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.
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.
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 ^^
Movies are not a good basis on someone’s perception of anything. Their interactions with reality are.
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 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.
The idea is that the film is causing a knee jerk reaction in men who are otherwise prone to hiding their misogyny.
Why would a knee jerk reaction be any indication of misogyny? The movie is very antagonistic towards men. The proposition that having a negative reaction to that is misogyny is absurd.
It’s not, though. It’s antagonistic to the patriarchy, sure, just like it’s antagonistic to the matriarchy, but “man” and “patriarchy” are two entirely separate concepts.
It’s like if a movie came out that criticized the for-profit medical insurance industry in the US and people started saying that it criticized all doctors. That doesn’t make any sense, and neither does this
The movie is very antagonistic towards men
Lol no it isn’t
If you have that point of view after watching the movie that’s exactly the red flag the women in the article are looking for
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.
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.
All this stuff around the movie is making me not want to see it.
I want to watch a movie, not be evaluated on my reaction to it.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Bet they’re the same type who only dates people according to what astrological sign they are 🤣
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.
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”
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
Interesting. Have you listened to the behind the bastards take on Scott Adams? That’s pretty funny too.
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.
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.
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.
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
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
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
It’s very obvious here that no one is saying “if you don’t like a Barbie movie then you’re sexist.” The point is if you don’t agree with equality, whether in a movie or irl, then that’s the problem. But I feel like you probably already know this.
But yes, if people from certain religions and political parties would just stop with the racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, and xenophobia, maybe people wouldn’t feel the need to express cultural values the oppression they’re experiencing. Maybe consumers wouldn’t identify so much with the message of films like this. Yet somehow it’s always positive media like this that gets pushback, and meanwhile, laws keep getting passed in bumfuck states that are stripping human rights from people one by one. But sure, Barbie is the “exhausting” issue here.
In other words, maybe there wouldn’t be media “pushing” for equality if we already had it.
And idk, I find Marvel/superhero bullshit to be exhausting and immature and just bad, so I don’t watch any of it, I block everything about it on lemmy and reddit, and I don’t comment on it. Then it’s not exhausting anymore.
Some people do.
Just like some people genuinelly believe the Earth is Flat and some people will have no problem drinking their own piss on a dare.
And then beyond those weirdos there’s an entire subculture of weirdos out there whose wierdness is to pay massive attention to and rage all about what weirdos do and, worse, they’re divided into factions and they’ll feed-on and feed-out weirdo rage between factions, so it doesn’t take much to trigger them into a positive feedback cycle of weirdo raging about weirdos.
The secret here is to remember that although they are often loud and lacking self-restraint on the Internet, all those weirdos (in all factions as well as factionless) still add up to a minority of people.
A matter of opinion. I thought that it was quite poorly written in the second half
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’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.
Classic. What countries have insecure men?
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.
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).
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. They bring attention to stuff and can change minds which is an effect that lingers on.
And it seems wrong taking “not being insecure” as “accept everything”, it seems to be more of “not being insecure about discussing gender inequality and such.”
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.
