Too radical or not radical enough? Discussing the feminism of Barbie (2023)
An overly long essay about Barbie, feminism, and the misunderstood connections between the two.
It is fair to say that Greta Gerwig et al.’s Barbie was the sensation of last summer. Before anyone knew it, Barbie had already become a cult classic. The hype surrounding its release was simply out of this world. People dressed up in pink or as Barbie & Ken to celebrate the release of what would become a surprising masterpiece. The theatre I went to even created a Barbie-themed cocktail just for this movie! As Ken would put it: “Sublime!” And we’re not talking about a special screening of a cult classic but a newly released movie no one has ever seen before — which makes this amount of excitement all the more astonishing. After all, it could have been a disaster. No one knew exactly what to expect from this first live-action movie about the famous plastic doll from Mattel. There was a lot of curiosity and speculation regarding Barbie: What would its story be like? How would it deal with Barbie’s problematic history and present? Would it simply be a feature-long Mattel ad? Or would it have an actual plot twist? Would it be funny, and if so, how much? How perfect would Margot Robbie be as Barbie? And what the hell did Ryan Gosling do with his hair? These were all valid questions. The conversation, however, quickly started to evolve into a multifaceted battle of opinions. A huge talking point in debates across the political landscape was Barbie’s overarching message. People on the left debated whether or not Barbiewas truly feminist, and if so, how much. People on the right accused Barbie of ‘toxic femininity’, ‘emasculating men’, and an overall ‘wokeness’ that endangered ‘traditional values’. Essentially, it was what Barbie had to say about feminism that got people talking. For some, Barbie was too radical in that aspect, and for some, Barbie was not radical enough. And many others didn’t seem to understand the movie at all.
It is in light of these debates that I want to discuss the feminism and underlying philosophy of Barbie. I believe that both sides are right and wrong at the same time for different reasons. I also believe that many opinions regarding Barbie are misled by outdated definitions of feminism and its subject matter. Rather, I think that Barbie will be the feminist classic going forward. Never has a movie been this upfront in its feminist undertone while at the same time remaining wildly entertaining. Barbie basically encapsulates all the things conservatives hate and progressives fight for — it’s almost as if Barbie is the new hymn of so-called ‘wokeness’. And rightly so: what a person thinks of Barbie will probably tell you anything you need to know about them. In a way, Barbie is an indicator of your cultural worldview. And because of such cultural significance, I find it important to discuss Barbie’s themes and overarching message. After all, we wouldn’t want people to get the wrong impression from Barbie. Although I doubt that conservatives will change their outdated minds after a screening of this movie.
Barbie is a feminist movie
Let’s get the elephant out of the room, shall we? Barbie is a feminist film — because of course, it is. Barbie comments on unjust power hierarchies in which one particular group is — without rational reason — privileged over the other. This more or less resembles a contemporary definition of academic feminism. Contrary to common belief, feminism is not an ‘ideology’ to support women and establish a matriarchal rule — rather, it is a philosophy that considers any type of injustice illegitimate but concentrates on injustices based on gender and sexuality, albeit in manifold ways, for there is not ‘one’ feminism, but many. We have long moved on from the ‘femme’ in feminism and expanded its subject matter to include men and women and all other gendered Beings as well as the poststructuralist question of how these categories come into being in the first place. This is why feminist studies are now usually called ‘gender’ studies instead of ‘women’s’ studies. Contemporary academic feminism is also not to be confused with neoliberal pop feminism which believes the materialist promotion of equality (through Instagram bios, fancy stickers, and motivational non-fiction literature) is enough to create a just world without any discrimination. Barbie is not pop-feminist for it does not promote the idea that a woman’s emancipation is only and most definitely possible through a workaholic climb on the capitalist career ladder. Rather, it simply points out that a regime of power that privileges one particular group over another is unjust and needs to be changed. Neither the Barbies nor the Kens are happy to be ruled by the others. And though in the end, the Barbies reinvoke the Barbiearchal status quo, this is only because it’s a mirror of the real world. Never does the movie promote the idea that a matriarchy is to be chosen over a patriarchy — it simply showcases the inner logic of such a system of power, namely that it is not in the ruling class’s interest to freely give up power and privileges. Barbie is also feminist because it subversively critiques the reduction of human beings to a sole purpose or essence — regardless of whether they are men or women, Barbie’s or Ken’s. Furthermore, Barbie comments on the male gaze, sexual harassment, unrealistic beauty ideals, non-conformity (regarding the gender binary), or the existence of patriarchy as such. If that’s not feminist what is? I mean, how many movies portray the actions behind these concepts without further notice or without ever critiquing them? Sure, this is contemporary (academic) feminism 101 — but somehow people have to be introduced to 21st-century feminism, right? I bet many people have never heard of or forgotten about the term patriarchy before they saw this movie.
