For some women in China, “Barbie” is more than just a movie — it’s also a litmus test for their partner’s views on feminism and patriarchy.
The movie has prompted intense social media discussion online, media outlets Sixth Tone and the China Project reported this week, prompting women to discuss their own dating experiences.
One user on the Chinese social media platform Xiaohongshu — a photo-sharing site similar to Instagram that’s mostly used by Gen Z women — even shared a guide on Monday for how women can test their boyfriends based on their reaction to the film.
According to the guide, if a man shows hatred for “Barbie” and slams female directors after they leave the theatre, then this man is “stingy” and a “toxic chauvinist,” according to Insider’s translation of the post. Conversely, if a man understands even half of the movie’s themes, “then he is likely a normal guy with normal values and stable emotions,” the user wrote.
Classic. What countries have insecure men?
TBH came out of theater sad - I’m a bit surprised I don’t see more of these “if you don’t like Barbie you’re insecure” comments in media (so far just some Daily Mirror stuff so pretty much nothing). It’s a great argument if you wish to burn someone in conversation but a bit insane point to make IMO.
Is “not being insecure” just letting go with whatever the entertainment complex shits out? Saying “I am a strong, confident person” and then just doing absolutely nothing out of ordinary if you dislike something? “Fitting in”? Sounds pathetic to me.
I think this movie was terrible - not by production value (however a bit too much talking too little action for a comedy movie) but by being yet another one to divide to ever-smaller tribes. Yet another thing to distract from the have vs have-not’s debate. The means of production/economic system debate.
No, let’s see if you like the latest flavor of feminism, up until another flick (maybe pro-life/pro-choice, LGBT or whatever) comes out and then let’s obsess about sexuality for a bit. Then back to square one while the actually important stuff just passes above everyone’s head.
Thank you for the response! What is the important stuff passing over everyone’s head?
Ngl, happy you asked :)
The percentage of capital owned by the richest 1% skyrocketing in recent decades (and rising sharply 2020+).
Monopolies in media/communication sphere getting larger by the day and utilizing them exactly like the monopolies would do (first example that pops to mind is Google and their web drm bullshit that will be implemented - just as anything what they want - because of their sheer dominance in web searching, tracking and browsing).
Why are there (at least as far as I see in Western Europe) almost no talks to how de-centralize people and make the local communities more self sufficient? Yeah I suspect why - it’s easier to build yet another skyscraper in London and sell flats for mountains of money - half of them or more to corporations that will rent it to people. This however (everybody swarming to city and insanely fast rising prices in relation to average Joe’s pay) is not a good idea both from ecological standpoint and economical wellbeing of middle class (how are you supposed to have at least some generational wealth passed if you and your kids will be renting everything starting with flat and ending with car or fridge). One solution (now that we don’t have a huge need for factories to have a lot of people living nearby) would be to incentivize growth of smaller communities between the cities (eg. lot’s of people work in services but some of them can be done via internet - offer lower tax when you live outside of major city, some can be regulated from government level to mandate certain number of remote hires residing outside of major city)
Even if my examples are flawed I am missing a discussion in the media about that - I don’t see blockbusters pushing these points, I don’t see politicians bringing that to everybody’s attention often (yes it happens but comparing to feminist or lgbtq issues it’s laughingly rare and weak message).
distract from the have vs have-not’s debate
We can debate multiple things at once.
then let’s obsess about … Then back to square one
All those issues are important. So yes, we absolutely should obsess about those for however little they end up being hot, because these conversations are important. They bring attention to stuff and can change minds which is an effect that lingers on.
And it seems wrong taking “not being insecure” as “accept everything”, it seems to be more of “not being insecure about discussing gender inequality and such.”
I respectfully disagree. The attention span is getting shorter on average as is memory - we can debate less and less issues at once every year in my opinion.
Class reductionism is a terrible and privileged take which ignores the plights of those less privileged than you, and even if you did win that way, all you’d end up with is a white supremacist hetero-cis abled patriarchy “socialism”, because none of those issues will magically go away if we abolish capitalism but nothing else, the biases, like the ones screaming out from your comment will all still be there, and those of us who are marginalised now will continue being marginalised then.
Arguing for treating the two as separate sounds like the sarcastic phrase “we need more diversity in our oppressors” or “more war criminals need to be from diverse backgrounds”.
Scapegoats are used to distract us from the root of the issue, which is artificially enforced inequality. Addressing that in a meaningful way involves itself creating a feeling of solidarity among all people in a community no matter who they are.
It’s not reductionist, it’s cutting to the heart of the issue in a way that inherently addresses the issues people are trying to manipulate to derail a real long term solution.
You will never eliminate these prejudices and scapegoats if you don’t put your effort towards the central unifying issue at the heart of this, inequality breeds resentment and scapegoats are easy to use valves to let off the pressure.
It’s a type of Gordian knot in my eyes that we should slice instead of trying to individually untie each knot to get to the center.
… if a man shows hatred for “Barbie” and slams female directors after they leave the theatre, then this man is “stingy” …
Didn’t knew there were that many female directors in China. Let alone having to watch their back to not get sucker-punched for it.
if a man understands even half of the movie’s themes, “then he is likely a normal guy
And when ask about the movie, if he says “she’s hot” and starts masturbating?
Barbie starting the revolution in China? Hopefully other countries as well. Good timeline.
