Pharmaceutical chem student here, I haven't read the book but absolutely loved gasping dramatically at every lab safety breach or very exaggerated and unrealistic science talk. The only series I can think about which isn't scifi but has a very well written female protagonist who's obsessed with poisons and drugs is The Apothecary Diaries, it's set in ancient imperial China (kinda) though so the science is very different from what we do, but I still adore reading about the medical mysteries
seeing people say that science is the opposite of or somehow disproves religion is so frustrating as a catholic biology student. Like, saying stuff like that completely ignores how beautifully complex our world, and also that more then one thing can be true that the same time! loved the video ❤️❤️
What does you being a Catholic have to do with Biology though? How does Catholism even come into play when it comes to Biology? Or any religion for that matter? How is religion important especially when it comes to Biology? Also, science does not disprove the existence of deities, not religion. Mind you, it doesn't prove their existence either. I've seen people try to prove or disprove the existence of deities because their existence is up for debate. But not religions. Religions do exist. They are man-made. They were made to make sense of the world. They were made for social cohesion and moral guidance. Why would anyone even try to claim they don't exist? It would be like saying bread doesn't exist while living next to a bakery. I am not trying to pick a fight or hurt your feelings btw. I am not personally religious but a lot of people I love and respect are. I was just baffled by what you said. Edit - Religions are like organisations. They have founders. To say they don't exist is like saying Google doesn't exist. When it comes to deities, the claim made by religious people is that their deities came into existence through miracles and they existed before us so we couldn't have made them. Which is why there is speculation there but not in the case of religions.
i love video essays on books they’re so underrated. this is entertaining, love learning about books so i can determine if i want to read them on my own or not. this one is prob a no.
pants were absolutely an issue in the 50s, girls werent allowed to wear trousers to my high school back then. some christian sects (like the one i was raised in) didnt and still dont allow girls/women to wear pants
Thanks for the comment! I knew some Christian sects didn't, and still don't, allow pants, but I didn't know if it was really that scandalous for the time.
your points from a scientific point of view was *chef's kiss*, the mark of true knowledge in a thing (or science) is the ability to explain it to someone like they are 5, anyway pass the sodium chloride
I'm more of a microbiologist than a chemist, but I was having huge issues with the lab-kitchen situation. Isn't no eating in a lab like a universal rule? She's handling potentially harmful chemicals and preparing food in the same room WITH THE SAME EQUIPMENT. So unprofessional of Elizabeth. I didn't hate the book, but it was apparent the author didn't know very much about how scientists work. I would've hoped and expected Elizabeth were a bigger fan of safety. Building a lab was no biggie for her, so as a resourceful woman she absolutely should have been able to DIY herself a separated kitchen nook in order not to ingest chemical traces with her breakfast muffins...
I started watching the show, not realizing it was adapted from the book. I had to stop after the first episode because the protagonist was so unlikeable. You really nailed it with the comparison to the Big Bang characters! They had to punctuate everything she did with some smarmy, condescending quip about how inferior her colleagues were. Even other women! It was not very #girlboss of her.
