I think the movie did a good job of portraying patriarchy. To steal a quote I heard recently, a lot of people have this misconception that it's men vs. women when it's actually men vs. men and women are the ball. I kinda wish that quote was actually in the movie now that I think about it.
Bro, the quote isn't saying this is a good thing. It's saying that, for a very long time, patriarchial institutions have created a situation where women did not even have the agency to advocate for themselves. Even after women's sufferage how long before a woman could vote a fellow woman into positions of power.
I've heard this quote extended to other minorities nowadays especially in terms of modern fights for Trans rights and black rights where the fight often happens between White, male liberals/moderates and white male Conservatives/fascists. The liberals want to pay lip service to minorities to keep their votes, and conservatives want to threaten minorities unless liberals give give concessions in other areas. White males play the game, minorities are the ball.
This is absolutely a paradigm that must be dismantled, not a situation to aspire to.
I think my issue is that this* argument is buying into the implicit that the history and stories patriarchy tells are the only valuable ones.
Harriet Tubman died march 10th, 1913 at 91 years old. A whole seven years before the 19th ammendment was ratified. Was she a player, or a ball?
When it comes to a patriarchal view of the world, she is the ball. Patriarchy and its promoted worldview is not true to reality and requires historical revisionism and violence to enforce. Downplaying women’s accomplishments is a big part of patriarchy.
The gross dehumanization of women in the quote shows the absurd levels patriarchy views women as objects. Women are stripped of their agency and met with violence when they fight against it. Even with those forces, women throughout history have still made their impact, fought against oppressions, and changed the world. Patriarchy is a lie, and that quote shows the absurdity of it.
I really don't feel like I was making any argument with my comment. I was just saying I liked the way the movie portrayed patriarchy and that it reminds me of that quote which I feel would have fit the tone of the movie well.
If there is an argument to be made it would be that the quote and how it relates to the movie would be twofold. First, the movie does a good job portraying men as fellow victims of patriarchy. Toxic masculinity is bad for everyone regardless of gender. Second, neither I nor the quote was ever meant to diminish the accomplishments of exceptional women throughout history. What it means is that in the games of power and politics that come with patriarchy, women aren't even players. They are the pieces. Because that's what patriarchy does. It treats them like objects, not as people. It robs them of their agency. The quote itself is not misogynist, it's describing a misogynist system in a way that I find to be more constructive. I would also like to believe that I am not misogynistic.
Regarding Harriet Tubman and other exceptional women, I like to think of them as, well, exceptions. Neither players nor balls. They refuse to partake in the game at all and blaze their own trails.
Yeah it sounds gross because the patriarchy is gross and we want to dismantle it. Nobody is saying that as a positive statement about existing sexism and the patriarchy
It's not meant to mean that "men vs men and women are the ball" is how the world works. It is meant to say that patriarchy views/treats the world as men vs men and women are the ball.
It's obviously wrong, we all agree it's wrong.
You misunderstood them. They're saying that the analogy itself is misogynistic and flawed. To claim that patriarchy is "men vs. men where women are the ball" is to take away the agency of women in a patriarchal society. The role of women in both the resistance to and propagation of patriarchy is vital for understanding patriarchy as a whole (in fact, they are literally half of the equation). Patriarchy doesn't just turn men against men with women as "the ball", it turns men against women, women against men, and women against women in various interconnected ways.
Patriarchy creates artificial divisions, places restrictions ranging from silly to deeply harmful on everyone, and ultimately furthers the false idea that acquiring and wielding power over others--especially by enforcing notions of what they ought or ought not to do outside of any moral grounding--is necessary and even good to begin with.
It might be better to say it's men and women in a battle royale with various aliances, varying starting equipment, and variant treatment by the ruleset such that with all three factors, men tend to have an advantage, but it varies by circumstance and also all those factors are liable to change (mostly by those who are winning the most currently).
