"Barbie" makes clear that feminism is a female supremacy movement. It always has been (the founding idea, that men oppress women, reveals the conviction that women are morally superior to men), but this has been hidden behind rhetoric of equality. But after sixty years, I think that feminists feel that they have become powerful enough that they don't need to hide the real nature of their movement. This is probably a good thing, the deception that feminism was about equality was always a confounding confusion which prevented many from seeing its true nature.
I agree that it is now out in the open--and I do hope it is helpful. I remain astounded that a single woman could sit through and enjoy that hateful tribute to female superiority.
Janice, when a whole culture supports the story that women are morally superior to men, with rationalizations to explain all of the ways the story conflicts with reality, it is actually fairly difficult for many women to go against such a self-serving narrative. It's even difficult for a lot of men, and there is much less validation in it for them. I am surprised that you are still astounded that many women haven't found the courage to seek unpleasant truth in such an environment.
Perhaps, in the beginning, you were astounded; at this point, I would characterize it as merely being disgusted. "Well, I'm shocked that you're surprised that I'm astounded," --nice to see you've kept your humor.
Leftists in general believe they are morally superior. This pretense is based on a demonization of white men as evil and toxic, based on a distorted view of history and human nature. In the Christian worldview, all are sinners: "no one is righteous, not one (Rom 3:10) But in the Leftist worldview, the woke are righteous by virtue of their shared collective beliefs. The worst sin is to not subscribe to their narrow ideology: a crime worthy of public shaming, even violence. No wonder they are threatened by traditional Christianity, which promotes humility and forgiveness. Leftist 'morality' is arrogant, self-serving, and utterly shameless. It has been used -- and will continue to be used -- to justify absolutely evil actions in the name of a supposed greater good. In that sense, it has much in common with religious violence, such as jihadism.
Actually I suspect its like the female devotion to soul divas songs, strong independent women putting men in their place; but after a couple of songs its back to thrusting out the bust and giving the guys the come on checking out what they drive and if they look "loaded".
I haven't seen the movie, but I heard of the ending rant and how it moved women in the audience to stand up and applaud. I shake my head. The essence of that speech ought to be the realisation that 'you can't please everyone'. So many people in the world with so many opinions on right and wrong. This used to be handled with the sigh, 'Aw well, you can't please everyone', because it's obvious. And trying to please everyone is doomed to fail.
Yet it seems that some women have decided not to get on with life. They have instead decided to pick this up as a burden to carry. And then they have the gall to blame everyone else for dumping it on them. The only message I get is that these women have elevated self-regard for their own pity to a mental pathology.
The movie was horrible in every conceivable way, plus more. Torture to sit through. Visually as well as psychologically toxic, to use a favourite feminist word.
What was once, I think, certainly not absent from society--male chauvinism-- has been more than abundantly replaced with female chauvinism.
I wonder how some of the male actors felt in such a degrading role. I am not sure I would like to star in this vapid gender inverted version of the Taming of the Shrew
Good question. In particular, I will never be able to respect Helen Mirren again. It's one thing, somehow, to act in a piece of stupid propaganda; there is still some value, perhaps, in acting well. But that voice-over, with its deep contempt for men and saccharine confidence in heroic female suffering, was without a single redeeming feature.
I do believe that there is such a thing as "talented propaganda" that is made for a cause but with skill. But judging from this summary and the friend character's truly self-indulgent monologue in regards to social expectations there is none of that here. There have been cases when an actor is given a degrading part but puts dignity into the character but I don't think the heavy-handedness of woke scripts allow for that.
Not to mention the general degeneration and stultification of today's "art and culture" has led to a general lack of creativity in cinematic productions (hence all the Disney remakes). Additionally, the general infantilization seen in the fact that serious, profound films aimed at adults that focus on the complexity and beauty of life and the human experience (in an aesthetic manner that is not marred by social justice ideology) are products of the past. Music and literature have also not been spared from attack, children are no longer been taught to value classic literature, instead being routinely indoctrinated with all kinds of social justice spouting fare. Nowadays if you turn on the Top 50 hits radio you'll be serenaded by strong and empowered pop stars singing about their genital attributes. I remember hearing about a high school teacher who openly denigrated Shakespeare to her class, claiming that there was no use in studying an "old white heterosexual cisgender man" like himself. It all reminds me very much of what Deleuze and Guattari (not a post modernist of course but I do find some of their theories interesting and very much topical) wrote of back in the 70s: that capitalism is fundamentally illiterate. Substitute capitalism for feminism or any other social justice ideology and the phrase is very much apposite.
Oct 8, 2023·edited Oct 8, 2023Liked by Janice Fiamengo
Teachers who denigrate talented writers of the past for their gender or race are depressingly common; they don't even seem to realize what a bad influence it is to teach kids to look at the person's physical characteristics instead of their achievements.
The infantilization of culture is also key. I wrote an article a while back in which I talked about how the heroines of the past were often portrayed as selfless, stoic and brave, but the feminist heroines of today complain about this expectation to be a good person; it makes sense when you realize adults are averse to take responsibility or grow into any kind of new societal role. As such we see the shows and books that were aimed at the young get rehashed for an older and more cynical audience instead of content that adults would have appreciated years ago; Barbie and Snow White can't be left alone as some fun thing for kids but remade in the image of the now enlightened woke woman.
Exactly, they promote figures like Martin Luther King so much without truly focusing on the fact that he wished for a future in which people would not be judged on their skin color and instead on their character. And regarding the literary heroines of yore, it only illustrates the tragic way in which traditional values and character traits are seen as useless nowadays, especially when it comes to females who have to only portrayed as goddesses who can do no wrong.
