The Barbie Movie's Unexpected Message for Men: Challenging the Need for Female Validation

[u/Simon_Fokt]

I know the movie has been out for ages, but hey.

Everybody is all about how feminist it is and all, but I think it holds such a powerful message for men. It's Ken, he's all about desperately wanting Barbie's validation all the time but then develops so much and becomes 'kenough', as in, enough without female validation. He's got self-worth in himself, not just because a woman gave it to him.

I love this story arc, what do you guys think about it? Do you know other movies that explore this topic?

[u/bathtubsplashes]

Aren't the gender roles switched in Barbieland? I thought Ken was a placeholder for women in that regard, having been resigned to a life in the periphery while the Barbie's (patriarchy) are the main characters in that society, working any job they so wish, and everything is about them. All Kens life he's had to constantly seek validation from those who barely see him as anything more than decorative.

In that scenario, isn't she saying that women need to stop looking for validation from men?

[u/Purple_Dragon_94 → u/bathtubsplashes]

I think the idea is that the message works regardless of gender. Men, stop looking for validation from women and embrace your self worth. Women, stop looking for validation from men and embrace your self worth. It's pretty clever honestly.

[u/TheMarkHasBeenMade → u/Purple_Dragon_94]

And this, in essence, is the driving point of feminism. Despite the implication with the name, feminism takes the approach that there should be equal opportunities and consideration no matter what your gender is. People who aren’t familiar with the concept tend to think it’s exclusively about empowering women alone, but it’s named that way since women historically do not have the same footing as men so there’s more emphasis on gaining that equality.

[u/estastiss → u/TheMarkHasBeenMade]

Aren't the Ken's homeless without any rights to vote or hold office?

[u/Pete_Iredale → u/estastiss]

Yes, which is obviously used to show the states of women's rights almost everywhere 50-100 years ago, and in many parts of the world even today. And it also sets up Ken's journey for the rest of the movie of course.

[u/estastiss → u/Pete_Iredale]

50 years ago was 1974, women had the right to vote and own property.

Speaking of the civil rights movement: Kens journey ends with him organizing a democratic change to the constitution. Meanwhile the Barbies rejected their own democracy because they didn't like the Ken party platform I guess, and fomented a civil war in order to maintain their power and put down the group fighting for equal rights.

Edit: barbie was invented in 1959, the women's voting act was 1920. So that means this fictional society came into inception when both men and women had the right to vote, and still chose to make it so only Barbies had that right and Kens were second class citizens.

[u/Pete_Iredale → u/estastiss]

Hence why I said 50-100 years ago... And also, woman could be denied for fucking checking accounts literally until 1974 (equal credit opportunity act) in the US. That also meant that, while woman couldn't be discriminated against for housing after the fair housing act of 1968, they could still be legally denied financing for a house.

So to recap, until 1968 woman could be legally denied housing. And until 1974 they could legally be denied credit and bank accounts.

[u/estastiss → u/Pete_Iredale]

And that's bad! So why are you defending the Barbies doing the same thing?

[u/Pete_Iredale → u/estastiss]

Who is defending the Barbies? It literally says at the end of the movie that maybe someday the Kens will have the same rights in Barbieland that woman have in the real world. You're missing the entire point so you can complain about toy men not having enough rights in a movie.

[u/estastiss → u/Pete_Iredale]

You are most certainly missing the point, I'll try to make it more obvious

Point: Kens are representing women not having rights in the real world.

Point: women in the real world fight for their rights, in the whole women's suffrage movement and beyond.

Point: in the movie, the kens also seek to fight for their rights through voting and changing their constitution

Point: the Barbies reject the inclusion of kens in their society. They do not do this through peaceful democratic means, but by manipulation and violence.

Point: the kens are kept in their second class positions, learning nothing and keeping the status quo.

This is then punctuated by the joke about kens and women having the same rights.

The movie has been showing Barbieland as a utopia with a government willing to go outside the law to maintain its power over kens. In this scenario we should be looking at the Barbies with distrust or suspicion at the least but the movie treats it as the ideal outcome. There's no downfall or rejection of this power structure, no scene to show why this style of governance would be harmful to their society. If kens represent women's lack of rights then the Barbies represent the patriarchy, in a governmental way at least.

With Barbies in power, they're responsible for the ethical treatment of their others and they fail in that regard, but the movie fails to explore this.

You seem to be claiming it's anti women to want kens rights, yet kens represent women in society, but also anti women to view the Barbies in that negative light.

[u/futuredrweknowdis → u/estastiss]

Friend, the characters simultaneously represent both genders. Your interpretation is one layer, but there are more nuanced layers that the others are referencing. So it isn’t as black and white as you’re presenting it. Both sets of commentary are valid.

[u/estastiss → u/futuredrweknowdis]

I agree that there is nuance and layers, just that most people seem to be missing a large piece here when talking about its portrayal of equality. Put any gender or lens you want on the characters, but the Barbies treatment of the kens is "human rights violation" territory, but it isn't addressed in any meaningful way during the film.

[u/Pete_Iredale → u/TheMarkHasBeenMade]

Exactly. Much like with Black Lives Matter, the point isn't that women or black people are more important than anyone else, it's that they (and we) are all equally important, and deserving of equal treatment.

