'I Don't Know How She Does It' review

[LeggyBlondeNE]

www.guardian.co.uk/film/filmblog/2011/sep/19/dont-know-how-she-does-it

I'm caught between thinking it's entirely possible SJP's character gives working mothers a bad name (SJP's characters generally being ego-centric nitwits, and I say that as a former SITC fan!) and being struck dumb at the blase attitude of the reviewer: "Women, you can't have it all, do decide if you're going to be a mother or worker and get on with it so we men and childfree women can too."

I had an argument so similar to this recently I actually wondered if it were ghost written by the male friend in question!

So ... anyone able to educate me or tell me why I'm not bonkers?!

What a nasty review. The comments at the bottom say it all, though - when a man wants to have it all, family and work, it's normal. When a woman wants it, she's deluded.

'He's trying to pursue a career of his own, but when junior falls down the stairs it's Dad who has to take him to hospital, since Mom's away on business yet again.'

This bit really really annoyed me. So, would it be okay for her to be the one taking their DS to hospital if DH was working away? If so, why?

And 'Her two-year-old son hasn't learned to talk because his mother's too busy to speak to him'

Does Dad not speak to him?

SGM - of course, what was I thinking?

and presumably if nannies or other paid carers talk to your children, it doesn't take?
Is that because they are all mute, or are they just foreign or insufficiently posh?

Never heard of David Cox before, he's a nasty piece of work isn't he?

I thought I was reading Daily Fail..he is kidding, right? Right? No? He actually writes stuff like "it's unwise to give women tough jobs because they're intrinsically unreliable"?

Oh and the poor husband who really wants to have a career, but can't, as he has to do her work and take the kid to the hospitaal.. As of course a father with a career is as things shoud be. A mother with one is evil. and talking to kids and taking them to the hospital is, obviously, her job.

Ah, the article has loads of comments beneath it now, I feel much better and much less bonkers for thinking it was awful.

Not bonkers at all Leggy. I think you had the same reaction as me. In fact, I am on MN in workhours (shh...) precisely looking for a thread to vent my speen about said film and the review. Thank you for getting there first.

The film was good, really enjoyed it.

N

None of what is written is true. It's the Mother in Law who tries to make her feel guilty that her son can't talk - in fact she's quite undermining.

And when her son gets hurt she feels guilty her phone wasn't charged and that she was in a meeting. Her husband only gives her a hard time because her phone wasn't charged - much like women on here go spare if they can't get hold of their dh's when his phone isn't charged

The crush that Pierce Brosnan has on her is handled beautifully. As is the 'working mother' stuff - it is all her guilt that she tries to cope with but she says very clearly in the film that her work is also really important to her.

She is shown handling her work and excelling at it - and at being a brilliant mother.

Yes, she feels guilty and she tries too much (and has unreliable childcare) but it was really well done.