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.
Women in the US are doing that too.
I guess it works, to a point. If your man throws a Shapiro-esque fit over this movie he probably isn’t great to be around the rest of the time.
His critique of it is basically that it’s too “woke” but he really has nothing to say about the essential elements of any movie (plot, tone, character development, etc). He’s either unable or unwilling to separate politics from his review. It’s like he doesn’t know a movie can be well made even if you disagree with its themes.
If you ever have (unfortunately) heard of his absolutely dogshit book, then his inability to understand deeper meanings, subtext, themes, and to grapple with a competent plot should not surprise you in the least. Robert Evans, Cody Johnston, and Katy Stoll read it through on Behind The Bastards in a few episodes. Imagine the novelization of a Steven Seagal movie adaption of a Jack Ryan plotline. Combine that with how ol Benny really wanted, and failed, to be a screenplay writer, and it makes sense his absolute hatred for modern Hollywood movies that don’t say all the things he likes.
One pump, one cream my friend. I loved those episodes and so many more.
Take a bullet for ya, babe
Take a bullet for ya
Interesting. Have you listened to the behind the bastards take on Scott Adams? That’s pretty funny too.
Lol yeah it’s always the smaller bastards with the funniest episodes
I mean, I think it’s fine to critique a movie on themes as well. It’s a key aspect that makes up a film, like effects, writing, casting, or acting. I don’t think critiquing it as “woke” is invalid - it tells his audience a key facet of what they want to know about a movie. If a movie was coming out and someone reviewed it saying the themes were pro-fascist, I’d also want to know that and not attend based off of theme.
I just like that a movie which, in no uncertain terms, advocated for strong, independent men is too “woke” for Ben Shapiro. But I guess if you determine your worth as a man by how much control you have over women, that tracks.
Fascism is an actual defined term. Woke isn’t, it just means whatever the user wants it to mean, which is usually something like not wanting some minority group to exist.
Woke is a defined term.
The fact that it’s mis-defined or used as a pejorative does not invalidate its definition nor mean it can’t be used as a descriptor of a film. It’s literally an adjective.
True but dictionaries (at least for English) are descriptivist, so they can only describe how a word is used. The definitions, especially the second one, are so broad due to how much the word is misused.
But your right that I probably shouldn’t have said it has no definition.
Seems like a seller definition to me. I think it’s nice a dictionaries often provide samples for how the word should be used, but they always have the actual definition of it above that section.
I think “woke” actually does have a definition, put forth by DeSantis’s lawyers, IIRC. I don’t want to go find it right now, but it was something along the lines of “aware of and acknowledging the existence of systematic racism in the United States.”
But more broadly, these days it just means “progressive” without defining any specific arena, so personally, I think woke is a valid way to describe a movie. In fact, if a movie doesn’t have at least some “woke” themes, I’m not too interested in seeing it these days.
“Woke” comes from AAVE meaning to be aware of racial prejudice. As in, “you woke up from a dream”. It has a definition, it’s just that most white people won’t take the time to learn it.
The non-AAVE version doesn’t really have a different meaning it’s just not black-centric: Every action or speech done (deliberately/emphatically) cognisant of systemic injustice is woke. At least that’s how you see it used in wider left circles, and while the right might not understand it they of course see that it’s evil because systemic injustice is what they’re all about, be it when it comes to economic or social or intergalactic issues. They cannot accept the concept because it would require them to look at the consequences of their actions; exposure to it triggers their phobia.
Sure sure, that’s why fascism is a buzzword as big as woke
“Woke” means whatever anyone wants it to mean at any time.
Or is the theme of the movie about awareness of systemic racism in the US justice system? Haven’t seen it myself
Pretty sure he decided what he was going to say before he even saw the movie. He can’t admit to liking any part of it becausee of his politics.
I seen a video of another person dismantling his arguments and plot and character development is something he touches on.
Shapiro-esque is such an apt description.
