- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- [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.
You must log in or register to comment.
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=gqeTb0j2nr4
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I’m open-source, check me out at GitHub.
Good bot!
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.
We really should have clients redirect to Piped by default
Barbie starting the revolution in China? Hopefully other countries as well. Good timeline.
Little Pink Cookbook!
Little Pink Cookbook!
Little Pink Cookbook?
You’ve got to do the cooking by the book ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
China is already communist
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.
That doesn’t make any sense though. Communism isn’t when you “give power to the state.” It’s a word used to describe a specific economic system that China does not have. The word that best describes what I think you’re getting at is “authoritarian.” Words mean things, and if a thing doesn’t fit the definition of a word, then it isn’t that word.
Which communist state didn’t end up authoritarian?
Homie, which states have ever actually implemented communism? Calling yourself “Communist” means about as much as North Korea calling themselves a" Democratic People’s Republic" if you don’t actually implement it’s ideas.
Additionally, all attempts at democracy, and all instances of capitalism, have resulted in tyranny, because it’s just really hard to build a society that doesn’t do that no matter what governmental system and economic system you set out to establish.
Even places like New Zealand or the Nordic countries which are much closer to a social democracy are tyrannical insofar as they participate, propagate, and benefit from a global network of capitalism that is only possible through the exploitation of hundreds millions, if not billions of people. Outsourcing your tyranny and exploitation to other places on the planet is still tyranny.and exploitation: it just has better PR.
which states have ever actually implemented communism?
Ah, no true communism. Communism certainly can’t end up authoritarian if there is no true communism. ;p
Yeah and North Korea is a democratic republic.
deleted by creator
I am genuinely amazed this movie wasn’t banned in China
Well they included the nine-dash line in the movies silly map (I believe Vietnam banned the movie because of this) and there’s no zombies or Winnie the Pooh references so all good as far as the CCP goes.
9 dash line?
It’s a line China drew in the south china sea and claim its theirs for historical reason if I remember correctly.
Pissed off a load of other countries as it claimed some of their ocean defined by international law
Wikipedia link: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nine-dash_line
https://twitter.com/rzhongnotes/status/1675936014135619584?s=20
How the fuck can anyone take this seriously is my question. This is not a geopolitical map.
This is an insult to the free world. Fuck the Barbie movie.
Tbh that map looks nothing like the nine dash map and there are only eight dashes. It’s quite a stretch imo
It’s absolutely intentionally supposed to be the 9 dash line. You don’t think movie studios are INTIMATELY aware of how to get their movie seen in China?
I think if anyone gets mad at a Barbie movie or some random article on the internet that has nothing to do with them, that’s a good sign they’re emotionally unstable
I’d call it emotionally immature.
A surprising number of the people I grew up or work with act like they’re still in high school when it comes to social/interpersonal skills – these people are all well over 30 years old.
People are free to be mad at anything as they please as long as they dont harm to other people.
Or maybe people should not be mad at news article of Russia invading Ukraine for no reason?
You are comparing war to an article on Barbie lmao I can’t take you seriously
It is an article. Both.
Dont worry, I also dont take people on Internet seriously. Most of them are not even my equal.
I thought the movie criticizes both extreme feminism and male chauvinism, or did I watched a different Barbie movie?
That’s what the article is saying as well.
Any gendered chauvinism sucks and patriarchy causes suffering to anyone.
And if someone comes out of the movie angered by this knowledge, they can be a troublesome person to other people.
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?
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…
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.
“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.
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.
Sure but it’s still them making a conscious choice to keep oppressing a group until an unrelated reality fixes their shit.
I hope you see the irony in that phrase.
Doesn’t sound like they’re good guys at all tbh.
This isn’t Star Wars my dude, not everything needs to be good vs evil. Sometimes there’s even room for satire.
Yeah the movie doesn’t paint them as good guys though? The narrator comes in and states that they aren’t at that point, and stereotypical Barbie leaves because she can’t see herself as taking part in such a system anymore.