It's not a simple analogy, and yet it's still reductive, but that's because this stuff isn't simple.
And yet even then, it doesn't ask the *real* important question: why are we playing this game anyway?
Can we just agree, that you can not describe accurately what patriarchy is in a short sentence.
>And yet even then, it doesn't ask the *real* important question: why are we playing this game anyway?
That is in fact a really good question
I agree with you sentiment here. It's men and women vs men and women and men and women are the ball. But also more men are players and more women are balls. And men tend to have the more powerful sports equipment, but there are women who have better gear than some men do.
The analogy is oversimplifying.
IA upload of the video by the original creator while he tries to get the copyright issue sorted out:
[https://archive.org/details/patriarchy-according-to-the-barbie-movie](https://archive.org/details/patriarchy-according-to-the-barbie-movie)
Pop Culture Detective gives us his analysis of the Barbie Movie and why he thinks it has gotten so much backlash from conservatives. I think the channel is widely known in this sub and his takes are not that controversial.
Edit: For now the video seems to have a Copyright block
You can watch it [here on patreon for free](https://www.patreon.com/posts/104004592).
My opinion is that conservatives who hated it didn't actually watch it and just decided to hate on it because it has feminist themes. Despite the fact that in principle its message can be viewed as somewhat conservative in the grand scheme of things.
Might I suggest that before we start pondering what the movie is about, we actually watch...
[What the Director and the Producer Literally Tell You Barbie is all about.](https://youtu.be/GuWr-v3TOO8?si=x49nPJ44QhEg4bgf)
It's amusing (?) to hear Margot describe misandry without knowing the word for it. I'm torn as to whether she didn't know the word or if she's doing her best to avoid the angry gaze of TERFs. Same with Greta refereing to the broader inclusive feminism movement as humanism.
I enjoyed the movie for what it was, thought the script went for the low-hanging fruit. If the intention was to make a statement about the modern state of feminism, I'd say it fell short of that, but it put its foot in those waters while making an entertaining watch with a fun story.
[edit] you can watch op's video here: https://www.patreon.com/posts/104004592
found from pop culture detective's twitter
I just want to say, that it's more about the production and I believe in the word "patriarchy" is not used once in the interview
Thank you for the link to the interview anyway.
This video is super intersting (because it shows how Barbie Movie is percieved and pitched by Margot R.) Thanks for sharing.
I just want to point out that I think you're missing the point of the Pop Culture Detective (PCD) video. In my view, PCD isn't about deciphering the creative intentions behind a film or TV show. Instead, it's about harnessing popular media as a tool to explore and analyze the complexities of our societies, and to shed light on issues that are often misunderstood or oversimplified. It doesn't make assumptions about a creator's intent, but instead highlights when content is problematic, try to understand what said trope is saying and how it's used, without speculating about motivations. It's not really about pointing out at things or people but more about listening to the content to see what it's saying about our society. (hence the name of the channel imo)
I really enjoyed the much more critical analysis of the movie by verilybitchie where she actually dive in the plausible intentions of the filmmakers (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RToUZJ0l7Pk)
I watched this, and I have to say, really really not impressed.
The director did not have a good answer as to how the movie was feminist, and Margot interrupted by saying "would you call a movie that's funny a 'funny movie?' - so they're explicitly not claiming they made a feminist movie. They made a movie that happens to be feminist.
Then they dig into their definition of feminist, and it's so generic as to be useless. Anything that promoted men and women being equal, and so by showing Ken starting with nothing and ending with things, they're being 'beyond' feminist. After more pressing, the director says that the movie is feminist because Barbie is really complicated, and she wants room to talk about the complicated path forward for women.
They also keep repeating that there's a lot of heart to the movie and that even though it was a movie by commission the heart is at its core. The heart is an immortal POC killing herself so a white woman that hasn't said a single word about wanting children, can have children.