The amount of concern a woman should have about their partner is directly related to the amount of Shapiro that is displayed when complaining about Barbie. I had a few parts I didn’t like, but I still enjoyed the movie as a whole. I thought the car chase scenes were so unnecessary and terrible product placement.
What’s funny is Shapiro, himself, feels Shapiro-esque as if even he were not the genuine article but instead a trick of the light.
Both my wife and i wanted to go equally. I wanted to thirst on Ken and I did…but on the serious note, its a good movie for both genders to see for seperate but equal reasons. Barbie gotta stand up and step out, be herself. and Ken has to learn what it means to be Ken without Barbie. This movie would of helped me not be such an incel in my formative years.
deleted by creator
What do you mean? I can’t think of anything more stable than a grown man burning children’s dolls on the internet after watching a movie based on a toy designed for 6-12 year old girls.
Wait, people weren’t joking about that?
I don’t think about him at all.
Wait, really? XP
What do I do if my woman does that though?
Watch Oppenheimer, I guess?
Lol she actually wants to go watch the movie about child trafficking. Personally I want to drive 3 hours to watch Oppenheimer on 70mm because I didn’t know it was even a thing before this movie. Though all imax was created decently equal 😂
🤣🤣🤣
I’m using that line
I just wanted to know where Ken lived.
He’s literally Beach Ken. Why doesn’t he just live on the beach?
Either that or ::: spoiler spoiler move back into the Mojo Dojo Casa House since Barbie cleaned it up for him before immediately leaving to be a human. :::
My best guess is that Kens are all homeless. Mattel released many different Barbie houses, but not a single Ken house.
How about a Shoe-esque fit? Lol. I kinda agree with her that if they were trying to make the patriarchy look bad, they failed hard. The Barbie’s seemed to be having more fun in Ken Land. One of them even says as much.
Also there’s no way that Mattel would be upset that the Ken Bro-House was outselling Barbi Dream house. They’re making money, they’d have leaned into it, not tried to shut it down.
deleted by creator
Regarding this, I think the point the movie was trying to make was that Mattel could choose to eliminate the Barbie line of toys and use those resources to create a product for boys that would sell better, but they choose not to. Even though the board (both in the movie and in reality) is dominated by men and they are motivated by profit, they still want to make little girls happy. Of course, they want to make their profit along the way, but that’s commentary on capitalism
You missed the point where they all lost agency and just became hollow husks of beings.
It wasn’t meant to be super biased towards feminism. In my opinion it tries to show a very well balanced take and just show genderism in general, and uses it as a gateway for some men to understand what it could be like from the other side. The end loses some of it’s nuance with going for a mostly status quo. But the rest of the movie is a great exploration of gender issues in general.
Barbie is an ad for a toy. It should not be engaged with as if it’s sincere any more than you would an ad for sugary cereal.
deleted by creator
Alternatively, if your SO doesn’t think you can be together because you don’t like a movie, they probably are the wrong person to be dating.
The test isn’t if someone dislikes the movie, it’s why if they disliked the movie.
It’s fine if someone thinks it was boring, poorly written, etc. It’s a red flag if they go off on some misogynistic rant.
If someone goes on some misogynistic rant then no, you should not date them.
Also if someone needs to test you and wants to goad someone into anything ‘as a test’ then you should not date them either.
Both the tester and the testee should not be in a relationship and need to do some growing up.
Dating itself is inherently a test. That’s the point.
Well, maybe they do what Albert Einstein did. You just tell your woman to do your laundry and then you mail her your clothes. Afterwards, you go cheat on her with your cousin.
Have you ever heard of dating?
this is a man, hands down. i’d put my life on it.
i think you’re viewing “tests” in this context to be mean deceptive. there’s no amount of trickery here, it’s literally just observing someone’s reaction to stimuli.
Do you realize that some men don’t think that women should have opinions about things like movies and how others think, right? Or, even worse, is that they aren’t even aware that women might have opinions about things like this.
