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.
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.
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.
