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 are viewing a single thread.
View all comments
368 points

Women in the US are doing that too.

I guess it works, to a point. If your man throws a Shapiro-esque fit over this movie he probably isn’t great to be around the rest of the time.

permalink
report
reply
-36 points

Alternatively, if your SO doesn’t think you can be together because you don’t like a movie, they probably are the wrong person to be dating.

permalink
report
parent
reply
118 points

The test isn’t if someone dislikes the movie, it’s why if they disliked the movie.

It’s fine if someone thinks it was boring, poorly written, etc. It’s a red flag if they go off on some misogynistic rant.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-68 points
*

I bet that challenging some of the movie concepts would also be considered misogynistic. I mean if I think that there is no patriarchy in western civilization at present. That means I don’t agree with a feminist argument and therefore i must despise all women right? It’s the only logical conclusion you would reach “in good faith” 🙄

Edit: thanks for admitting it. I just wanted to make it clear to those who engaged in good faith with the argument.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

If someone goes on some misogynistic rant then no, you should not date them.

Also if someone needs to test you and wants to goad someone into anything ‘as a test’ then you should not date them either.

Both the tester and the testee should not be in a relationship and need to do some growing up.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-41 points

Bet they’re the same type who only dates people according to what astrological sign they are 🤣

permalink
report
parent
reply
29 points
*
Deleted by creator
permalink
report
parent
reply
25 points

It must be fun going through life without critically thinking about anything.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-7 points

Astrology is another litmus test to see if men will belittle you, so if your reaction to barbie is similar to your reaction to astrology then you’ll probably be getting similar results.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-22 points
*

How about a Shoe-esque fit? Lol. I kinda agree with her that if they were trying to make the patriarchy look bad, they failed hard. The Barbie’s seemed to be having more fun in Ken Land. One of them even says as much.

Also there’s no way that Mattel would be upset that the Ken Bro-House was outselling Barbi Dream house. They’re making money, they’d have leaned into it, not tried to shut it down.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-10 points

Barbie is an ad for a toy. It should not be engaged with as if it’s sincere any more than you would an ad for sugary cereal.

permalink
report
parent
reply
19 points
*
Deleted by creator
permalink
report
parent
reply
12 points
*

Also there’s no way that Mattel would be upset that the Ken Bro-House was outselling Barbi Dream house. They’re making money, they’d have leaned into it, not tried to shut it down.

Regarding this, I think the point the movie was trying to make was that Mattel could choose to eliminate the Barbie line of toys and use those resources to create a product for boys that would sell better, but they choose not to. Even though the board (both in the movie and in reality) is dominated by men and they are motivated by profit, they still want to make little girls happy. Of course, they want to make their profit along the way, but that’s commentary on capitalism

permalink
report
parent
reply
32 points
*
Deleted by creator
permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points
*

It wasn’t meant to be super biased towards feminism. In my opinion it tries to show a very well balanced take and just show genderism in general, and uses it as a gateway for some men to understand what it could be like from the other side. The end loses some of it’s nuance with going for a mostly status quo. But the rest of the movie is a great exploration of gender issues in general.

permalink
report
parent
reply
9 points

You missed the point where they all lost agency and just became hollow husks of beings.

permalink
report
parent
reply
20 points

I just wanted to know where Ken lived.

permalink
report
parent
reply
9 points

He’s literally Beach Ken. Why doesn’t he just live on the beach?

Either that or ::: spoiler spoiler move back into the Mojo Dojo Casa House since Barbie cleaned it up for him before immediately leaving to be a human. :::

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

My best guess is that Kens are all homeless. Mattel released many different Barbie houses, but not a single Ken house.

permalink
report
parent
reply
20 points

a Shapiro-esque fit

🤣🤣🤣

I’m using that line

permalink
report
parent
reply
50 points
*

His critique of it is basically that it’s too “woke” but he really has nothing to say about the essential elements of any movie (plot, tone, character development, etc). He’s either unable or unwilling to separate politics from his review. It’s like he doesn’t know a movie can be well made even if you disagree with its themes.

permalink
report
parent
reply
11 points

Pretty sure he decided what he was going to say before he even saw the movie. He can’t admit to liking any part of it becausee of his politics.

permalink
report
parent
reply
19 points

I mean, I think it’s fine to critique a movie on themes as well. It’s a key aspect that makes up a film, like effects, writing, casting, or acting. I don’t think critiquing it as “woke” is invalid - it tells his audience a key facet of what they want to know about a movie. If a movie was coming out and someone reviewed it saying the themes were pro-fascist, I’d also want to know that and not attend based off of theme.

