- cross-posted to:
- ghazi
- mensliberation@lemmy.ca
- feminism@beehaw.org
- cross-posted to:
- ghazi
- mensliberation@lemmy.ca
- feminism@beehaw.org
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.
The test isn’t if someone dislikes the movie, it’s why if they disliked the movie.
It’s fine if someone thinks it was boring, poorly written, etc. It’s a red flag if they go off on some misogynistic rant.
I bet that challenging some of the movie concepts would also be considered misogynistic. I mean if I think that there is no patriarchy in western civilization at present. That means I don’t agree with a feminist argument and therefore i must despise all women right? It’s the only logical conclusion you would reach “in good faith” 🙄
Edit: thanks for admitting it. I just wanted to make it clear to those who engaged in good faith with the argument.
deleted by creator
Go to the middle east and find it out
Or, alternatively, Western society. We just don’t stone women in public.
deleted by creator
Check again. Things changed a lot.
It’s fun seeing the actual test the article is talking about playing out in real time.
This made me lol
Indeed it’s fun to call them out and show what they actually mean. So much good faith discussion. /s
Saying there is no patriarchy in a country where women couldn’t even vote until around a hundred years ago isn’t good faith debate. But you know that already and you’re just an idiot troll trying to be spicy and own the libs or whatever. 🙄 Go back to your cave.
Actually, it’s a bit like watching a couple of toddlers on the playground throw sand in each other’s faces and then scream at mom and dad saying they hate us.
It’s not our fault that you’re childlike in your inability to empathize with other people.
So much good faith arguments, you really proved me wrong and changed my views /s.
deleted by creator
I am sure you believe that. Don’t worry i am not even trying to educate you. You do you and live with the consequences.
deleted by creator
I agree with Marc Maron in that I miss the old type of stupid, the self-aware type of stupid. Nowadays all of the idiots will scrawl out a complete rant about all the things they’re clueless about (i.e. most anything that requires any actual abilities, knowledge, or research) and try to pretend that they’re educating you in some way.
I’d ask him for a follow up by seems like he’s just repeating himself so I don’t think I’ll bother. The claim is outrageous and needs some deeper explanation by OP.
…says the guy getting ratio’d hard, LOL.
So what, you think that Joe Biden is a transvestite in drag? And that 80% of corporations in the US are actually ran by more trans people???
Yeah buddy okay whatever
Hell I’ve worked at least a half dozen companies where there were no female employees at all.
I am not completeley sure but I think you are discussing in good faith. thanks for showing some people actually do engage in good faith.
I think that in the end it comes down to what you understand by patriarchy. in my personal view as long as you have the same amount of self determination in deciding your future as anyone else then there is no patriarchy. and it’s not a simple matter of just personal responsibility to achieve a goal, the world is opressive. in my views women can decide to marry, in effective terms more women are in higher education than men. and marriage remains is at will. the other arguments are easily debunked if you spend a few minutes looking for the counter argument. you can look it up yourself.
Ok, I will concede that the US isn’t fully patriarchal, but majorly patriarchal. Many career paths are still divided by gender, although that isn’t an absolute.
Still, when 80% of large businesses are ran by men, it shows there is not equality. And when women want to take time off to have kids, they are heavily penalized for it which torpedoes their career.
Wait. Sorry, I’m trying to understand, are you saying you actually don’t think patriarchy exists in the West?
I agree liberals will just be reactionary and any critique will be received in bad faith, same way if you’re a Leftist and critique Democrats or Hillary Clinton then they think you’re really a fascist mysogynist, but I’m not sure if that’s what you meant.
Ok let me give my hot take: Patriarchy doesn’t exist in the same way god doesn’t: It’s a bullshit way to analyse the world ultimately more trouble than it’s worth because it obscures instead of clarifies social relations.
That’s evidenced by the theoretical drift the term has taken, from “oh it’s the men” (classical definition: rule of men) to “oh no it’s certain social forces and we’re calling them patriarchy even if propagated by women” (feminist definition starting whatever-wave), leading to stellar analysis such as “female beauty standards are internalised misogyny” which make my head hurt, it’s women saying “look how high status I am I have so much free time to care about non-survival stuff”, pure female competition, men really don’t give a fuck ultimately we like you best in pyjamas and bed hair. So, uncharitable take, “patriarchy exists” means “certain forces exist and I’m uncomfortable acknowledging my own participation in them so I’m deflecting”. Which is why you then see takes such as “the favourite past-time of feminists is to enforce patriarchy” from people who understand academic feminism, referring to what’s happening in political feminism and somehow those sides have stopped talking quite a while ago because what they’re doing is fundamentally irreconcilable as what they share is equivoke terminology, not ideology. QED.
So: Throw out the terminology, re-do it from the ground up with a focus on precision and clarity and without regards for hysterical raisins.
Yep, extremely dumb point they were trying to make.
Two questions:
God damn, you liberals are dumber than fascists. We’re doomed.
Correct, if you don’t think there is any patriarchy then you might be a shitlord.
It’s not an issue of if there’s any patriarchy, but that Universal and Mattel obviously limited how much the film makers could critique capitalism, corporatism, and this general issue of forced competitiveness (of which patriarchy is a symptom - make 10 people fight over 5 sticks, act surprised when whichever people end up grabbing the sticks first use them to leverage an advantage and beat down the others, and it eventually turns into things like patriarchy and white supremacy and class systems).
So instead the film has to pretend that patriarchy is the core issue, despite undermining that notion itself multiple times (eg. multiple powerless male characters in both worlds, Ken being unable to get a job, most of Gloria’s grievances about being a woman being grievances many men share or basic human insecurities, etc.) The film even tries to lampshade some of its own shortcomings (“thanks, white saviour Barbie” and the line about Margot Robbie being the wrong casting choice).
Thematically, the film is a hot mess. It degenerates into bullshit twitter mottos and catchphrases from about 10 years ago and dance numbers instead of plot resolution.
If you’re using this, of all movies, to “test” your boyfriends and partners - well a) testing your partners is not a great sign in itself, but also b) you may be an idiot.
How dare you. Recently in my university there was a free course only for women ( i.t. related) men are directly not allowed to participate.
So instead of equality we’re going for revenge. And no one dare deny it. The problem is many young adults only have lived through this all his life if they are like 18-20. They didn’t get to see how bad was it and are only receiving this biased reality, and some of them being radicalized in both directions.
Of course there are many patriarchal things still worth fighting for. But this kind of blind religion "islam make women slaves (true) so we women are all victims of slavery ( not true)… Said a civil worker with exactly the same rights as me, or more, since she can attend that course in my university.
If someone goes on some misogynistic rant then no, you should not date them.
Also if someone needs to test you and wants to goad someone into anything ‘as a test’ then you should not date them either.
Both the tester and the testee should not be in a relationship and need to do some growing up.
Dating itself is inherently a test. That’s the point.
Well, maybe they do what Albert Einstein did. You just tell your woman to do your laundry and then you mail her your clothes. Afterwards, you go cheat on her with your cousin.
Have you ever heard of dating?
this is a man, hands down. i’d put my life on it.
i think you’re viewing “tests” in this context to be mean deceptive. there’s no amount of trickery here, it’s literally just observing someone’s reaction to stimuli.
Do you realize that some men don’t think that women should have opinions about things like movies and how others think, right? Or, even worse, is that they aren’t even aware that women might have opinions about things like this.