I just thought of her as an extremely successful actor, surely a multi-millionaire, who has obviously not been held back because of her sex, now pretending to be part of an oppressed group. An incredible bore.
Oct 7, 2023·edited Oct 7, 2023Liked by Janice Fiamengo
$$$$ that's what. One would think though, that Ryan Gosling at least, could afford to pick and choose more to his (not to mention society's) advantage.
He could have, but I wonder if these successful actors have such a nose for a good thing that he couldn't resist the opportunity to display his feminist bona fides.
Of course it's money, but they justify it very simply. They are playing a part, not themselves, emphasis on 'playing'. This, of course, is what acting is, by definition. The ideology communicated or 'message,' in most cases, wouldn't occur to them. Only the stars with clout would be able to read the whole script in advance and be able to make a decision based on beliefs and principles (if they have any).
Actors bow because they were once considered to be the lowest caste in the community. Everybody in the audience, even prostitutes, were their social superiors. When you consider the skill sets are memorising lines and pretense it shouldn't surprise.
The saddest example was Mark Hamill who allowed himself to be degraded and emasculated in his final appearance in the now widely discredited Star Wars movies -- ruined by a feminist named Kathleen Kennedy ("the force is female.")
Indeed so sadly. I see that 'male chauvinism' anagrams to:
ah masculine vim
ac evil humanism
inasmuch am evil
am shame uncivil
Whilst 'female chauvinism' anagrams to:
evil face humanism
evil fame inasmuch
uncivil shame fame
have UCLA feminism
Whether UCLA, University of California, Los Angeles, is particularity strong on feminism compared to other universities I wouldn't know, but it has this Bureau of Feminism,
Amazing that you retained the capacity for this thoughtful analysis, Janice, while I just melted with rage, watching this appalling movie and noting the laughter and apparent enjoyment of the audience who clearly found it amusing. Go figure.
Indeed, "Barbie" was meta in its incoherence, in service to feminism's incoherence. I couldn't tell whether it was a satire on feminism, while thinking, "Feminism IS satire." Ironically, the most likable and empathetic character was Ryan Gossling's Ken. He was the only "doll" that demonstrated any modicum of complexity.
Considering that Margot Robbie was among the producers, my movie companion and I couldn't understand why she played such a flat role if the themes in any way support feminism. The costumes were infantilizing, the set, the attitudes towards "careers" -- and the directionless plot was yet another incoherent, meta-feminist feature. After all, what IS the telos of feminism anyway? Last night, the topic of 'mansplaining' came up in the usual derisive manner. I pointed out that it's likely an evolutionary trait. Who would respect a man who doesn't know what he's doing, or who can't explain how something works? The Millennial replied, "They're not answering the question I asked. They go back to the beginning. All the guys in tech do this." I found this intriguing because there might be a rationale for going back to the beginning that SHE just doesn't get. This in the context of my opening the meeting with an anecdote of the female-run department where one teacher announced that a student has a LEARNING DISABILITY in such a way you'd think the school was on fire. Everyone else responds that the student is doing well in their classes and gets her work turned in on time. So I asked what evidence she has of a learning disability and the response was "it takes her a while to process information and do her work." Since this is an ESL course, wouldn't that seem par for the course? I was the only one to say I wouldn't get her tested unless her work was suffering, which it isn't. The Millennial's response to my anecdote was that testing would get her more time to complete her work, to which I responded, But she gets her work in on time. Working slowly is not a learning disability. So she gets labeled as having a 'disability' and then when she goes looking for a job, she tells her boss she needs more time to complete her work?
I mean the lack of foresight is abominable.
I did laugh at the scene where the Kens are playing guitars for bored Barbies on the beach. There is some truth to that.. And that, too, is an evolutionary trait. Singing is a fitness signal. But women aren't interested in the science behind anything, just like the Millennial said: They're not answering the question I asked.
On another note, I would love to read Janice's take on the debate sponsored by Bari Weiss and The Free Press. The motion (which in typical female fashion was a question and not a statement) was "Has the Sexual Revolution Failed?" Apparently, the No side was won by Sarah Haider and Grimes. Yet Haider's arguments were all feminist vitriol -- prior to the sexual revolution all sex was apparently coerced, women were sex slaves and so on. I couldn't control myself while this ideologue was reinventing history. As for Grimes, I thought she was arguing the other side.
I haven't watched the debate. It's a typical feminist production in that whether one argues yes or no, the answer will always focus on male predation and the need to make female sexual happiness one of our society's ultimate goals. The only disagreement will be about how to achieve that, and what men need to do to serve women's needs. The truth that female sexual happiness is irrelevant to a flourishing society cannot be mentioned.
Oct 7, 2023·edited Oct 7, 2023Liked by Janice Fiamengo
What does the ‘feminist rant’ have to do with actually being a woman? Anybody who’s a bit insecure socially can sum up umpteen times umpteen contradictory demands ‘society’ supposedly puts upon you, men at least as much as women, and often things that don’t have to do with sex or gender. One must be ideologically blinded to really believe there’s anything sensible in this rant - or, more probably, just very superficially listening and picking out the parts that ‘feel’ good without thinking much.
Yes, indeed. Many of the items in the feminist rant apply equally to men quite apart from gender norms or stereotypes (the challenge of leadership, for example). And of course men have their own (far more serious, in many cases) struggles, as do children, teens, old people, etc. We live under the delusion that women's particular disabilities have been always ignored, that no woman has ever been able to speak her truth, that women have suffered in silence for eons. None of it is true, we've been hearing non-stop about women's grievances since the Declaration of Sentiments at Seneca Falls in 1848 (and well before that). But somehow the delicious frisson of grievance-mongering is new every morning.