So no matter how basic Barbie’s feminism is, it is a good thing that it gets people to talk about it. Is it a feminist film? Is it feminist enough? What’s missing for it a be a feminist masterpiece? However you answer each of those questions, one thing is clear: you talk about feminism. And considering we live in a time in which anti-feminism is on the rise again (see the overturning of Roe v. Wade, for instance) and the (postfeminist) narrative goes that gender inequalities are a thing of the past, and feminism is no longer needed, that’s not just important — it is necessary for the survival of the ideal of gender equality. We need more people joining the feminist fight for justice. And having them see Barbie is a first step towards this direction. Why? Because watching Barbie is a feminist praxis in itself. I cannot underline this enough. I mean, seeing a pink-coloured-somewhat-feminist movie from a young, up-and-coming previously-indie-now-blockbuster female director with a predominantly female cast about a girl’s doll that comments on the experience of being a (perfect) woman in our patriarchal society (or having to be one, rather) seems pretty feminist to me. In other words: Barbie’s story does not have to be the feminist masterpiece (it never set out to be in the first place) to make Barbie a feminist movie — it depends on what we make of it. Which brings me to my next point.
Barbie is an accessible piece of feminism
Barbie is simply very accessible. As feminism is by and large a very academic endeavour these days, it is hugely informed by the scientific language and rhetoric that surrounds academia. In other words: not necessarily the easiest to understand, especially if you don’t have an academic education or the resources (such as time) to educate yourself on a topic of which you know nothing about. It is vital for the survival of feminism as a general philosophy of justice that its core ideas are explained in a simplified setting to get everyone on board. Barbie might be basic in its feminism. But this means that it is accessible and gets people interested in the topic or even emancipates their minds. Maybe they see themselves reflected in the movie and finally feel heard and represented, or they realise how they ignored the other’s perspective or their own privileges until now. Barbie can be eye-opening because it is so upfront with its feminist messaging. After all, when do young girls get the chance to see a movie with a predominantly female cast that explores female emancipation and the issue of women’s rights? Even in Western countries, the movie landscape is still dominated by (white) men; and young girls or women will not necessarily see themselves represented by old dudes in fancy suits — Barbie, however, could do the trick. In other words, when we talk about Barbie’s feminism, we cannot only discuss its overarching message but also need to consider what people make of it. Imagine a woman seeing her experiences of being a woman somehow reflected in Barbie — if her boyfriend now dismisses her reaction she knows he should be history. And I am not even making this up; this was in fact a social media trend last summer (and maybe it still is).