the mini series is actually not as bad as you make the book seem. it kinda fixes a lot of the stuff you have problems with to make it more believable and as long as you suspend your disbelief it’s an enjoyable watch. i’d recommend :)
I've been wanting to watch the series for this exact reason. I slogged through the book and hated every minute. Maybe in this brief instance, a screen adaptation could actually be markedly better than the book
(Apologies in advance for this long comment featuring my reactions haha.) I cannot express just how much I fucking loooooathe the "haha, this nerd is so lame he can't even read the room and stop talking about his research long enough to get laid!" trope. It always feels so mean-spirited, like a joke the bully from an 80s or 90s teen movie make. Forget not respecting Elizabeth as a scientist, I don't respect ANYONE as a Person if they don't respect boundaries like that save for some sort of medical emergency or something. Even if Calvin was just her teenage son and not her work colleague that shit would be inappropriate as all hell. And did she even knock on the door before going into that room? The LEAST she could have done was knock and ask him for the spares from the other side or SOMEthing. :/ The fucking Scream of "WHAT?!" I let out when you listed those things Elizabeth would let her child do. There's a fucking REASON those safety protocols are in place and no parent who actually cares about the safety and well-being of their child would let them fucking lick, rip, or BURN any random thing. That's not only a Highly possible death sentence for you and/or you child it's the same if they burn down your house or- god forbid -apartment building. I'm not a parent or a scientist of any kind but lord knows I have enough knowledge about how children and science works to know how fucking ridiculous that is. Not only is that random jab at religion completely unnecessary it's also something that would NOT have happened back in the 50s. Segregated schools weren't even deemed unconstitutional in America until 54 and the main reason most people cited the bible as why they Shouldn't do that. There is No WAY a Single Mother would have felt comfortable enough to try and talk bad about religion. She's already enough of a social pariah as-is without adding the bad-mouthing of Christianity. So far it really feels like this book was written by a middle-aged white woman with no sort of degree and/or job in STEM who just wanted to write a story about "smashing the patriarchy" and has no real idea how things worked back then outside of sanitized media from the era without any input from actual historians. The initials thing......I'm not even gonna get into that. OR the fatphobia as shorthand for "gross/evil person" or I'll be here all day. wrt the pants thing, a quick google search says that pants didn't become a widespread thing women could wear in public until around the late 60s at the earliest. And that some places could/would either send you home or simply fire you outright if you did. It wasn't illegal, but it definitely wouldn't be surprising to see more than just the producer making angry remarks about her wearing pants. (And I'm not just talking about the staff, either.) The thing about pink merchandising being floated by the advertisers is that Does make sense for the time period. Also, whether the association of pink automatically equaling girly is a good thing or not depends on the person, imo (I think it is only because it usually brings with it a negative connotation of pink - girly = lesser than blue which = manly which = good. I'm afab and LOVE pink, but I also feel like we shouldn't have gendered products like that.) The author is reaaaaaaaally not beating the allegations of wanting to write a book solely about "smashing the patriarchy" right about now with that preachy rant about society. She's not wrong about what she said, it's the way she said it and keeps saying it throughout the book which is my issue. It all feels super preachy and heavy-handed. Not to mention that bit you mentioned about the implication that stay-at-home moms are "less valuable" just because they don't have a job. You're definitely MUCH nicer to this book than I would have been, ngl. Even in just this comment I was way harsher, tbh. lol That said, I really enjoyed the review, so at least there's that!
Appreciate the long comment bestie! The messages definitely came off super preachy. There were parts I really wanted to agree with but the way they were presented just made me cringe. I also really resented that instead of embracing the show and making it something really special, Elizabeth quits to go back to being a chemist. I understand that being a chemist is her dream, but it kind of felt like she was turning her back on all the housewives she just inspired. Like they weren't good enough for her because she wasn't doing REAL science.
@@sentireads That's definitely a major problem I had as well. I also understand the dream job thing, but like you said, it really felt like she was abandoning them. Which honestly feels in-character considering the excerpts you showed. The whole time Elizabeth came off as really arrogant and rude, and not in the "oh, she's just a woman in the work force who's raising her voice to be heard" kind of way, either. Between the stuff like flaunting safety protocols, randomly inserting her anti-religious rant (I'm also an atheist who only asks you to not try and force your religion onto me if you are), and all of the ways she seemed very against stay-at-home moms, Elizabeth just seemed like those people who shame you for not compromising on certain things even if it means you get in trouble for it. (The following is an extreme example but also just off the top of my head) She felt like those people who shame others for joining the military to pay for school or housing and then going "you should have just not enlisted if you didn't want ptsd from being on the battlefield. being temporarily homeless is a small price to pay for not compromising your morals" or other situations where you would have had difficulties surviving. Feel free to correct me if you think otherwise sine you read the book and not me, but that was definitely the vibe I got from what you shared.
