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

Woland@lemm.ee to World News@lemmy.world – 1642 points –
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
insider.com

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.

441

You are viewing a single comment

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.

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.

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.