The Feminism of Barbie
Mattel and Barbie
It is no less fun watching a satirical take on Barbie, being one of the most self-aware creations of recent times. There is a satirical scene in which the CEO of Mattel, the company behind Barbie, says, “NO WAY” to a request for an “ordinary Barbie with flaws” and goes on to say, “OH YEAH SURE” once the numbers guy checks and says this idea can be sold well. This specific scene is so meta and I can imagine the conversation between the writers and the real Mattel folks.
Writers: “We are going to mock the capitalism of Mattel, and diss at how Barbie set unfair expectations on little girls.”
Mattel CEO: “NO WAY!”
Mattel CFO: “But this will make Mattel relevant again and our sales will increase.”
Mattel CEO: “OH YEAH SURE!”
The problem of liberal feminism
If there’s a conservative misogynist reading this, before you are ecstatic at reading a sly diss at the feminism here, please understand my only worry is going to be that the “feminism wasn’t fierce enough”. So, do not seek solace here. This is a discussion among the left folks. I usually refrain from heavily critiquing the left for “political correctness” as I’d take Barbie by Greta Gerwig than anything venomous spit out regularly by Ben Shapiro, Tate and friends who ooze with “alpha male vibez” like Ken in the latter part of the movie. This time, I had to opine in regards to the mainstream West’s lack of intersectionality, thereby resulting in a one-dimensional view of feminism, one that sees misogyny as the only problem against the feminist movement depriving women of the equality they deserve.
The first sign of this is the presence of racial diversity in the cast, which is appreciable… but the people from different races are there just for the visual aesthetics but they don’t represent their race. For example, one of the Kens, played by Ncuti Gatwa famous for portraying Eric from Sex Education, is black, another Ken, by Simu Liu (Shang-Chi, Jung from Kim’s Convenience) also exists and is asian. So does a black President Barbie (Issa Rae), and so does a black Physicist Barbie (Alexandra Shipp). But they don’t represent their race in any way other than just having the physical appearance of that race. Replacing the colored people with another white character will not change a single dialogue or the perception of the movie. Some questions naturally arise:
“Doesn’t White Macho Ken look down on Asian Ken or Black Ken?”
“Didn’t Black President Barbie have extra ‘struggles’ because of her race?”
“Were there ever Barbies who had poorer sales because of their race?”
And, to stretch further:
“The fact that everyone in Barbieland and even through the movie saw each other as just equal except the gender, isn’t it too utopian?”
I wish the writers asked these questions themselves before trying to treat the story one-dimensionally portraying the problem women face are only because of their gender. On the contrary, I can imagine some of the Barbies and Kens feeling superior to others because of their race, class and sexuality. What else can one expect from a place where the mainstream media has always been exclusionary of intersectionality, merely having them as props and coming up with a one-size-fits-all liberal feminism.
A better intersectional lens of feminism would include people of different races, and let them represent their race and the struggles albeit even subtly or satirically. While the same is done for pregnant Barbie, it’s only fair to wonder why they didn’t do it the other way too.
Mattel is now ‘woke’?
Nevertheless, Mattel has revived themselves as a new “woke, self-aware” brand as we continue to admire at how “Mattel let the movie diss about them” but not realise the truths that the movie itself spoke, like an Executive Office filled with mostly men. Is it enough to be self aware and acknowledge? Does that relieve them from all the criticism? Are they now a ‘politically correct’ brand? What about the fact that the doll costs more than INR 2000 in India, which is 1/7th of India’s monthly median income. The Barbie doll doesn’t represent all women. It represents relatively privileged kids whose parents can afford to buy expensive toys. Think twice before you ask someone, “Oh, you’ve never had a Barbie doll?”, or “Oh, your collection is small. I had 29 different ones. I’m a bigger fan.”.
To end this note, feminism needs to be intersectional and inclusive. Companies acknowledging their Capitalism isn’t enough to acquit them of their ongoing mistakes too. Ofcourse, I am not calling to cancel Barbie. It was indeed a great movie that digged the macho misogynists deep enough, showcased the importance of holding power to women, and stood up for women to also be “ordinary” too. With that said, it’s important to critique this flavor of feminism to make sure that Barbie, to quote itself, doesn’t feel like “Because of Barbie, all the problems of feminism have been solved!”.
- Udaya Prakash Nageswaran