Don’t Be Fooled: Barbie Is Not Egalitarian, It Is Feminist Nonsense

<Spoilers for the Barbie movie ahead>

If you would rather watch/listen to our video review, click here.

Barbie is one of the worst movies I have ever seen. I hate to write that, because Barbie is a massive brand that has made millions of girls very happy over the years. My four-year-old daughter is among them. Though, the film itself is not synonymous with the Barbie brand, so I suppose I don’t feel too bad putting the film down despite being a fan of the brand; after all, the film’s message seems to be at odds with Barbie’s legacy, but more on that later.

I would actually say there are many aspects of the movie that are well done, outside of the messaging and plot. The cast is great, the Barbie Land is aesthetically pleasing, and it was rather humorous in some parts. If you don’t think too deeply about the details, it’s actually a pretty entertaining movie, largely due to its idiosyncratic nature and great cast. In some respects, it didn’t take itself too seriously by trying to explain some of the metaphysical and ontological issues that may come to mind. Some such questions could deal with how exactly the Barbie Land and the real world may be connected, or why there is only one stereotypical Barbie in the Barbie Land when there are millions in the real world? Is this one stereotypical Barbie supposed to represent all stereotypical barbies in the real world? And if that is the case, why is she only affected by this one particular woman’s thoughts and drawings in the real world? What precisely is the relationship between a barbie in the real world and a Barbie in Barbie Land? The film is better off not getting distracted by such questions; it is a Barbie film, after all.

So the movie is not intended for philosophers. That’s great. But who is it intended for? Clearly, it was marketed for little girls and their mothers. Teenagers and young women who played with Barbies growing up are also definitely included in that target audience. In fact, Margot Robbie, echoing Greta Gerwig, has said that the film is intended for everyone, children and adults alike. This is, of course, at odds with those who have tried to point to the PG-13 rating to suggest that the movie was clearly never intended for little girls. People take their kids to PG-13 movies all of the time; anyone pointing to the PG-13 rating to supposedly prove the marketing was not disingenuous is either lying or clueless. Or probably both. As others have pointed out, the previews to this movie are also catered toward children, as almost all of the previews are of cartoons that are rated G or PG.

This is the first major issue with the film: it clearly did not market itself as being what it really is. What this movie really is, is a fourth-wave feminist diatribe against modern society. If it were marketed as such, the movie would certainly not have had the success that it has so far enjoyed. Perhaps the leftist movie studios and directors are beginning to realize this after the box office failures of various movies with unabashed woke messaging. What Warner Bros chose to do instead was to hide the true intentions of the movie until after the movie’s release. This was a smart move on their part, to be sure, as any movie that is marketed in overtly leftist terms will likely not succeed at the box office. However, because of this, there were undoubtedly many unsuspecting moms who went to the theater expecting a pleasant, light-hearted, wholesome experience with their daughters, who instead endured two hours of incoherent social and political commentary.

There have been those who have attempted to offer a positive egalitarian interpretation of the movie. Some have said that the movie is simply pointing out that any world where one gender is oppressed by the other is not a world that anyone should want to live in. Men and women should be treated equally, and the Barbie Land uses humor and satire to demonstrate this. If all of this were the case, then I would agree with the message of the movie, though it would be unnecessary and redundant, seeing as that women are not oppressed in Western societies. Unfortunately, as I will demonstrate in this review, this interpretation of the movie is simply not feasible.

The movie begins with a reference to the film 2001: A Space Odyssey. As the little girls are playing with baby dolls, it is said that playing with baby dolls, and thus pretending that they were the mothers of these baby dolls, was the only option little girls had before Barbie. Thankfully, Barbie came along and liberated them, teaching them they could be doctors and lawyers and presidents. It wasn’t just that Barbie taught them they could be more than mothers, she taught them that they didn’t need to be. Next you see-and I am not exaggerating-the little girls taking the baby dolls’ heads and crushing them against the rocks. The message is clear: it is better to be a doctor or a lawyer than it is to be a mother. What a great weekend at the movies for moms and their daughters!