I think the most basic but most impactful example of the contradicting demands placed on men is how we are supposed to approach a woman with confidence, making the first sexual move... In a society where doing so can lose you your job or have you thrown in jail?
There's absolutely nothing stopping women from initiating, indeed the more experienced among us realize that they usually do, long before the man does.
The problem is we cannot be sure if it's for real, flirtation, just mixed signals or because she wants the fun and thrill of rejecting you, but few men will initiate entirely 'cold'.
I’ve probably asked before (and forgotten your reply) but can you recommend a book or article that provides an accurate history of male/female relations prior to the birth of feminism?
There isn't any single book written from a non-feminist perspective, and there are many written to show women's oppression and the unfair limitations of their lives. But take a look, if you can, at anything written by Ernest Belfort Bax, especially his book *The Legal Subjection of Men,* published (in 1896) in response to John Stuart Mill's *The Subjection of Women.* Bax was a barrister and a journalist, and he writes about the lie that women were treated badly under Anglo-Saxon law. It is fascinating. Another book from this period is *Towards a Sane Feminism* by Wilma Miekle, published during the First World War, in which she (a feminist) admits that much of feminist activism was just upper-middle-class women having a great time. I agree with Eisso that autobiographies from previous eras are particularly interesting. Even feminist autobiographies reveal women's surprising freedoms and influence, their entrance into the professions, the encouragement they received from men, the respect they earned. Read a biography of Mary Wollstonecraft, for example, or Elizabeth Cady Stanton. For oppressed women, they had a lot of male supporters and significant opportunities.
Thank you (again). Here’s maybe a tough question: Imagine you were alive, say, in the 1800s. If you were the same modern-thinking woman then as you are today (roughly speaking), what restrictions or limitations as a woman might chafe you (assuming you have adjusted your expectations to be reasonable for the 1800s)?
That's an interesting question! By the late 1800s, most colleges and professions were open (or in the process of opening) to women. I would have wanted the right to vote and the right for women to hold political office. But if I had been confronted with the fact that men gained these rights (or privileges) in return for the obligation to fight and risk death for one's country in time of war, I hope I would not have been so unreasonable as to say that I deserved all the rights/privileges with none of the responsibilities.
I would likely have resented the sexual double-standard whereby a woman who was sexual outside of marriage was considered "fallen" while a man was merely considered sexually experienced/successful. But I hope I would have understood why such a sexual double-standard existed.
Knowing what I know now, I think I would have felt that the granting of the right to vote signalled the end of any legitimate claim to grievance I might have had as a modern (western) woman. I hope I would have found everything that came after, beginning with the self-pity of Virginia Woolf and the nasty rage of Simone De Beauvoir, as evidence of bitter selfishness and entitlement.
Wasn't that largely limited to American not Europe? I remember reading lots of European philosopher's criticism of America's over-glorification of women, arguing it lead to eventual decline of the nation which seems to be happening now.
The economist John Lott, Jr. wrote an (in)famous paper arguing that the welfare state may have grown to its gigantic proportions because of female votes. I imagine that female privilege is due to the right to vote, too (although there are many male voters who support female privilege). Personally, I haven’t voted since 2000 because I learned that my vote doesn’t count. Also, democracy will always devolve to oligarchy, as Robert Michels explained in his 1911 book, _Political Parties_. That means feminist activists will have a greater say among policymakers and politicians who share their ideology. This is why we have Wokeism (see Richard Hanania’s new book on the statist origins of woke).
Oct 8, 2023·edited Oct 8, 2023Liked by Janice Fiamengo
Just read books, any books, from (auto)biographies and interviews with old people to fiction, before 1970, and focus on men-women-relationships. Feminists will find it easy to see sexism everywhere, but it is just as easy to find points that falsify the feminist narrative, sometimes even more crushing than you’d expect. And I can tell you, it’s a very interesting way to read books! (I f ex just read Agatha Christie’s autobiography. It’s of course very specific and rather upper class, but still quite enlightening. She loved being a woman all her life and resented egalitarian ideas.)
Janice, thanks for another excellent article. Now that you've watched it and critiqued it, I feel I don't need to watch it myself!
Reading your article led me to recall that the remarkable British vlogger ManWomanMyth - who sadly suffered serious brain damage after a fall from a considerable height in 2015 - produced a video on the theme of "Feminism is the Pursuit of Female Supremacy":
Gracious Janice! You pack in so much of what many of us think but don't express. And you do it eloquently. Thank you for that.
I think it is worth noting that the speech that brings the Barbies out of their "brainwashing" results in something very important. It moves the women to work together by using relational aggression to do the same thing to the Kens that they claim was done to them. This is, of course, legal in the Barbie mindset, to use lies and deceit to get what they want. Have we seen that before?
Funnily enough the whole of Machiavellianism (in the political philosophical sense of the term) seems to parallel feminists using men for their purposes -- when they are not actively demonizing them that is
("The ends justify the means"). I suppose you could say that Machiavelli was a proto feminist then haha, only I'm not sure of feminists would agree, given that he was a "white male and diplomat who collaborated with colonizers" (their words not mine).
So true Katie. The three, narcissism, psychopathy, and machiavelianism form what is being called the dark triad. There has been some recent research on the connection of the dark triad with the far left, SJW's etc. Also some on pathological narcissism and feminism which I think Janice and I will be doing a video soon. Finally the research is starting to see the truth in feminism.
