It’s a Barbie World, and I am still making sense of it all
As I write I am recovering from the Barbie movie. I went because I thought it was no use hearing the opinions of others – I needed to judge for myself. The film reviews had already painted this as a movie that whilst being almost cartoonish in style, made some playful but poignant observations about the assumptions we might make about gender roles. Herein, there is a mix, some of these might be unconscious, and some we may be fully aware of, and regret. If anyone was looking for a sequel to our Methodist Church Justice, Dignity, and Solidarity training, looking through the lens of gender, I would consider this to be compulsory viewing.
In the sky, a large styled pink “B” with Margot Robbie as Barbie sitting holding out her right arm and Ken lying down in an angle with his head resting on his right clenched hand. A tagline reads: “She’s everything. He’s just Ken.” The poster art copyright is believed to belong to the distributor of the film, Warner Bros. Pictures, the publisher of the film or the graphic artist.
A helpful film makes you think. While Barbie does touch upon the well-rehearsed and valid aspects of patriarchy’s impact, it avoids the increasingly hackneyed, sensational, and hostile arguments put by its most vehement proponents. Curiously, while the film implicitly addresses concerns over male dominance, it also takes aim at a particular brand of feminism promoted by Mattel, the producers of the Barbie doll. Whilst this brand of feminism is credited for broadening horizons for girls worldwide, it is criticised simultaneouslyfor perpetuating unattainable expectations regarding appearance and career, impacting many negatively. Barbie is among others a film director, film and music producer, teacher, dentist, doctor, paratrooper, campaign fundraiser, police officer, architect, astrophysicist – the list is endless. In my view though it is not accurate to say that there are fewer less skilled roles for Barbie: there are. Nonetheless, one of the striking moments in the film is where Barbie from Barblieland enters into conversation with Sasha, a young adolescent girl living in the real world, who states, “Barbie, you’ve set feminism back by 50 years. Every woman feels bad about herself when they see you. You’re a fascist!” That comment made Barbie cry.
Cover of Earring Magic Ken. Fair Use; Used for purposes of illustration
The narrative is supported with barbs towards Mattel (which could be also read as product placement); all Ken wants lives to be acknowledged by Barbie and gets no attention; his only friend Allan was discontinued after rumours began to circulate that he and Ken’s relationship was more than platonic. Then again, Allan returned as Midge’s husband in the 90’s – but sadly, they did not survive for long. Indeed, Pregnant Midge (who also came with a toddler and pram) was also withdrawn in fear that Mattel might be promoting teen pregnancy unwittingly. Earring Magic Ken was withdrawn, again, because of how gay he seemed. Palm Beach Sugar Daddy Ken (with an $82 million dollar fortune) was scrapped – this should be celebrated since Barbie does not need a sugar-daddy. Even Tanner, Barbie’s dog, is withdrawn because he defecated unsafely. (In truth, it was the magnet inside, unsafe for children that did it, rather than the defecation which was seen as a marketable add-on).
It was the line about fascist feminism that shocked me most. Gretta Gerwig’s willingness to champion the feminist cause and yet, at the same time, to be critical about the less helpful aspects of the Barbie project is refreshing. It brings self-reflection and honesty to the table. What interested me more however is a broader thought, derived from Gerwig’s work – that in declaring the freedoms we hope for; in our pressing hard to redress the balance, in our discourse, in our practical action, if we get the balance wrong, people see hate and intolerance justified under the guise of a just cause rather than love. Calling what are left wing movements towards greater freedom ‘fascist’ is peculiar, because fascism has historically been anchored to far right ideologies, where violence is used to bring about suppression and conformity. Even so, however framed, intolerance-whilst-arguing-for-tolerance is indeed a marker of our times. It is the big question we are all wrestling with. It is, for example, at the forefront of Extinction Rebellion or Just Stop Oil’s action. We all care for the planet but to what extent can campaigners disrupt lives to promote a worthy cause? The issue is that many onlookers are suspicious of simplistic arguments, and disagree with the form of protest. Moreover the accusation that extremes of feminist activism might have fascist tendencies could almost have been lifted from the playbooks of Andrew Doyle (GB News), Piers Morgan (TalkTV), or Richard Madeley (Good Morning Britain).