I ended up cutting it out of the video because I didn't want it to come off the wrong way, but I commented on Elizabeth being so blunt, aggressive, and seemingly socially unaware despite her high intelligence as coming off like she has autism. Except autism is NEVER mentioned in the book, so Elizabeth just comes off as an aloof jerk. Like with the random religious rant, I actually don't think she was INTENTIONALLY trying to be rude and she definitely didn't view it as a rude statement, but bashing someone's beliefs out of nowhere is super rude. (Not saying that autistic people are rude. But that they often lack a sense of social awareness that can be perceived as being rude)
@@sentireads As someone with autism who definitely has the problem of lacking social awareness, I can say that I personally disagree with that reading. Obviously we aren't a monolith so I can only speak for myself, but she came off to me as less aloof and oblivious and more of the kind of person who thinks so highly of herself to she doesn't actually consider she may be doing something stupid. Like letting her child do all those things that could end up with either of them dead. Like I said before I'm not a scientist, so if this isn't the case please let me know, but I feel like she would have learned in college and/or while working as a chemist what safety protocols are in place and why. Something which I figure should have transferred over to her daily life when converting her kitchen into a home lab. Although I'll also admit that I think the only tangentially-related religious rant thing would make sense regarding possible autism if the story took place in modern day. (I do that same thing of relating seemingly unrelated to the current topic only aaaaall the time altho I think might be more of an ADHD thing.) But if a woman started talking like that in the 50s she would have gotten in MAJOR trouble no matter who she said it to. At that point it's not even a matter of lacking social awareness, it's a matter of self-preservation. While I agree that she definitely didn't seem to view it as a rude statement and that she doesn't seem to be intentionally mean/callous, but I think that's more an issue of narration rather than Elizabeth possibly having autism. That third-person omniscient perspective was NOT doing this book any favours. Also, if Elizabeth WAS intended to be autistic even if it's never mentioned, then I'd say she'd end up falling into the "autistic savant" and/or "Hollywood autism" trope considering the combination of blunt/obliviousness, seeming lack of social awareness, and high intelligence. And that would be an issue in and of itself. (apologies if this seems rambly or defensive, I just tend to be like that when not writing fiction and when I get going on a topic I Get Going.😅)
I think I jumped to the autism conclusion because she reminds me of autistic coded characters like Sheldon Cooper. Its exactly the savant trope you mentioned, which is another irritating stereotype about scientists. I'd agree that Elizabeth is more arrogant than oblivious, and she has ZERO self preservation skills. I didn't cover it extensively in the video, but she disregards just about every order from the television studio about how the show should be ran. Won't wear the outfits, wants to change the set, won't read the script, etc. She seems to genuinely think she's being helpful though in making the show better by doing things her way. There's definitely room for different interpretations of the character. I don't know for sure if the author intended in any way for Elizabeth to have autism.
We are NOT allowed pencils in any lab I've every worked in. Also, its so true that so many things in the lab are brown. Though I work in Elisa testing now and sometimes I get conjugates and substrates that are pretty colors but nothing is ever bubbling!!
I’m so surprised you didn’t touch on my least favourite science scene. It’s the one where she grabs the soup can and just says ‘it’s full of chemicals and will kill your family’ like after everything we have learned about this women she would have gone into exhausting detail about what chemicals it was and how it would kill you. If the lady who calls salt sodium chloride doesn’t explain in detail the deadly chemicals in your soup you’ve written her inconsistently.
The weight thing is weird to me. From my limited understanding, a full figure was ideal at the time. Like, Marylin Monroe was the most gorgeous idealized woman at the time, and you definitely wouldn't call her skinny. Not fat either, but definitely full figured. I haven't actually read the book, so are the women that are criticized about their weight actually supposed to be plus-sized/overweight? Or is it just an easy cheap way to add misogyny. Seems like it is probably the second one.