And yes how could I have forgotten the dark triad concept? Thank you for reminding me of it. No doubt many supposedly morally righteous social justices revolutionaries are motivated by those unsavory principles. I would love to hear your and Janice's take on the connection between pathological narcissicism and feminism! It's always wonderful to learn more about the truth behind this duplicitous ideology.
Oct 7, 2023·edited Oct 7, 2023Liked by Janice Fiamengo
One thing that has always fascinated me, is when people see and understand things that I don't.
No two people watch the same movie as each person will interpret that movie influenced by their biology, their background, back story and Bibliography.
When stories rely on hooking the emotions, the aim is to make sure people do not think critically about what is happening, because once emotions are hooked it can be difficult to put them back into the basket and think critically about what is going on.
In many ways films like "Barbie" repeat what was established in "Triumph of the Will" a method of propaganda raising the fervour amongst a new generation of women in the war against men. Triumph of the Will as also had a female director.
This film contains the same aspects of George Orwells "Animal Farm,"
The Barbie movie seems to be the absolute pinnacle of the feminist movement - an astounding achievement the primordial feminists would have never even thought possible. This glaringly ideological finger-wag of a movie stars the most bankable and recognizable lead roles in Hollywood, has made astounding profits worldwide, has received obnoxiously gushing reviews, and has become the movie experience of this generation hip enough to enjoy it.
The archetypical father figure has been away from home for many decades now, and this is the culmination of the rot spreading through the foundation. It's time for father to come home, admonish the children, and put order back into this chaotic slumber party.
I had half-hoped they would just make a fun movie about a doll on an adventure; it seems that actual entertainment aimed at little girls has been subverted by mean adult women who turn everything cruel and crass.
Another case in point is Snow White; young girls want a fun adventure where the girl falls in love but the adult actresses changed the original folk tale to the extent that I am surprised why they felt they had to call it that.
I think the gender-confused donkey thing has already been done in that Shrek movie where he mates with a dragon (hidden message there?) and produces species-neutral offspring. The director there at least recognised that the whole idea was a fantasy.
People generally only watch those movies with their kids. but despite that, many adults still appreciated the humour. I think it might have been the 2nd or 3rd movie where the above event took place.
I've also heard that, whether intentional or not, each of the Pooh Bear characters exhibits a specific personality disorder according to psychiatric theories. Eeyore = depression etc.
Oct 7, 2023·edited Oct 7, 2023Liked by Janice Fiamengo
Again it brings to mind Melanie Philip's observation that feminism is an ideology appealing to the adolescent and feminists remain so for most of their lives, while most women discover the biological clock and rediscover reality, often too late to procreate. In this case we have an exposition that effectively says the feminist heaven exists only in a children's toy land created by men (the apparently incompetent men of Mattel) a world maintained by the magic of a child's imagination rather than by the real effort and work the real world requires. Rather like Marie-Antoinette's pretend village in the grounds of the massive royal palace where she and her ladies and gentlemen could pretend to be shepherds and milkmaids. And of course this is its appeal, rather like the songs women delight in from soul divas. And then for most real life intrudes. I suppose for the well off or those aspiring to be so it is seductive for their whole lives. But for others its just a cheap pop song.
Way back in the seventies there was in the UK a strong strand of feminism against Barbie, fashion, "beauty" and so on, the huge "new" (about 20 years after the USA) consumer society. It is curious how this has been completely eclipsed by a feminism that is devoted to consumption. Just today in a casual conversation with my son he expressed amusement that his partner was bemoaning the £40+ she spent each month getting her "nails done". The amusement was that she couldn't grasp the idea that she could simply not have them "done" but keep them neat herself. As he said its not like there is a law. But it is an illustration of the strange alliance between so much of the retail industries with feminism. From faddy diets to throw away fashion to endless cremes and potions, and dolls and toys there is actually a massive wave of consumption, often now labelled "empowerment".
Barbie the movie seems to be the apotheosis of this. Look beautiful, keep your figure, wear the right dress and have a lovely sash, and you can be President!
Oct 7, 2023·edited Oct 7, 2023Liked by Janice Fiamengo
I hope you will pardon my saying so,
Thanks but no thanks.
I will take your word for it and be grateful that someone had the stomach to sit though such a mountain of trash so that we don't have to.
I certainly will not be paying real money to see it.
If and when it appears for free somewhere, or as part of a pre existing paying account ( Netflix springs to mind as an outlet which would jump at the chance to screen this and I am still a subscriber there, at least for now ) I may give it a look.
Until then i will manfully suppress my zealous impatience to gaze upon this latest iteration of feminist wisdom for it would be unfair of me to deprive a feminist and her ally of a seat in a theatre.
And, to conclude, I really do hope i do not have to give an irony alert for the paragraph immediately above . . .
I'm of the same mind. Nobody should have to experience that much pink, and that much infantilsation - before we even begin with the ideology. Janice has truly taken one for the team.
"The result was... pink. The pinkness was only one aspect of the thing, but it was so... pink that it dominated everything else, even the topiary-effect tail with the fluffy knob on the end. The front of the dog looked as though it had been fired through a large pink ball and had only got halfway. Then there was also the matter of the large glittery collar. It glittered altogether too much; sometimes glass glitters more than diamonds because it has more to prove."
All the women in my life dressed up as outrageous Barbie caricatures and got together to drink pink drinks and see it in the theater. High camp; self-consciously girl-bonding-silly. Fair enough. We raised two of them on The Spice Girls, so what can one expect? Day-to-day, they don't live this way.
As such, I was willing to entertain the possibility that the film was a tongue-in-cheek, deliberate self-parody. (I have not seen it.) After reading your post though, it sounds like the punch line is that it's deadly serious. They should be ROTFL; instead, they may be waiting for real-life president Barbie.