I must pause here to say that some reviewers have dared to argue that the movie is not anti-motherhood. One Christian professor in particular stated this in her review; I couldn’t help but notice, however, that this detail about the little girls bashing the baby dolls’ heads against the rocks was left out of her review. I suppose it is hard to describe this scene and just a few paragraphs later claim the movie is pro-motherhood. To be fair, there are a few lines later in the movie which mention that moms should try to do what is best for their daughters, and that women should be able to be successful mothers if that’s what they want to do. However, that scene with the girls beating the baby dolls’ heads against the rocks is not the only reason to suspect the movie, at minimum, has anti-motherhood undertones. There are a few quick but noticeable interactions that some people will have with a pregnant Barbie. They are always grossed out by her. Men from the real world are repulsed when they see her in Barbie Land later in the film. So no, the film doesn’t come right out and say “women shouldn’t want to be mothers, and if they are mothers then they should be bad ones!” Nonetheless, the point remains: the movie has obvious anti-motherhood subtleties, and this isn’t surprising given that the entire movie is directed from a fourth-wave feminist point of view. The ending helps elucidate this, but more on that in a minute. I think the best way to put it is to say that the movie thinks mothers should be good mothers, but motherhood itself is not something that young women should strive for.

Fast forward and the audience is shown Barbie Land for the first time. The Barbies are happy. Barbie Land is a matriarch, as women control everything. Only the Barbies own houses, serve in government, and do all of the jobs, from white collar to leadership to construction. The Kens are somewhat happy, though they basically just sit on the beach. They also fight for the attention of the Barbies. At one point on the beach, we have the joy of listening to the Kens make public masturbation jokes. They say they are going to “beach each other off” around five or six times, until Margot Robbie, stereotypical Barbie, breaks them up. Again, more wholesome content for mothers and their daughters.

Eventually Barbie begins to change. Along with some minor changes to her body, she begins to experience feelings of despair. She even thinks about death. None of this is normal in Barbie Land, as it is essentially the garden of Eden. So, when Barbie begins to feel this way, she is sent to weird Barbie, someone who has been played with too hard in the real world, and is consequently now ostracized from the main parts of Barbie Land on account of her being weird and ugly. Thankfully, because of her experience and connection with the real world, she is sometimes able to help Barbies who begin to experience woes as a result of their connection to the real world. Barbie goes to see her, and is sent to the real world. Ryan Gosling, the Ken that was made for stereotypical Barbie, sneaks into the backseat of her car and goes with her.

Upon arriving in the real world, Barbie and Ken are wearing their Barbie-themed clothes, so they comically stand out here. Everyone is laughing at both of their outfits because of how ridiculous they look. Of course, Barbie is still very attractive, so all of the men are gawking at her. Some are making crude sexual remarks, while one man even comes up to smack her on the butt. This is an important moment, because it is going to launch the rest of the movie’s main theme: the patriarchy. Yes, the patriarchy is the main point of emphasis in this movie. You can’t make it up. This sequence introduces the audience to the real world, where women are oppressed. They can’t even walk down the street in LA without being sexually assaulted!

Ken on the other hand, he loves the real world. He quickly discovers that in the real world, men are the ones on top. Men rule everything. Ken feels as though he is being admired by everyone while Barbie feels as though she is being disrespected and assaulted. I must say, this part makes no sense, seeing as that everyone is laughing at Ken as well. No one respects him in this sequence; they simply find his outfit to be ridiculous, so it is rather unclear why he would feel as though everyone was admiring him. He goes on to discover that men are on the US currency and Mount Rushmore. Men make up the majority of the Supreme Court and such. So obviously men rule this world, it’s that simple. He briefly leaves Barbie to discover these things, but quickly reunites with her, and tells her he learned that men rule this world. Barbie is more concerned with finding the girl that’s been causing her to change in Barbie Land.

The absurdity is too much to ignore at this point. Yes, this is a Barbie movie, so people may say we shouldn’t take the details too seriously, much like it is a good thing that the movie didn’t take its ontology too seriously. I simply cannot accept this premise when it comes to the movie’s messaging on the patriarchy and women’s supposed oppression in the real world. You don’t get to lure moms and their daughters in unsuspectingly to the movie theater, engage in virtually two hours of explicit social commentary, and then get mad when people “take it seriously.” This seems to be a common attack on reviews of the movie that aren’t ringing endorsements: “You’re seriously taking the time to dissect a Barbie movie? How pathetic.” As though we aren’t allowed to point out the incoherence of the actual argument that the movie is advancing. Just accept the message that women are oppressed by men in the real world. Don’t get too caught up in those pesky details.

