i think ppl kinda miss the point of why pink femme girl power aesthetics are empowering to some women, and this isnt specifically about the barbie movie bc i havent seen it so idk how its gonna pull the whole thing off, but it has definitely sparked a lot of discourse around this. but its not about "telling girls its ok to be feminine" because of course the society already pushes femininity onto women. its just that women are devalued, and women are devalued no matter what they do, however femininity is FOR women and it is because of that association with women that femininity is also devalued (regardless of gender, but even when performed by women). it is an expectation, but it is taken for granted. like for example it is expected for women to do makeup and care about fashion, however it is simultaneously taken as something shallow and frivolous to have as an interest or hobby, and people who point out that it actually takes a lot of skill and artistry are dismissed and brushed off. and again this is a skill that is just expected that all women will have! and celebrating femininity, in for example movies like legally blonde, is saying that no, there is inherent value in this thing, there is inherent value and skill and use in having traditionally feminine hobbies, feminine women had to work and femininity doesnt make someone lesser. and when we accept these as their own skills, hobbies, interests, hopefully we can also separate them from womanhood, and we can accept women as, yknow, their natural state. femininity is an action and it has value but women should damn well opt out of it if they want to.
21 notes
·
View notes
the whole positive attitude towards the barbie movie is kinda confusing to me because i understand that stylistically a lot of those things are “in” right now as reactionary pushback against the kind of so-called feminism that condemns the enjoyment of “girly” things but…. i mean why are we all suddenly stanning a big obvious money-grabbing advert disguised as a piece of feminist cinematography? a few years ago people HATED fashion dolls because of their perpetuation of societal beauty standards. and they didn’t like mattel.
please, i feel like i’m missing something, can someone explain what’s going on? why is barbie different to all the other big-budget money-maker movies?
33 notes
·
View notes
By the end of this year I'll be making 300$ a day. I don't care how I have to get it done but I'ma get it done. I've always had to make my own luck and I'ma put that skill to good use.
32 notes
·
View notes
i didn't have super high hopes for the barbie movie going into complex feminism and political issues or anything considering its made by mattel but the right-wing and male reaction honestly had me really hopeful that i was wrong and that the barbie movie is trying to say something radical. and then i saw the movie and its just like. the most basic boring surface-level feminism movie ever. the most political thing they say is that women have it really rough under the patriarchy which like. yeah obviously. its also extremely nice to men like its clear that the kens turn bad not out of malice but misguidance and ryan gosling ken gets whole musical numbers and a whole arc about finding himself and getting to know ken w/o barbie. even the all-male leadership at mattel is depicted as well-meaning albeit buffoonish at times. so the fact that men and right wing audiences are claiming that the movie is anti-men or is this super radical film is just. incredibly sad to me. like even a movie this non-political with such surface-level corporate feminism is offensive to you? and even the leftists are acting like its revolutionary somehow. if your boyfriend didnt realize how bad women have it before seeing the fucking barbie movie you need to get a new boyfriend. idk. its just disappointing all around to see something as basic as "women have it rough" treated like its a revolutionary concept and it makes me genuinely despair for the future of women that the barbie movie is the most feminism some people have been exposed to. and even that little amount is too much for some people.
5K notes
·
View notes
The 2023 Barbie film is a commercial. I’m sure it will be fun, funny, delightful, and engaging. I will watch it, and I’ll probably even dress up to go to the theater. Barbie is also a film made by Mattel using their intellectual property to promote their brand. Not only is there no large public criticism of this reality, there seems to be no spoken awareness of it at all. I’m sure most people know that Barbie is a brand, and most people are smart enough to know this and enjoy the film without immediately driving to Target to buy a new Barbie doll. After all, advertising is everywhere, and in our media landscape of dubiously disclosed User Generated Content and advertorials, at least Barbie is transparently related to its creator. But to passively accept this reality is to celebrate not women or icons or auteurs, but corporations and the idea of advertising itself. Public discourse around Barbie does not re-contextualize the toy or the brand, but in fact serves the actual, higher purpose of Barbie™: to teach us to love branding, marketing, and being consumers.
[...] The casting of Gerwig’s Barbie film shows that anyone can be a Barbie regardless of size, race, age, sexuality. Barbie is framed as universal, as accessible; after all, a Barbie doll is an inexpensive purchase and Barbiehood is a mindset. Gerwig’s Barbie is a film for adults, not children (as evidenced by its PG-13 rating, Kubrick references, and soundtrack), and yet it manages to achieve the same goals as its source material: developing brand loyalty to Barbie™ and reinforcing consumerism-as-identity as a modern and necessarily empowering phenomenon. Take, for example, “Barbiecore,” an 80s-inspired trend whose aesthetic includes not only hot pink but the idea of shopping itself. This is not Marx’s theory on spending money for enjoyment, nor can it even be critically described as commodity fetishism, because the objects themselves bear less semiotic value compared to the act of consumption and the identity of “consumer.”
[...] Part of the brilliance of the Barbie brand is its emphasis on having fun; critiquing Barbie’s feminism is seen as a dated, 90s position and the critic as deserving of a dated, 90s epithet: feminist killjoy. It’s just a movie! It’s just a toy! Life is so exhausting, can’t we just have fun? I’ve written extensively about how “feeling good” is not an apolitical experience and how the most mundane pop culture deserves the most scrutiny, so I won’t reiterate it here. But it is genuinely concerning to see not only the celebration of objects and consumer goods, but the friendly embrace of corporations themselves and the concept of intellectual property, marketing, and advertising. Are we so culturally starved that insurance commercials are the things that satiate our artistic needs?
— Charlie Squire, “Mattel, Malibu Stacy, and the Dialectics of the Barbie Polemic.” evil female (Substack), 2023.
3K notes
·
View notes