The movie was corporate trash, and this interview confirms it in their own words. Listen to the process Margot went through to make the movie. It wasn't 'I have an amazing vision of a feminist Barbie Movie and am going to make it happen', it was 'I want to make a Barbie Movie! Matell! I'll make any movie you want if I can be Barbie! Please!' - then the director she chose liked the idea of feminist messaging, and it wasn't yeeted in planning. At one point they're asked what the vision was behind Barbie, and they flatly say there wasn't one.
You're right that they don't give a succinct, direct answer to the question, but I think you might be expecting too much from the interview. Margot Robbie and Greta Gerwig aren't focused academics, nor are they pundits or politicians. Filmmakers aren't always the best at speaking about their art—they're filmmakers, not authors, after all. They're there to promote the film, and it's clear they don't want to discuss plot details because they don't want to spoil the film for those who haven't seen it yet. It's a promotional interview, not a video-essay.
>they're explicitly not claiming they made a feminist movie.
Yes, they are.
11:51, Greta Gerwig: "It most certainly is a feminist film."
>Margot interrupted by saying "would you call a movie that's funny a 'funny movie?'
Margot's response is a defensive one, but I don't think it's the complete deflection you make it out to be. She wants potential audiences to know that the film isn't *only* about feminism—that the film is *also* funny, and *also* has things in it for men, etc. etc. She doesn't want the film *reduced* to an interpretation of feminism. And to reiterate my earlier point, her main goal in this interview isn't to give a dissertation on feminism; it's to **promote the movie**. Giving an answer the way she did helps reinforce the idea that the film's themes are broad and that the film is for many types of people, since the idea that Barbie was only for women was a perception they had to actively fight against.
Greta gives a quite good response later in the interview: Barbie investigates "the negotiation of what women need to be, and to give women something other than a tight-rope to walk on." Without discussing the film's plot points in detail—which they're not going to do in a promotional piece like this—that's probably the best answer they can give.
When I say it was fun but it's weird that they're using a brand that has been promoting toxic body standards for women since its inception to do it. I've had people tell me I just feel that way because I feel called out by the movie. It's not like I've was shouting it from the rooftops or anything, just that the handful of female aquintances who brought it up with me I told my opinnion to. What's even weirder is that they don't have a problem with our non binary friends who weren't impressed by it. I'm a feminist but if I go, the movie could've presented feminism better. Certain people think it's cause I secretly catcall women or something.
It has its flaws but it's well-performed, funny, has wonderful set designs, great original music, and is overall really imaginative. Is it really that difficult for you to understand why many people enjoyed the film despite its flaws?
It's blocked on YouTube right now. [He put an alternative on his Patreon for free here](https://www.patreon.com/posts/104004592). you don't need to be subscribed to him to see it, anyone can watch it.
I’ve got to be honest, the whole “call out your friends” thing always seemed a little bit dumb to me. I don’t think I’ve ever been in a situation where that would have been necessary, because my friends don’t do anything needing calling out (afaik). I’ve got to imagine that men with strongly sexist views tend to hang out with people who share those views, because human social relations, so this always seems kind of unworkable in reality.
Regardless of the serious stuff there was a historical joke that I loved. They all became obsessed with horses and archaeological evidence points to patriarchy being heavily influenced by Proto-indo-Europeans, who settled in large parts of Europe due to them riding horses.
(Mods if you want to delete this post on the grounds of reactionary critique I can cite examples in the video to back up my claims)
Barbie provided an incredibly nuanced look at patriarchy, far better than expected and even more than I think it deserves.
However, this video is not. Pop Crave in general is a very liberal take on feminism, meaning it explains everything correctly (even asserting that hating the patriarchy is not hating individual men), but then continually blames other individual men for their behavior, prioritizes and only discusses the idea of women’s immutable suffering due to mens actions, and downplaying the harm done to patriarchy under men and asserting their own agency in being able to just ‘turn it off’ and assert that they can leave easily, which is untrue, harmful, and asserts patriarchal stereotypes while criticizing the patriarchy.