Across the digital world, women used Barbie as a litmus test for their male dates or partners: “What are your thoughts on the Barbie movie?”, became the question to ask on a date or in a relationship to see what kind of a man you’re potentially dating. “If a guy really doesn’t want to see it or he’s not open to talking about it or, what’s even worse yet, if he’s seen it and he thinks it’s not a good movie or he doesn’t get the point, I think it’s kind of a no-go”, as 32-year old Nicole Hoefler from Germany told NBC News. In China, where women’s rights are not necessarily at the top of the all-male government agenda, a post of a ‘Barbie-test’ on Weibo by 30-year-old Yu Yutian quickly gained millions of views. By the way, and most amusingly, there have been sightings of Chinese men storming out of theatres in fury during or after a screening of Barbie — I suppose they failed the test greatly? Now, such a ‘dating test’ could have existed before the release of Barbie; women could have simply asked their male dates or partners what they think of women’s rights or issues they value dearly. But in that case, they could have felt that they were on their own. If there’s a globally shared consciousness, however — a new ‘awakening’, if you will — that supports you in this endeavour, you are far more likely to pursue it. Again, it’s about what we make of this film. Barbie’s feminism might not be the most nuanced in an academic sense — but it was easy enough to understand to inspire people to engage in pragmatic feminism. And in the end, that’s what it’s all about — change in the real world.
About Barbie’s feminism
Now that I have talked at length about how Barbie is a feminist movie, and how accessible it is, let’s turn our attention to its actual content. What is the feminism of Barbie? I have stated earlier that Barbie is a feminist film because it criticises unjust systems of power, regardless of who the ruling class is. Contrary to the false belief of many critics, Barbie doesn’t promote the idea of a matriarchal society, nor does it portray Barbieland as a matriarchal utopia. Yes, the Barbies rule over the Kens. But this ‘matriarchal’ structure of Barbieland is simply derived from the fact that Barbie is the far more popular toy; Barbieland is, in fact, a Barbiearchy. This Barbiearchy, however, is not merely a fictional idea — it actually mirrors the real world. In Barbie, the real world resembles a contemporary patriarchal system such as the one found in the United States. Though it is not as aggressively unjust as Barbieland (there is no obvious division of rights and career options, for instance), it is still organised to privilege men and male desires and interests. We learn that on multiple occasions.
Barbie's comments on the real world
For instance, Barbie immediately starts to feel insecure when they land in LA because of multiple male gazes resting upon her (catcalling, whistling, comments, etc.). Meanwhile, Ken bathes in the appreciation of people who don’t know him but applaud him nonetheless (they applaud Ken because he is a man, and they don’t applaud Barbie (but objectify her) because she is a woman; that’s (in short) the patriarchal logic on display here). Ken is appreciated and respected simply for the virtue of being (seen as) a man. Not because he did something amazing or is amazingly talented (after all, he knows only how to beach) but because he is a man. This is a phenomenon that we can also observe in the actual real world (our world, that is). For example, female politicians usually have to justify a candidacy more intensely than male politicians (especially regarding the compatibility of family and work), they also have to deal with a far slimmer margin of error (people tend to more easily forgive male politicians) and they have to be far more careful in their public presence (people tend to expect a female politician to be tough but not too tough as that is interpreted to be ‘bossy’ and aggressive). Women are, generally, subject to far more judgment than men, at least in politics. Of course, these obstacles can also be applied to male politicians; in such a case, however, it is far more likely that other factors such as skin colour, or ethnicity, or class make people question their suitability for public offices, not their gender. Furthermore, men are far less likely to experience episodes of sexual harassment, such as being catcalled or whistled at or receiving objectifying comments (about their bodies, for instance). Now, this doesn’t mean that men can not be victims of harassment; it merely means that men are unlikely to be victims of harassment because they are men. In a patriarchal system, the male gaze is omnipresent because the former systematically privileges male desire and degrades women to being objects of that desire. This is why Barbie feels threatened by all the gazes resting upon her; she feels objectified. Ken does not feel threatened by those gazes because, in a patriarchal society, he is not the target of the male gaze, for such a society is usually also heteronormative. Again, this does not mean that only women might feel threatened, as some critics have argued. Men can also feel threatened by the gaze of the other, but in such a case it is, again, not the male gaze but a different gaze (a white or colonial gaze, for instance). And saying women might feel threatened by the male gaze (or the male gaze is omnipresent) does not mean all women are threatened by it all the time; rather it is a description of how men and women are looked at differently (that is, unequally) in a patriarchal society. Which brings me to the next point.