A mild notation, 'being religious' does not equate to 'believes in the Christian Abrahamic God', and 'religious people' does not equal 'Christians'. I'm being a little pedantic, just a thought that I think might be nice to bear in mind since as you kinda pointed out in the video, phrasing matters and the wording used and repeated a few times in the video kinda keeps driving in the idea that religion=mainstream Christianity 😅 Also honestly while the book does misogyny in a way that feels over the top, like, this was the 50s. I've heard other women today talk about their stories and it really is that bad even these days sometimes (thinking about the heifer comment particularly here). We didn't even have the right to use banks until the 60s, and didn't have the right to open a bank account without a man signing off until the 70s. We are still struggling with this shit today, but it was so much worse back in the day before we had all those social rights movements. (And now we're sliding back on some of the progress, but that's neither here nor there) Now, did she handle the material well, write it well, or successfully deliver the points she was trying to make? Oh hell no, just from the excerpts and summary it's pretty clear she did not lol. But, that being said, I think her lack of skill in writing is unfortunately clouding real issues ppl had/have to face. SID: Afab, pagan
I didn't read the book, but I watched part of the TV series. (Spoilers below) It stopped watching after her boyfriend got hit by a bus while walking their anachronistic goldendoodle. It was such a stupid, tropey way to kill him off, and idk if it's how it happens in the book, but I was no longer interested in the show. I was also annoyed that this super smart woman who didn't want children had a whoopsie accident baby. I get that birth control wasn't what it is now, but there were methods to prevent that, especially as a chemist. Another annoying trope. I also hated the way they spoke. It came across exactly like Sheldon. Even people who are passionate about their work or hobbies can find other things to talk about at times. It was so annoying and made her seem robotic. The girl power message was pandering and inauthentic. It was portrayed cartoonishly like some 90s dramedy. So yeah, there are my complaints about the portions of the show that I watched.
you said everything i said earlier- just much more eloquently lol. one thing abt the miniseries that made me upset is how it deleted entire narratives in favor of more modern or for an extreme term woke storylines (it replaced Elizabeth’s neighbor and her crappy husband with a black woman who is fighting a highway being built in the area) which I wouldn’t usually be upset about, but it reframes the entire story of the book and I feel like that changes things too much for me? if that makes sense- also the dialogue WAS incredibly cringey :(
32:30 UCLA used to have one of the highest acceptance rates and was generally looked down upon for being “easy to get into,” so this actually tracks
Pharmaceutical chem student here, I haven't read the book but absolutely loved gasping dramatically at every lab safety breach or very exaggerated and unrealistic science talk. The only series I can think about which isn't scifi but has a very well written female protagonist who's obsessed with poisons and drugs is The Apothecary Diaries, it's set in ancient imperial China (kinda) though so the science is very different from what we do, but I still adore reading about the medical mysteries
seeing people say that science is the opposite of or somehow disproves religion is so frustrating as a catholic biology student. Like, saying stuff like that completely ignores how beautifully complex our world, and also that more then one thing can be true that the same time! loved the video ❤️❤️
What does you being a Catholic have to do with Biology though? How does Catholism even come into play when it comes to Biology? Or any religion for that matter? How is religion important especially when it comes to Biology?
Also, science does not disprove the existence of deities, not religion. Mind you, it doesn't prove their existence either. I've seen people try to prove or disprove the existence of deities because their existence is up for debate. But not religions. Religions do exist. They are man-made. They were made to make sense of the world. They were made for social cohesion and moral guidance. Why would anyone even try to claim they don't exist? It would be like saying bread doesn't exist while living next to a bakery.
I am not trying to pick a fight or hurt your feelings btw. I am not personally religious but a lot of people I love and respect are. I was just baffled by what you said.
Edit - Religions are like organisations. They have founders. To say they don't exist is like saying Google doesn't exist. When it comes to deities, the claim made by religious people is that their deities came into existence through miracles and they existed before us so we couldn't have made them. Which is why there is speculation there but not in the case of religions.
i love video essays on books they’re so underrated. this is entertaining, love learning about books so i can determine if i want to read them on my own or not. this one is prob a no.
This book would make me furious. Thank you for reading it so I don’t have to 😂
pants were absolutely an issue in the 50s, girls werent allowed to wear trousers to my high school back then. some christian sects (like the one i was raised in) didnt and still dont allow girls/women to wear pants
Thanks for the comment! I knew some Christian sects didn't, and still don't, allow pants, but I didn't know if it was really that scandalous for the time.