I just like that a movie which, in no uncertain terms, advocated for strong, independent men is too “woke” for Ben Shapiro. But I guess if you determine your worth as a man by how much control you have over women, that tracks.

permalink
report
parent
reply
17 points

Fascism is an actual defined term. Woke isn’t, it just means whatever the user wants it to mean, which is usually something like not wanting some minority group to exist.

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

“Woke” means whatever anyone wants it to mean at any time.

Or is the theme of the movie about awareness of systemic racism in the US justice system? Haven’t seen it myself

permalink
report
parent
reply
34 points

If you ever have (unfortunately) heard of his absolutely dogshit book, then his inability to understand deeper meanings, subtext, themes, and to grapple with a competent plot should not surprise you in the least. Robert Evans, Cody Johnston, and Katy Stoll read it through on Behind The Bastards in a few episodes. Imagine the novelization of a Steven Seagal movie adaption of a Jack Ryan plotline. Combine that with how ol Benny really wanted, and failed, to be a screenplay writer, and it makes sense his absolute hatred for modern Hollywood movies that don’t say all the things he likes.

permalink
report
parent
reply
8 points

One pump, one cream my friend. I loved those episodes and so many more.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

Interesting. Have you listened to the behind the bastards take on Scott Adams? That’s pretty funny too.

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

I seen a video of another person dismantling his arguments and plot and character development is something he touches on.

permalink
report
parent
reply
20 points

What do I do if my woman does that though?

permalink
report
parent
reply
9 points

Watch Oppenheimer, I guess?

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

Lol she actually wants to go watch the movie about child trafficking. Personally I want to drive 3 hours to watch Oppenheimer on 70mm because I didn’t know it was even a thing before this movie. Though all imax was created decently equal 😂

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points

It can also work both ways, by seeing how she sees the corporate feminism thrown around by power-hungry corpos only for the profit. Luckily, my gf and I were sharing the same “yeah, it’s still divisive and murican corpo trash” mentality about the movie, while both of us saying that it was “almost there”

permalink
report
parent
reply
41 points

Both my wife and i wanted to go equally. I wanted to thirst on Ken and I did…but on the serious note, its a good movie for both genders to see for seperate but equal reasons. Barbie gotta stand up and step out, be herself. and Ken has to learn what it means to be Ken without Barbie. This movie would of helped me not be such an incel in my formative years.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points
*
Deleted by creator
permalink
report
parent
reply
45 points

Shapiro-esque is such an apt description.

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

The amount of concern a woman should have about their partner is directly related to the amount of Shapiro that is displayed when complaining about Barbie. I had a few parts I didn’t like, but I still enjoyed the movie as a whole. I thought the car chase scenes were so unnecessary and terrible product placement.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

What’s funny is Shapiro, himself, feels Shapiro-esque as if even he were not the genuine article but instead a trick of the light.

permalink
report
parent
reply
31 points

What do you mean? I can’t think of anything more stable than a grown man burning children’s dolls on the internet after watching a movie based on a toy designed for 6-12 year old girls.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

Wait, people weren’t joking about that?

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

I don’t think about him at all.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

Wait, really? XP

permalink
report
parent
reply

World News

!world@lemmy.world

Create post

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

  • Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:

    • Post news articles only
    • Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
    • Title must match the article headline
    • Not United States Internal News
    • Recent (Past 30 Days)
    • Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
  • Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think “Is this fair use?”, it probably isn’t. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.

  • Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.

  • Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.

  • Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19

  • Rule 5: Keep it civil. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to “Mom! He’s bugging me!” and “I’m not touching you!” Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

  • Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.

  • Rule 7: We didn’t USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you’re posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

Community stats

  • 11K

    Monthly active users

  • 17K

    Posts

  • 277K

    Comments