Shortly after they arrive in the real world, Barbie also experiences her first episode of sexual assault and the subsequent patriarchal treatment of victim and perpetrator. After a guy gropes her she punches him right into the face in an act of self-defence. However, instead of punishing the guy for violently invading her bodily autonomy and privacy, Barbie gets arrested for her ‘punching a dick in the face’-moment. A subtle hint at the reversal of victim-perpetrator roles as traditionally seen in the treatment of cases of sexual assault in patriarchal societies. The way the police officers treat Barbie (they are laughing their asses off, to put it bluntly) is also a subtle comment on how victims of sexual assault are treated when they want to report what has happened to them. Very often, they feel that their concern is not taken seriously by the police -which is probably a by-product of them often having to report to male officers (as the play Prima Facie ingeniously points out). This is another way in which male desires and behaviours are privileged over the female perspective. Now, this doesn’t mean that male victims of violence are not taken seriously in this movie. Barbie is simply only concerned with gender-based violence — and not violence for other ‘reasons’. And statistically, women are far more likely to be victims of gender-based violence. Contrary to some critics, pointing that out does also not mean that women are victimised and deprived of agency. These are just factual numbers. And they suggest that women have at least a very good reason to expect that something bad will happen to them by virtue of them being women. Men, on the other hand, can expect quite the opposite.
While sightseeing in LA, Ken observes that men are the Barbies of the real world, occupying every important role in history and present. In the Century City Center, he is surrounded by working-out men, and pictures of successful men — Barbies seem to be nowhere around. For instance, he notices that in the US, there have been only male presidents. Now, the interesting thing is that in Barbieland the Kens are formally ruled out of becoming president (including almost all Barbies as only the president Barbie can become president, if I understand it correctly). This is not true for the real world; a woman could potentially become president. However, there are many obstacles in her way, as I explained earlier. As one random dude tells Ken, the organisation of the real-world society may not be as obviously patriarchal as it once has been. In fact, being a man is not always enough, you may even need a degree to be good at something. But this doesn’t mean that it’s the end of patriarchy. As the guy further explains, “We just hide it better now”, thereby hinting at the informal injustice still done by patriarchy (namely, sexism) even though its concrete manifestations (such as unequal rights) are formally ruled out. In Barbie, we see this logic at work at Mattel.
The entire board of Mattel consists of men, almost all of whom are white, by the way. The only woman who seems to work at Mattel (or at least the top floor) is Gloria, a mere secretary. Interestingly, she seems to have a passion for Barbie and a very good drawing hand — as if she would be the perfect Mattel CEO. However, she is not allowed into the Board room in which the Mattel-men try to figure out how to get Barbie back into a box. With some imagination, we can interpret this as a comment on how patriarchy and capitalism interconnect. Clearly, Barbie is a commercial success, targeted at a predominantly female audience. One could be led to believe that in such a case, it would make sense that a woman (a potential representative of the target audience) decides over the fate of the company. In a patriarchal world, however, only men are trusted with such a task (in theory, that is). Which leads to the slightly absurd fact that it is men who design and sell toys for young girls — as if they know exactly what young girls like (and of course, they are guided only by their patriarchal assumptions on what young girls like, thereby cementing them). As the Mattel CEO puts it: “Women are the freakin’ foundation of this very long, phallic building!” I think that says it all, right?
