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.
They’re allowed to watch Barbie in China? How censored is it?
… if a man shows hatred for “Barbie” and slams female directors after they leave the theatre, then this man is “stingy” …
Didn’t knew there were that many female directors in China. Let alone having to watch their back to not get sucker-punched for it.
if a man understands even half of the movie’s themes, “then he is likely a normal guy
And when ask about the movie, if he says “she’s hot” and starts masturbating?
he is horny and you should bonk him
In England bonk is another word for fuck. A bit dated, but still well-known.
It’s that a bad translation, why would that mean men are “stingy”.
I’d be stingy if I made my date pay for me to come with her, but not for disliking the movie.
Watching one movie then going on about female directors sounds toxic though.
I mean if you believe the propaganda in it then most men prolly don’t wanna date you anyway lol.
most normal 4chan user
Can you elaborate
He cant
I guess he’s not kenough
Please partake in the culture war, don’t just let conservatives win by default.
Someone tell me gf that I’m a normal guy with normal values and stable emotions please. She doesn’t believe me.
A not-so-ancient profecy states that there will be a drop in natality in China in the near future! :)
China has more women empowerment compare with other east Asian countries such as Korea and Japan.
TIL about the Litmus test!
Classic. What countries have insecure men?
removed by mod
Congratulations, you understand feminism, men and women are both capable of the exact same things.
Honest response: all of them. We have s societal structure that craves on people’s insecurities.
Or perhaps tribalism is just a trait that it’s very hard to get rid of.
Literally everyone is insecure about something.
All of them?
seconded.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I like how you’re complaining about short attention spans in a thread about a 2-hour-long movie.
I don’t get your point :) There are also longer and shorter movies - doesn’t mean that you’re attentive all the time when watching it, you just sit there in the theatre, of course you won’t leave after 15 mins.
That’s also why pacing is increasingly important in movies so that every N minutes you get something exciting and don’t get bored :)
My daughter has ADHD. She does not have a long attention span and can do nothing about it. She cannot sit through a 2-hour movie. You really don’t know what you’re talking about.
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.
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.
It’s very telling that wealth is the only thing he cares about. All these problems that “other” people face are just annoying little flies for him to swat away
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).
Because the same people profiting from this system bankroll the media and politicians. And when those kinds of things are discussed in media, it flies over people’s heads because media literacy isn’t really common.
Do you really think politicians, that are paid for by these monopolies, are going to help create that change? They’d all be talking themselves out of a ton of money.
Media is also influenced and controlled by money. I don’t see their financial backers in a hurry to open the eyes of the average person to the realities of wealth inequality.
Aren’t you in Europe? Look to the French, they know how to actually get shit done when it comes to the ruling class. They protest and riot, like they did when retirement age was proposed to go up.
Wow, tell me you’re a straight white Christian male without telling me you’re a straight white Christian male.
Sorry that the problems of us “others” got in the way of your safe little bubble.
That kinda makes sense…
why chinese guys even putting up with this shit?
Barbie starting the revolution in China? Hopefully other countries as well. Good timeline.
China is already communist
Yeah and North Korea is a democratic republic.
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.
Good news everyone, the Politics Understander has logged on
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
deleted by creator
Lol sure buddy
Little Pink Cookbook!
Little Pink Cookbook!
Little Pink Cookbook?
You’ve got to do the cooking by the book ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
YEAH!!!
I was supposed to read this with a lil jon voice, right?
Here is an alternative Piped link(s): https://piped.video/watch?v=K5tVbVu9Mkg
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I’m open-source, check me out at GitHub.
I think you meant “YEAH!!!”
I almost went to see it two weeks ago with a friend of mine because we were also talking about seeing Oppenheimer afterwards. She cancelled due to a hangover so I’ll probably wait until they’re on streaming services.
Actually amazed the movie isn’t banned in China. I thought that feminism and blatant capitalist ideals wasn’t the CCP’s thing.
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
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.
damn dude. I hate people too, but jeez.
deleted by creator
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 valuesthe 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.
deleted by creator
You should add a TL;DR to that which says “I don’t understand feminism and I’m making it everyone else’s problem.”
deleted by creator
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.