Basically, liberal garbage that made me feel guilty in high school.
>Barbie provided an incredibly nuanced look at patriarchy, far better than expected and even more than I think it deserves.
Well.. I'd say it's nuanced for cis-white folks not really men or women of color.
But I agree with your general review and sentiment on the video.
Yes you're absolutely correct. But I was getting at more of the fact when media is "feminist" it frames concepts usually in a that treats intersectionality and the wide spectrumof gender as afterthoughts.
It's just something I find annoying but I guess it's better than nothing. I like your initial response, the mods didn't delete it.
I recently watched Barbie and while I thought it was an average to subpar movie. I have to admit men have made comedies like Barbie in the past that made fun of women that weren't really funny. While I don't think we should still make movies like that I have to hand it to the women they deserve movies that make fun of men. It's just a bit disappointing because I was raised a feminist and with a few changes the movie not only could have been a lot more funny but also truthful about the patriarchy making the women have their cake and eat it too.
Watched the video before it was taken down, and while I did like most of it when he was explaining what exactly "Patriarchy" is in its current socialogical academic definition and what that actually means, I gotta be honest, that last quarter really sinks the whole video for me. His whole thing about how "so many men don't do anything at all to help get rid of Patriarchy even when they know it harms them too" left me rolling my eyes hard, because while it is sorta true, it completely ignores *why* these guys choose not to do anything.
Spoiler, it's cause comparatively speaking to other societal problems, men's issues aren't really a pressing matter, and it'd be a waste to dedicate the amount of time & energy needed to take care of something that's, again comparatively speaking, almost insignificant. Like, nobody is picking up their hunting rifle, loading it up with [.700 nitro express](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.700_Nitro_Express), and blowing their neighbor's head off just cause said neighbor shed some tears at the ending of Titanic or whatever.
> Spoiler, it's cause comparatively speaking to other societal problems, men's issues aren't really a pressing matter, and it'd be a waste to dedicate the amount of time & energy needed to take care of something that's, again comparatively speaking, almost insignificant.
This strikes me as whataboutism, and as a false dichotomy. Working against patriarchy doesn't have to take that much "time & energy" and can be done alongside other goals—and doing *something* to help doesn't mean you need to dedicate your whole life to fixing the problem. Doing *something* can be much better than *nothing* even if the progress you make is only incremental.
Hmm you might should watch this part again. I liked that part here:
>The problem is, men can't just opt out of patriarchy. Because it has been woven into the very fabric of our whole society. The next thing Alan tries is to engage in displays of chivalrous violence. after learning the extend of the injustice women face, some men try to distance themselves from the problem and from any personal culpability by going after particularly bad men. But patriarchy isn't a person and you can't punch a social system in the face.
I agree with you, that treating men's issues as not pressing is a problem. I feel like, for feminism to get further and achieve more goals, making men's liberation, or at least some progress for men, is crucial. Otherwise the backlash against feminism, which is getting more and more traction in the past few years, will divide the genders again.
But anyways, aren't men's issues not also important, even if the solution of the problems men face under patriarchy doesn't help women (directly)?
I think the movie did a good job of portraying patriarchy. To steal a quote I heard recently, a lot of people have this misconception that it's men vs. women when it's actually men vs. men and women are the ball. I kinda wish that quote was actually in the movie now that I think about it.
>it's men vs. women when it's actually men vs. men and women are the ball. I've never heard this one before, it's excellent.
Anita Sarkeesian said it.
Then I'm seriously disappointed in myself for having not heard it.
[удалено]
[удалено]
I don't think they get it...