Misunderstanding the last act
Through these scenes, it is established that the real world is still somewhat patriarchal. As Ken discovers this and learns more about the theoretical underpinnings of patriarchy, he is keen to establish such a system of power in Barbieland as well. Essentially, he resembles Gramsci’s organic intellectual as he tries to free the oppressed class and erect (wordplay intended) a new hegemony. Of course, his behaviour is not at all intellectual in that sense — he is actually kind of childish — but the metaphor still stands; Ken no longer wants to be oppressed. His solution, however, is almost comically funny: instead of changing the underlying system (an unjust hierarchal society based not on talent but ‘predefined’ essence) he simply swaps out the inhabitants of power: now, the Kens rule everything (in that sense, it’s almost indicative of the French revolution). When Stereotypical Barbie comes back to Barbieland, it’s almost a ‘how the turntables’ situation. Of course, she wants everything to go back to ‘normal’ (the before) — and so she plans a counter-revolution. Interestingly, many people seemed to stumble upon this last act of the movie. Critics have (mis-)interpreted the fact that the Barbies reinvoke the Barbiearchal status quo as the movie promoting matriarchal rule. But this is most definitely not the case. It simply is a visual parody of the real-world patriarchy. Remember that Barbieland mirrors the real world by inverting it. The Barbies are the men of the real world, while the Kens are the women of the real world. Now, imagine a similar revolution led by women in an intensely patriarchal world (such as the 50s and 60s in the West). Surely the men would want to get their privileges back, just like the Barbies in Barbie. It is no stretch to imagine a similar counter-revolution occurring in the real world. So just because the movie lets the Barbies win back control over the Pink House this does not mean that it envisions a matriarchal society as the societal utopia. Quite the opposite actually. Because if we subscribe to the reading that the Barbies represent men in the real world this counter-revolution would not mean that women get into power — but that men stay in power. The Barbies reinvoke the status quo — because that is the logical response in such revolutionary times. They ignored the Kens’ feelings and sense of self-worth (which of course should not be misunderstood as women being responsible for ‘toxic’ masculinity) before, and they do it again — because that’s what men do in a patriarchal society (not all of them, but as a class, obviously). Again, it’s a mirror. As the narrator explains: “One day, the Kens will have as much power and influence in Barbieland as women have in the real world.” Point taken. Thus, the movie promotes a society built upon fair principles of justice and equality (if only Ken would have picked up a copy of Rawls’s theory of justice in the School library; imagine what could have been) — and not a Barbieland-like matriarchy. After all, why would Stereotypical Barbie leave Barbieland behind for good then? In other words: Barbie’s message is that neither a patriarchal nor a matriarchal organisation of society is just and desirable. We should rather aim towards equality and justice as well as respect for one another.
Does Barbie hat men?
It is in the light of these misunderstandings regarding the ‘message’ of Barbie that many conservatives (and even Shakira, composer of the 2014 classic ‘Waka-Waka’) have made rather silly and uninformed objections, namely that Barbie is ‘hating men’ by virtue of its comically one-dimensional portrayal of the Kens. People (mostly men, but also some women and, well, Shakira) have seriously put forward the theory that Barbie makes fun of men. And of course, it does — at least of those men who painfully try to become some idealised version of man that includes horses and stuff (somewhat reminiscent of men’s rights activists, if we’re honest). However, they nevertheless seem to have not paid attention to the movie. Yes, Barbie makes fun of the Ken’s and portrays the Barbies as the more competent members of the Barbieland society. However, as Barbieland mirrors the real world by inverting it, the Kens represent women and the Barbies — as the ruling class — represent men in a patriarchal real-world society. The treatment of the Kens in Barbie can thus be understood as a (admittedly very) subtle critique of how women are treated in a patriarchal society, namely as dependent beings with no talents and abilities and whose feelings, desires, and issues do not concern the ruling class. In a way, we can interpret the Beach (where most Kens seem to hang out) as the household or kitchen, the place in which — according to patriarchal belief — women are supposed to belong. Strictly patriarchal speaking, men are supposed to work and have careers (just like the Barbies), while women are supposed to stay at home and watch after the kids while cleaning the house and cooking dinner, activities which are not rewarded in any way by the patriarchal society. And though I admit that this is a long shot, the Kens also basically do sports stuff that is not really rewarded in any way by the other Barbies. The comparison is by no means perfect — but it surfaces a connection nonetheless. Now, as the Kens want to have more autonomy about their fate and as they try to fight for a societal meaning for their activities the Barbies simply deny it and later revoke any changes. Sounds similar to early feminist fights, doesn’t it?