I bet that challenging some of the movie concepts would also be considered misogynistic. I mean if I think that there is no patriarchy in western civilization at present. That means I don’t agree with a feminist argument and therefore i must despise all women right? It’s the only logical conclusion you would reach “in good faith” 🙄
Edit: thanks for admitting it. I just wanted to make it clear to those who engaged in good faith with the argument.
deleted by creator
Check again. Things changed a lot.
Go to the middle east and find it out
Or, alternatively, Western society. We just don’t stone women in public.
deleted by creator
It’s fun seeing the actual test the article is talking about playing out in real time.
This made me lol
Indeed it’s fun to call them out and show what they actually mean. So much good faith discussion. /s
Saying there is no patriarchy in a country where women couldn’t even vote until around a hundred years ago isn’t good faith debate. But you know that already and you’re just an idiot troll trying to be spicy and own the libs or whatever. 🙄 Go back to your cave.
Actually, it’s a bit like watching a couple of toddlers on the playground throw sand in each other’s faces and then scream at mom and dad saying they hate us.
It’s not our fault that you’re childlike in your inability to empathize with other people.
So much good faith arguments, you really proved me wrong and changed my views /s.
deleted by creator
I am sure you believe that. Don’t worry i am not even trying to educate you. You do you and live with the consequences.
deleted by creator
I agree with Marc Maron in that I miss the old type of stupid, the self-aware type of stupid. Nowadays all of the idiots will scrawl out a complete rant about all the things they’re clueless about (i.e. most anything that requires any actual abilities, knowledge, or research) and try to pretend that they’re educating you in some way.
I’d ask him for a follow up by seems like he’s just repeating himself so I don’t think I’ll bother. The claim is outrageous and needs some deeper explanation by OP.
…says the guy getting ratio’d hard, LOL.
So what, you think that Joe Biden is a transvestite in drag? And that 80% of corporations in the US are actually ran by more trans people???
Yeah buddy okay whatever
Hell I’ve worked at least a half dozen companies where there were no female employees at all.
I am not completeley sure but I think you are discussing in good faith. thanks for showing some people actually do engage in good faith.
I think that in the end it comes down to what you understand by patriarchy. in my personal view as long as you have the same amount of self determination in deciding your future as anyone else then there is no patriarchy. and it’s not a simple matter of just personal responsibility to achieve a goal, the world is opressive. in my views women can decide to marry, in effective terms more women are in higher education than men. and marriage remains is at will. the other arguments are easily debunked if you spend a few minutes looking for the counter argument. you can look it up yourself.
Ok, I will concede that the US isn’t fully patriarchal, but majorly patriarchal. Many career paths are still divided by gender, although that isn’t an absolute.
Still, when 80% of large businesses are ran by men, it shows there is not equality. And when women want to take time off to have kids, they are heavily penalized for it which torpedoes their career.
Wait. Sorry, I’m trying to understand, are you saying you actually don’t think patriarchy exists in the West?
I agree liberals will just be reactionary and any critique will be received in bad faith, same way if you’re a Leftist and critique Democrats or Hillary Clinton then they think you’re really a fascist mysogynist, but I’m not sure if that’s what you meant.
Ok let me give my hot take: Patriarchy doesn’t exist in the same way god doesn’t: It’s a bullshit way to analyse the world ultimately more trouble than it’s worth because it obscures instead of clarifies social relations.
That’s evidenced by the theoretical drift the term has taken, from “oh it’s the men” (classical definition: rule of men) to “oh no it’s certain social forces and we’re calling them patriarchy even if propagated by women” (feminist definition starting whatever-wave), leading to stellar analysis such as “female beauty standards are internalised misogyny” which make my head hurt, it’s women saying “look how high status I am I have so much free time to care about non-survival stuff”, pure female competition, men really don’t give a fuck ultimately we like you best in pyjamas and bed hair. So, uncharitable take, “patriarchy exists” means “certain forces exist and I’m uncomfortable acknowledging my own participation in them so I’m deflecting”. Which is why you then see takes such as “the favourite past-time of feminists is to enforce patriarchy” from people who understand academic feminism, referring to what’s happening in political feminism and somehow those sides have stopped talking quite a while ago because what they’re doing is fundamentally irreconcilable as what they share is equivoke terminology, not ideology. QED.
