The new “Barbie” film portrays the rise and fall of patriarchy. Since the global history of gender is my area of expertise, I have written an assessment of its empirical accuracy. If you’ve watched it and want to reflect on real world parallels, you might enjoy my review. But if you just want to enjoy it or are yet to see it, PLEASE DO NOT READ.
But how exactly were the Barbies brainwashed? It wasn’t shown at all. If they were smart enough to be presidents and doctors, how could they fall so easily to the Kens? That part of the movie made no sense.
The conceit was that the barbies were like indigenous Americans facing Old World germs after the Europeans arrived: having no experience of the ideas of patriarchy, they were unable to resist them. I suppose sensitisation would be the equivalent of inoculation?
examples. The beginning of the film Barbieland was a hyperbolic metaphor for western society in present day. Women dismissing men, their roles as mothers, nurturers in pursuit of absolute control. The dance party, from my perspective was a reflection of the instagramable party lifestyle that’s an unfortunate trend. More so when you account for women and men thinking this is appropriate after having kids, their 20s/college.
This was clearly evident in Barbie’s treatment of Ken, stating she was done with him and she didn’t want him there after the event was over.
The movie was entertaining and I did enjoy it. Everyone has their own life experience in the face of “norms”. The “real world” was obviously satirical. I didn’t see this movie as woke until perhaps the closing act, but it’s not necessarily woke depending on the viewer’s interpretation. The Barbie’s sought to reestablish exactly what existed before. They didn’t learn anything at all. Two wrongs don’t make a right and treat people as you want to be treated. I was hoping this theme would emerge. But instead Barbieland reverted to a world where Ken’s were irrelevant. Even if Ryan Gosling’s Ken became somewhat the villain of the film, he was written so the viewer could see that behind all his “patriarchy” all he really wanted was to have purpose and that purpose was to be loved and valued by Barbie.. This was displayed when Barbie feigned wanting to be his girlfriend. This could have been explored more and that concept does ring true for most men. I think we saw some of that with the ”Black” Ken and the Doctor Barbie. How she instinctively went to him and they embraced and looked happy. It came across as two people that loved one another and that’s all that mattered. Not patriarchy or matriarchy. Barbie did have the most character development. , but it was more or less self centered. She was self aware enough to apologize for marginalizing Ken and eventually he was mature enough to except that apology and become self aware as well but just barely.
What this incidentally highlights is patriarchy is an inescapable form of social organization among humans. Political and/or cultural change only modify patriarchy and require male cooperation and enforcement.
Yes, seems to fit with my male cooperation point. If at some point that selective deference was no longer desirable/acceptable, it would be shaken off violently or the men would simply withdraw entirely. In some ways, such situations are a function of male withdrawal from civil society.
But how exactly were the Barbies brainwashed? It wasn’t shown at all. If they were smart enough to be presidents and doctors, how could they fall so easily to the Kens? That part of the movie made no sense.
The conceit was that the barbies were like indigenous Americans facing Old World germs after the Europeans arrived: having no experience of the ideas of patriarchy, they were unable to resist them. I suppose sensitisation would be the equivalent of inoculation?
They were already sensitised to equality; they lacked a strong military!
I think they were trying to make an analogy with how (bad) ideas (like patriarchy) can go viral.
You only highlight extremes as far as real world
examples. The beginning of the film Barbieland was a hyperbolic metaphor for western society in present day. Women dismissing men, their roles as mothers, nurturers in pursuit of absolute control. The dance party, from my perspective was a reflection of the instagramable party lifestyle that’s an unfortunate trend. More so when you account for women and men thinking this is appropriate after having kids, their 20s/college.
This was clearly evident in Barbie’s treatment of Ken, stating she was done with him and she didn’t want him there after the event was over.
The movie was entertaining and I did enjoy it. Everyone has their own life experience in the face of “norms”. The “real world” was obviously satirical. I didn’t see this movie as woke until perhaps the closing act, but it’s not necessarily woke depending on the viewer’s interpretation. The Barbie’s sought to reestablish exactly what existed before. They didn’t learn anything at all. Two wrongs don’t make a right and treat people as you want to be treated. I was hoping this theme would emerge. But instead Barbieland reverted to a world where Ken’s were irrelevant. Even if Ryan Gosling’s Ken became somewhat the villain of the film, he was written so the viewer could see that behind all his “patriarchy” all he really wanted was to have purpose and that purpose was to be loved and valued by Barbie.. This was displayed when Barbie feigned wanting to be his girlfriend. This could have been explored more and that concept does ring true for most men. I think we saw some of that with the ”Black” Ken and the Doctor Barbie. How she instinctively went to him and they embraced and looked happy. It came across as two people that loved one another and that’s all that mattered. Not patriarchy or matriarchy. Barbie did have the most character development. , but it was more or less self centered. She was self aware enough to apologize for marginalizing Ken and eventually he was mature enough to except that apology and become self aware as well but just barely.
What this incidentally highlights is patriarchy is an inescapable form of social organization among humans. Political and/or cultural change only modify patriarchy and require male cooperation and enforcement.
Did you read the section on the Gulf of Guinea?
Yes, seems to fit with my male cooperation point. If at some point that selective deference was no longer desirable/acceptable, it would be shaken off violently or the men would simply withdraw entirely. In some ways, such situations are a function of male withdrawal from civil society.