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.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s): https://piped.video/watch?v=gqeTb0j2nr4
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I'm open-source, check me out at GitHub.
Good bot!
Here is an alternative Piped link(s): https://piped.video/watch?v=3UiZLj_jC-E
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I'm open-source, check me out at GitHub.
We really should have clients redirect to Piped by default
good bot
Barbie starting the revolution in China? Hopefully other countries as well. Good timeline.
Little Pink Cookbook!
Little Pink Cookbook!
Little Pink Cookbook?
You've got to do the cooking by the book ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
I was supposed to read this with a lil jon voice, right?
That's how communism always ends up. When you hand over majority of the power to the state, it won't be keen on giving it back.
That's like saying the US is not capitalist because we don't have a true free market and better products/services don't always rise to the top.
These simply aren't things that can practically happen, just like the workers owning the means of production.
That doesn't make any sense though. Communism isn't when you "give power to the state." It's a word used to describe a specific economic system that China does not have. The word that best describes what I think you're getting at is "authoritarian." Words mean things, and if a thing doesn't fit the definition of a word, then it isn't that word.
Good news everyone, the Politics Understander has logged on
I think if anyone gets mad at a Barbie movie or some random article on the internet that has nothing to do with them, that's a good sign they're emotionally unstable
I'd call it emotionally immature.
A surprising number of the people I grew up or work with act like they're still in high school when it comes to social/interpersonal skills -- these people are all well over 30 years old.
I am only 42, but I work with a bunch of 60+ y/os. They never grow out of it from what I can tell. If they are like that in their 30s they'll be like that till they die most of the time.
Tomato, tomato. If you're a grown ass man, emotional immaturity IS instability.
I just treat most people like 16 year Olds and it tends to work out pretty well.
A matter of opinion. I thought that it was quite poorly written in the second half
Really funny movie I'm glad with the direction that they went with it
It's very obvious here that no one is saying "if you don't like a Barbie movie then you're sexist." The point is if you don't agree with equality, whether in a movie or irl, then that's the problem. But I feel like you probably already know this.
But yes, if people from certain religions and political parties would just stop with the racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, and xenophobia, maybe people wouldn't feel the need to express cultural values the oppression they're experiencing. Maybe consumers wouldn't identify so much with the message of films like this. Yet somehow it's always positive media like this that gets pushback, and meanwhile, laws keep getting passed in bumfuck states that are stripping human rights from people one by one. But sure, Barbie is the "exhausting" issue here.
In other words, maybe there wouldn't be media "pushing" for equality if we already had it.
And idk, I find Marvel/superhero bullshit to be exhausting and immature and just bad, so I don't watch any of it, I block everything about it on lemmy and reddit, and I don't comment on it. Then it's not exhausting anymore.
Some people do.
Just like some people genuinelly believe the Earth is Flat and some people will have no problem drinking their own piss on a dare.
And then beyond those weirdos there's an entire subculture of weirdos out there whose wierdness is to pay massive attention to and rage all about what weirdos do and, worse, they're divided into factions and they'll feed-on and feed-out weirdo rage between factions, so it doesn't take much to trigger them into a positive feedback cycle of weirdo raging about weirdos.
The secret here is to remember that although they are often loud and lacking self-restraint on the Internet, all those weirdos (in all factions as well as factionless) still add up to a minority of people.
You are comparing war to an article on Barbie lmao I can't take you seriously
damn dude. I hate people too, but jeez.
Define "mad". I've watched it (arrr) myself and The Barbie movie is very political, despite them completely hiding it in the trailers and the promotional material.
Fervent political media tends to rile people up, especially when it's very one-sided. I presume you haven't seen it and think people are upset over a light hearted comedy.
Human rights are political by definition. Feminism is political by definition. That the average person (or at least the ones worth knowing) is a feminist, whether they know it or not, doesn't mean the ideas aren't political in nature.
The problem is that people think political means bad or controversial instead of, you know, relating to concepts of governance and self rule.
The fact that I don't want to go to the movies to watch propaganda doesn't mean I'm against that propaganda. I go there to be entertained.
You didn't reply to their comment, you just added your own idiotic take. The movie isn't propaganda unless you think a story about women and men having equal rights and equal opportunity is propaganda.
Is The Matrix propaganda? Is Terminator propaganda? Is Star Trek propaganda? All entertaining movies, all have heavy social commentary.
You'll get nothing from communists in this discussion friend. People refuse to allow our media to be escapism anymore and demand even already addressed issues drilled into 'entertainment'. We traded pop culture references for this, and somehow I want the references back
It's not one-sided, though. It argues that both matriarchy and patriarchy are not inclusive ways of operating a society. The movie did not shy away from showing Ken's dissatisfaction living under a matriarchy, just like it did not shy away from showing Gloria and Sasha's dissatisfaction with living under a patriarchy
I liked that it at least gave a few nods to the idea that living in a patriarchy isn't necessarily great for all men either. Not all men have power, and even the ones that do aren't necessarily happier for it and find themselves competing with other men and restricting their own self-expression. That's a nuance that's lost in a lot of pop feminist messaging.
Absolutely! The dolls of both genders that were discontinued or discarded were the first ones to bring down the patriarchy in Barbie land, including Allan and Sugar's Daddy/Magic Ring Ken
Fucking Good. I've really got to watch it.
That really is the whole point, too. The entire conflict is based on the fact that Barbieland is a construct of the imaginary world created by girls playing with their dolls, in which Ken has only ever been marketed or existed as an accessory to Barbie. His entire existence, in both the real world of marketing and consumerism, and in the imaginary world of Barbie, is predicated solely on giving Barbie arm candy. I'm not entirely convinced that this point was entirely deliberate, but it really does highlight that, in creating a product to give girls a role model that says they can do and be whatever they want, that those girls internalized their understanding of the male-dominated world around them, and flipped that on its head. Their imaginary world is a very literal mirror to our own, and as a result, it is still dominated by the same inherently sexist attitudes, only kinder and gentler because they are created through the lens of childhood innocence. Kids are only able to create with tools and media they understand, and the polarized nature of the world around them, and our intense need to make everything a binary, means that a "fair world" never looks like one where everyone is treated the same. It's a world where they're in charge.