The impossibility of being a woman in a patriarchal society
I also want to briefly touch upon another element of Barbie’s feminism, namely its comments on the impossibility of being a woman in a patriarchal society. Because as easy as it may sound to the sexist’s ear, being a woman is not simply an act of being. If we’ve learned anything from Butler, West & Zimmerman, or the case of Agnes, or whoever else came up first with this idea, it’s that gender is merely a performance and not a state of being. We have to constantly confirm the societal notions of what it means to be a woman or a man (or any gender, of that matter) — we are doing gender. And doing the being-a-woman part is arguably much harder than doing the being-a-man part. In the real world, women are expected to carry many loads: doing all the care work, being thin (and white) (to please the (white) male gaze, that is), preparing dinner, looking pretty (to please the male gaze, that is), caring about body hygiene, et cetera. Men usually need not to worry about all of that. Of course, I’m generalising and stereotyping massively here. But usually, it’s the woman who has to justify her decision to prioritise career over family. Unfair, isn’t it? And by the way, who do you think is doing all the unpaid, time-consuming, and mentally draining care work all around the planet? Definitely not men. As Gloria points out in her slightly cliché-ish but still powerful speech, women are basically expected to be perfect (women). They have to carry many loads and are expected to do so perfectly. Just like stereotypical Barbie is expected to be perfectly perfect. And if a woman is not successful in her attempt to be perfect, that’s all her fault — according to patriarchal folklore. There is this constant pressure on women to be like some normalised ideal that is actually very vague (which, again, doesn’t mean that there is no pressure on men; it’s just not the focus of this movie). At one point, you will eventually fail (like stereotypical Barbie, when her feet suddenly touch the ground). Since the Western notion of ‘man’ and ‘woman’ is nothing but a construed idea of being, we cannot possibly succeed in the attempt of becoming either woman or man — it is a never-ending performance. Which brings me to my last point.
Barbie is a feminist tale of existentialism
Another very interesting aspect of Barbie is how it combines feminism and existentialism. Barbie is essentially a movie about having, losing, and finding meaning in life. In Barbieland, all the Barbies are perfect, and so are the Kens by virtue of being just Kens. They were all made to be perfect — in regard to their particular existence, of course. Each doll or character has a specific purpose. Dr. Barbie is a doctor, Physicist Barbie is a physicist, Lawyer Barbie is a lawyer, Beach Ken does beach stuff, and so on. Our main character, Stereotypical Barbie, is supposed to be the stereotypical Barbie — and in order to fulfill this expectation (set out by the Barbieland society) she has to be perfect in the way she looks -and she does. But then, the unthinkable happens and Stereotypical Barbie experiences some slight imperfections impacting her way of life as a stereotypical Barbie doll (“lately things have happened that might be related”). She is not perfect anymore, and, thus, no longer stereotypical Barbie, the very idea she was created for. This realisation now throws her off into an existential crisis. If she can no longer be who she was made to be, who is she, then? Stereotypical Barbie doesn’t know. She only knows how to be stereotypical Barbie. And that’s why she sets out to visit the real world — to get back her purpose, to once again become the doll she has always been. Not to be someone else, or someone new, but to be who she was made to be.