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.
It’s also kind of a clever subtle call to action. “If you don’t like this ending, you can change it by changing things in the real world.”
It didn’t end up in a world that’s ready. More like a mirror of the real world but maybe healthier?
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.
Lmfao “extreme feminism” smdfh
[citation needed]
(and no, men being generalised against as shits is not an act of extremism no matter how uncomfortable it made you feel lol get back to me when the levels of harm become even close to being comparable)
If you base your relationship on a fucken Hollywood movie then that should be a litmus test in and of itself.
Also, guys, if your girlfriend constantly feels the need to “test” your relationship, then she’s not the right one. Thats a massive red flag.
I mean there’s no harm in using a cultural moment as a starting point to see if two people are compatible?
I think the language in the article and perhaps from the influencers is a bit rigid.
I don’t think anyone is suggesting that if a man has valid reasons for disliking the movie they are automatically exist. The idea is that the film is causing a knee jerk reaction in men who are otherwise prone to hiding their misogyny.
I didn’t get a lot of the inside jokes about the product. And the barbies and Ken’s did not unite to kill Will Ferrell.
Wanting to test if your new boyfriend is a misogynist is hardly a red flag. The article doesn’t say anything about testing dudes constantly. It doesn’t even say he has to like the movie, just understand some of its themes.
It’s not basing the relationship off of the movie. It’s just a way to test if any red flags come up.
I think it’s healthy to observe your partners reaction to things. Especially when it comes to things that are quite important for a long term relationship, like their thoughts about gender roles. If you organically went to see the movie and your partner is clearly displaying red flags from it, then that’s just good (not the red flags but that you now know).
I guess the trickery of going to assess them specifically can be seen as a asshole move. But I think it’s a good move compared to alternatives ^^
Being manipulative is a good alternative compared to just being direct and asking your partner what they think? I’m sure someone who is going to throw a fit about the Barbie movie will be happy to tell you what they think about feminism if you just ask.
I don’t see it as more manipulative then to ask leading questions to assess anybodies stance on subjects ^^ Especially when it’s a way to shield yourself from real harm that might be caused by the party you are probing information from.
If you’re worried about real harm this person should not be your partner. It doesn’t matter what they think about a movie.
because reaction to art can be a good indication to what someone thinks. For example, a negative reaction to the song ‘Alabama’ by Neil Young might indicate that the person thinks that Alabama is a swell place and people shouldn’t be putting it down just because it’s government is racist as fuck.
Seeing a movie with someone is part of your experience with them, through which you determine their personality and character, is it not?
I agree that “testing” people is kind of toxic, but the idea that your assessment of a person isn’t cumulative and inclusive feels odd.
My boyfriend and i can’t wait to watch this movie 😊 💕 (but cinema got expensiv dudeee 🥲)
I am sure it won’t take long and then it will be available elsewhere.
Of note…American conservatives/confederates absolutely detest the Barbie movie.
Correct. Honestly, if a dude gets offended by a movie that says “hey dude, learn how to love and value yourself without basing all of your sense of self on your romantic relationship to a woman and you’ll be much happier”, they are NOT a catch at all and they need to shed some shit about their lives.
That’s interesting. I read that the film was about radical feminism, but gender switched with Ken as the feminist to overthrow the Barbie-dominating system. Really look forward to seeing the movie.
I think that analogy doesn’t work a 100 %. But I guess you could say that the film explores something like that.
But go ahead and watch the film. I enjoyed it very much.
They’re allowed to watch Barbie in China? How censored is it?
The world map clearly isn’t censored
Since a while hollywood has been making movies keeping china and its censorship in mind !
It is in my very unbiased opinion that is totally not a promotion (as that would be against strike rules) that everybody should see this movie.
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
Nothing against female directors, but the movie went from pretty damn good to pretty damn boring after a while.
You’ve got a fun and quirky beginning that makes light fun of barbie, mattel and patriarchal society. Then you’ve got the bits where
spoiler
Barbie and Ken get to the real world, get arrested twice for doing stupid shit.