I'm not even going to get into the overtly sexist assumption that only girls play with dolls, and with Barbie in particular. Toys are toys, and I never understood the need to tell a kid that something is off limits because it's pink or is "a doll". The people who most strongly hold these beliefs tend to be the ones that grew up when GI Joe was a full size doll just like Barbie, with his own clothes and uniforms and such. Well before the idea of an "action figure" came around. These folks played with dolls that were, for all intents and purposes, functionally identical to any girls' doll of the day, and yet are so quick to slap a Barbie or a Bratz doll out of the hands of their grandsons.
Anyhow, long story short, it's a great movie that explores some very heavy subject matter, and almost but not quite gets its own premise. Most of the people who are irrationally angry with the film have never seen it, and probably won't for fear of being turned gay, or worse: liberal.
Exactly the way actual feminism does instead of the conservative boogeyman "feminism" that's just female chauvinism espoused by an extreme minority.
There are only two categories: the status quo (no matter how shitty it might be for some populations) and "political".
If it's talking about equality then it's not political. People's lives are not political they are not objects for other people to react to. Touch grass.
Well they included the nine-dash line in the movies silly map (I believe Vietnam banned the movie because of this) and there's no zombies or Winnie the Pooh references so all good as far as the CCP goes.
It's a line China drew in the south china sea and claim its theirs for historical reason if I remember correctly.
Pissed off a load of other countries as it claimed some of their ocean defined by international law
Wikipedia link: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nine-dash_line
How the fuck can anyone take this seriously is my question. This is not a geopolitical map.
This is an insult to the free world. Fuck the Barbie movie.
It's absolutely intentionally supposed to be the 9 dash line. You don't think movie studios are INTIMATELY aware of how to get their movie seen in China?
If you base your relationship on a fucken Hollywood movie then that should be a litmus test in and of itself.
Also, guys, if your girlfriend constantly feels the need to "test" your relationship, then she's not the right one. Thats a massive red flag.
I mean there's no harm in using a cultural moment as a starting point to see if two people are compatible?
I think the language in the article and perhaps from the influencers is a bit rigid.
I don't think anyone is suggesting that if a man has valid reasons for disliking the movie they are automatically exist. The idea is that the film is causing a knee jerk reaction in men who are otherwise prone to hiding their misogyny.
I didn't get a lot of the inside jokes about the product. And the barbies and Ken's did not unite to kill Will Ferrell.
The idea is that the film is causing a knee jerk reaction in men who are otherwise prone to hiding their misogyny.
Why would a knee jerk reaction be any indication of misogyny? The movie is very antagonistic towards men. The proposition that having a negative reaction to that is misogyny is absurd.
It's not, though. It's antagonistic to the patriarchy, sure, just like it's antagonistic to the matriarchy, but "man" and "patriarchy" are two entirely separate concepts.
It's like if a movie came out that criticized the for-profit medical insurance industry in the US and people started saying that it criticized all doctors. That doesn't make any sense, and neither does this
The movie is very antagonistic towards men
Lol no it isn't
If you have that point of view after watching the movie that's exactly the red flag the women in the article are looking for
Wanting to test if your new boyfriend is a misogynist is hardly a red flag. The article doesn't say anything about testing dudes constantly. It doesn't even say he has to like the movie, just understand some of its themes.
I think it's healthy to observe your partners reaction to things. Especially when it comes to things that are quite important for a long term relationship, like their thoughts about gender roles. If you organically went to see the movie and your partner is clearly displaying red flags from it, then that's just good (not the red flags but that you now know).
I guess the trickery of going to assess them specifically can be seen as a asshole move. But I think it's a good move compared to alternatives ^^
Being manipulative is a good alternative compared to just being direct and asking your partner what they think? I'm sure someone who is going to throw a fit about the Barbie movie will be happy to tell you what they think about feminism if you just ask.
How many dudes on dating apps say they're "not into politics" because they know admitting they're conservative will diminish their dating pool?
Women know better than to only listen to words. They've been trained to watch for actions as well.
I don't see it as more manipulative then to ask leading questions to assess anybodies stance on subjects ^^ Especially when it's a way to shield yourself from real harm that might be caused by the party you are probing information from.
Many movies are based on real-life or have pertinent real-life themes. They depict something "fake" in order to communicate a truth about real life.
Sounds like somebody failed the Barbie boyfriend test
I feel like the movie woooshed you a little bit. The entire point was that both versions of the society sucked. It wasn’t “telling women to be terrible” it was that if either sex acts terrible it’s bad for society.
because reaction to art can be a good indication to what someone thinks. For example, a negative reaction to the song 'Alabama' by Neil Young might indicate that the person thinks that Alabama is a swell place and people shouldn't be putting it down just because it's government is racist as fuck.
Seeing a movie with someone is part of your experience with them, through which you determine their personality and character, is it not?
I agree that "testing" people is kind of toxic, but the idea that your assessment of a person isn't cumulative and inclusive feels odd.
I thought the movie criticizes both extreme feminism and male chauvinism, or did I watch a different Barbie movie?
That's what the article is saying as well.
Any gendered chauvinism sucks and patriarchy causes suffering to anyone.
And if someone comes out of the movie angered by this knowledge, they can be a troublesome person to other people.
Yeah. Barbie Was not the good guy in the Barbie movie, right? Like, even in the end they admit that they will not give the Kens true equality, just enough that they basically won't revolt again. People here calling Barbie a feminist icon, what movie were you watching?
That's the point. They blatantly say "someday, the Ken's will have as much rights as women do in the real world"
The entire point is that treating people as second class like thst isn't good, regardless of which side its coming from and that we should all be equal. The only time I'd see men complaining about that is when they don't get it.
That line literally made my jaw drop because I had just been thinking, "Wow this is still kinda messed up. I thought their society would end up much more equal" and then BAM! that line hits. That movie was so good. I've been trying to get everyone I know to see it.
Same. I was thinking the exact same thing at that point. A massive part of the movie's message hinges on that line and I smiled so wide when I heard it because it clicked much of the rest of the film into place.
Like, even in the end they admit that they will not give the Kens true equality, just enough that they basically won't revolt again.
That example isn't really accurate, they say the Kens eventually will be given the same representativity as the women in the real world. That line is more of a jab against gender inequality than anything.
