross.

I would be interested to hear what feminists make of it but I'm too scared to post on there.

What do you think, was she right to stay or should she have gone to Paris?

[QuoththeRaven]

she should have stayed. she was in love with ross, had a child with him and everyone she loved and cared about were staying in america. If you remember a few episodes back, i think she was offered a better position where she previously worked so its not as if she was losing out money wise.

from a feminist point of view i suppose ross should have gone with her instead of her staying, but i like the staying in america storyline better.

This way she gets to stay with all her friends, rachel and ross probably bought the next door house to monica and chandler and they all had a lovely life together, then phoebe and mike moved in to the house next to that while joey went and acted badly in LA or wherever he went.... i thought about this waaaay too much

[yummybutterbiscuit]

I never understood why Ross couldn't have gone with her to Paris if he felt so strongly about it. Fair enough he didn't want to move away from Ben, but his other child Emma was presumably moving with Rachel so he wouldn't see her that much if he stayed.

Because Rachel stayed, surely she now has no job? Because she declined her old job, I doubt the would re re ask her back!

[HereLiesDobbyAFreeElf]

Ross stayed because he got tenure (SP) and his job was secure.

I think he should have gone to Paris as well.

[FourThousandHoles]

I didn't watch Friends for yonks but watched the last episode a couple of months ago

so I knew Rachel & Ross had a baby

So where was the baby right through the last episode? Was Rachel going to Paris without her? Or was the baby convineiently ignored for the sake fo the storyline?

[PhilipJFry]

I'm relying on memory here, but what I didn't get was how Ross didn't seem that bothered that his daughter was now going to be half way around the world in France! Am I misremembering? I recall all the sad one-of-the-group-is-leaving but not much about custody and visitation and all that. Even if he was being supportive and encouraging you'd think for the sake of realism he'd be a bit more broken up at his daughter going.

[katz]

i think Rachel and Joey made a better couple mainly because i seriously disliked the character of Ross. I think they should have gone for the Dawsons Creek ending, when Joey ended up with Pacey not Dawson.

[katz]

Joey could have then gone to Paris with Rachel and ended up in a British Soap, commuting from Paris. Perfect!

[Aworryingtrend]

Fourthousand It was very much glosse over but in the lst episode Rachel says her mother is goign to follow 'on Sunday' with Emma.

philipJFry exactly- he seemed more bothered about his on-off girlfriend leaving than his own baby daughter moving half way across the world?!

[Aworryingtrend]

glossed...last...

[JeremyVile]

No. Could you be any more wrong??!! (etc)

They had a baby, would be unfair to take the baby so far away from one parent and Ross couldn't go because then he'd be leaving behind his other child.

[FourThousandHoles]

Thanks Aworryingtrend

One less thing to clutter my overtaxed brain :)

[BikeRunSki]

Yuo know this isn't real don't you ?

[rainbowtoenails]

She should have gone. If he loved her he would have followed. Neither of them seemed bothered about the consequences for their child. They were not %ood parenting role models at all.
However i think it was unrealistic for her to go to paris alone. She couldnt speak the language and would be alone with a young child, no one would do this irl.

[CrapolaDeVille]

Feminist POV? Would it really be that Ross follows her and abandons his son? No. She should've stayed and taken a better job with Louis Vitton.

[AbsDuCroissant]

Woo! I was literally thinking the other day "I should do a thread on MN about friends"

I agree with katz - rachel and Joey were a much better couple. Ross is soooooooo drippy and annoying. But anyway, I think staying in the US was the best thing
Pros
All their friends and family are around
Ross is also responsible for Ben, even though I don't remember seeing him at any time in the 10th season so would need to be near him in the US
Ross has tenure
there's is no freaking way Rachel speaks French
Cons
Ross could do an exchange or research or something with a french university
It would be a wonderful opportunity for all of them, and then Monica and Chandler could join them later for a visit and Monica could go to chef school while Chandler hangs with the babies

[CrapolaDeVille]

BEst episode/scene is still when Joey realises that Monica and Chandler have been away for the weekend. "ooo oooo oooo"

[LaWeasleyAintWeaselyAnymore]

I think it was unfair of her to decide to go at all really.

Her baby's dad needed to stay in New York (because of his other child). It is limiting of course, but it's the situation you're automatically in when you have children, that you HAVE to consider their relationships with the rest of their family, whether or not that's a family you are married into etc.

However, wasn't it a temp contract for a year or so? If it was she should have gone, They could have worked out the contact issues for the short term much more easily than if it was a permanent move.

[EssexGurl]

In Ugly Betty, Betty left NY for her dream job in London. But then Daniel followed her out there. The ending was would they/wouldn't they get together. She followed her dreams and looked like she would get her man. Much more satisfying!

No comment on Friends, really didn't watch it much. Sorry.

[MsAnnThroppy]

Paris v NY? NY every time.
Paris v Ross (complete and utter wazzock). No brainer. Paris.

[Aworryingtrend]

It was wierd though that when Joey and Rachel got together in the last series briefly there seemed to be zero chemistry and most of it seemed to be over-shadowed by Ross' wierd clingy behaviour- even though they hadn't dated for years by then!

Interesting LaWeasley- it wasnt clear at all if it was a permanent job or temporary.

[ReadyToDrink]

You really need ShowOfHands to come & give you her insight into Ross. You'll never consider him only drippy / needy again

[KaraToytown]

Whether she went to Paris or not, Rachel shouldn't have got back with Ross.

I don't believe he loved her, he just didn't want anyone else to have her. Ross had several serious realtionships and even got married after he finished with Rachel but had a hissy fit if she tried to date other people.

I don't even think they liked each other very much so don't get me started on the soulmates stuff. Wish she had had a headboard rattling night with Joey, bet she wouldn't have even remembered Ross's name after that.

Another person far too emotionally invested in Friends.

[Aworryingtrend]

ReadytoDrink that sounds interesting- hope Show of Hands sees this thread!

Kara I agree- in some ways Ross was quite manipulative- as you say dating a string of women but then declaring undying lurve to rachel the minute she tries to move on with her life.

[AbsDuCroissant]

Question is - was Ross justified in sleeping with copy shop girl or not?

I think HELL NO. If you spend half your life chasing after someone, go through a rough patch and are "on a break" (which is very different from breaking up) you do not go and shag the next person you see if you have any interest in preserving or developing the relationship.

[FoofusScrimgeour]

She should have gone. I didn't particularly like Rachel's character but Ross was a controlling shit. Paris wouldn't have been far enough.