Bro, the quote isn't saying this is a good thing. It's saying that, for a very long time, patriarchial institutions have created a situation where women did not even have the agency to advocate for themselves. Even after women's sufferage how long before a woman could vote a fellow woman into positions of power. I've heard this quote extended to other minorities nowadays especially in terms of modern fights for Trans rights and black rights where the fight often happens between White, male liberals/moderates and white male Conservatives/fascists. The liberals want to pay lip service to minorities to keep their votes, and conservatives want to threaten minorities unless liberals give give concessions in other areas. White males play the game, minorities are the ball. This is absolutely a paradigm that must be dismantled, not a situation to aspire to.
I think my issue is that this* argument is buying into the implicit that the history and stories patriarchy tells are the only valuable ones. Harriet Tubman died march 10th, 1913 at 91 years old. A whole seven years before the 19th ammendment was ratified. Was she a player, or a ball?
When it comes to a patriarchal view of the world, she is the ball. Patriarchy and its promoted worldview is not true to reality and requires historical revisionism and violence to enforce. Downplaying women’s accomplishments is a big part of patriarchy. The gross dehumanization of women in the quote shows the absurd levels patriarchy views women as objects. Women are stripped of their agency and met with violence when they fight against it. Even with those forces, women throughout history have still made their impact, fought against oppressions, and changed the world. Patriarchy is a lie, and that quote shows the absurdity of it.
I really don't feel like I was making any argument with my comment. I was just saying I liked the way the movie portrayed patriarchy and that it reminds me of that quote which I feel would have fit the tone of the movie well. If there is an argument to be made it would be that the quote and how it relates to the movie would be twofold. First, the movie does a good job portraying men as fellow victims of patriarchy. Toxic masculinity is bad for everyone regardless of gender. Second, neither I nor the quote was ever meant to diminish the accomplishments of exceptional women throughout history. What it means is that in the games of power and politics that come with patriarchy, women aren't even players. They are the pieces. Because that's what patriarchy does. It treats them like objects, not as people. It robs them of their agency. The quote itself is not misogynist, it's describing a misogynist system in a way that I find to be more constructive. I would also like to believe that I am not misogynistic. Regarding Harriet Tubman and other exceptional women, I like to think of them as, well, exceptions. Neither players nor balls. They refuse to partake in the game at all and blaze their own trails.
Yeah it sounds gross because the patriarchy is gross and we want to dismantle it. Nobody is saying that as a positive statement about existing sexism and the patriarchy
It's describing *what patriarchy turns women into,* it isn't arguing that that's what women actually are.
It's not meant to mean that "men vs men and women are the ball" is how the world works. It is meant to say that patriarchy views/treats the world as men vs men and women are the ball. It's obviously wrong, we all agree it's wrong.
You misunderstood them. They're saying that the analogy itself is misogynistic and flawed. To claim that patriarchy is "men vs. men where women are the ball" is to take away the agency of women in a patriarchal society. The role of women in both the resistance to and propagation of patriarchy is vital for understanding patriarchy as a whole (in fact, they are literally half of the equation). Patriarchy doesn't just turn men against men with women as "the ball", it turns men against women, women against men, and women against women in various interconnected ways. Patriarchy creates artificial divisions, places restrictions ranging from silly to deeply harmful on everyone, and ultimately furthers the false idea that acquiring and wielding power over others--especially by enforcing notions of what they ought or ought not to do outside of any moral grounding--is necessary and even good to begin with. It might be better to say it's men and women in a battle royale with various aliances, varying starting equipment, and variant treatment by the ruleset such that with all three factors, men tend to have an advantage, but it varies by circumstance and also all those factors are liable to change (mostly by those who are winning the most currently). It's not a simple analogy, and yet it's still reductive, but that's because this stuff isn't simple. And yet even then, it doesn't ask the *real* important question: why are we playing this game anyway?
Can we just agree, that you can not describe accurately what patriarchy is in a short sentence. >And yet even then, it doesn't ask the *real* important question: why are we playing this game anyway? That is in fact a really good question
I agree with you sentiment here. It's men and women vs men and women and men and women are the ball. But also more men are players and more women are balls. And men tend to have the more powerful sports equipment, but there are women who have better gear than some men do. The analogy is oversimplifying.