Where then does this leave us?
I entered a Barbie world, and I am still making sense of it all. In recent weeks I have been considering Jesus’ parables. Rather than beginning by exploring their meaning (which almost defeats the object), my approach has been to explore why Jesus spoke in parables in the first place? In my view, this has something to do with how Jesus manages conflict. Whilst Jesus can and does speak the truth directly and uncompromisingly (ask any of the scribes or Pharisees who were about to stone the adulteress – ‘Let He who has not sinned cast the first stone’, or derrided by Him publicly as ‘whitewashed tombs’ or a ‘serpents’ – John 8, Matthew 23), Jesus also manages conflict by speaking in parables. Whilst Jesus’ parabolic teaching is judgmental in the sense that it allows Jesus to point the finger at the state of the world, and what Kingdom values look like, Jesus does not poke people in the eye.
A helpful example is that of the lawyer who asks Jesus ‘Who is my neighbour?’ Jesus does not respond by saying, “What a stupid question. Whatever a neighbour is, let alone a good neighbour, it is definitely not you!” No, he tells a story. He invites the lawyer and the bystanders to step into a scene and think through their values. Who is our neighbour? How should we behave? In essence, Jesus states that our neighbour is whoever is beside us, or who we pass by, and we are called to love them, even if we have been conditioned to hate them. Whilst the message is personal, it is not given as a personal barb. It does not try to settle arguments by destroying the person we are trying to persuade. There is something in this, in how as Christians we seek to help people engage in issues of Justice, Dignity, and Solidarity without increasing conflict and hostility, by helping us all see life from a different perspective.
Compulsory viewing?
I believe that Barbie should be compulsory viewing because it presents a unique perspective on the place of men in feminist debates, shedding light on gender expectations and the influence of patriarchy woven into the film. The initial scenes, where girls reject the traditional baby dolls they were given as children and exchange them for Barbie, are both poignant and harrowing, demanding our attention. Witnessing this powerful portrayal of societal expectations and gender norms, I could not help but be deeply moved.
Even so, this marked the outer limits of Barbie’s rebellion. As one of the few males in the cinema, I found myself drawn not only to the message of women’s emancipation but also to the introspection it prompted regarding male dominance as a product of patriarchy. Instead of feeling alienated or blamed, I felt invited to be a part of the solution and engage in the conversation with warmth and understanding. This movie challenges us all to confront the legacy of patriarchy and its impact on shaping unconscious biases – and it is refreshing to see how the complexity around this is acknowledged. There is an irony throughout the film where the kind of lines that might appear on a protest placard are delivered with a level of sarcasm, suggesting that creating a utopia is not as simple as we might imagine.
By addressing gender expectations, Barbie encourages us to reflect on the ways in which societal norms have shaped our perspectives, and it motivates us to actively support the broader movement for gender equality. It is essential that we foster an environment where individuals of all genders can come together in dialogue, acknowledging the influence of patriarchy while striving to create a more inclusive and equitable world. Barbie compels us to embrace change, think critically about gender roles and their limitations, and to be aware of how patriarchy has historically promoted male dominance, which has, in turn, disempowered women.
Similarly, given the film’s thought-provoking critique of Barbie-feminism; “Thanks to Barbie, all problems of feminism and equal rights have been solved”, I find myself anticipating how a more comprehensive critique of matriarchy might surface in wider society. At present, this feels underdeveloped. Exploring both sides of the gender debate will further enrich our understanding and pave the way towards a more comprehensive and nuanced conversation about gender dynamics.
References:
Morgan, Piers, ‘Vile woke fascists bullying us over ‘trans’ rapists and gender-neutral awards pose a severe and unexpected threat’, 150123, https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/21162988/piers-morgan-transgender-protests/
Lewis, Isobel, ‘Good Morning Britain: Richard Madeley criticised for calling climate activist a ‘fascist’, 140921 https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/tv/news/richard-madeley-gmb-climate-protest-b1919758.html
Doyle, Andrew, We should stop letting activists get away with redefining words to suit their political purposes, 300122, https://www.gbnews.com/opinion/andrew-doyle-we-should-stop-letting-activists-get-away-with-redefining-words-to-suit-their-political-purposes/216297