I therefore find it interesting, in light of recent headlines, that you uses the word "deprogram" three times. Or perhaps it is more interesting that she-whom-I-will-not-name (but let us call her Carolynn Lilith; let the reader understand) used it seriously (in regard to a disproportionately male majority of the American electorate) in her recent CNN interview. Now, understanding this movie better, it becomes apparent to me that her Mao-earnest proposal surfs a meme which should be a joke.
Deprogramming is a crucial word in the movie because it is what must be done to any woman who takes pleasure in loving and caring for her man, especially if she is willing to put aside career interests to do so. And she can only be properly deprogrammed by internalizing the feminist rant in whatever particular form applies to her. (Each time a Barbie is deprogrammed, she is given a slightly different form of the speech). It is a marvelous illustration of the flexibility of the feminist program (sometimes it is sexist if your boss asks about whether there will be time conflicts because of your kids; sometimes it is sexist if he doesn't; but it's always sexist, and so on). At first, my husband and I wondered if there was an element of satire in it all, but there isn't. It is pure female supremacism dressed up in a pink ribbon.
Interesting. Sparks the thought that truth (reality as God designed it, including male & female) is singular, whereas untruths are myriad. E.g., Christ is idiomatically portrayed in Scripture as Light, while those who refuse Him are cast into "outer darkness" (anywhere *but* there).
In feminist analysis, it is wrong to abort a baby because she is female, but it is not wrong to abort a female baby because she is an unborn baby. That might be the best example.
"Barbie" makes clear that feminism is a female supremacy movement. It always has been (the founding idea, that men oppress women, reveals the conviction that women are morally superior to men), but this has been hidden behind rhetoric of equality. But after sixty years, I think that feminists feel that they have become powerful enough that they don't need to hide the real nature of their movement. This is probably a good thing, the deception that feminism was about equality was always a confounding confusion which prevented many from seeing its true nature.
I agree that it is now out in the open--and I do hope it is helpful. I remain astounded that a single woman could sit through and enjoy that hateful tribute to female superiority.
You haven’t met some of the cunts I have.
Janice, when a whole culture supports the story that women are morally superior to men, with rationalizations to explain all of the ways the story conflicts with reality, it is actually fairly difficult for many women to go against such a self-serving narrative. It's even difficult for a lot of men, and there is much less validation in it for them. I am surprised that you are still astounded that many women haven't found the courage to seek unpleasant truth in such an environment.
Well, I'm shocked that you're surprised that I'm astounded!
Perhaps, in the beginning, you were astounded; at this point, I would characterize it as merely being disgusted. "Well, I'm shocked that you're surprised that I'm astounded," --nice to see you've kept your humor.
Haha. We're all nonplussed together!
Leftists in general believe they are morally superior. This pretense is based on a demonization of white men as evil and toxic, based on a distorted view of history and human nature. In the Christian worldview, all are sinners: "no one is righteous, not one (Rom 3:10) But in the Leftist worldview, the woke are righteous by virtue of their shared collective beliefs. The worst sin is to not subscribe to their narrow ideology: a crime worthy of public shaming, even violence. No wonder they are threatened by traditional Christianity, which promotes humility and forgiveness. Leftist 'morality' is arrogant, self-serving, and utterly shameless. It has been used -- and will continue to be used -- to justify absolutely evil actions in the name of a supposed greater good. In that sense, it has much in common with religious violence, such as jihadism.
Leftist thinking has been a slaughterhouse. Hitler (Nation Socialists!), Stalin (Communist), Mao (Communist), Castro, Pol Pot, Chavez, etc.
Actually I suspect its like the female devotion to soul divas songs, strong independent women putting men in their place; but after a couple of songs its back to thrusting out the bust and giving the guys the come on checking out what they drive and if they look "loaded".
I haven't seen the movie, but I heard of the ending rant and how it moved women in the audience to stand up and applaud. I shake my head. The essence of that speech ought to be the realisation that 'you can't please everyone'. So many people in the world with so many opinions on right and wrong. This used to be handled with the sigh, 'Aw well, you can't please everyone', because it's obvious. And trying to please everyone is doomed to fail.
Yet it seems that some women have decided not to get on with life. They have instead decided to pick this up as a burden to carry. And then they have the gall to blame everyone else for dumping it on them. The only message I get is that these women have elevated self-regard for their own pity to a mental pathology.
Damsel syndrome on steroids.
The movie was horrible in every conceivable way, plus more. Torture to sit through. Visually as well as psychologically toxic, to use a favourite feminist word.
What was once, I think, certainly not absent from society--male chauvinism-- has been more than abundantly replaced with female chauvinism.
I wonder how some of the male actors felt in such a degrading role. I am not sure I would like to star in this vapid gender inverted version of the Taming of the Shrew
Good question. In particular, I will never be able to respect Helen Mirren again. It's one thing, somehow, to act in a piece of stupid propaganda; there is still some value, perhaps, in acting well. But that voice-over, with its deep contempt for men and saccharine confidence in heroic female suffering, was without a single redeeming feature.
I do believe that there is such a thing as "talented propaganda" that is made for a cause but with skill. But judging from this summary and the friend character's truly self-indulgent monologue in regards to social expectations there is none of that here. There have been cases when an actor is given a degrading part but puts dignity into the character but I don't think the heavy-handedness of woke scripts allow for that.
