Why is this even remotely controversial?

That's awesome. Are you saying that means no other mother of three has any excuse for not doing the same? Even if they live elsewhere or work more hours or have more expenses or make less? Because otherwise, I don't see your point.

It costs $0 to get in shape. ZERO. DOLLARS.

Unless you consider that time is money, and the level of fitness depicted in the pic is not something that achieved without time.

They can always just stay fat. That is a valid option.

well, then it doesnt apply to them and they wont notice the advertising that isnt aimed at them, right? I never notice diaper commercials and I dont know jack about cars - cause neither of these are on my radar. shrug.

This. Being offended because it's not your goal would be like me being offended by John Frieda Sheer Blonde hair color commercials. Maybe I should pitch a fit because I don't want to be blonde (aside from wearing a wig for Halloween).

Nobody is offended by what she looks like. The "offense" (and I'm not really offended at all) is the idea that ALL women have the same goal.

This ^^ and, I think, the suggestion that her life is comparable to every woman with 3 kids. Income level, support network, health of the children, health of the woman, responsibilities beyond the children and home, as well as many other "excuses" can be very valid.

Income level isn't an excuse.

I agree health of children, etc., can be. But I know enough women who are in the upper levels of income with healthy families who "don't have time" because they have a couple kids. BS. I think that's the point of the photo.

It really has become fashionable to be "oh so busy" these days.

Yes, income level would not be a valid excuse for women in the upper levels of income. But it absolutely can be for others. That level of fitness takes work.

See my earlier responses: Single teenage mother in college. I was in pretty darned good shape and back to pre-pregnancy weight in six months.

You don't need to spend a dime to get into that kind of shape.

That's awesome. Are you saying that means no other mother of three has any excuse for not doing the same? Even if they live elsewhere or work more hours or have more expenses or make less? Because otherwise, I don't see your point.

It costs $0 to get in shape. ZERO. DOLLARS.

Unless you consider that time is money, and the level of fitness depicted in the pic is not something that achieved without time.

They can always just stay fat. That is a valid option.

One doesn't have to be fat because one has limited time to workout.

i cant even - did yall see the flipflop - i cant i just cant. you win.

There are but she's not one of them as she stated in her " apology "

Sorry, but, though some men today are better than their fathers probably were about this, the research overwhelmingly says that women are STIIIIIIIIILL having to run things at home. Some estimates have it at ~80% of the domestic labour (when, both partners are working).

I do the vast majority of the housework in my home. Not because my SO is unable or unwilling to do it, but because I'm a it of a control freak and also like things a little neater than he does. He's content to run the vacuum once a week while I like to do it three or four times a week.

I wash dishes by hand every night and do 90% of the laundry. Yet, I find time to lounge in front of the TV, exercise, write and read along with a full-time job and a pretty active social life.

If women are doing 80% of the housework in their homes and they aren't happy about it, they need to discuss it with their SOs and change it. It really i sthat simple.

Don't make yourself a martyr and then ask for my sympathy.

LOL ok I'm also single at the moment, as it happens. This is not about me personally, at all. (and I'm no martyr btw)

One reason you might be a control freak about it, is you've been socialized to clean -- to notice dust, etc; to know what to do with it; to feel uncomfortable in its presence, maybe worry how others might judge you if they saw it... Many, many women have been raised this way; many, many men have not. The discrepancy doesn't stop in one generation, I'm afraid.

You clearly never set foot in my house growing up. My mother is the exact opposite. I grew up in chaos. Her best friend and her daughter (who is my best friend) and my father's sister whom I'm very close to and lived with for a while all live in chaos. They are not dirty people, but they aren't NEAT people, either. My mother always says my neat-freakiness is me rebelling against her.

I'm a Capricorn. That's why I clean so much. I need order in my life, whether it's a clean house or decorations just right. I need a very specific environment to function on any level. It isn't society. It's who I am. When i move to a new place, my boxes are unpacked and everything put away within the first week because I just can't stand things being cluttered. And if I asked my SO to do more, he would without argument. But I can't even stand how he stacks dishes in the dishrack. He doesn't do it "right" (i.e. MY way).

But thank you for the psycho-analysis of someone you don't know anything about. :flowerforyou:

i didn't psychoanalyze you, i said "one reason you MIGHT". because you are 1) a woman who 2) grew up in a society that does this to women, *generally*. that is sociological.

whether or not you grew up in a society that does this to women (re: cleanliness obligations) depends on how old you are, what country you were raised in, what generation your mother was part of, if you had both parents or just one and whether you had a stay at home mom or dad or if they both worked.

your sociology stuff is backdated and cant be handed out like that anymore.

We have unlimited options now and nothing is traditional or standard anymore. You cant make sweeping generalizations across the female half of the species.