This part was funny and for a bit there I felt like it was mainly not about driving a message home, but still had SOME things to say. Great!
Then you’ve got the parts where
spoiler
Ken went on his own journey to discover patriarchy (which he thought had something to do with horses and was disappointed to find out it didn’t), Barbie meets her owner’s daughter, goes to Mattel HQ, then gets chased out and rescued by her owner.
Many hilarious moments here, poking lots of fun at patriarchy again, but it never felt like it was too on the nose. I mean I kinda expected that from the trailers and everything.
Where the movie started changing for me was when
spoiler
Barbie, her owner, and the latter’s daughter went back to the Barbie world to help fix the balance, only to find out that the Kens had completely taken over.
While the twist was predictable, it was still interesting because I wanted to know how they would resolve it. But it just kinda… fell off after that? At this point you have the expected low point in the protagonist’s life, and then they figure out how to fix everything, but it was just so… boring and uninspired somehow. By this point, the movie’s quirky and fun nature has worn down its’ course and the
spoiler
battle of the Kens
just did nothing for me anymore.
What’s worse, I was expecting
spoiler
the Mattel board of directors, particularly Will Ferrell’s characters to be villains and instead they just… arrived by the end of the movie and had a change of heart.
That subverted my expectations for sure, but not in a good way whatsoever. Slightly reminiscent of the last seasons of Game of Thrones.
And lastly, I really expected the resolution of the plot to have something to do with horses and I was sorely disappointed about that too.
TL;DR: Movie starts out great, but foreshadows things it doesn’t follow through on very well, ending is boring and sappy.
About at the part where ::: spoiler spoiler Barbie is comforting Ken on the bed ::: I said to my partner “It feels like this movie has been ending for a while now,” and that was still a good way off from credits. I did appreciate that ::: spoiler spoiler Barbie and Ken didn’t end up together, it was a good message that men and women both need to be okay with themselves before they pursue a relationship. I loved the “I am Kenough” shirt. :::
A couple of issues I had personally: ::: spoiler spoiler They really hold their punches on toxic masculinity. There are no men who are outright misogynistic and believe women to be subhuman. They’re all just dumb and misguided. They also made a small attempt to point out that patriarchal society is negative for men too with the “sometimes I wish we could all have tickle fights” bit, but I do wish they would have dug a little deeper into how awful it is that men are expected to never have emotions and bottle up. It was also really weird that the kid called Barbie a fascist… It almost felt like they were using that word wrong on purpose to reduce its meaning, or get Republicans in the audience to roll their eyes at the stupid SJW calling everything they don’t like fascist. Also weird that at different points the movie claims Barbie saved women or set them back 50 years…like, it’s just a doll. Yes, a popular doll, but it’s weird to claim women gained or lost power in society solely because of a doll and not through the actions of feminists. :::
I’m general, I’m happy with the film’s lessons, although it feels weird for Hollywood to be the one preaching them to me.
Yeah, I overall liked the movie but there were a lot of questionable moments in it. The point where they recognize that using Margot Robbie for some of their points kinda undercuts the points was odd to me. I also didn’t like the child of the movie, I didn’t feel like she was really a character.
I really like the fun energy of the movie, it feels like a giant music video and I love that. But the social commentary moments are just so on the nose it just feels weird that it’s coming from a movie about Barbie. It feels like it can’t decide whether the audience is supposed to be children or nostalgic adults.
Most of the scenes were pretty enjoyable in isolation. The problem I see is that it feels like they tried to combine two scripts to address the same issue from opposite directions. Either approach could have been good, but each one undercut the other so it just wound up confusedly sabotaging its message.
deleted by creator
That’s not what I meant at all and have adjusted the text to hopefully be more clear.
deleted by creator
I fully agree. It was a fun movie to see but that’s about it… they could have made such a good ending and set up a sequel
Ehhhhh, sequel??
