Pretty in Pink & Powerful Anywhere
This piece contains spoilers.
The current reaction that the Barbie movie is gathering from a select group of agitated men is nothing short of comical.
Having grown up surrounded by dolls like Monster Highs and Barbies, their reaction becomes even more absurd.
"This movie is so anti-male, it's disgusting,” they complain, petrified by the idea that men don’t rule.. Barbie Land.
First of all, why should Ken dolls be centered in this movie; even in this conversation? Ken dolls were never meant to be the center of this story, and call me crazy, but I think women are allowed to have narratives and products where we get to be the main characters. As a treat.
Second, the very point of the Barbie movie as a satirical commentary hurtled past this group of men like a Chevrolet barreling down the roads of Los Angeles with no regard for the laws of traffic (the brutally visible product placement was hilarious). Does having a basic lack of power, agency, and respect not sound all that appealing to them? Do they not enjoy being displayed as mere accessories with no individuality or purpose beyond that of serving another? How bizarre!
What these men failed to notice is what every other individual in the theater managed to realize— Greta Gerwig had written a satire packed with clever hyperbole to depict the real lack of agency and power that women face. In this narrative however, where the roles are reversed, women get to be the ones in power. But seeing themselves depicted as mere accessories to women (y’know, the way women have predominantly been accessorized as mere mothers or wives of men rather than distinct individuals throughout all of film history) freaks this group of men out, and they label the whole thing misandrist propaganda.
As the movie progresses, one key event is Ken making it out to the real world and finally seeing what it's like to be intrinsically valued and respected just for being a man. Naturally, he loves it. What Ken takes in during his brief stay on Earth is that to be a man is to be admired. To be a man is to command power as soon as you walk into a room. To be a man is to ride horses, down bottles of beer, and wear lavish coats of faux fur. As a man with a very limited sense of self and personal identity (and a similarly limited idea of manhood), Ken craves all this for himself.
With the full-blown patriarchy that Ken proceeds to institute in Barbie’s absence, the movie demonstrates how, when based on shallow ideas of what it means to be a man, patriarchy sets men against each other, robs them of individuality, and further disempowers women. The whole structure effectively crumbles to corruption because its foundation is built off fragile stereotypes that don't have enough substance to sustainably empower anybody. Ken himself says near the end that when he found out patriarchy wasn’t all about horses, he found himself no longer interested.
“The movie is not meant to be anti-man, but rather a critique of patriarchy that shows how women are inherently harmed by the implementation of this system, while men benefit in a shallow fashion.”
So why didn't Ken do anything about it? By that point, the patriarchy was raging in full swing and Kens across the grid were reaping its benefits. They had thrilling new houses to call their own! Barbies didn’t just finally notice them— they adored them! They finally had agency; they had beer; hell, they had horses! Gerwig shows that the system in place fundamentally benefits men. Ken had jumped into this ideology because the concept of it was alluring, and though he did begin to see it wasn't everything that he had thought it would be, he did not make any attempt to reverse it in any form. The system inherently benefited him as a man, breeding comfort and success, so why would he make an effort to change it?
The movie is not meant to be anti-man, but rather a critique of patriarchy that shows how women are inherently harmed by the implementation of this system, while men benefit in a shallow fashion. Instead of thinking critically about what Gerwig is trying to suggest about the corrupt nature of our system, insecure men perceive it as an attack on them, rather than a commentary on what women truly lack in the real world. Flipping this narrative around in such a clever fashion forces men to think about gender structures and their implications on female agency and male individuality in a world where deep-seated and long-established structures like patriarchy are left almost wholly unquestioned by men.
What groups of men label as a “misandrist movie” is an empowering film that depicts strong, healthy female relationships, and uplifts women in all kinds of professions, who look in all kinds of ways. The film does criticize the beauty standards, wild expectations, and unneeded competition that exists between women, and even rampant consumerism is looked at through a critical lens — which Mattel, the company behind Barbie, inadvertently contributes to with their mass-produced plastic dolls of beauty. This film is so much deeper than patriarchy vs matriarchy, and even just men vs women. More than anything, it's a movie packed with healthy feminism, and I'm glad to see that the majority of people who watch it can, in fact, see it for the witty commentary that it is.
It is my hope that young children can continue growing up and playing with Barbies, feeling confidence in their dreams and in themselves as strong individuals. I hope young children who struggle with the colour pink, seeing it as a colour of weakness, can grow to feel confident in pink in a way I never had been as a child. Early on, I incorrectly conflated pink with weakness rather than strength, and ended up in a vehemently toxic anti-pink phase that lasted all too long. Barbie, however, embraces pink as a colour of strength, presence, and spirit. As the Barbie motto goes, “You Can Be Anything," and I hope my 6th grade self knows she can be anything — even in pink.
Header: Maddy Baird