So: Throw out the terminology, re-do it from the ground up with a focus on precision and clarity and without regards for hysterical raisins.
Yep, extremely dumb point they were trying to make.
Two questions:
God damn, you liberals are dumber than fascists. We’re doomed.
Correct, if you don’t think there is any patriarchy then you might be a shitlord.
It’s not an issue of if there’s any patriarchy, but that Universal and Mattel obviously limited how much the film makers could critique capitalism, corporatism, and this general issue of forced competitiveness (of which patriarchy is a symptom - make 10 people fight over 5 sticks, act surprised when whichever people end up grabbing the sticks first use them to leverage an advantage and beat down the others, and it eventually turns into things like patriarchy and white supremacy and class systems).
So instead the film has to pretend that patriarchy is the core issue, despite undermining that notion itself multiple times (eg. multiple powerless male characters in both worlds, Ken being unable to get a job, most of Gloria’s grievances about being a woman being grievances many men share or basic human insecurities, etc.) The film even tries to lampshade some of its own shortcomings (“thanks, white saviour Barbie” and the line about Margot Robbie being the wrong casting choice).
Thematically, the film is a hot mess. It degenerates into bullshit twitter mottos and catchphrases from about 10 years ago and dance numbers instead of plot resolution.
If you’re using this, of all movies, to “test” your boyfriends and partners - well a) testing your partners is not a great sign in itself, but also b) you may be an idiot.
How dare you. Recently in my university there was a free course only for women ( i.t. related) men are directly not allowed to participate.
So instead of equality we’re going for revenge. And no one dare deny it. The problem is many young adults only have lived through this all his life if they are like 18-20. They didn’t get to see how bad was it and are only receiving this biased reality, and some of them being radicalized in both directions.
Of course there are many patriarchal things still worth fighting for. But this kind of blind religion "islam make women slaves (true) so we women are all victims of slavery ( not true)… Said a civil worker with exactly the same rights as me, or more, since she can attend that course in my university.
Bet they’re the same type who only dates people according to what astrological sign they are 🤣
Are you saying moral values and astrology are equal when it comes to choosing a partner? What is worthy value for you to choose a partner on? Tits?
It must be fun going through life without critically thinking about anything.
Astrology is another litmus test to see if men will belittle you, so if your reaction to barbie is similar to your reaction to astrology then you’ll probably be getting similar results.
Bringing up astrology on a date would be the dealbreaker for me. I don’t want to date people who believe in stupid woo bullshit. I wouldn’t belittle her for it, but there wouldn’t be a second date.
Just bringing it up at all? I get that some people take astrology too far, and some use it to excuse toxic behavior and avoid fixing bad personality traits. However, some people just think it’s a fun way to reflect on themselves. It’s very possible to have a casual interest in astrology that doesn’t mean that you really believe in all the nonsense behind it.
It’s like palm reading or tarot cards… It’s just a fun whimsical activity.
If the mere mention of astrology is gonna be a deal breaker, you might want to consider lightening up a bit.
Not them but depending on the context then yes. People sincerely believe in astrology and the logic to get there can equally apply to other aspects of life. Doing it “for fun” would need to be crystal clear to remove that red flag.
not really. astrology is dumb doesn’t matter the gender
For most women in my life it’s just a vibe check, and it sounds like you fail
The feeling is mutual, so hope this would be on the first date to save us all time.
I agree with you, astrology is another limus test: if anyone seriously believes some fucking hidrogen balls light years away can influence your life get the fuck out of there