Not to mention the general degeneration and stultification of today's "art and culture" has led to a general lack of creativity in cinematic productions (hence all the Disney remakes). Additionally, the general infantilization seen in the fact that serious, profound films aimed at adults that focus on the complexity and beauty of life and the human experience (in an aesthetic manner that is not marred by social justice ideology) are products of the past. Music and literature have also not been spared from attack, children are no longer been taught to value classic literature, instead being routinely indoctrinated with all kinds of social justice spouting fare. Nowadays if you turn on the Top 50 hits radio you'll be serenaded by strong and empowered pop stars singing about their genital attributes. I remember hearing about a high school teacher who openly denigrated Shakespeare to her class, claiming that there was no use in studying an "old white heterosexual cisgender man" like himself. It all reminds me very much of what Deleuze and Guattari (not a post modernist of course but I do find some of their theories interesting and very much topical) wrote of back in the 70s: that capitalism is fundamentally illiterate. Substitute capitalism for feminism or any other social justice ideology and the phrase is very much apposite.
Teachers who denigrate talented writers of the past for their gender or race are depressingly common; they don't even seem to realize what a bad influence it is to teach kids to look at the person's physical characteristics instead of their achievements.
The infantilization of culture is also key. I wrote an article a while back in which I talked about how the heroines of the past were often portrayed as selfless, stoic and brave, but the feminist heroines of today complain about this expectation to be a good person; it makes sense when you realize adults are averse to take responsibility or grow into any kind of new societal role. As such we see the shows and books that were aimed at the young get rehashed for an older and more cynical audience instead of content that adults would have appreciated years ago; Barbie and Snow White can't be left alone as some fun thing for kids but remade in the image of the now enlightened woke woman.
Exactly, they promote figures like Martin Luther King so much without truly focusing on the fact that he wished for a future in which people would not be judged on their skin color and instead on their character. And regarding the literary heroines of yore, it only illustrates the tragic way in which traditional values and character traits are seen as useless nowadays, especially when it comes to females who have to only portrayed as goddesses who can do no wrong.
Didn't Mirren play Prospero in a film of The Tempest?
She has pedigree.
Helen Mirren is gay and has claimed "There is no such thing as binary sexuality, when you're male or female". Need more be said why she took the role?
I had no idea.
I just thought of her as an extremely successful actor, surely a multi-millionaire, who has obviously not been held back because of her sex, now pretending to be part of an oppressed group. An incredible bore.
$$$$ that's what. One would think though, that Ryan Gosling at least, could afford to pick and choose more to his (not to mention society's) advantage.
Ryan Gosling could have certainly stepped down if he wanted to
One would think, yes.
He could have, but I wonder if these successful actors have such a nose for a good thing that he couldn't resist the opportunity to display his feminist bona fides.
Could be!
Follow the money alright.
Gosling's motivation seems to align with that line: "Where there's a will ... I want to be in it".
Of course it's money, but they justify it very simply. They are playing a part, not themselves, emphasis on 'playing'. This, of course, is what acting is, by definition. The ideology communicated or 'message,' in most cases, wouldn't occur to them. Only the stars with clout would be able to read the whole script in advance and be able to make a decision based on beliefs and principles (if they have any).
I think it was Lawrence Olivier who counselled against taking actors too seriously, because they are "lying for a living".
Actors bow because they were once considered to be the lowest caste in the community. Everybody in the audience, even prostitutes, were their social superiors. When you consider the skill sets are memorising lines and pretense it shouldn't surprise.
The saddest example was Mark Hamill who allowed himself to be degraded and emasculated in his final appearance in the now widely discredited Star Wars movies -- ruined by a feminist named Kathleen Kennedy ("the force is female.")
Male chauvinism has never played a large role in society.
Not in America specifically anyway.
It has effectively been absent in the sense that it's neve been a genuine cultural force.
19th century victorians were hopelessly gynocentric.
Indeed so sadly. I see that 'male chauvinism' anagrams to:
ah masculine vim
ac evil humanism
inasmuch am evil
am shame uncivil
Whilst 'female chauvinism' anagrams to:
evil face humanism
evil fame inasmuch
uncivil shame fame
have UCLA feminism
Whether UCLA, University of California, Los Angeles, is particularity strong on feminism compared to other universities I wouldn't know, but it has this Bureau of Feminism,
https://hammer.ucla.edu/feminism
Amazing that you retained the capacity for this thoughtful analysis, Janice, while I just melted with rage, watching this appalling movie and noting the laughter and apparent enjoyment of the audience who clearly found it amusing. Go figure.
Indeed, "Barbie" was meta in its incoherence, in service to feminism's incoherence. I couldn't tell whether it was a satire on feminism, while thinking, "Feminism IS satire." Ironically, the most likable and empathetic character was Ryan Gossling's Ken. He was the only "doll" that demonstrated any modicum of complexity.
Considering that Margot Robbie was among the producers, my movie companion and I couldn't understand why she played such a flat role if the themes in any way support feminism. The costumes were infantilizing, the set, the attitudes towards "careers" -- and the directionless plot was yet another incoherent, meta-feminist feature. After all, what IS the telos of feminism anyway? Last night, the topic of 'mansplaining' came up in the usual derisive manner. I pointed out that it's likely an evolutionary trait. Who would respect a man who doesn't know what he's doing, or who can't explain how something works? The Millennial replied, "They're not answering the question I asked. They go back to the beginning. All the guys in tech do this." I found this intriguing because there might be a rationale for going back to the beginning that SHE just doesn't get. This in the context of my opening the meeting with an anecdote of the female-run department where one teacher announced that a student has a LEARNING DISABILITY in such a way you'd think the school was on fire. Everyone else responds that the student is doing well in their classes and gets her work turned in on time. So I asked what evidence she has of a learning disability and the response was "it takes her a while to process information and do her work." Since this is an ESL course, wouldn't that seem par for the course? I was the only one to say I wouldn't get her tested unless her work was suffering, which it isn't. The Millennial's response to my anecdote was that testing would get her more time to complete her work, to which I responded, But she gets her work in on time. Working slowly is not a learning disability. So she gets labeled as having a 'disability' and then when she goes looking for a job, she tells her boss she needs more time to complete her work?