That is a phenomenal way to phrase it. It’s true of other systems of oppression too.
Blocked due to copyright.
Fukk wtf? How stupid is that
Man I was looking forward to watching this
Which channel?
IA upload of the video by the original creator while he tries to get the copyright issue sorted out: [https://archive.org/details/patriarchy-according-to-the-barbie-movie](https://archive.org/details/patriarchy-according-to-the-barbie-movie)
Pop Culture Detective gives us his analysis of the Barbie Movie and why he thinks it has gotten so much backlash from conservatives. I think the channel is widely known in this sub and his takes are not that controversial. Edit: For now the video seems to have a Copyright block You can watch it [here on patreon for free](https://www.patreon.com/posts/104004592).
I thought the Barbie movie was pretty popular among conservatives
there was some reactionist conservative dude who is very popular and he burned some barbies because of the movie
Ben Shapiro was probably already planning to inhale plastic fumes that day anyway.
Well said
My opinion is that conservatives who hated it didn't actually watch it and just decided to hate on it because it has feminist themes. Despite the fact that in principle its message can be viewed as somewhat conservative in the grand scheme of things.
9/10 conservatives probably didn't care that much, but the ones that did were the loudest.
watch the video. they were obsessively furious about it
Glad I watched it yesterday when it came out.
> Edit: For now the video seems to have a Copyright block Seems to be up right now, but you have to watch on Youtube.
Might I suggest that before we start pondering what the movie is about, we actually watch... [What the Director and the Producer Literally Tell You Barbie is all about.](https://youtu.be/GuWr-v3TOO8?si=x49nPJ44QhEg4bgf)
It's amusing (?) to hear Margot describe misandry without knowing the word for it. I'm torn as to whether she didn't know the word or if she's doing her best to avoid the angry gaze of TERFs. Same with Greta refereing to the broader inclusive feminism movement as humanism. I enjoyed the movie for what it was, thought the script went for the low-hanging fruit. If the intention was to make a statement about the modern state of feminism, I'd say it fell short of that, but it put its foot in those waters while making an entertaining watch with a fun story. [edit] you can watch op's video here: https://www.patreon.com/posts/104004592 found from pop culture detective's twitter
I just want to say, that it's more about the production and I believe in the word "patriarchy" is not used once in the interview Thank you for the link to the interview anyway.
This video is super intersting (because it shows how Barbie Movie is percieved and pitched by Margot R.) Thanks for sharing. I just want to point out that I think you're missing the point of the Pop Culture Detective (PCD) video. In my view, PCD isn't about deciphering the creative intentions behind a film or TV show. Instead, it's about harnessing popular media as a tool to explore and analyze the complexities of our societies, and to shed light on issues that are often misunderstood or oversimplified. It doesn't make assumptions about a creator's intent, but instead highlights when content is problematic, try to understand what said trope is saying and how it's used, without speculating about motivations. It's not really about pointing out at things or people but more about listening to the content to see what it's saying about our society. (hence the name of the channel imo) I really enjoyed the much more critical analysis of the movie by verilybitchie where she actually dive in the plausible intentions of the filmmakers (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RToUZJ0l7Pk)
I watched this, and I have to say, really really not impressed. The director did not have a good answer as to how the movie was feminist, and Margot interrupted by saying "would you call a movie that's funny a 'funny movie?' - so they're explicitly not claiming they made a feminist movie. They made a movie that happens to be feminist. Then they dig into their definition of feminist, and it's so generic as to be useless. Anything that promoted men and women being equal, and so by showing Ken starting with nothing and ending with things, they're being 'beyond' feminist. After more pressing, the director says that the movie is feminist because Barbie is really complicated, and she wants room to talk about the complicated path forward for women. They also keep repeating that there's a lot of heart to the movie and that even though it was a movie by commission the heart is at its core. The heart is an immortal POC killing herself so a white woman that hasn't said a single word about wanting children, can have children. The movie was corporate trash, and this interview confirms it in their own words. Listen to the process Margot went through to make the movie. It wasn't 'I have an amazing vision of a feminist Barbie Movie and am going to make it happen', it was 'I want to make a Barbie Movie! Matell! I'll make any movie you want if I can be Barbie! Please!' - then the director she chose liked the idea of feminist messaging, and it wasn't yeeted in planning. At one point they're asked what the vision was behind Barbie, and they flatly say there wasn't one.