You can tell us all about you and your situation and no one can say boo in disagreement. but what things were like for you were probably not the same way for women across the board anymore :flowerforyou:

it's not backdated actually, some of these studies are from the past five years, in north america, with women who were reproductive aged in that time frame. i know everyone would like for this crap to be over but it's not


The Persistence of the Gendered Division of Domestic Labour

Why has the gendered division of domestic labour proved so resistant to change despite the growth in married women’s labour force participation? We develop a game theoretic model of marriage to show that women’s individual levels of relative economic autonomy are not in themselves sufficient to bring about an aggregate shift in the division of domestic labour. Using data for 22 countries from the 1994 International Social Survey Programme, we show that what is required is that there be a greater proportion of economically autonomous women within the society as a whole, together with a sufficiently large proportion of men who, if faced with an economically autonomous woman, would rather participate in domestic tasks than endure marital breakdown. These results suggest that until we see greater gender material equality for the majority of women in a society and an evolution in men’s gender ideology, the gendered division of domestic labour will persist.

http://esr.oxfordjournals.org/content/21/1/43.abstract


Gender Convergence in Domestic Work: Discerning the Effects of Interactional and Institutional Barriers from Large-scale Data

Cross-national trends in paid and unpaid work time over the last 40 years reveal a slow and incomplete convergence of women’s and men’s work patterns. A simplistic extrapolation would indicate a 70—80 year process of gender convergence, with the year 2010 representing an approximate mid-point. However, in conformity with the expectations of gender theory, time use data show that gender segregation in domestic work is quite persistent over time. Women still do the bulk of routine housework and caring for family members while men have increased their contributions disproportionately to non-routine domestic work, suggesting that gender ideologies and the associated ‘doing’ of gender in interaction remain important features of the division of domestic labour. The effects of institutional barriers are also apparent, with differential changes in women’s proportional contribution to routine housework and caring activities related to different national policy clusters.

http://soc.sagepub.com/content/45/2/234.abstract

its also not the same. It may not be over - but we arent where we were in the beginning. we have made progress. i cant believe im still having to explain to women that not only have we indeed made progress, but that its okay to celebrate that. we dont have to end every freaking fudging sentence with a ....BUT WE'RE STILL ON THE SHT END OF THE STICK.

As individuals, we are not. As individuals, we are now free.

Free to exercise our butts off in tiny workout clothes in front of our kids and stand up to the naysayers and say oh yeah? what's your excuse for not being awesome, when we finally have the right to be.

That's awesome. Are you saying that means no other mother of three has any excuse for not doing the same? Even if they live elsewhere or work more hours or have more expenses or make less? Because otherwise, I don't see your point.

It costs $0 to get in shape. ZERO. DOLLARS.

Unless you consider that time is money, and the level of fitness depicted in the pic is not something that achieved without time.

They can always just stay fat. That is a valid option.

One doesn't have to be fat because one has limited time to workout.

i cant even - did yall see the flipflop - i cant i just cant. you win.

Woohoo!!! I wasn't aware there was a contest, but I love winning. Is there a prize?

But I didn't flip flop. We were dicussing fit and someone threw in fat. You don't have to be fat to be unfit.

We were discussing asthetics, not cardiovascular fitness.

I was discussing the money (and/or time) it takes to reach the level of fitness in the pic. But either way, being fat is separate issue.

To note again from the 1st thread -

She does include strength training in her workout routine. For those without access to a gym, you can still accomplish this with bodyweight exercises or some investment in dumbbells with plates (or even TRX Suspension or sandbags).

Her lean/ripped looked is mostly due to the lower body fat %...not because she spends tons of money on equipment or a gym membership.

That's awesome. Are you saying that means no other mother of three has any excuse for not doing the same? Even if they live elsewhere or work more hours or have more expenses or make less? Because otherwise, I don't see your point.

It costs $0 to get in shape. ZERO. DOLLARS.

Unless you consider that time is money, and the level of fitness depicted in the pic is not something that achieved without time.

They can always just stay fat. That is a valid option.

One doesn't have to be fat because one has limited time to workout.

I'm sorry ... which side of this are you arguing?

Also, I'd like to point out that a lot of very poor people are quite fit because the less you make, the more likely it is you're doing some kind of manual labor.

I worked in a grocery store for two years as a cashier and in the bakery. I was on my feet all day, running around doing things and lifting heavy things all the time. Even eating some of the bakery products didn't cause any weight issues because I was moving all the time.

And my next job was in a place for juevmile delinquent girls. It wasn't unusual to have to literally westle them to the ground and hold them down until they were ready to behave themselves. And just going for meals was a lot of walking from their "cottages" to the cafeteria.

Neither job paid particularly well.

Now I make plenty of money and sit at a desk all day.

My "side" is that your personal example is not proof that every mother living in poverty has the opportunity to become fit. They don't necessarily have to be fat, but sometimes regular workouts simply is not possible. Some people have really hard lives.

That's awesome. Are you saying that means no other mother of three has any excuse for not doing the same? Even if they live elsewhere or work more hours or have more expenses or make less? Because otherwise, I don't see your point.

It costs $0 to get in shape. ZERO. DOLLARS.

Unless you consider that time is money, and the level of fitness depicted in the pic is not something that achieved without time.

They can always just stay fat. That is a valid option.

One doesn't have to be fat because one has limited time to workout.

i cant even - did yall see the flipflop - i cant i just cant. you win.

Woohoo!!! I wasn't aware there was a contest, but I love winning. Is there a prize?

But I didn't flip flop. We were dicussing fit and someone threw in fat. You don't have to be fat to be unfit.

We were discussing asthetics, not cardiovascular fitness.

I was discussing the money (and/or time) it takes to reach the level of fitness in the pic. But either way, being fat is separate issue.

She appears fit because of a low bodyfat percentage, so fat is relevant hete. And I said if you do not want to take the time to exercise to become fit (and appear fit as a result), then you could always just stay fat.