Women in China are telling each other to bring their boyfriends to see 'Barbie' — and to use it as a litmus test for their thoughts on feminism and patriarchy
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.
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.
We can debate multiple things at once.
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.
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 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.
Fewer and fewer.
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.
-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
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.
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.