It’s not ‘Patriarchal Ken’, It’s 21st Century Man
I didn’t know what to expect, going into Gerwig’s “Barbie”. I’m not a Barbie person, and a movie about a world where the matriarchy has essentially replaced the patriarchy did not sound like my jam. Nevertheless, there I was, and came away from this comedic, haphazard offering much changed.
While the movie has caught a lot of backlash, being called by right-wing voices “the most anti-male movie ever”, I heard a surprising cry for unity under all the pink frills.
The deceiving simplicity of Patriarchal Ken
Undeniably, Ryan Gosling stole the show with his brilliant performance as ‘Patriarchal Ken’. Simple-minded (what some are calling a “beta male”) and underappreciated, Gosling’s Ken discovers the patriarchy in the “real world”, and brings it back to Barbie Land, ascending to the role of villain.
For comedic purposes, the essence of manhood is reduced to horses, mini-fridge beers, and an absurd reverence for action movies (thick on the cowboy/Cobra Kai references). But for me, it’s interesting taking a step back, and looking at Ken before he discovers the patriarchy.
Who is he before the real world?
Ken’s a sweet guy, but he’s jaded. In a Barbie-centric world, he’s struggling to define himself. His need to prove himself as both provider and lover is trampled underfoot. When he becomes aggressive at “beach”, Barbie stops him from escalating the conflict with Simu Liu’s Ken. When the night ends, Ken tries to entreaty Barbie back to bed in vain (forgetting for a second they don’t know what they should do there).
A lot of the movie’s right wing critics get mad because of the way men are depicted in Barbie. That’s because they forget, in Barbie Land, things are reversed.
This is highlighted several times throughout the movie, including towards the end, where the Barbies agree to give the disgruntled Kens some say in politics, government, and so on. “Kinda like women in the real world”, one of the Earth-bound characters quips, eliciting giggles from the audience.
Thus, it’s fair to suggest the Kens aren’t representative solely of men, but also of women “in the real world”. Their efforts at proving themselves forever shut down, and them forced to define themselves as the Barbies think they should be, not as they are.
That used to be female reality for a long time, though of late, the shoe seems to be on the other foot. Now, being a white, blonde straight guy like Ken is has become anathema. You are, by default, an aggressor and a meme. Aka, you are being defined by someone else’s opinion of you. Every way in which man might seek to prove himself as a provider or a sexual partner has now also been labelled ‘toxic’ and ‘alpha’, and is discouraged. I gotta wonder…
Are we breeding a batch of disgruntled Kens?
The Kens of Barbie Land turn to an extremist, toxic approach when pushed to a limit. In Barbie Land, they are constantly looked over, disregarded, and caricaturized. They are reduced from equals to playthings, which pushes them to become radicals.
To me, ‘Barbie’ isn’t an anti-man movie. It’s not about female empowerment, either. Rather, the message is much simpler: if we don’t start playing along as real equals, we’re gonna see another extreme backlash. and true equality doesn’t mean lording over, or calling the “other side” toxic.
It’s become very difficult, being a man. This not from me, I wouldn’t presume to know, but I’ve spoken to a lot of males whose reports of the “real world” are alarmingly similar. Well-intentioned, mild (read: not right-wing) individuals who are having a hard time.
If you want to succeed, you’re toxic.
If you approach a woman on the street, you are a sexual predator.
If you want to provide for your family, you are beholden to the patriarchy.
You can’t win, unless you start redefining yourself by someone else’s terms. Except, as the movie shows us, that can not work, from a psychological perspective.
Barbie’s definition of Ken may be a good one. Objectively, it might even be a better idea than the way Ken defines himself. That’s not the point. In forcing Ken to define himself by Barbie’s standards, society is pushing him to its fringe.
As women, we are offended whenever a man tries to impose his definition of a woman on us. And rightly so. A woman is not a sex object, a housewife, or someone to lug around groceries. Those reductive definitions are being challenged, and thank goodness for that.
And yet, why are we so keen to define man by the same narrow standards?
Ken’s problems start when Barbie repeatedly proves to him he means nothing. With Barbies ruling the world, the Kens are superfluous. They are not needed. And there are few things worse in this life than not having a purpose.
Gender-swapped Barbie : I don’t think we’d like it.
I had a glorious time in the cinema. Gerwig’s “Barbie” is a fun, summer watch full of laughs, and beautiful acting. I did wonder, however, how much I would’ve liked it as a man. Sitting there, to be made fun of and made to feel a little useless and memeish is not my idea of a good-time.
I also wondered what a gender-swapped version would be like. The same caricature-ish depictions, with housewife Barbie traveling to the real world to discover female empowerment, and become all about expensive shoes and Mai Tais on the beach, screwing her way through all the Kens at an alarming rate. I don’t think it would be quite so fun, being a girl in the audience. I don’t think we’d like seeing the independent female reduced to that.
We get a glimpse of that when the Kens become ‘patriarchal’, and subjugate the Barbies, reducing them to bimbo housewives.
But what if that was unironically the plot of the entire movie? In those few scenes, it’s evident the Kens are being assholes. I’d argue it’s not as clear that the Barbies are assholes, too. Treating the men as accessories is just as toxic, yet it comes off as vaguely funny and empowering, since the genders are “correctly aligned”.
“Barbie” isn’t ‘anti-male’, just like it’s not ‘pro-woman’. The very existence of such terms suggests we are still in a war. Because how else could anyone pick an anti/pro side? Yet, ‘Barbie’ reminds us we function best when we stop reducing each other by our own narrow definitions, and work together. Not Barbies led by Kens, but not Kens led by Barbies, either.
As long as either “side” (spoiler alert: there’s only the human side) is rushing to attack a movie as anti-man or anti-woman, they’re still engaging in the same divisive, toxic discourse that has held us heeled, as a species, for much too long. Let’s move past, shall we?
Thank you for reading. This is just my opinion. You are within your rights disagreeing. If you feel you must share, try to do so respectfully, without engaging in the same divisive discourse as highlighted above.