This belief in an essence is, thereby (necessarily), the general belief upheld by all members of the Barbieland society. All the Barbies as well as all the Kens believe to be created for a purpose that predefines them — they believe in an essence that precedes their existence. In Sartrean terms: they are beings-in-itself. They cannot transcend themselves as they simply are what they are: the dolls as which they were created. They are not free to be what they are not, that is, to become someone different. When Barbie eventually decides to leave Barbieland behind for good it is this being-in-itself that she rejects. She discovers what is probably the most important aspect of Sartrean existentialism: existence precedes essence — and not the other way around. There is no essence that predefines our existence, that is, our way of being. That is our free decision (at least in theory). We define the essence of our existence, not a predefined essence. We can be whoever we want to be. We can transcend ourselves, our Beings-in-the-world and be, what we are not, while we are not that, which we are — we are beings-for-itself, as Sartre would put it. Barbie discovers that she doesn’t have to be a doll to exist; she exists regardless of being a doll. She also doesn’t have to be the perfect doll she was made to be; she can choose whatever doll she wants to be — or not to be, as she chooses to leave life as a doll behind for good. Stereotypical Barbie transcends herself (as a doll) to become what she is not (a human); she is a being that is suddenly aware of itself, thus a being-for-itself. These Sartrean ideas are now being applied within a feminist framing: the Barbies are not limited to the Being of their specific (stereotypical) identity; they are free to be whoever they want to be — and so are women, and men as well as all other gendered Beings. There is no purpose that predefines their identities. For instance, contrary to patriarchal belief, women are not born to be caring mothers, or loving housewives (a belief that, shockingly, still receives popularity in conservative circles). Similarly, men are not born to be distant fathers or working husbands. However, this existential logic goes even further. There is also no purpose that predefines their characters, their behaviours, their interests, et cetera. Women and men and all other gendered Beings are not born this way, as people often call it — rather, they are socialised in this way or another. For example, women are not born to like flowers, or pink, and men are not born to like cars or blue. These are socially conditioned character traits or interests, they are not engraved into their DNA. If they were, then I as a man (in the eyes of our societies, that is) would not love plants, the colour purple, or activities like cooking, baking, and watching rom-coms. And I sure as hell would not be interested in feminism, for I would be biologically unable to care for other members of the human society. But I do — because empathy is a skill that we, as humans, can learn — gender has nothing to do with it. And just because some women might love flowers, or some men might like cars, this doesn’t mean that all women like flowers, and all men like cars, for these are affections that have to be trained (after all, if these affections were gender-specific, what about the time prior to the invention of cars? the ‘natural’ affection of men towards cars couldn’t have been baked into their DNA after its invention, could it?). After all, what about men who like flowers and women who love cars? These people do exist (even if patriarchal propaganda tells you otherwise). And they do not rebel against their ‘natural’ interests — they just happen to have these interests, nothing more and nothing less. But unless people stop trying to find some meaning in these things, there will always be unjust treatment for people who fall outside of the expected. This is why Barbie’s little tale of existential feminism is so important. If the latest comments from Shakira are anything to go for, it is that there are still many people who believe in an essence, a purpose, a reason that predefines our existence. Probably influenced by religious beliefs, these types of assertions are exactly what Barbie tries to dismantle, however unintentionally it may be. It’s there, trust me.
Conclusion
Barbie is a feminist movie. It might not be the feminist masterpiece some people were hoping for, but it became something even better instead: a feminist classic. Millions if not billions of people went to see Barbie in theatres (aka in real life) — which in my opinion is far more important to the feminist cause than a perfect feminist masterpiece that no one goes to see. Sure, even Barbie has its flaws (for example, it barely touches upon unrealistic beauty standards or the intersectionality of women’s experiences and sets up interesting plot lines that it immediately forgets about). But in the end, it’s just a movie and not an academic lecture on feminist theory. In the future, there might be Barbie-parties and special screenings of Barbie to celebrate this surprising masterpiece — and what else could we wish for. After all, aren’t feminists supposed to killjoy? Well, not this time. Barbie is living proof that feminism can indeed be funny. I mean, this movie is so entertaining! I sure as hell laughed my ass off and so did the rest of the audience. And the fact that it made anti-feminists afraid again is just so wholesome — because what’s better than frightened machos setting Barbie dolls on fire in an act of (hopefully) hopeless patriarchal resistance? Regardless of whether or not Barbie is radical enough to be truly feminist — its legacy will live on forever. So well done, Greta Gerwig et al., you made a feminist blockbuster — and well done Chevrolet: While everyone was busy debating whether or not Barbie is a Mattel propaganda film (which of course it is, duh), no one seemed to notice how Barbie was, in fact, a very long Chevrolet ad. So give me that pink Corvette!
Anyway, keep the picture in motion. Cheers!
PS for all the film nerds out there: Though I have praised Barbie immensely in this article, I have one major issue with this movie, and that is: why the hell didn’t you shoot it on Ekachrome?