I mean the lack of foresight is abominable.
I did laugh at the scene where the Kens are playing guitars for bored Barbies on the beach. There is some truth to that.. And that, too, is an evolutionary trait. Singing is a fitness signal. But women aren't interested in the science behind anything, just like the Millennial said: They're not answering the question I asked.
On another note, I would love to read Janice's take on the debate sponsored by Bari Weiss and The Free Press. The motion (which in typical female fashion was a question and not a statement) was "Has the Sexual Revolution Failed?" Apparently, the No side was won by Sarah Haider and Grimes. Yet Haider's arguments were all feminist vitriol -- prior to the sexual revolution all sex was apparently coerced, women were sex slaves and so on. I couldn't control myself while this ideologue was reinventing history. As for Grimes, I thought she was arguing the other side.
I haven't watched the debate. It's a typical feminist production in that whether one argues yes or no, the answer will always focus on male predation and the need to make female sexual happiness one of our society's ultimate goals. The only disagreement will be about how to achieve that, and what men need to do to serve women's needs. The truth that female sexual happiness is irrelevant to a flourishing society cannot be mentioned.
They want sexual happiness, yet all sex is rape.
They want commitment, yet marriage is a form of slavery.
Some useful points were made. It's worth watching, better than "Barbie" watching, and certainly worth a solid Janice Fiamengo critique.
I'll keep it in mind, thank you!
I stopped listening to Haider years ago.
What does the ‘feminist rant’ have to do with actually being a woman? Anybody who’s a bit insecure socially can sum up umpteen times umpteen contradictory demands ‘society’ supposedly puts upon you, men at least as much as women, and often things that don’t have to do with sex or gender. One must be ideologically blinded to really believe there’s anything sensible in this rant - or, more probably, just very superficially listening and picking out the parts that ‘feel’ good without thinking much.
Yes, indeed. Many of the items in the feminist rant apply equally to men quite apart from gender norms or stereotypes (the challenge of leadership, for example). And of course men have their own (far more serious, in many cases) struggles, as do children, teens, old people, etc. We live under the delusion that women's particular disabilities have been always ignored, that no woman has ever been able to speak her truth, that women have suffered in silence for eons. None of it is true, we've been hearing non-stop about women's grievances since the Declaration of Sentiments at Seneca Falls in 1848 (and well before that). But somehow the delicious frisson of grievance-mongering is new every morning.
I think the most basic but most impactful example of the contradicting demands placed on men is how we are supposed to approach a woman with confidence, making the first sexual move... In a society where doing so can lose you your job or have you thrown in jail?
Must be hard being a woman...
When it's only men who are expected to initiate it's only men who can get it wrong.
There's absolutely nothing stopping women from initiating, indeed the more experienced among us realize that they usually do, long before the man does.
The problem is we cannot be sure if it's for real, flirtation, just mixed signals or because she wants the fun and thrill of rejecting you, but few men will initiate entirely 'cold'.
I’ve probably asked before (and forgotten your reply) but can you recommend a book or article that provides an accurate history of male/female relations prior to the birth of feminism?
There isn't any single book written from a non-feminist perspective, and there are many written to show women's oppression and the unfair limitations of their lives. But take a look, if you can, at anything written by Ernest Belfort Bax, especially his book *The Legal Subjection of Men,* published (in 1896) in response to John Stuart Mill's *The Subjection of Women.* Bax was a barrister and a journalist, and he writes about the lie that women were treated badly under Anglo-Saxon law. It is fascinating. Another book from this period is *Towards a Sane Feminism* by Wilma Miekle, published during the First World War, in which she (a feminist) admits that much of feminist activism was just upper-middle-class women having a great time. I agree with Eisso that autobiographies from previous eras are particularly interesting. Even feminist autobiographies reveal women's surprising freedoms and influence, their entrance into the professions, the encouragement they received from men, the respect they earned. Read a biography of Mary Wollstonecraft, for example, or Elizabeth Cady Stanton. For oppressed women, they had a lot of male supporters and significant opportunities.
Thank you (again). Here’s maybe a tough question: Imagine you were alive, say, in the 1800s. If you were the same modern-thinking woman then as you are today (roughly speaking), what restrictions or limitations as a woman might chafe you (assuming you have adjusted your expectations to be reasonable for the 1800s)?
That's an interesting question! By the late 1800s, most colleges and professions were open (or in the process of opening) to women. I would have wanted the right to vote and the right for women to hold political office. But if I had been confronted with the fact that men gained these rights (or privileges) in return for the obligation to fight and risk death for one's country in time of war, I hope I would not have been so unreasonable as to say that I deserved all the rights/privileges with none of the responsibilities.
I would likely have resented the sexual double-standard whereby a woman who was sexual outside of marriage was considered "fallen" while a man was merely considered sexually experienced/successful. But I hope I would have understood why such a sexual double-standard existed.
Knowing what I know now, I think I would have felt that the granting of the right to vote signalled the end of any legitimate claim to grievance I might have had as a modern (western) woman. I hope I would have found everything that came after, beginning with the self-pity of Virginia Woolf and the nasty rage of Simone De Beauvoir, as evidence of bitter selfishness and entitlement.
Wasn't that largely limited to American not Europe? I remember reading lots of European philosopher's criticism of America's over-glorification of women, arguing it lead to eventual decline of the nation which seems to be happening now.