Yeah. I would not take it that literally. I'd say it means they're gonna do to Kens what "the patriarchy" and many people who support it do to women. Concede rights when they absolutely have to and begrudgingly accept them for the sake of avoiding bigger problems, but still believe in their own supremacy and acting one way while publicly pretending to be accepting of feminism. Then they will say, see, you have all this rights and equality now, no need for "Keninism" anymore and slowly start to backslide and undermine those rights when they feel like they can.
They're rather copying the spirit of real world patriarchy than just plainly introducing the same laws as it
Yes! This is a great way to put it and shows the mirror it's putting up to Western society
Oh that sounds more of a nuanced theme than I was expecting. Cool.
Sure but it’s still them making a conscious choice to keep oppressing a group until an unrelated reality fixes their shit. Doesn’t sound like they’re good guys at all tbh.
Sure but it’s still them making a conscious choice to keep oppressing a group until an unrelated reality fixes their shit.
I hope you see the irony in that phrase.
Doesn’t sound like they’re good guys at all tbh.
This isn't Star Wars my dude, not everything needs to be good vs evil. Sometimes there's even room for satire.
Yeah the movie doesn't paint them as good guys though? The narrator comes in and states that they aren't at that point, and stereotypical Barbie leaves because she can't see herself as taking part in such a system anymore.
I don't think they're supposed to be "good guys".
But even though the women have the control, they do not oppress men like men do to women in the real world. Men still do everything they want, even if the women have the power because the women make the world amazing for everyone. A little different from reality.
I think that was the point, it's the perfect mirror to the real world. Everyone not okay with how the Barbies treat the Kens in the end should think for a second why that is and why anyone should accept the reverse in the real world.
It's also kind of a clever subtle call to action. "If you don't like this ending, you can change it by changing things in the real world."
"Stereotypical Barbie" (the Margot Robbie one) actually seems to get it by the end. In fact, her main character arc was going from being like the other barbies—watered down stereotypes of feminism—to actually a feminist who has a better grasp of why just equalizing out positions of power, while still good, does not address the root of patriarchy.
It didn't end up in a world that's ready. More like a mirror of the real world but maybe healthier?
I take slight issue with your phrasing. "Extreme feminism" isn't an issue, that's like saying extreme racial equality is an issue. Feminism isn't about female superiority, it's about gender equality. The movie does not criticize extreme feminism, it criticizes chauvinism, whether male or female.
“Extreme feminism” isn’t an issue, that’s like saying extreme racial equality is an issue.
There was a time during the 2010s when third-wave feminism was pushing things too far and trying to create divisive splits on subjects that really didn't need them, like Atheism+ and a bunch of other things with a plus sign tacked on to it. Fortunately, once the #MeToo movement picked up speed, they switched gears to more important things.
So, yes, you can have an extreme view on anything, even feminism.
I don't know about you, but I didn't find that movement extreme, just weird and lost and a tad silly.
When your definition of feminism is "gender equality", you're right, there's no such thing as an extreme. When you take the equity stance and start treating people as groups and funding/defunding one group or the other you are building up new systems of discrimination instead of breaking them down.
That is indeed what is in Barbie - if you watch it and actually think about the themes. If you’re just there for the experience then the message is (quote moviegoer behind my back discussing with friends): “goddamn, this is a step in right direction, we won’t change this patriarchal world with one film however“ :P
On a basic level the message “Ken was silly, broke Barbieworld because he wanted to emulate men, they had to get Barbie and a feminist back to fix it” - and that’s what most people will get out of Barbie.
On a basic level the message “Ken was silly, broke Barbieworld because he wanted to emulate men, they had to get Barbie and a feminist back to fix it”
How did he break it? He basically just flipped the genders so Kens are the ruling/working class and Barbies are just subservient eye candy. Barbie just flipped it back. It's a broken and unimaginably unfair world in either case.
When Kens ask just for a bit of equality at the end, they are shut down and given some unimportant appeasement as a joke.
When Kens ask just for a bit of equality at the end, they are shut down and given some unimportant appeasement as a joke.
The movie is calling this out on purpose. It's how women are currently treated in western society.
I don't think that's the feminism that the movie was criticizing, but rather the commodified "girl boss feminism" that holds up conventionally beautiful commercial attainment as the ultimate aspirational icon.
As opposed to the feminism of intersectionality and respect for the rights and choices of normal, everyday women.
Correct. Honestly, if a dude gets offended by a movie that says “hey dude, learn how to love and value yourself without basing all of your sense of self on your romantic relationship to a woman and you’ll be much happier”, they are NOT a catch at all and they need to shed some shit about their lives.
As a man, I would say sort of. The movie does not shy away from a very obvious feminist message combined with an unsubtle (hilarious) spoof of toxic masculinity. On the other hand, it's still a matter of personal taste. I really liked the movie, but I could see how someone would find it a bit too simplistic and formulaic in its story, completely independent from its themes. Not liking female directors in general just because they're female is complete bullshit though.
I thought the movie was okay. The visuals were stunning the dance numbers fun (if you're into that, which I am), they did a good job leaning into the comedy world-building and the takes on Ken loving the patriarchy were the most hilarious. Overall I think it did a good job. The story was a bit meh though for me because of how simple it was.
I haven't seen it, but the criticism I've heard is that the feminist message is a pretty obvious one and not very deep. I guess you don't go to the Barbie movie to "make you think", but I've also heard that the movie spends a bit too long on that obvious message and it gets boring at parts. I think the majority of criticisms aren't about the message itself, more about the execution of it.
Buuutt this is the internet and the ridiculous voices are always the loudest lol
I haven't seen it
As a gay man, I say yes. I get to watch the hetero world from the outside and yeah, Barbie nails it. Folks just don't like the mirror.
It's not a movie for my taste as I prefer to watch sci-fi, action, thriller or historical themed movies. So if I was forced or coerced into seeing it, I would probably hate it too. Then again, I haven't seen it so don't really know for sure.
That's actually a very good point that I didn't even realise. I did say "hate it" but didn't mean hating the movie, simply disliking and not enjoying the time.
I guess it's become far too easy to use extreme words in our daily speech nowadays, for which I blame social media.
I tend to prefer similar movies as you and I loved the movie. It is a VERY fantastical, intelligent, existential, and heady movie. It's one of the most expert navigations of complex social dynamics I've ever seen and has an absolute shitload of cinema references and easter eggs to boot.
Don't let the surface fool you. The franchise is just a vehicle for Greta's ideas to reach a mass audience.