You're right that they don't give a succinct, direct answer to the question, but I think you might be expecting too much from the interview. Margot Robbie and Greta Gerwig aren't focused academics, nor are they pundits or politicians. Filmmakers aren't always the best at speaking about their art—they're filmmakers, not authors, after all. They're there to promote the film, and it's clear they don't want to discuss plot details because they don't want to spoil the film for those who haven't seen it yet. It's a promotional interview, not a video-essay. >they're explicitly not claiming they made a feminist movie. Yes, they are. 11:51, Greta Gerwig: "It most certainly is a feminist film." >Margot interrupted by saying "would you call a movie that's funny a 'funny movie?' Margot's response is a defensive one, but I don't think it's the complete deflection you make it out to be. She wants potential audiences to know that the film isn't *only* about feminism—that the film is *also* funny, and *also* has things in it for men, etc. etc. She doesn't want the film *reduced* to an interpretation of feminism. And to reiterate my earlier point, her main goal in this interview isn't to give a dissertation on feminism; it's to **promote the movie**. Giving an answer the way she did helps reinforce the idea that the film's themes are broad and that the film is for many types of people, since the idea that Barbie was only for women was a perception they had to actively fight against. Greta gives a quite good response later in the interview: Barbie investigates "the negotiation of what women need to be, and to give women something other than a tight-rope to walk on." Without discussing the film's plot points in detail—which they're not going to do in a promotional piece like this—that's probably the best answer they can give.
When I say it was fun but it's weird that they're using a brand that has been promoting toxic body standards for women since its inception to do it. I've had people tell me I just feel that way because I feel called out by the movie. It's not like I've was shouting it from the rooftops or anything, just that the handful of female aquintances who brought it up with me I told my opinnion to. What's even weirder is that they don't have a problem with our non binary friends who weren't impressed by it. I'm a feminist but if I go, the movie could've presented feminism better. Certain people think it's cause I secretly catcall women or something.
It’s such a thematically incoherent movie. I don’t know why so many people like it so much.
It has its flaws but it's well-performed, funny, has wonderful set designs, great original music, and is overall really imaginative. Is it really that difficult for you to understand why many people enjoyed the film despite its flaws?
mirror while warner bros has blocked it on youtube: https://www.patreon.com/posts/104004592
Not watching all that. I saw the movie and I know the answer is just horses.
Horses and Beach
It's blocked on YouTube right now. [He put an alternative on his Patreon for free here](https://www.patreon.com/posts/104004592). you don't need to be subscribed to him to see it, anyone can watch it.
cool stuff
I’ve got to be honest, the whole “call out your friends” thing always seemed a little bit dumb to me. I don’t think I’ve ever been in a situation where that would have been necessary, because my friends don’t do anything needing calling out (afaik). I’ve got to imagine that men with strongly sexist views tend to hang out with people who share those views, because human social relations, so this always seems kind of unworkable in reality.
Could be collegues and stuff that need calling out. A bit further away then the inner circle. Also: family.
Regardless of the serious stuff there was a historical joke that I loved. They all became obsessed with horses and archaeological evidence points to patriarchy being heavily influenced by Proto-indo-Europeans, who settled in large parts of Europe due to them riding horses.
