In a response to an op-ed in the WaPo, Salon’s Amanda Marcotte points out the double standard applied in the WaPo article: It paints men as hapless bystanders who are excluded from female-centric pop culture, putting the onus on women to provide entertainment for men lest they are deprived of any amusement in life.
Ironically Kens journey in Barbie talks about how men need to develop an identity separate from women. That is his whole arc in the movie at the end. He gets a journey of self discovery. Men should take note and develop their own identity independent of women.
Whenever I see people complain that strong women (Taylor, Beyonce, etc.) are anti men I can see they are defining men as the opposite of women. In that world view strong women mean weak men if they are opposites. But they are not so there are room for two independent identity. That is the masculinity crisis is that people need a masculine identity independent of feminity.
I agree with your thesis but I question whether we watched the same movie. Ken’s Journey was a pastiche of substanceless stereotypes masquerading as some kind of expose on the patriarchy. The real irony here is the movie virtually fails the reverse Bechdel test. Barbie targeted a female demographic exclusively (and that is okay if we are okay with movies that fail the regular Bechdel test). But I fail to see how Barbie did anything to portray a strong, independant male identity, other than to shoehorn a broken aesop at the end that rings hollow to a male audience.
My interpretation is that Ken found the substance less trappings of masculinity and the patriarchy as unfulfilling as his previous life. In both he was nothing without Barbie looking at him. Both his role as Beach and then as Patriarchy were lacking since they were both defined around Barbie. He even admitted he wasn’t interested once he figured it out the patriarchy wasn’t about horses. So the ending was him finding a new life outside of what Barbie did.
I only saw the film once so I might be wrong. I wonder how people (mostly Men) would view this film if it wasn’t so attacked.
I think the concept of a “reverse bechdel test” is kinda ridiculous, that’s just the status quo.
The whole point of the bechdel test is to point out that most movies utilize women as set pieces or plot devices. There is no point to the reverse bechdel test, other than some kind of tit for tat score keeping card for “men’s rights” enthusiasts.
Or maybe you just have a differing view of male identity? I don’t really see how you can claim it rang hollow to male audiences, I saw it and thought it was fine. Maybe it just rang hollow because it challenged your view of masculinity?
Wow we did not watch the same movie. Ken’s arc was excellent and really spoke to me and a lot of men I know. In many ways it overshadowed Barbie’s.
The key takeaway for me is that Barbie liberated herself and in doing so lead to Ken’s own liberation.