When I watched Greta Gerwig’s “Barbie” in theaters, I couldn’t help but think the film’s conclusion was an overcorrection. I’m not a woman, so you can take everything I say about this topic with a grain of salt, but I consider myself a feminist and tend to have fairly left-leaning standards. The movie, of course, aims to take down the patriarchy and restructure societal expectations of women. As it comes to a close, instead of preaching equality and giving men an equal role in leadership, Barbie and the rest of the women insist that it will purely be the women taking over.
At first, I thought this might have taken it too far. The point of feminism is to fight for gender equality, after all. I thought that if the creators of Barbie wanted people to come together, they should have concluded it with an even split of power. Since then, I have come to realize that perhaps an overcorrection was, and is, necessary.
Unfortunately, it seems as though simply fighting for equality is too passive of an approach, even if that is the ultimate goal. Right now, the patriarchy is an extreme, and we cannot fight it by suggesting equality. Instead, I think it must be fought with the same level of extremity, with equality as the compromise. I think it is the only way intense misogynists will budge. The less you ask for, the less you will get, so you must ask for more than you want, like when negotiating a salary. I’m not really sure if I have done a great job of conveying my thoughts, but as I have seen the lack of progress being made and as I have been exposed to media that promotes the objectification and overall inferiority of women, I have realized that more must been done in order to accomplish anything, even if it seems extreme on the surface.
What do you think? Is overcorrection necessary? What can/should be done?
This was a great blog post. Thank you for sharing! I don’t think overcorrection is always necessary, but in these circumstances, the creators of this film did a great job. When I watched Barbie in the theaters that summer, it seemed that the reviews amongst the public were quite polarizing. On social media there would be people saying that Barbie was the best movie of the year. Some would say it was too corny and contained toxic feminism. Personally, I can see both points of view. There are times where the lack of intelligence and the overwhelming desire to be accepted by the women seemed a bit much. But I definitely understand that reversing the roles of the society we know today in a comedic manner will fly over most people’s heads. Which would result in the gripe that most people had with the film.
ReplyDeleteI liked reading your perspective of the Barbie Movie. I think I felt the same way in that I had hoped that there might've been more of a "let's empower each other" message, rather than "Girls rule, Kens Drool" ending... I overall really enjoyed the movie and I think that the movie was exactly what it set out to be, but I remember thinking at the end like Barbie could have used her empowerment to teach, uplift, and improve all of the characters in Barbie land, women and men both (and the literal audience of the movie as well).
ReplyDeleteI acknowledge that I'm not a woman, and that maybe my perspective isn't as important in the Barbie conversation, but I DO say all this as someone who is part of the LGBTQ+ community, and in some ways, growing up, I thought it was unfair that girls could play with "boy toys" but boys couldn't play with "girl toys." I had hoped that the movie would play homage to that, that masculine and feminine people want acceptance and to enjoy their interests without shame. I felt like the movie missed that mark. I think it could have resonated with men and boys and helped them see things from a feminist perspective if, in the movie, Ken could have been more of a positive and productive force in the rebuilding of Barbie land.
(I really did like the movie though! I just also like to get critical about the things I enjoy!)
I have to start by strongly disagreeing with your assessment that the film “Barbie” ends with an overcorrection. The film opens with its characters living in the matriarchy that is Barbie Land. When Barbie has an existential crisis, she is thrust into the “real world,” and Ken stows away with her. There they are both introduced to patriarchy.
ReplyDeleteKen enjoys his newfound power in the strange upside-down world. Barbie is thrown into yet another crisis, this one of identity. When they return to Barbie Land, the Kens have taken over, and this forces Barbie to come to terms with the reality that Ken likely wasn’t very happy living in a matriarchy without much power. Because she certainly isn’t happy living in a patriarchy in which she wields very little power.
The film skewers gender hegemony of every kind – that which benefits men OR women. It opens with a world opposite of the one in which we live – a world where women hold all the power and men virtually none. It then thrusts our leads into the actual world in which we exist, where men have all the power and women virtually none. When Barbie realizes through her own experience what Ken has endured, she concludes. “Maybe it’s Barbie AND it’s Ken.” She puts them both on equal ground, stressing that he needs to figure out who he is separate from her. That he needs to self-actualize, as she is doing.
The whole point of the whole movie is that both patriarchy and matriarchy are bad for us as a society. It stresses that we should live in a world in which men and women are treated equally, with dignity, respect, and autonomy. By bringing us into a world that reflects the polar opposite of the world in which we live in the first part of the film, it asks us to reflect on how women feel every dang day in the real world. We are second class citizens. No one likes that. Not Barbie. Not Ken. Not women. Not men.
And it concludes with both Barbie and Ken embarking on their own journeys of self-growth, agency, and autonomy.
I will also add that I don’t think an overcorrection at this point would be going too far. For instance, if the next 47 presidents were women, that would seem like an “overcorrection,” but it would actually just be historic equality. Of course, that would never happen, and I think that it is unlikely that I will ever see a single woman president in my lifetime.
I would invite you to imagine that scenario in reverse. Imagine if there had never been a male president, and that you were unlikely to ever see a man become president. Would you want an "overcorrection"?
While I don’t believe the film is an overcorrection in the least, I also don’t believe that an overcorrection would be stepping too far. In fact, I would welcome it as a balance to the literal millennia women have been treated as subordinate.
Thanks for your comment. I definitely understand your disagreement and appreciate your thoughts. I haven't seen the movie since it came out, and I did not recall her sympathy for Ken when she realized he had been living in a matriarchy. I understand what you are saying with the presidents, but I understood the ending as ALL leaders are now women, not just the president, and men are not longer allowed to be part of it. If ALL government positions of power were held by men right now, I would agree with you 100%. From the perspective of only talking about the president, I agree it would not be an overcorrection. As you concluded in your comment, I also concluded that an overcorrection would not be taking it too far. Again, thanks for sharing your take and helping me understand the movie better.
Delete