Yet another instalment of the senti being correct about things series, excellent work
your points from a scientific point of view was *chef's kiss*, the mark of true knowledge in a thing (or science) is the ability to explain it to someone like they are 5, anyway pass the sodium chloride
I'm more of a microbiologist than a chemist, but I was having huge issues with the lab-kitchen situation. Isn't no eating in a lab like a universal rule? She's handling potentially harmful chemicals and preparing food in the same room WITH THE SAME EQUIPMENT. So unprofessional of Elizabeth. I didn't hate the book, but it was apparent the author didn't know very much about how scientists work. I would've hoped and expected Elizabeth were a bigger fan of safety. Building a lab was no biggie for her, so as a resourceful woman she absolutely should have been able to DIY herself a separated kitchen nook in order not to ingest chemical traces with her breakfast muffins...
There's a scene where she makes coffee in her lab equipment. As a chemist, you couldn't pay me to drink anything made in my glassware.
I started watching the show, not realizing it was adapted from the book. I had to stop after the first episode because the protagonist was so unlikeable. You really nailed it with the comparison to the Big Bang characters! They had to punctuate everything she did with some smarmy, condescending quip about how inferior her colleagues were. Even other women! It was not very #girlboss of her.
the mini series is actually not as bad as you make the book seem. it kinda fixes a lot of the stuff you have problems with to make it more believable and as long as you suspend your disbelief it’s an enjoyable watch. i’d recommend :)
Maybe I will have to check it out then! I might actually like it compared to the book.
I've been wanting to watch the series for this exact reason. I slogged through the book and hated every minute. Maybe in this brief instance, a screen adaptation could actually be markedly better than the book
The omnicient narrator feels like a person telling me every single thing that happened on screen in a movie they watched. It's very tiring to me.
Agreed! It gives an odd vibe
As a chemistry interested person I really loved your review of this book (that I didn't read). Well done!
(Apologies in advance for this long comment featuring my reactions haha.)
I cannot express just how much I fucking loooooathe the "haha, this nerd is so lame he can't even read the room and stop talking about his research long enough to get laid!" trope. It always feels so mean-spirited, like a joke the bully from an 80s or 90s teen movie make.
Forget not respecting Elizabeth as a scientist, I don't respect ANYONE as a Person if they don't respect boundaries like that save for some sort of medical emergency or something. Even if Calvin was just her teenage son and not her work colleague that shit would be inappropriate as all hell. And did she even knock on the door before going into that room? The LEAST she could have done was knock and ask him for the spares from the other side or SOMEthing. :/
The fucking Scream of "WHAT?!" I let out when you listed those things Elizabeth would let her child do. There's a fucking REASON those safety protocols are in place and no parent who actually cares about the safety and well-being of their child would let them fucking lick, rip, or BURN any random thing. That's not only a Highly possible death sentence for you and/or you child it's the same if they burn down your house or- god forbid -apartment building. I'm not a parent or a scientist of any kind but lord knows I have enough knowledge about how children and science works to know how fucking ridiculous that is.
Not only is that random jab at religion completely unnecessary it's also something that would NOT have happened back in the 50s. Segregated schools weren't even deemed unconstitutional in America until 54 and the main reason most people cited the bible as why they Shouldn't do that. There is No WAY a Single Mother would have felt comfortable enough to try and talk bad about religion. She's already enough of a social pariah as-is without adding the bad-mouthing of Christianity. So far it really feels like this book was written by a middle-aged white woman with no sort of degree and/or job in STEM who just wanted to write a story about "smashing the patriarchy" and has no real idea how things worked back then outside of sanitized media from the era without any input from actual historians.
The initials thing......I'm not even gonna get into that. OR the fatphobia as shorthand for "gross/evil person" or I'll be here all day.
wrt the pants thing, a quick google search says that pants didn't become a widespread thing women could wear in public until around the late 60s at the earliest. And that some places could/would either send you home or simply fire you outright if you did. It wasn't illegal, but it definitely wouldn't be surprising to see more than just the producer making angry remarks about her wearing pants. (And I'm not just talking about the staff, either.)
The thing about pink merchandising being floated by the advertisers is that Does make sense for the time period. Also, whether the association of pink automatically equaling girly is a good thing or not depends on the person, imo (I think it is only because it usually brings with it a negative connotation of pink - girly = lesser than blue which = manly which = good. I'm afab and LOVE pink, but I also feel like we shouldn't have gendered products like that.)