That's like saying The Lego Movie and the Lego Batman movie were a vehicle to sell Legos. That's pretty obviously not all they were, and just because they could sell toys that doesn't mean they weren't also good movies.
You might not like it, but I have huge barbie issues and went with my 11 yo thinking it would be okay and poke a but of fun and have a slightly feminist bent. I truly loved every minute and am surprised how much I did. It is formulaic but done really well.
It's rare, but this franchise owner understands very well that a lot of people hate Barbie. It's even in the trailer "If you love Barbie, this movie is for you. If you hate Barbie, this movie is for you."
having a taste does not mean to show hatred. You can simply dislike something and you're done.
But if you show hatred to a movie, a show, a book and the people who worked on that (actors, directors...) I think you have some issues. And that's what this article is about right?
I definitely think it would do a fantastic job of baiting out reactions and listening to what someone has to say about it after would probably clue you in on what stood out to them about it. Obviously none of these types of tests can be conclusive, but I'd say if someone came out of the theater super angry then that's pretty telling of something at least. A good starting point for further discussion with that person.
On the whole I thought the movie was hilarious and had a very compassionate message for men at the end of the movie as well.
My biggest issue after watching it has just been having to see braindead takes from people online, swinging in both directions. Lots of "the movie hates men" types but I've also seen a few "DAE, men bad?" tier takes as well which is a bit disheartening.
I don't know if it's defininitive, but I do think it offers good insight into what a person notices when they watch things. There's a whole lot to notice and think about in the movie
No. The movie is very antagonistic towards men. I don't think anyone who has seen the movie can dispute that in good faith.
Practically every male character in both the Barbie world and the real world is portrayed negatively. There are a few exceptions that are portrayed neutrally but they are mostly plot or exposition devices.
Conversely, practically every female character is portrayed positively. This creates a stark contrast that's very difficult to ignore.
To be clear - personally I don't care, it takes more to rile me up. But hating a movie that is deliberately spiteful towards your demographic is not an abnormal reaction. Neither is "slamming" the people who made it.
Man here. I disagree.
The movie is only "antagonistic towards men" if you think the Kens are somehow supposed to be a 1:1 realistic depiction of real life men which is something not only not textually supported but also actively and explicitly contradicted by the film
The kens aren't stupid because they're men, they're stupid because they're Ken Dolls. Both Kens and Barbies are highly hyperbolic depictions of how little girls play with Barbies and Kens.
Personally, I found the movie to be very empowering as a man too. I'd recommended rewatching it and trying to think critically about what the movie is doing. It's a film, not an after school special where every character is supposed to be a direct black-and-white representation of "thing good" or "thing bad"
It's antagonistic towards the patriarchy. You completely misunderstood the Ken plot and are the one arguing in bad faith.
In fact, your response is exactly why some people view the movie as a good way to see what an individual pays attention to and whether or not they genuinely understand what the film is critiquing and why.
You failed.
Do you really not see that's how women are typically treated in movies? They're just there to be arm candy to the men, don't have real personality or depth, and just exist to make the men feel good about themselves.
It's just funny to watch dudes get so riled up about how kens are treated, especially when at the end the Kens do get their own story arc. Unlike how women are treated in nearly all movies.
Please partake in the culture war, don't just let conservatives win by default.
Is it cool if I just don't watch it? It doesn't really appeal to me.
Lol
Honestly I was the same way going into it, and after watching it my thoughts were "I don't regret watching it, but I wouldn't have regretted missing out either."
The movie is great, and there were multiple moments where I burst out laughing. It's also a really bizarre acid trip, and I mean that in a good way! But at the end of the day, it's a hot pink version of The Lego Movie, down to Will Farrell playing a (less evil and more well-meaning) Lord Business. It's a movie made by women, for women, about a series of toys designed for women. That's not a bad thing by any means, and it's not like men cannot enjoy it, but it also means it may not interest you, and that's fine too.
Is it really as critical of capital as The Lego Movie was? I haven't seen it yet, though I intend to.
Fox Business, among other right-wing news outlets, were foaming at the mouth about how The Lego Movie was anti-capitalist. Search up "Lego movie anti capitalist" on your preferred search engine to see what I mean.
Mmmmm, I don't think I'd go that far, no. Feminist? Very much so. Unable to decide if the Mattel executives are actually antagonistic because Mattel didn't want to make themselves look too bad? Probably.
I thought it was funny but it looks like this got removed.
Appears to be removed, yes
Same, I just can’t bring myself to care about a movie that’s about toys I have zero nostalgia for.
Heh. I feel like they would need to discontinue the toys before any of us get a chance to develop nostalgia.
I'm not nostalgic for Hot Wheels either. I just go buy a Hot Wheel when I want one.
Man, I need to buy me some Hot Wheels…
Bruh... Transformers have been in almost continuous production in one for or another since 1993. They were briefly discontinued in the late 80s and early 90s, and were brought back with the Generation 2 line and then Beast Wars. The longest period that Transformers haven't been on the market since their introduction to the US market was between Generation 1 and Generation 2 from 1990-1993. Generation 2 fizzled in 1995, and was replace a little over a year later in 1996 with Beast Wars. Since then, the brand has had some continuous shelf presence.
And it's a huge brand today that is largely sold to adult collectors with an attachment to whichever show or comic they indulged in as a kid. Yes, discontinuation can definitely drive nostalgia and a desire to collect something, but it isn't a necessity. In the case of Transformers, it's just created an ever-widening pool of things for new adult collectors to be interested in. Right now, there's a growing interest in modern updates of the Unicron Trilogy characters (Armada/Energon/Cybertron), which were shows being aired from 2002-2005, followed by Transformers Animated and the Michael Bay films.
Good summary.
I'm just bitter that Barbie and Hot wheels fans didn't have their favorite toy pulled from the shelves between the late 80s and early 90s.
And Action Masters weren't really Transformers, and everyone knew it.
I had no prior experiences with any Barbie-related products or media (adult cis white male in the US) and wasn't sure whether I'd enjoy it at all. After seeing it, i honestly think there's something for everyone in this movie. It's exceptionally well-written (very wry) and makes solid points about the current state of patriarchy in our society. It's really well-done. Feel free to wait for it to come out on streaming, but then I'd definitely recommend checking it out.
Sure, maybe. I just don’t really think this is a movie made for me.