You really wouldn’t want to see a barbie vs he-man movie? Or some other ridiculous set up? I’m not even a big fan of the movie… just seemed like a good financial idea for Mattel
That kinda makes sense…
Classic. What countries have insecure men?
All of them?
seconded.
How about insecure women?
Congratulations, you understand feminism, men and women are both capable of the exact same things.
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.
Seems wrong taking “not being insecure” as “accept everything”, it seems to be more of “not being insecure about a movie discussing gender inequality and such.”
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 and can change minds, an effect that will linger on.
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.
Just because your attention span and memory are lacking doesn’t mean everyone else’s is.
This movie is a good way to show what half of humanity is going through in their day-to-day life, would you really call that a “non-pressing issue”?
I understand if the story being used to deliver the message isn’t your cup of tea, but simply disregarding what some would call an important and half of humanity affecting issue, is quite rude.
Please remember there is more to do in the world than to just concentrate on one issue at a time, and this movie is simply one small move for women to sit in a theater and to point out “Yes, I know that experience, and I hate it as well”.
An interesting way to look at it, is that this movie is similar to what superhero movies are to men, with a lot of ironic “womensplaining” memes popping up on several different social medias. If you really don’t like it, just think of it as the first Avengers movie but for women. Maybe that helps understand it a little better.
must make two honest confessions to you, my Christian and Jewish brothers. First, I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro’s great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen’s Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to “order” than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: “I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action”; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man’s freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a “more convenient season.” Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.
-MLK
You are the white moderate, and as long as you remain in that position, you are being part of the problem, not of the solution.
Being anti-capitalist isn’t good enough if it only serves you and those like you.MLK was an outspoken socialist so I’m sure he’d actually agree that scapegoats like racism are propped up by the wealthy and used to prevent class discrimination from being properly addressed.
I’d love to hear how you think their position is moderate tbh. Because it looks like they’re advocating for a very progressive outcome.
You won’t have much luck with this crowd. Identity politics are of course a distraction from class politics, and likely a calculated one. But you will feel like you’re smashing your head against a wall.
Fewer and fewer.
I mean those statements seem like they’re in contradiction of each other; if attention spans are lower (which I don’t disagree with) then people are more likely to debate/discuss a wider range of topics though perhaps in less detail.
This doesn’t necessarily mean collectively people will be able to hold onto these points to bring about effective change, though it doesn’t preclude it either.
Attention span being shorter means you’ll be able to follow topic/problem for shorter amount of time.
Because of that regular media “reminders” like articles/reviews/editorials/opinions/reaction videos are needed to keep a topic “floating”. Optimal situation here was what you saw with “me too” campaign, different people sharing their story and media jumping on each of them individually until… yeah… until public outrage dies out.
Basically to force any change you need people feeling emotional about some issue for a longer period of time + somebody organizing (legislation proposition etc). There is so many issues (and more coming every day) that it’s really hard to make people actually feel anything about a cause for longer than a day in constant stream of “world is burning/world is unfair”. People become just disengaged and nihilistic.
This means to me that if you fight everything you fight nothing - e.g. you’ll never build large enough group of actually enraged and motivated people to actually pass anything if they try to fix everything at once.
What is interesting to me, however, is that these “reminders” of what you should be angry about/what the current issue is (I’m speaking of general Western Europe) are overwhelmingly non-business related. Eg. There is no “patriarchy corporation of men” to fight against, patriarchy doesn’t make much sense economically to present to board of directors so of course every company, movie studio and their dog is against. Same with sex/gender related issues - it’s rather some vague religious groups or politicians wanting to appeal to conservative voters that are against these kind of laws. Corporate likes what sells, if it has a rainbow flag on it and sells - cool then the corporate supports pride, simple as that.
I’m lacking issues being highlighted that go against this trope - there are some movies, from time to time, sure, if only the message was pushed with same energy and constant reminders like eg. “patriarchy bad, girls can do anything” which you see in every second movie/superhero movie/tv series.
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.
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).