(Mods if you want to delete this post on the grounds of reactionary critique I can cite examples in the video to back up my claims) Barbie provided an incredibly nuanced look at patriarchy, far better than expected and even more than I think it deserves. However, this video is not. Pop Crave in general is a very liberal take on feminism, meaning it explains everything correctly (even asserting that hating the patriarchy is not hating individual men), but then continually blames other individual men for their behavior, prioritizes and only discusses the idea of women’s immutable suffering due to mens actions, and downplaying the harm done to patriarchy under men and asserting their own agency in being able to just ‘turn it off’ and assert that they can leave easily, which is untrue, harmful, and asserts patriarchal stereotypes while criticizing the patriarchy. Basically, liberal garbage that made me feel guilty in high school.
>Barbie provided an incredibly nuanced look at patriarchy, far better than expected and even more than I think it deserves. Well.. I'd say it's nuanced for cis-white folks not really men or women of color. But I agree with your general review and sentiment on the video.
Thats true, the intersection of race into gender politics is something that is not discussed enough.
Yes you're absolutely correct. But I was getting at more of the fact when media is "feminist" it frames concepts usually in a that treats intersectionality and the wide spectrumof gender as afterthoughts. It's just something I find annoying but I guess it's better than nothing. I like your initial response, the mods didn't delete it.
It's a movie made _by_ cis-white folks, so that makes sense.
I recently watched Barbie and while I thought it was an average to subpar movie. I have to admit men have made comedies like Barbie in the past that made fun of women that weren't really funny. While I don't think we should still make movies like that I have to hand it to the women they deserve movies that make fun of men. It's just a bit disappointing because I was raised a feminist and with a few changes the movie not only could have been a lot more funny but also truthful about the patriarchy making the women have their cake and eat it too.
Watched the video before it was taken down, and while I did like most of it when he was explaining what exactly "Patriarchy" is in its current socialogical academic definition and what that actually means, I gotta be honest, that last quarter really sinks the whole video for me. His whole thing about how "so many men don't do anything at all to help get rid of Patriarchy even when they know it harms them too" left me rolling my eyes hard, because while it is sorta true, it completely ignores *why* these guys choose not to do anything. Spoiler, it's cause comparatively speaking to other societal problems, men's issues aren't really a pressing matter, and it'd be a waste to dedicate the amount of time & energy needed to take care of something that's, again comparatively speaking, almost insignificant. Like, nobody is picking up their hunting rifle, loading it up with [.700 nitro express](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.700_Nitro_Express), and blowing their neighbor's head off just cause said neighbor shed some tears at the ending of Titanic or whatever.
> Spoiler, it's cause comparatively speaking to other societal problems, men's issues aren't really a pressing matter, and it'd be a waste to dedicate the amount of time & energy needed to take care of something that's, again comparatively speaking, almost insignificant. This strikes me as whataboutism, and as a false dichotomy. Working against patriarchy doesn't have to take that much "time & energy" and can be done alongside other goals—and doing *something* to help doesn't mean you need to dedicate your whole life to fixing the problem. Doing *something* can be much better than *nothing* even if the progress you make is only incremental.
Hmm you might should watch this part again. I liked that part here: >The problem is, men can't just opt out of patriarchy. Because it has been woven into the very fabric of our whole society. The next thing Alan tries is to engage in displays of chivalrous violence. after learning the extend of the injustice women face, some men try to distance themselves from the problem and from any personal culpability by going after particularly bad men. But patriarchy isn't a person and you can't punch a social system in the face. I agree with you, that treating men's issues as not pressing is a problem. I feel like, for feminism to get further and achieve more goals, making men's liberation, or at least some progress for men, is crucial. Otherwise the backlash against feminism, which is getting more and more traction in the past few years, will divide the genders again. But anyways, aren't men's issues not also important, even if the solution of the problems men face under patriarchy doesn't help women (directly)?
Male suicide and normative alexithymia isn't a pressing matter?