I feel you, but if the movie shows any type of struggle against power, it is probably a more universal theme than what we percieve , especially here in the US, its probably just not that great of a movie otherwise, but with a relatable message. I have zero interest in seeing it, but now that it's become this culturally charged, I feel I must.
Of course. I don't care for Barbie either, and never played with the toys during childhood so there's no connection for me. I went to watch with my fiance because it was something she was interested in. The movie was okay. Wasn't great, wasn't horrible. I think when it becomes telling is when people are somehow offended or pretend like it's the worst movie created.
That means you are a misogynist through and through. /s
I'm being facetious. But yes, that would be very weird.
That's interesting. I read that the film was about radical feminism, but gender switched with Ken as the feminist to overthrow the Barbie-dominating system. Really look forward to seeing the movie.
They're allowed to watch Barbie in China? How censored is it?
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
Nothing against female directors, but the movie went from pretty damn good to pretty damn boring after a while.
You've got a fun and quirky beginning that makes light fun of barbie, mattel and patriarchal society. Then you've got the bits where ::: spoiler spoiler Barbie and Ken get to the real world, get arrested twice for doing stupid shit. ::: This part was funny and for a bit there I felt like it was mainly not about driving a message home, but still had SOME things to say. Great! Then you've got the parts where ::: spoiler spoiler Ken went on his own journey to discover patriarchy (which he thought had something to do with horses and was disappointed to find out it didn't), Barbie meets her owner's daughter, goes to Mattel HQ, then gets chased out and rescued by her owner. ::: Many hilarious moments here, poking lots of fun at patriarchy again, but it never felt like it was too on the nose. I mean I kinda expected that from the trailers and everything.
Where the movie started changing for me was when ::: spoiler spoiler Barbie, her owner, and the latter's daughter went back to the Barbie world to help fix the balance, only to find out that the Kens had completely taken over. ::: While the twist was predictable, it was still interesting because I wanted to know how they would resolve it. But it just kinda... fell off after that? At this point you have the expected low point in the protagonist's life, and then they figure out how to fix everything, but it was just so... boring and uninspired somehow. By this point, the movie's quirky and fun nature has worn down its' course and the
spoiler
battle of the Kens
just did nothing for me anymore.
What's worse, I was expecting ::: spoiler spoiler the Mattel board of directors, particularly Will Ferrell's characters to be villains and instead they just... arrived by the end of the movie and had a change of heart. ::: That subverted my expectations for sure, but not in a good way whatsoever. Slightly reminiscent of the last seasons of Game of Thrones.
And lastly, I really expected the resolution of the plot to have something to do with horses and I was sorely disappointed about that too.
TL;DR: Movie starts out great, but foreshadows things it doesn't follow through on very well, ending is boring and sappy.
How dare you, that dance-off between Simu Liu and Ryan Gosling (and the other Kens) was incredible!
Ken was alright, but Ken really stole the show in that scene.
I believe the term is "beach off"
I was just waiting for them to kiss tbh
based
About at the part where ::: spoiler spoiler Barbie is comforting Ken on the bed ::: I said to my partner "It feels like this movie has been ending for a while now," and that was still a good way off from credits. I did appreciate that ::: spoiler spoiler Barbie and Ken didn't end up together, it was a good message that men and women both need to be okay with themselves before they pursue a relationship. I loved the "I am Kenough" shirt. :::
A few issues I had personally (oops wall of text lol): ::: spoiler spoiler They really hold their punches on toxic masculinity. There are no men who are outright misogynistic and believe women to be subhuman. They're all just dumb and misguided. They also made a small attempt to point out that patriarchal society is negative for men too with the "sometimes I wish we could all have tickle fights" bit, but I do wish they would have dug a little deeper into how awful it is that men are expected to never have emotions and bottle up. It was also really weird that the kid called Barbie a fascist... It almost felt like they were using that word wrong on purpose to reduce its meaning, or get Republicans in the audience to roll their eyes at the stupid SJW calling everything they don't like fascist. Also weird that at different points the movie claims Barbie saved women or set them back 50 years...like, it's just a doll. Yes, a popular doll, but it's weird to claim women gained or lost power in society solely because of a doll and not through the actions of feminists and antifeminists. :::
I'm general, I'm happy with the film's lessons, although it feels weird for Hollywood to be the one preaching them to me.
Most of the scenes were pretty enjoyable in isolation. The problem I see is that it feels like they tried to combine two scripts to address the same issue from opposite directions. Either approach could have been good, but each one undercut the other so it just wound up confusedly sabotaging its message.
I can agree with this, the messages got super muddy. They tried to say something about being a woman, being a man, and being a human, but all three were dulled from being stacked on top of each other.
I don't think this at all. It's a very dense movie, but I don't think it suffered for it, and if anything actually enhanced the message that a lot of social expectations are murky and arbitrary.
I'm planning on seeing it again.
Yeah, I overall liked the movie but there were a lot of questionable moments in it. The point where they recognize that using Margot Robbie for some of their points kinda undercuts the points was odd to me. I also didn't like the child of the movie, I didn't feel like she was really a character.
I really like the fun energy of the movie, it feels like a giant music video and I love that. But the social commentary moments are just so on the nose it just feels weird that it's coming from a movie about Barbie. It feels like it can't decide whether the audience is supposed to be children or nostalgic adults.
That's not what I meant at all and have adjusted the text to hopefully be more clear.
As someone who watched it high, too many drastic vibe changes. From a fun laughably corny movie, to this serious 10 minute diatribe about every possible challenge a woman could potentially face in her life really killed the mood. Many of the scenes with the mother/daughter really detracted from the film honestly.
It's like putting jar jar in star wars.
Sounds schizophrenic
I fully agree. It was a fun movie to see but that's about it... they could have made such a good ending and set up a sequel
Ehhhhh, sequel??
You really wouldn't want to see a barbie vs he-man movie? Or some other ridiculous set up? I'm not even a big fan of the movie... just seemed like a good financial idea for Mattel
I find your criticism of the parts of the movie you don't like to be super weak and unspecific. The crux of the entire movie is the juxtaposition between what's it's like in Barbie ruled barbie world vs ken ruled barbie world. It's literally the lens though which the movie criticizes patriarchy.
Ken bringing patriarchy back to barbie world I don't think was a twist, it was the clear narrative arc from the moment ken fell in love with patriarchy.
