- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- mensliberation
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- mensliberation
- [email protected]
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.
Define “mad”. I’ve watched it (arrr) myself and The Barbie movie is very political, despite them completely hiding it in the trailers and the promotional material.
Fervent political media tends to rile people up, especially when it’s very one-sided. I presume you haven’t seen it and think people are upset over a light hearted comedy.
It’s only political if you think human rights are political. For normal people who care about other people, it’s a light hearted comedy
Human rights are political by definition. Feminism is political by definition. That the average person (or at least the ones worth knowing) is a feminist, whether they know it or not, doesn’t mean the ideas aren’t political in nature.
The problem is that people think political means bad or controversial instead of, you know, relating to concepts of governance and self rule.
The fact that I don’t want to go to the movies to watch propaganda doesn’t mean I’m against that propaganda. I go there to be entertained.
deleted by creator
You didn’t reply to their comment, you just added your own idiotic take. The movie isn’t propaganda unless you think a story about women and men having equal rights and equal opportunity is propaganda.
Is The Matrix propaganda? Is Terminator propaganda? Is Star Trek propaganda? All entertaining movies, all have heavy social commentary.
Those are all propaganda, the problem is people use propaganda to mean lies when it means information and ideas disseminated to impact public opinion.
So, you know, basically all art and every intellectual pursuit.
I haven’t seen the Barbie movie. I have no idea what it’s like. My comment was about “propaganda” movies in general
You’ll get nothing from communists in this discussion friend. People refuse to allow our media to be escapism anymore and demand even already addressed issues drilled into ‘entertainment’. We traded pop culture references for this, and somehow I want the references back
The Barbie movie is still escapism, media in general is still escapism. Media has always contained messages or lessons or political meaning, it’s not a new thing, nobody’s disallowing anything. If you don’t like today’s media, maybe it’s because you don’t like the messages they contain anymore. Sometimes you gotta look inward before blaming things on “society”.
It’s my opinion that thematic messages presented now are overt, with little nuance, and hold the same level of failure to look inward biases you claim. There is no discussion to be had when you hold a meeting with strawmen.
Great writers and media of the past were lauded for holding something that is presented as a moral evil up to caliber in logic and presentation. Taking a threat seriously so to speak. Look at an instance like Metal Gear, where despite the intent and presentation saying warmongering is bad, the writers still had the wherewithal to gauge a reasonable position you’d face fighting that ideology. You aren’t meant to agree with Zero or the Patriots or BB. But you can see and understand their logic to lead these actions.
What is this but taking a child’s doll and using it to spew word vomit level rhetoric that focuses on buzzwords and failed symbolism than actually addressing anything core to the point. If you want to make some preaching movie do it. But when you market your film as a lighthearted romp of self discovery involving an inanimate object, don’t be shocked when people push back.
Ahhhhhhh, so you do have a point to make. It took this entire thread for you to share it with us, and it was after it was heavily implied that you’re too much of a social conservative to enjoy art, which I still believe is the case. Did you get all of your talking points from The Critical Drinker? Also, your comparison of Barbie to MGS3 is apples to oranges. Highlighting complicated characters such as Zero and the Patriots doesn’t negate any of the heavy-handedness Kojima is also known for, and it certainly isn’t a compelling argument that the Barbie movie is without nuance or merit.
EvErYoNe WhO dIsAgReEs WiTh Me Is A cOmMuNiSt. You’re not even aware at how much of a self-report you’re doing.
It’s not one-sided, though. It argues that both matriarchy and patriarchy are not inclusive ways of operating a society. The movie did not shy away from showing Ken’s dissatisfaction living under a matriarchy, just like it did not shy away from showing Gloria and Sasha’s dissatisfaction with living under a patriarchy
I liked that it at least gave a few nods to the idea that living in a patriarchy isn’t necessarily great for all men either. Not all men have power, and even the ones that do aren’t necessarily happier for it and find themselves competing with other men and restricting their own self-expression. That’s a nuance that’s lost in a lot of pop feminist messaging.
Absolutely! The dolls of both genders that were discontinued or discarded were the first ones to bring down the patriarchy in Barbie land, including Allan and Sugar’s Daddy/Magic Ring Ken
Fucking Good. I’ve really got to watch it.
I love it for being an egalitarian movie. More of that please.
That really is the whole point, too. The entire conflict is based on the fact that Barbieland is a construct of the imaginary world created by girls playing with their dolls, in which Ken has only ever been marketed or existed as an accessory to Barbie. His entire existence, in both the real world of marketing and consumerism, and in the imaginary world of Barbie, is predicated solely on giving Barbie arm candy. I’m not entirely convinced that this point was entirely deliberate, but it really does highlight that, in creating a product to give girls a role model that says they can do and be whatever they want, that those girls internalized their understanding of the male-dominated world around them, and flipped that on its head. Their imaginary world is a very literal mirror to our own, and as a result, it is still dominated by the same inherently sexist attitudes, only kinder and gentler because they are created through the lens of childhood innocence. Kids are only able to create with tools and media they understand, and the polarized nature of the world around them, and our intense need to make everything a binary, means that a “fair world” never looks like one where everyone is treated the same. It’s a world where they’re in charge.
I’m not even going to get into the overtly sexist assumption that only girls play with dolls, and with Barbie in particular. Toys are toys, and I never understood the need to tell a kid that something is off limits because it’s pink or is “a doll”. The people who most strongly hold these beliefs tend to be the ones that grew up when GI Joe was a full size doll just like Barbie, with his own clothes and uniforms and such. Well before the idea of an “action figure” came around. These folks played with dolls that were, for all intents and purposes, functionally identical to any girls’ doll of the day, and yet are so quick to slap a Barbie or a Bratz doll out of the hands of their grandsons.
Anyhow, long story short, it’s a great movie that explores some very heavy subject matter, and almost but not quite gets its own premise. Most of the people who are irrationally angry with the film have never seen it, and probably won’t for fear of being turned gay, or worse: liberal.
Exactly the way actual feminism does instead of the conservative boogeyman “feminism” that’s just female chauvinism espoused by an extreme minority.
…
deleted by creator
There are only two categories: the status quo (no matter how shitty it might be for some populations) and “political”.
If it’s talking about equality then it’s not political. People’s lives are not political they are not objects for other people to react to. Touch grass.
deleted by creator