The author is reaaaaaaaally not beating the allegations of wanting to write a book solely about "smashing the patriarchy" right about now with that preachy rant about society. She's not wrong about what she said, it's the way she said it and keeps saying it throughout the book which is my issue. It all feels super preachy and heavy-handed. Not to mention that bit you mentioned about the implication that stay-at-home moms are "less valuable" just because they don't have a job.
You're definitely MUCH nicer to this book than I would have been, ngl. Even in just this comment I was way harsher, tbh. lol That said, I really enjoyed the review, so at least there's that!
Appreciate the long comment bestie!
The messages definitely came off super preachy. There were parts I really wanted to agree with but the way they were presented just made me cringe. I also really resented that instead of embracing the show and making it something really special, Elizabeth quits to go back to being a chemist. I understand that being a chemist is her dream, but it kind of felt like she was turning her back on all the housewives she just inspired. Like they weren't good enough for her because she wasn't doing REAL science.
@@sentireads That's definitely a major problem I had as well. I also understand the dream job thing, but like you said, it really felt like she was abandoning them. Which honestly feels in-character considering the excerpts you showed. The whole time Elizabeth came off as really arrogant and rude, and not in the "oh, she's just a woman in the work force who's raising her voice to be heard" kind of way, either. Between the stuff like flaunting safety protocols, randomly inserting her anti-religious rant (I'm also an atheist who only asks you to not try and force your religion onto me if you are), and all of the ways she seemed very against stay-at-home moms, Elizabeth just seemed like those people who shame you for not compromising on certain things even if it means you get in trouble for it.
(The following is an extreme example but also just off the top of my head) She felt like those people who shame others for joining the military to pay for school or housing and then going "you should have just not enlisted if you didn't want ptsd from being on the battlefield. being temporarily homeless is a small price to pay for not compromising your morals" or other situations where you would have had difficulties surviving.
Feel free to correct me if you think otherwise sine you read the book and not me, but that was definitely the vibe I got from what you shared.
I ended up cutting it out of the video because I didn't want it to come off the wrong way, but I commented on Elizabeth being so blunt, aggressive, and seemingly socially unaware despite her high intelligence as coming off like she has autism. Except autism is NEVER mentioned in the book, so Elizabeth just comes off as an aloof jerk. Like with the random religious rant, I actually don't think she was INTENTIONALLY trying to be rude and she definitely didn't view it as a rude statement, but bashing someone's beliefs out of nowhere is super rude.
(Not saying that autistic people are rude. But that they often lack a sense of social awareness that can be perceived as being rude)
@@sentireads As someone with autism who definitely has the problem of lacking social awareness, I can say that I personally disagree with that reading. Obviously we aren't a monolith so I can only speak for myself, but she came off to me as less aloof and oblivious and more of the kind of person who thinks so highly of herself to she doesn't actually consider she may be doing something stupid. Like letting her child do all those things that could end up with either of them dead. Like I said before I'm not a scientist, so if this isn't the case please let me know, but I feel like she would have learned in college and/or while working as a chemist what safety protocols are in place and why. Something which I figure should have transferred over to her daily life when converting her kitchen into a home lab.
Although I'll also admit that I think the only tangentially-related religious rant thing would make sense regarding possible autism if the story took place in modern day. (I do that same thing of relating seemingly unrelated to the current topic only aaaaall the time altho I think might be more of an ADHD thing.) But if a woman started talking like that in the 50s she would have gotten in MAJOR trouble no matter who she said it to. At that point it's not even a matter of lacking social awareness, it's a matter of self-preservation.
While I agree that she definitely didn't seem to view it as a rude statement and that she doesn't seem to be intentionally mean/callous, but I think that's more an issue of narration rather than Elizabeth possibly having autism. That third-person omniscient perspective was NOT doing this book any favours.
Also, if Elizabeth WAS intended to be autistic even if it's never mentioned, then I'd say she'd end up falling into the "autistic savant" and/or "Hollywood autism" trope considering the combination of blunt/obliviousness, seeming lack of social awareness, and high intelligence. And that would be an issue in and of itself.
(apologies if this seems rambly or defensive, I just tend to be like that when not writing fiction and when I get going on a topic I Get Going.😅)
I think I jumped to the autism conclusion because she reminds me of autistic coded characters like Sheldon Cooper. Its exactly the savant trope you mentioned, which is another irritating stereotype about scientists.