Matell being villains is a clear misreading of the plot from your point of view. Matell is the butt of the joke the entirety of the film. They don't drive the plot, and were never in control of anything that happens. Why would you expect them to become the villains? That's your own internal biases leaking (and maybe putting too much of Mugatu onto will Farrell)
Lastly, in much the same way that the opening of barbie is an homage to 2001 a space Odyssey, (that scene they are parodying specifically in the original movie is about the death of old paradigms and the beginning of new ones), the beach battle is an homage to patriarchally driven war media, specifically D-Day scenes such as from saving private Ryan. It's the death of patriarchy subverted through a traditionally patriarchal approach.
I find your criticism of the parts of the movie you don’t like to be super weak and unspecific
It's been 2 weeks and the latter half of the movie wasn't good enough to remember every detail tbh, I just remember which parts I enjoyed and which made me sleepy. I watched Oppenheimer right after and have a much better recollection of that. I'm also neither a movie critic, nor even a native English speaker, so I don't really know all the jargon I should be using instead of saying things like "boring".
The crux of the entire movie is the juxtaposition between what’s it’s like in Barbie ruled barbie world vs ken ruled barbie world. It’s literally the lens though which the movie criticizes patriarchy.
Cool, I didn't criticize that at all though, I said it got boring when they started SOLVING the issue.
Matell being villains is a clear misreading of the plot from your point of view. Matell is the butt of the joke the entirety of the film. They don’t drive the plot, and were never in control of anything that happens. Why would you expect them to become the villains?
Did we watch the same movie? The Mattel board was incompetent for sure (of course they would be, they're men who only got their powerful jobs because of the patriarchy), but they were antagonists in the first half of the movie, would've caught her if she hadn't been helped by America Ferrera's character, and it was foreshadowed that they would at least... DO something in the second half of the movie. They literally started marching to barbie world to grab her as she could move between worlds and they obviously had a problem with it. Then they get there and it was resolved with essentially no conflict, they just had a change of heart. I could've seen them cutting a deal of some sort with the Kens to stop Barbie or something like that. You know, men conspiring to keep women down (which of course is exactly what the Kens were doing, I'm just surprised that the Mattel board didn't try to do it in barbie world).
Ken bringing patriarchy back to barbie world I don’t think was a twist, it was the clear narrative arc from the moment ken fell in love with patriarchy.
I guess twist isn't the right term. I didn't put much more than 5 minutes of thought into writing the original comment, and as mentioned, I'm neither a movie critic, nor a native speaker. You still get what I meant though.
the beach battle is an homage to patriarchally driven war media, specifically D-Day scenes such as from saving private Ryan. It’s the death of patriarchy subverted through a traditionally patriarchal approach.
Sure, and I don't disagree with the idea of it, it's just that by the time we get to it, we're used to everything the movie throws at us and it feels too weak to save the end of the movie, which other than this scene is just slow, emotional and boring compared to the setup. Going by the first half of the movie, I just wasn't expecting that much sap and speechmaking towards the end. Traditionally movies start slow and then speed up, but Barbie started fast and then kinda slowed down and that just doesn't sit well with me.
... if a man shows hatred for “Barbie” and slams female directors after they leave the theatre, then this man is “stingy” ...
Didn't knew there were that many female directors in China. Let alone having to watch their back to not get sucker-punched for it.
if a man understands even half of the movie’s themes, “then he is likely a normal guy
And when ask about the movie, if he says "she's hot" and starts masturbating?
In England bonk is another word for fuck. A bit dated, but still well-known.
That kinda makes sense..
It is in my very unbiased opinion that is totally not a promotion (as that would be against strike rules) that everybody should see this movie.
Multiple times.
Someone tell me gf that I'm a normal guy with normal values and stable emotions please. She doesn't believe me.
Just commenting to beg the universe to get the “I’m just Ken” song out of my head.
All this stuff around the movie is making me not want to see it.
I want to watch a movie, not be evaluated on my reaction to it.
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”
Does stingy have a different meaning than cheap? Seems like a weird thing to infer.
Seems like a language barrier to me. Stingy can mean "ungenerous," which kind of makes sense, but I don't think a native speaker would have chosen that word.
Out of curiosity since I haven't seen the movie but saw some reviews: is the representation of society (the way they depict it in the movie) meant to be like real life? Or is it more of a satire / exaggeration of it? Because the things that were described in the reviews about the "real world" bits definitely didn't sound like how things appear to be in most parts of Europe that I've been to (or lived in).
The best satire reframes real life in a way that you suddenly see just how insane reality is. The Barbie movie does this very well and it presents real things that still happen every day all over the world in the course of the movie
It's an exaggeration, albeit with merit. Tbh the whole film's pretty surreal. Funny as fuck though and worth a watch
The representation of "real world" is meant to be an exaggeration of real life, both as satire, and to underline issues women face and systematic advantages men receive. I think that part was quite good at doing what it was trying to do, it was funny as well, and Will Ferrell is of course hilarious as CEO.
What didn't really resonate with me, and kind of rubbed me the wrong way, was later in the movie, when "men" were portrayed as being simultaneously incompetent at everything they do, and at the same time manipulative and power hungry. By all means, it was funny, and got the point through, but I think they went too far in portraying the "bad guys" as both stupid and malicious, but also hard to overcome.
I think the message of the movie (the way I understood it) would have gotten through in a better way if they had made the resolution less dependent on the "men are dumb" caricature, and played more to "women are strong", they could maybe even have brought in some "men and women can actually function together if they talk to each other".
I didn't see the Kens as dumb or bad guys. They were toys who took wrong lessons from history by accident. None were bad bad, well maybe Mattel because of profits.
when "men" were portrayed as being simultaneously incompetent at everything they do, and at the same time manipulative and power hungry
Can't help but be reminded of something.
You don't need to portray men as vicious to make your point about women being virtuous.
I mean... both the kens and barbies where very dumb, not the main one since its implied that she got redpilled by going into the real world, but the other ones are dumb since they just do hedonistic shit all day and when the kens come with the "we rule now" mentality they kinda just accept it without fight, it takes the complaining of the mother character to spark discontent to the barbies. But its more because everyone in barbieland is kinda like an alien.
It's over the top exaggeration to highlight plot points.
I didn't find the purported themes really resonated with me tbh.
The sets and costumes were amazing and there were some funny bits tho.