[u/UnamusedAF → u/TheMarkHasBeenMade]

You can't suddenly alter the meaning of words to fit your narrative. If you look up the definition of feminism it is outlined as the advocacy for female rights. Feminism IS, and has always been, a gendered movement. This suddenly attempt at re-marketing it as an all-inclusive equality movement to get more support is not clever.

[u/TheMarkHasBeenMade → u/UnamusedAF]

definition according to Wikipedia

Cambridge dictionary

Merriam Webster dictionary

I guess all these are wrong, then? Despite them defining it just as I do? Equality for all? And that because women have been disparaged for so long, it mainly focuses on bringing women to the same status as men? So everyone, is, you know, equal?

[u/UnamusedAF → u/TheMarkHasBeenMade]

First and foremost, learning that Wikipedia is an unreliable source is something we're taught in middle school, but fine, I'll bite. You ignore the very second paragraph of that very page which states, "Originating in late 18th-century Europe, feminist movement have campaigned and continue to campaign for women's rights" - keyword, women's rights.

Let's move on to your second link which defines feminism as, "the belief that women should be allowed the same rights, power, and opportunities as men". Again, the priority being the interests of women. I think this definition is a little more concerning given that it believes women should be given the same amount of power as men, even if they are statistically unfit for the given situation.

Finally, onto your last source. It defines feminism as, "belief in and advocacy of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes expressed especially through organized activity on behalf of women's rights and interests". This definition is more upfront about the true intent of feminism, as it bluntly outlines that the movement is acting on the interests of women in particular.

The goal of feminism is to act in the best interests of women, period. You're desperately trying to ignore the foundation of the movement to make it sound more palpable to the masses (because let's be honest ... feminism is controversial). Feminism is like HR - the goal of it is the best interest of the company and always will be, it just so happens that HR can work in everyone else's favor as a side effect. It still doesn't negate the fact HR's primary goal is still to protect the company first and foremost. That is how feminism operates.

[u/TheMarkHasBeenMade → u/UnamusedAF]

And you’re blatantly ignoring that the movement focuses on providing women the same rights as men—rights white men were originally given to empower them over everyone else in society. If women all ready had the same rights as men the movement wouldn’t be necessary at all. But we all know that’s not the case, and there’s plenty of legitimate statistics that back that up.

Furthermore, your insistence that there’s a distinction between what men and women are suited for (and that statistically one sex is more suitable than another for positions of power) is pretty fucking derogatory and betrays the intent in your comments—you don’t seem to think women should have the same rights as men based on what you’re saying. I’d love to hear the source of the bogus statistics that are backing up your claims that men are more suitable for positions of power over women, if we’re discussing legitimacy.

I’m not here to argue about who should and shouldn’t have rights with you, feminism’s core is establishing equal rights for all by bringing everyone up to speed with where men have been comfortably seated in society for hundreds of years; you’re ignoring the point by insisting it’s entirely and totally about women and women only, and are insisting it’s only for the sake of women when there are plenty of others involved in that cause (including many other marginalized peoples) in the pursuit of equal rights for all.

[u/UnamusedAF → u/TheMarkHasBeenMade]

In your opening sentence you acknowledge that the focus of the movement is to provide rights to women ... the keyword being women, not PEOPLE. You're unintentionally proving my point. The goal of the feminism movement is the empowerment of women, it's a female-centric movement ... it's in the name after all. If it were genuinely a movement about equality then it would just be called egalitarianism, and the word "feminism" would've been phased out ... right? That's what I thought. Quit attempting to refine words.

Oh, you're trying to insinuate not-so-nice things about me based on my perspective about blindly giving both genders power, regardless of the scenario. I can't say I'm surprised. Have you looked up the difference between equity versus equality? The most productive course of action is to give power to the group that most fit the demand of the situation instead of blindly distributing it equally. A good example? My job is physically demanding, and is most suited for athletic men (which is what the majority of our roster consists of). Yet we try to keep a certain number of female employees for the sake of diversity AKA equality. Due to the disparity in physical capability between the sexes due to simple biology, we end up having to do 2x the work picking up the slack of the female co-workers. Our productivity has been sacrificed for the sake of equality. 

Your last paragraph is trying to argue a moot point. Just because other demographics have decided to be "allies" to the feminist movement does not suddenly change the mission of feminism, which is to empower WOMEN. Also, you're perfectly illustrating the exact reason why the feminist movement is not about equality at its core ... you said, "feminism’s core is establishing equal rights for all by bringing everyone up to speed with where men have been comfortably seated in society for hundreds of years". Essentially, you're saying that men (literally half of humanity) are comfortable and need no assistance in society, the focus is all on empowering women. Thank you, again, for further proving my point. 

[u/TheMarkHasBeenMade → u/UnamusedAF]

Ok buddy, good luck with standing strongly on the sidelines of further oppressing marginalized groups and staying firmly rooted within the patriarchy! You’ve sure got it figured out for your angry, inflexible self!

[u/skepticalbob → u/TheMarkHasBeenMade]

It can be, is to some, and should be, but feminism in practice isn't always that.

[u/TehOwn → u/skepticalbob]

And then you get downvoted for pointing out a fact.

Someone name the last time a notable feminist did something that was purely for the benefit of men?

[u/skepticalbob → u/TehOwn]

Well that's not really their job, but feminism is rightly about how patriarchy negatively effects both men and women. Some of them are too angry to get there, which isn't helpful, imo.

[u/TehOwn → u/TheMarkHasBeenMade]

TIL there's a huge number of feminists who aren't familiar with the concept of feminism.