I'd agree that Elizabeth is more arrogant than oblivious, and she has ZERO self preservation skills. I didn't cover it extensively in the video, but she disregards just about every order from the television studio about how the show should be ran. Won't wear the outfits, wants to change the set, won't read the script, etc. She seems to genuinely think she's being helpful though in making the show better by doing things her way.
There's definitely room for different interpretations of the character. I don't know for sure if the author intended in any way for Elizabeth to have autism.
We are NOT allowed pencils in any lab I've every worked in.
Also, its so true that so many things in the lab are brown. Though I work in Elisa testing now and sometimes I get conjugates and substrates that are pretty colors but nothing is ever bubbling!!
The prettiest color I get is from color indicators for titrations. Everything else is brown!
Have a good day in the lab 💛
@34:00 the applause
Also, never be the first to stop applauding lest you get a tenner!!
I’m so surprised you didn’t touch on my least favourite science scene. It’s the one where she grabs the soup can and just says ‘it’s full of chemicals and will kill your family’ like after everything we have learned about this women she would have gone into exhausting detail about what chemicals it was and how it would kill you. If the lady who calls salt sodium chloride doesn’t explain in detail the deadly chemicals in your soup you’ve written her inconsistently.
The weight thing is weird to me. From my limited understanding, a full figure was ideal at the time. Like, Marylin Monroe was the most gorgeous idealized woman at the time, and you definitely wouldn't call her skinny. Not fat either, but definitely full figured. I haven't actually read the book, so are the women that are criticized about their weight actually supposed to be plus-sized/overweight? Or is it just an easy cheap way to add misogyny. Seems like it is probably the second one.
I don't think I've ever clicked a notification this fast💀
A mild notation, 'being religious' does not equate to 'believes in the Christian Abrahamic God', and 'religious people' does not equal 'Christians'. I'm being a little pedantic, just a thought that I think might be nice to bear in mind since as you kinda pointed out in the video, phrasing matters and the wording used and repeated a few times in the video kinda keeps driving in the idea that religion=mainstream Christianity 😅
Also honestly while the book does misogyny in a way that feels over the top, like, this was the 50s. I've heard other women today talk about their stories and it really is that bad even these days sometimes (thinking about the heifer comment particularly here). We didn't even have the right to use banks until the 60s, and didn't have the right to open a bank account without a man signing off until the 70s. We are still struggling with this shit today, but it was so much worse back in the day before we had all those social rights movements. (And now we're sliding back on some of the progress, but that's neither here nor there)
Now, did she handle the material well, write it well, or successfully deliver the points she was trying to make? Oh hell no, just from the excerpts and summary it's pretty clear she did not lol. But, that being said, I think her lack of skill in writing is unfortunately clouding real issues ppl had/have to face.
SID: Afab, pagan
I didn't read the book, but I watched part of the TV series. (Spoilers below)
It stopped watching after her boyfriend got hit by a bus while walking their anachronistic goldendoodle. It was such a stupid, tropey way to kill him off, and idk if it's how it happens in the book, but I was no longer interested in the show.
I was also annoyed that this super smart woman who didn't want children had a whoopsie accident baby. I get that birth control wasn't what it is now, but there were methods to prevent that, especially as a chemist. Another annoying trope.
I also hated the way they spoke. It came across exactly like Sheldon. Even people who are passionate about their work or hobbies can find other things to talk about at times. It was so annoying and made her seem robotic.
The girl power message was pandering and inauthentic. It was portrayed cartoonishly like some 90s dramedy.
So yeah, there are my complaints about the portions of the show that I watched.
you said everything i said earlier- just much more eloquently lol. one thing abt the miniseries that made me upset is how it deleted entire narratives in favor of more modern or for an extreme term woke storylines (it replaced Elizabeth’s neighbor and her crappy husband with a black woman who is fighting a highway being built in the area) which I wouldn’t usually be upset about, but it reframes the entire story of the book and I feel like that changes things too much for me? if that makes sense- also the dialogue WAS incredibly cringey :(