For starters, no man is randomly coming up to a woman and slapping her on the butt. This does not happen in 2023. Again, some may argue that it’s just satire or hyperbole meant to prove a point. The problem is, the satire or hyperbole must be based on something in reality for the figure of speech to be effective. What is this hyperbole based on? Men may glance at an attractive woman walking down the street, especially if she is dressed in a weird costume. Is that supposed to prove that women are lesser than? Perhaps the crude sexual remarks are legitimate hyperbole, as men certainly do not always say things that they should to women in the real world. But again, is this supposed to compel me to believe women are oppressed in the world? Do women not say crude things about men that they shouldn’t say sometimes?

The fact that men have traditionally occupied the office of the presidency, is that supposed to prove that women are oppressed? Did some of these presidents not fight wars that would protect women and children? Is that not what war historically has been, something men do to protect women from tyranny and actual oppression? Were some of these presidents not somewhat responsible for bringing about women’s suffrage? Even if none of that mattered, this was all in the past. Women serve in the highest offices in government now. And if Hillary Clinton wasn’t the least-likable politician in modern U.S. history outside of Kamala Harris, then a woman would likely be president now. We do have women on the supreme court! Of course, feminists may say we need more than just three. But there’s no guarantee that they would be happy, even if we had five or six on the court, as they’re not even happy with one of the three as it is! The girl scouts’ Twitter account chose to take down a tweet that congratulated Amy Coney Barrett on being appointed to the Supreme Court due to leftist pressure. So maybe what they want is not just a woman, but a leftist woman? Maybe what they really want is leftism? And so long as every institution is not overtly-leftist, they will consider themselves oppressed?

Let’s get back to the movie. Barbie and Ken go to this school where Barbie finds the girl she thought had been playing with her in the real world. She’s excited to meet her, mistakenly thinking all the little girls loved Barbie. It would appear that Barbie Land was unaware of the impact that fourth-wave feminism had on the real world youth. Modern feminism is so great, this 12-year-old girl, when talking to a grown woman she had never met, utterly degrades her, saying she had made all of the problems women face worse. She had given them unrealistic body expectations. She was one of the driving forces behind “sexualized capitalism.” The little girl, Sasha, concludes this denunciation of Barbie by calling her a fascist, a word that, after this movie, has officially lost all coherence and meaning.

It's at this point that the legacy of Barbie is put squarely in the movie’s crosshairs. Barbie is now at odds with the Barbie brand. Maybe people used to think of Barbie as inspirational or aspirational; perhaps she was once a positive part of millions of childhoods. Not anymore. And what I find to be most hilarious is that the movie’s logic seems to indicate that a female leader is to blame! Yes, the brand that was founded by a female, Ruth Handler (Mattel president, 1945-1975) built a legacy of fascism and sexualized capitalism in the past under female leadership. Oh, the irony. I don’t think ole Greta Gerwig quite thought this one through.

Meanwhile, Ken is off learning about the real world. He discovers that men can do anything here! Or, at least that’s supposed to be the discovery. I must admit this next part is rather weird and doesn’t really make any sense. On one hand, he discovers that men can be whatever they want in the real world; on the other hand, he also discovers that they can’t just do these things just by being men. They need qualifications and skills. Now, when he’s told he needs an MBA or maybe a PhD to be an executive at this large company, he objects that he is a man and that he thought they were practicing patriarchy here. The man tells him they are still doing that, they’re just better at hiding it. This is supposed to reinforce the idea that men oppress women in the real world. So women can’t be executives at large companies? Again, this is simply an awful argument. Shortly after, Ken goes to a hospital because he wants to be a doctor. He doesn’t have an MD, and he can’t be a doctor simply by virtue of being a man. Only this time, the person he is talking to is a woman. Is this supposed to support the idea that women are oppressed in the real world? I’m not sure how, considering the doctor he is speaking to is a woman, so this can’t possibly demonstrate that women can’t do important things like be doctors. Again, this section’s contribution to the depiction of the patriarchy in the real world is difficult to grasp if one bothers to think about any of the details.