I'd say it's better to see without any prior knowledge
Honestly everyone should do that lmfao
I feel like this is a transcript of a TikTok video
I legit don't remember the last time I went to see a movie...maybe like...one of the hobbit films? Or a Pixar flick with my niece? My brain is so addled, I do not recall. Oh well.
OK, I just asked my way more intelligent and practical wife, and it was Dunkirk, with my crazy mother, whos now all into wild conspiracies.
seconded.
Honest response: all of them. We have s societal structure that craves on people's insecurities.
Or perhaps tribalism is just a trait that it's very hard to get rid of.
Congratulations, you understand feminism, men and women are both capable of the exact same things.
TBH came out of theater sad - I’m a bit surprised I don’t see more of these “if you don’t like Barbie you’re insecure” comments in media (so far just some Daily Mirror stuff so pretty much nothing). It’s a great argument if you wish to burn someone in conversation but a bit insane point to make IMO.
Is “not being insecure” just letting go with whatever the entertainment complex shits out? Saying “I am a strong, confident person” and then just doing absolutely nothing out of ordinary if you dislike something? “Fitting in”? Sounds pathetic to me.
I think this movie was terrible - not by production value (however a bit too much talking too little action for a comedy movie) but by being yet another one to divide to ever-smaller tribes. Yet another thing to distract from the have vs have-not’s debate. The means of production/economic system debate.
No, let’s see if you like the latest flavor of feminism, up until another flick (maybe pro-life/pro-choice, LGBT or whatever) comes out and then let’s obsess about sexuality for a bit. Then back to square one while the actually important stuff just passes above everyone’s head.
distract from the have vs have-not's debate
We can debate multiple things at once.
then let's obsess about ... Then back to square one
All those issues are important. So yes, we absolutely should obsess about those for however little they end up being hot, because these conversations are important. They bring attention to stuff and can change minds which is an effect that lingers on.
And it seems wrong taking "not being insecure" as "accept everything", it seems to be more of "not being insecure about discussing gender inequality and such."
Just because your attention span and memory are lacking doesn't mean everyone else's is.
This movie is a good way to show what half of humanity is going through in their day-to-day life, would you really call that a "non-pressing issue"?
I understand if the story being used to deliver the message isn't your cup of tea, but simply disregarding what some would call an important and half of humanity affecting issue, is quite rude.
Please remember there is more to do in the world than to just concentrate on one issue at a time, and this movie is simply one small move for women to sit in a theater and to point out "Yes, I know that experience, and I hate it as well".
An interesting way to look at it, is that this movie is similar to what superhero movies are to men, with a lot of ironic "womensplaining" memes popping up on several different social medias. If you really don't like it, just think of it as the first Avengers movie but for women. Maybe that helps understand it a little better.
I mean those statements seem like they're in contradiction of each other; if attention spans are lower (which I don't disagree with) then people are more likely to debate/discuss a wider range of topics though perhaps in less detail.
This doesn't necessarily mean collectively people will be able to hold onto these points to bring about effective change, though it doesn't preclude it either.
must make two honest confessions to you, my Christian and Jewish brothers. First, I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a "more convenient season." Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.
-MLK
You are the white moderate, and as long as you remain in that position, you are being part of the problem, not of the solution.
Being anti-capitalist isn't good enough if it only serves you and those like you.
I like how you're complaining about short attention spans in a thread about a 2-hour-long movie.
Class reductionism is a terrible and privileged take which ignores the plights of those less privileged than you, and even if you did win that way, all you'd end up with is a white supremacist hetero-cis abled patriarchy "socialism", because none of those issues will magically go away if we abolish capitalism but nothing else, the biases, like the ones screaming out from your comment will all still be there, and those of us who are marginalised now will continue being marginalised then.
Arguing for treating the two as separate sounds like the sarcastic phrase “we need more diversity in our oppressors” or “more war criminals need to be from diverse backgrounds”.
Scapegoats are used to distract us from the root of the issue, which is artificially enforced inequality. Addressing that in a meaningful way involves itself creating a feeling of solidarity among all people in a community no matter who they are.
It’s not reductionist, it’s cutting to the heart of the issue in a way that inherently addresses the issues people are trying to manipulate to derail a real long term solution.
You will never eliminate these prejudices and scapegoats if you don’t put your effort towards the central unifying issue at the heart of this, inequality breeds resentment and scapegoats are easy to use valves to let off the pressure.
It’s a type of Gordian knot in my eyes that we should slice instead of trying to individually untie each knot to get to the center.
It's very telling that wealth is the only thing he cares about. All these problems that "other" people face are just annoying little flies for him to swat away
Ngl, happy you asked :)
The percentage of capital owned by the richest 1% skyrocketing in recent decades (and rising sharply 2020+).
Monopolies in media/communication sphere getting larger by the day and utilizing them exactly like the monopolies would do (first example that pops to mind is Google and their web drm bullshit that will be implemented - just as anything what they want - because of their sheer dominance in web searching, tracking and browsing).
Why are there (at least as far as I see in Western Europe) almost no talks to how de-centralize people and make the local communities more self sufficient? Yeah I suspect why - it’s easier to build yet another skyscraper in London and sell flats for mountains of money - half of them or more to corporations that will rent it to people. This however (everybody swarming to city and insanely fast rising prices in relation to average Joe’s pay) is not a good idea both from ecological standpoint and economical wellbeing of middle class (how are you supposed to have at least some generational wealth passed if you and your kids will be renting everything starting with flat and ending with car or fridge). One solution (now that we don’t have a huge need for factories to have a lot of people living nearby) would be to incentivize growth of smaller communities between the cities (eg. lot’s of people work in services but some of them can be done via internet - offer lower tax when you live outside of major city, some can be regulated from government level to mandate certain number of remote hires residing outside of major city)
Even if my examples are flawed I am missing a discussion in the media about that - I don’t see blockbusters pushing these points, I don’t see politicians bringing that to everybody’s attention often (yes it happens but comparing to feminist or lgbtq issues it’s laughingly rare and weak message).
Because the same people profiting from this system bankroll the media and politicians. And when those kinds of things are discussed in media, it flies over people's heads because media literacy isn't really common.
Do you really think politicians, that are paid for by these monopolies, are going to help create that change? They'd all be talking themselves out of a ton of money.