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.
Tomato, tomato. If you’re a grown ass man, emotional immaturity IS instability.
I just treat most people like 16 year Olds and it tends to work out pretty well.
I am only 42, but I work with a bunch of 60+ y/os. They never grow out of it from what I can tell. If they are like that in their 30s they’ll be like that till they die most of the time.
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.
deleted by creator
There are only two categories: the status quo (no matter how shitty it might be for some populations) and “political”.
despite them completely hiding it in the trailers and promotional material
…
If it’s talking about equality then it’s not political. People’s lives are not political they are not objects for other people to react to. Touch grass.
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
Exactly the way actual feminism does instead of the conservative boogeyman “feminism” that’s just female chauvinism espoused by an extreme minority.
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.
Absolutely! The dolls of both genders that were discontinued or discarded were the first ones to bring down the patriarchy in Barbie land, including Allan and Sugar’s Daddy/Magic Ring Ken
Fucking Good. I’ve really got to watch it.
I love it for being an egalitarian movie. More of that please.
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
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.
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.
And it is wildly entertaining.
You didn’t reply to their comment, you just added your own idiotic take. The movie isn’t propaganda unless you think a story about women and men having equal rights and equal opportunity is propaganda.
Is The Matrix propaganda? Is Terminator propaganda? Is Star Trek propaganda? All entertaining movies, all have heavy social commentary.
Those are all propaganda, the problem is people use propaganda to mean lies when it means information and ideas disseminated to impact public opinion.
So, you know, basically all art and every intellectual pursuit.
I haven’t seen the Barbie movie. I have no idea what it’s like. My comment was about “propaganda” movies in general
You’ll get nothing from communists in this discussion friend. People refuse to allow our media to be escapism anymore and demand even already addressed issues drilled into ‘entertainment’. We traded pop culture references for this, and somehow I want the references back
The Barbie movie is still escapism, media in general is still escapism. Media has always contained messages or lessons or political meaning, it’s not a new thing, nobody’s disallowing anything. If you don’t like today’s media, maybe it’s because you don’t like the messages they contain anymore. Sometimes you gotta look inward before blaming things on “society”.
It’s my opinion that thematic messages presented now are overt, with little nuance, and hold the same level of failure to look inward biases you claim. There is no discussion to be had when you hold a meeting with strawmen.
Great writers and media of the past were lauded for holding something that is presented as a moral evil up to caliber in logic and presentation. Taking a threat seriously so to speak. Look at an instance like Metal Gear, where despite the intent and presentation saying warmongering is bad, the writers still had the wherewithal to gauge a reasonable position you’d face fighting that ideology. You aren’t meant to agree with Zero or the Patriots or BB. But you can see and understand their logic to lead these actions.
What is this but taking a child’s doll and using it to spew word vomit level rhetoric that focuses on buzzwords and failed symbolism than actually addressing anything core to the point. If you want to make some preaching movie do it. But when you market your film as a lighthearted romp of self discovery involving an inanimate object, don’t be shocked when people push back.
Ahhhhhhh, so you do have a point to make. It took this entire thread for you to share it with us, and it was after it was heavily implied that you’re too much of a social conservative to enjoy art, which I still believe is the case. Did you get all of your talking points from The Critical Drinker? Also, your comparison of Barbie to MGS3 is apples to oranges. Highlighting complicated characters such as Zero and the Patriots doesn’t negate any of the heavy-handedness Kojima is also known for, and it certainly isn’t a compelling argument that the Barbie movie is without nuance or merit.
EvErYoNe WhO dIsAgReEs WiTh Me Is A cOmMuNiSt. You’re not even aware at how much of a self-report you’re doing.
I have seen it and if this movie makes you mad you are a horrible person
Also this movie is rad beginning to end and everyone should see it.
A matter of opinion. I thought that it was quite poorly written in the second half
That’s a fair criticism as it gets muddier towards the end
Really funny movie I’m glad with the direction that they went with it