Eventually Ken gets frustrated with the real world, since he can’t properly participate in the patriarchy here. I’m not sure exactly what the takeaway is supposed to be from this portion of the film. My best guess is that there’s definitely patriarchy in the real world, but it is hidden behind requirements such as skills and degrees? At least that’s what the business executive seems to convey when he says they are still practicing patriarchy, but are just better at hiding it. Here though, we see yet another instance of the film’s portrayal of patriarchy fizzling into little more than unintelligible babble. Is it being a man that enables one to take advantage of the patriarchy, or is it skills and education? Even in the film, a woman is the doctor that Ken talks to, so skills seem to matter, at least in that instance, more than gender. Further, women now earn more college degrees than men in real life. Not only that, women also now outnumber men in the U.S. college-educated workforce. All of this to say, I have no idea how Ken’s journey here is supposed to support the idea of a patriarchy in the real world. Anyway, Ken goes back to Barbie Land with the intent of establishing the patriarchy there since he can’t properly participate in it in the real world.

Barbie is eventually escorted to the Mattel headquarters because the CEO and others there didn’t think it would be good for Barbie to run wild in the real world, though the reasons aren’t particularly clear. Upon arriving, she sees that the entire board of the company is occupied by men. Of course, all of the men are incompetent morons. This is consistent with the depiction of all the men in the film. This is, again, meant to reinforce the perception of the patriarchy. What’s interesting is if you look at their website, it looks like Mattel’s board of directors is made up of five women and six men. I can’t help but laugh. 31% of board members at Fortune 500 companies are women, and that number is increasing. In 2021, 45% of the 449 board seats at these companies were filled by women. This is not a 50/50 split, but it’s certainly not anything like what we see in the film. Yet another portrayal of the patriarchy that isn’t at all based in reality.

Barbie escapes due to the ineptitude of the men there, and runs into Sasha from earlier, and her mom, Gloria. Together, they help Barbie escape back to Barbie Land, leaving behind the husband/father, who makes two brief appearances in the entire film, both times being depicted as a weak, feminine idiot. Gloria is the secretary for the Mattel board of directors, and it was apparently her fault that Barbie had experienced all of that change in Barbie Land. Gloria had been drawing Barbie as depressed and anxious, since that was how she felt at that stage of her life. Is it a coincidence that Gloria feels this way, and that Sasha is a miserable 12-year-old who thinks men and women hate each other in the real world? I bet a strong father/husband would have helped with these issues. This is never explored in the film, of course, it is simply a logical implication of the film’s own illustration of that family that is based on data. We know that a strong father-daughter relationship will lead to happier, healthier lives for women. Nonetheless, the film prefers to go a different direction; men are not part of the solution for women finding fulfillment in their lives, but more on that later.

Barbie, Gloria, and Sasha arrive in Barbie Land only to find that the patriarchy has taken over everything. The women are happily serving the men beer! They are happily being the cheerleaders on the beach, instead of being the volleyball players themselves. The men now run the government, and now the men own all of the houses instead of the Barbies. In 48 hours, the Kens are going to vote to change the constitution, allowing them to permanently implement the patriarchy in Barbie Land. Barbie and crew can’t do anything about it, because all of the other Barbies have been brainwashed by the patriarchy. Barbie herself is unable to deal with the stress of it all. In order to remedy this, Gloria and Sasha take Barbie to weird Barbie. They discover that the solution is to explain to all of the Barbies how oppressed they are under the patriarchy; they must demonstrate to the Barbies how much cognitive dissonance it takes to be a woman under the patriarchy. They tell them things like, “You have to be thin, but not too thin. You have to achieve success, but you have to do so in such a way that doesn’t violate society’s prescribed definitions of femininity. You must dedicate yourself to motherhood, but you must not make it your whole life.” These aren’t exact quotes, but they get to the point of what was being said. I didn’t take notes when watching the film, so please forgive my paraphrasing. Essentially, being a woman in the patriarchy is paradoxical, and unfair to the women. The women are oppressed by the system that is dominated by men and the subsequent expectations that system defines for women.