Media is also influenced and controlled by money. I don't see their financial backers in a hurry to open the eyes of the average person to the realities of wealth inequality.
Aren't you in Europe? Look to the French, they know how to actually get shit done when it comes to the ruling class. They protest and riot, like they did when retirement age was proposed to go up.
Wow, tell me you're a straight white Christian male without telling me you're a straight white Christian male.
Sorry that the problems of us "others" got in the way of your safe little bubble.
I almost went to see it two weeks ago with a friend of mine because we were also talking about seeing Oppenheimer afterwards. She cancelled due to a hangover so I'll probably wait until they're on streaming services.
Actually amazed the movie isn't banned in China. I thought that feminism and blatant capitalist ideals wasn't the CCP's thing.
I mean it's not a groundbreaking feminist and anti-capitalist critique, but you do understand that the opening is intentionally tacky and childish, right? You should have stayed to see what the next 1,5 hours of the movie had to say about that tackiness.
why chinese guys even putting up with this shit?
Sounds authoritarian and woke. I am terrified.
Tis a joke my man.
Woke has taken on a meaning of pretty much anything that could be seen as disrupting the nuclear family, heterosexuality, masculinity, and religion. Stuff that conservatives value. The term has been used as a catch all, so if you're using it you're not saying anything other than 'I'm conservative and think masculinity is important'. They aren't dangerous ideas to anyone but conservatives, which is fine. You do you. And others will do what they choose, like they have every right to do.
Authoritarianism seems to come more from making ideas illegal, especially when it's about imposing values on others through law. Eg. the Taliban.
Just a little joke.
What are those " themes " in that movie? You stupid women don't even know what is in the movie and here you are trying to lecture us . And why this movie is suddenly a " litmus test " for partner's views on "patriarchy "? You stupid wimps want to decide based on some random movie , if that man is a good person or not. This movie is obviously promoting some stupid woke ideas , trying to show how men are evil in some way or another.
Much like white privilege, one of the things that makes patriarchy and matriarchy so insidious is that you do not have to directly engage in it in order to benefit from it if you look like you belong to the gender in charge
I would like to think that my biggest accomplishments (at a major tech company for 10+ years) happened through making good technical/ideological arguments, listening to people's problems, and telling computers how to fix them, rather than my physical appearance. Whenever they asked me to be a manager, I was like "ugh, no that sounds awful."
Then after 15 months of COVID isolation, I burned out and left. Now I'm thinking it'd be nice if I'd learned how to approach women and do standard masculine things. The world doesn't just give you sex for excelling in school/work.
I guess my point is that a patriarchal society makes it difficult for men who don't actively pursue power over others to form relationships.
I guess my point is that a patriarchal society makes it difficult for men who don't actively pursue power over others to form relationships.
What's interesting is that this is a concept that's explored in trans-feminist theory. Trans women tend to hold male privilege pre-transition but never really cultivate it and transitioning opens their eyes and makes them acutely aware of their newfound lack of privilege. Male privilege doesn't just come from actively wielding power over others, it happens everywhere all the time. As the other commenter said, even if you tried to avoid it actively in your life, male privilege and the patriarchal society we live in likely contributed to you entering a career in a STEM field and potentially even opened doors for you that may not have been there for you if you were born female because of a 3rd party's views on women in STEM.
As a trans woman, I can assure it's true. I was always socially-awkward and alone, but even then I had advantages only because I was a "guy". When I transitionned, people were not interacting with me like before, it was really surprising, and honestly, sad.
It also had good effects, I discovered sorority, and I made really good women friends. A part of it is because I now have the same struggles as theirs, with trans-struggles in a addition
The patriarchy is what enabled and encouraged you to have an interest and education in computer science in the first place :) if you had been born in a woman's body in the same time period, you would have been discouraged from that path passively through cultural messaging and actively by your peers and mentors--all decisions made by men. To this day, men outnumber women in STEM fields by roughly a 5-to-2 ratio, and that number is only where it is as a result of deliberate outreach to women of all ages.
I'm not trying to detract from your work ethic or the quality of the output you produced or how hard you had to work to get to where you are-- I'm just saying that if you were a woman, it would have been that much harder, and that is how you benefited from the patriarchy without actively participating from it.
Yeah, I think some people are born with an innate desire to understand how things work. It's possible to recognize it in toddlers, based on observations within my extended family. Our society would be enriched if we were better at recognizing and nourishing that trait when it appears in women.
I don't think "anyone" can excel in STEM, but there are likely a lot of women (and to a lesser extent men) who potentially could, but fail to get the right exposure at a young enough age.
That's not it at all. Get out and meet people, pick up new hobbies that are social, go to events, be friendly, kind, and listen to others. None of making normal relationships has anything to do with power.
Totally random, but I came across this site yesterday, just the blog part.. You aren't alone in the struggle. This is the tag line:
"Helping Techie Introverts Who Struggle Socially"
(site)[https://socialconfidencemastery.com/blog/]
And then back on topic... If you just mean talking to women then I think those are just called social skills? Charm? Idk, I don't see it as masculinity. Being assertive can be part of being charming or skilled in social situations, high 'eq' or whatever.
My dad's generation (the boomers) are retiring now and from what I can tell it seems like without work they are a wreck. That's what shutting down emotions and traditional masculinity gets you, IMO.
The world doesn't just give you sex for excelling in school/work.
Ew.
Very surprised you're not getting any.
I'm just documenting how the world is, not how it should be. In general women can form relationships passively (be excellent and accept/reject offers), while men have to engage in active pursuit, or else nothing happens.
I mean if you believe the propaganda in it then most men prolly don't wanna date you anyway lol.
I guess he's not kenough
Brother....how do you fail the test before you even put your name on the first page? Yikes.
@lemmy.world
A community for discussing events around the World
Rules:
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed.
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF OCTOBER 19 2025
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
Lemmy World Partners
News !news@lemmy.world
Politics !politics@lemmy.world
World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world
Ask Historians !askhistorians@lemmy.world
Recommendations
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/...
- Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link
go to feed...
@lemmy.world
A community for discussing events around the World
Rules:
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed.
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF OCTOBER 19 2025
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
Lemmy World Partners
News !news@lemmy.world
Politics !politics@lemmy.world
World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world
Ask Historians !askhistorians@lemmy.world
Recommendations
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/...
- Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link
go to feed...
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.
save