No it’s not lol
Their political leaders are billionaires, the workers don’t own any means of production, there’s terrible workers rights, etc.
That’s how communism always ends up. When you hand over majority of the power to the state, it won’t be keen on giving it back.
That’s like saying the US is not capitalist because we don’t have a true free market and better products/services don’t always rise to the top.
These simply aren’t things that can practically happen, just like the workers owning the means of production.
I have to admit, Barbie becoming a Chinese feminist icon was not on my 2023 bingo card. Anyone taking bets on when we’re gonna get a kpop version of this classic?
Here is an alternative Piped link(s): https://piped.video/watch?v=3UiZLj_jC-E
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I’m open-source, check me out at GitHub.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s): https://piped.video/watch?v=gqeTb0j2nr4
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I’m open-source, check me out at GitHub.
I thought the movie criticizes both extreme feminism and male chauvinism, or did I watch a different Barbie movie?
Yeah. Barbie Was not the good guy in the Barbie movie, right? Like, even in the end they admit that they will not give the Kens true equality, just enough that they basically won’t revolt again. People here calling Barbie a feminist icon, what movie were you watching?
Like, even in the end they admit that they will not give the Kens true equality, just enough that they basically won’t revolt again.
That example isn’t really accurate, they say the Kens eventually will be given the same representativity as the women in the real world. That line is more of a jab against gender inequality than anything.
Sure but it’s still them making a conscious choice to keep oppressing a group until an unrelated reality fixes their shit. Doesn’t sound like they’re good guys at all tbh.
Yeah. I would not take it that literally. I’d say it means they’re gonna do to Kens what “the patriarchy” and many people who support it do to women. Concede rights when they absolutely have to and begrudgingly accept them for the sake of avoiding bigger problems, but still believe in their own supremacy and acting one way while publicly pretending to be accepting of feminism. Then they will say, see, you have all this rights and equality now, no need for “Keninism” anymore and slowly start to backslide and undermine those rights when they feel like they can.
They’re rather copying the spirit of real world patriarchy than just plainly introducing the same laws as it
That’s the point. They blatantly say “someday, the Ken’s will have as much rights as women do in the real world”
The entire point is that treating people as second class like thst isn’t good, regardless of which side its coming from and that we should all be equal. The only time I’d see men complaining about that is when they don’t get it.
That line literally made my jaw drop because I had just been thinking, “Wow this is still kinda messed up. I thought their society would end up much more equal” and then BAM! that line hits. That movie was so good. I’ve been trying to get everyone I know to see it.
Obviously she wasn’t the good guy. She developed a nuclear bomb for heaven’s sake. To be fair I did fall asleep for a bit but I’m pretty sure I got the big plot points.
Lmfao what the actual fuck?
I didn’t watch the movie, nor do I know anything about the premise, so seeing that comment and thinking about Barbie the toy is absolutely hilarious…
I think that was the point, it’s the perfect mirror to the real world. Everyone not okay with how the Barbies treat the Kens in the end should think for a second why that is and why anyone should accept the reverse in the real world.
“Stereotypical Barbie” (the Margot Robbie one) actually seems to get it by the end. In fact, her main character arc was going from being like the other barbies—watered down stereotypes of feminism—to actually a feminist who has a better grasp of why just equalizing out positions of power, while still good, does not address the root of patriarchy.
I don’t think that’s the feminism that the movie was criticizing, but rather the commodified “girl boss feminism” that holds up conventionally beautiful commercial attainment as the ultimate aspirational icon.
As opposed to the feminism of intersectionality and respect for the rights and choices of normal, everyday women.
That is indeed what is in Barbie - if you watch it and actually think about the themes. If you’re just there for the experience then the message is (quote moviegoer behind my back discussing with friends): “goddamn, this is a step in right direction, we won’t change this patriarchal world with one film however“ :P
On a basic level the message “Ken was silly, broke Barbieworld because he wanted to emulate men, they had to get Barbie and a feminist back to fix it” - and that’s what most people will get out of Barbie.
On a basic level the message “Ken was silly, broke Barbieworld because he wanted to emulate men, they had to get Barbie and a feminist back to fix it”
How did he break it? He basically just flipped the genders so Kens are the ruling/working class and Barbies are just subservient eye candy. Barbie just flipped it back. It’s a broken and unimaginably unfair world in either case.
When Kens ask just for a bit of equality at the end, they are shut down and given some unimportant appeasement as a joke.
I take slight issue with your phrasing. “Extreme feminism” isn’t an issue, that’s like saying extreme racial equality is an issue. Feminism isn’t about female superiority, it’s about gender equality. The movie does not criticize extreme feminism, it criticizes chauvinism, whether male or female.
“Extreme feminism” isn’t an issue, that’s like saying extreme racial equality is an issue.
There was a time during the 2010s when third-wave feminism was pushing things too far and trying to create divisive splits on subjects that really didn’t need them, like Atheism+ and a bunch of other things with a plus sign tacked on to it. Fortunately, once the #MeToo movement picked up speed, they switched gears to more important things.
So, yes, you can have an extreme view on anything, even feminism.
When your definition of feminism is “gender equality”, you’re right, there’s no such thing as an extreme. When you take the equity stance and start treating people as groups and funding/defunding one group or the other you are building up new systems of discrimination instead of breaking them down.