Again, I simply do not see the merit in any of these arguments, or how they would prove that women are dominated by men. Even if we grant the validity of all of these statements (and many are either nonsensical or exaggerated claims of victimhood) that still would not prove anything concerning the patriarchy. So women have some difficulties in life? So do men. Does that mean men are oppressed by women? Could men come up with complaints about some of the expectations that women have for them? Of course they could, though they could be exaggerations or over-generalizations themselves. They could say “They want us to be tall even though we have no control over how tall we are. They want us to make good money, but they don’t want us to work too many hours. We have to be masculine, but not too masculine, lest we be accused of exhibiting toxic masculinity.” Some of these complains could be backed by data. Men could have other complaints about the “system” of modern society. They are a majority of suicide victims. They are a vast majority of work-related deaths. Women initiate a majority of divorces in America. Does any of this prove that men are oppressed by women? No, it doesn’t. The truth is, life is a struggle, and men and women are in it together. The idea that one gender oppresses the other in modern society is nonsensical. Contrary to the message of the film, men and women need each other.

When the Barbies hear supposed proof that living under the patriarchy as a woman requires cognitive dissonance, they snap out of their brainwashed state and join the cause to reinstate the matriarchy. When they are enjoying their lives under the patriarchy, it is due to brainwashing; when they are enjoying their lives under the matriarchy, it is due to rationality and empowerment. What exactly is the message here? That matriarchy is rational but patriarchy is cultish and unjust? Regardless, the Barbies find a way to turn the Kens against one another by using their low levels of intelligence and social awareness against them, distracting them long enough to take over the government and re-implement the matriarchy. Now Barbie Land is back to normal.

In the end, Ken and Barbie face each other, inquiring as to where they should go from here. Ken seems to want to be in a relationship with Barbie, but Barbie rejects him, saying he needs to discover who he is and find fulfillment on his own. Barbie takes the same route, saying she needs to discover who she is on her own. Everyone reconciles and apologizes to each other, outside of pregnant Barbie, of course. She’s still disgusting apparently. The Kens are told that they may be able to get some small amount of influence in low levels of government. Weird Barbie is welcomed into the mainstreams of Barbie Land society. Barbie herself meets with the ghost of Ruth Handler, the founder and driving force behind the fascist and sexualized capitalistic legacy of Barbie. The audience is treated to a nostalgia trip via videos of daughters playing with fascist Barbies. Those in the audience who are susceptible to argumentation not based in empirical data or logical consistency begin to cry. My wife and I overheard some college-aged girls behind us saying they cried three times during the movie. God help us. After this, Ruth tells Barbie that she can become human if she would like to. Barbie thinks becoming human will help her discover who she really is and find fulfillment. The movie ends with Barbie going to a big appointment that looks like a job interview, but is really just an appointment with her gynecologist. This is what it means to be a woman in the real world. And I must say, this is rather transphobic, considering that a man played one of the Barbies in Barbie Land. I suppose I should have mentioned that earlier; but yes, a man dressed up like a woman and played the part of one of the Barbies.

This ending emphasizes an important point for the film: men and women do not need each other in order to find fulfillment and purpose. I could give the Sunday school answer here and say that this is somewhat true, since we find ultimate fulfillment in Jesus Christ. However, I don’t think finding fulfillment in Christ is what Greta has in mind here. Rather, you need to look within yourself, discover yourself, and do something that makes you happy. That’s what it means to find fulfillment and purpose. And this does not at all have to include romantic relationships or marriage or kids. This is the implication. Happily ever after used to include men and women finding love and starting a family. Now, not so much. This is a shame, considering women were happier back when the happily ever after’s looked more like Cinderella than Barbie.

So is this movie carrying a message of equality to the masses? No. It is clearly delivering a modern feminist message, and the distinction is important. An egalitarian message would be that little girls can play with both baby dolls and Barbie dolls; a feminist message is that the little girls should slam the baby dolls’ heads against the rocks and abandon them for doctor Barbie or lawyer Barbie, as it is better to be those things than to be a mother. An egalitarian message would tell men and women that they need to work together; a feminist message entails that the matriarchy is superior to the patriarchy. An egalitarian message would say that both men and women have struggles; a feminist message would tell women that they’re oppressed by men. An egalitarian message, at least one grounded in natural law, would tell men and women that they depend on one another for fulfillment and purpose; a feminist message says that men and women hate each other, or at least that they do not need one another to find such fulfillment.

What is the cost of constantly telling women that they are oppressed by men? I believe we are beginning to find out.

If you made it this far, we appreciate you reading this, even if you find yourself disagreeing.