The economist John Lott, Jr. wrote an (in)famous paper arguing that the welfare state may have grown to its gigantic proportions because of female votes. I imagine that female privilege is due to the right to vote, too (although there are many male voters who support female privilege). Personally, I haven’t voted since 2000 because I learned that my vote doesn’t count. Also, democracy will always devolve to oligarchy, as Robert Michels explained in his 1911 book, _Political Parties_. That means feminist activists will have a greater say among policymakers and politicians who share their ideology. This is why we have Wokeism (see Richard Hanania’s new book on the statist origins of woke).
Just read books, any books, from (auto)biographies and interviews with old people to fiction, before 1970, and focus on men-women-relationships. Feminists will find it easy to see sexism everywhere, but it is just as easy to find points that falsify the feminist narrative, sometimes even more crushing than you’d expect. And I can tell you, it’s a very interesting way to read books! (I f ex just read Agatha Christie’s autobiography. It’s of course very specific and rather upper class, but still quite enlightening. She loved being a woman all her life and resented egalitarian ideas.)
Janice, thanks for another excellent article. Now that you've watched it and critiqued it, I feel I don't need to watch it myself!
Reading your article led me to recall that the remarkable British vlogger ManWomanMyth - who sadly suffered serious brain damage after a fall from a considerable height in 2015 - produced a video on the theme of "Feminism is the Pursuit of Female Supremacy":
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G_4DjYG2A9k&list=PLjMscr0TpRqhGadn27XAzBcwXchJ2EvYp&index=127
His full output (130 videos) is on this playlist on our YouTube channel:
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLjMscr0TpRqhGadn27XAzBcwXchJ2EvYp
Keep up the great work!
Mike Buchanan
JUSTICE FOR MEN & BOYS
http://j4mb.org.uk
Thank you, Mike: much appreciated.
Thanks Mike. I highly recommend watching any and all of his vids. The man was amazing.
My favourite was how men are invisible in the media
Gracious Janice! You pack in so much of what many of us think but don't express. And you do it eloquently. Thank you for that.
I think it is worth noting that the speech that brings the Barbies out of their "brainwashing" results in something very important. It moves the women to work together by using relational aggression to do the same thing to the Kens that they claim was done to them. This is, of course, legal in the Barbie mindset, to use lies and deceit to get what they want. Have we seen that before?
Funnily enough the whole of Machiavellianism (in the political philosophical sense of the term) seems to parallel feminists using men for their purposes -- when they are not actively demonizing them that is
("The ends justify the means"). I suppose you could say that Machiavelli was a proto feminist then haha, only I'm not sure of feminists would agree, given that he was a "white male and diplomat who collaborated with colonizers" (their words not mine).
So true Katie. The three, narcissism, psychopathy, and machiavelianism form what is being called the dark triad. There has been some recent research on the connection of the dark triad with the far left, SJW's etc. Also some on pathological narcissism and feminism which I think Janice and I will be doing a video soon. Finally the research is starting to see the truth in feminism.
And yes how could I have forgotten the dark triad concept? Thank you for reminding me of it. No doubt many supposedly morally righteous social justices revolutionaries are motivated by those unsavory principles. I would love to hear your and Janice's take on the connection between pathological narcissicism and feminism! It's always wonderful to learn more about the truth behind this duplicitous ideology.
Exactly, good point, Tom!
One thing that has always fascinated me, is when people see and understand things that I don't.
No two people watch the same movie as each person will interpret that movie influenced by their biology, their background, back story and Bibliography.
When stories rely on hooking the emotions, the aim is to make sure people do not think critically about what is happening, because once emotions are hooked it can be difficult to put them back into the basket and think critically about what is going on.
In many ways films like "Barbie" repeat what was established in "Triumph of the Will" a method of propaganda raising the fervour amongst a new generation of women in the war against men. Triumph of the Will as also had a female director.
This film contains the same aspects of George Orwells "Animal Farm,"
No, no, no. Sorry, Janice, I just can't. The sight of all that pink would make me ill. Thanks for watching it for me so I don't have to.
The Barbie movie seems to be the absolute pinnacle of the feminist movement - an astounding achievement the primordial feminists would have never even thought possible. This glaringly ideological finger-wag of a movie stars the most bankable and recognizable lead roles in Hollywood, has made astounding profits worldwide, has received obnoxiously gushing reviews, and has become the movie experience of this generation hip enough to enjoy it.
The archetypical father figure has been away from home for many decades now, and this is the culmination of the rot spreading through the foundation. It's time for father to come home, admonish the children, and put order back into this chaotic slumber party.
I had half-hoped they would just make a fun movie about a doll on an adventure; it seems that actual entertainment aimed at little girls has been subverted by mean adult women who turn everything cruel and crass.
Another case in point is Snow White; young girls want a fun adventure where the girl falls in love but the adult actresses changed the original folk tale to the extent that I am surprised why they felt they had to call it that.
I'm looking forward to a feminist Jemima Puddleduck and a gender expansive Eeyore.
I think the gender-confused donkey thing has already been done in that Shrek movie where he mates with a dragon (hidden message there?) and produces species-neutral offspring. The director there at least recognised that the whole idea was a fantasy.
Oh. I haven't seen Shrek. Perhaps something can be done with piglet instead, or the heffalump could be construed as conservative fears of the unknown.
People generally only watch those movies with their kids. but despite that, many adults still appreciated the humour. I think it might have been the 2nd or 3rd movie where the above event took place.
I've also heard that, whether intentional or not, each of the Pooh Bear characters exhibits a specific personality disorder according to psychiatric theories. Eeyore = depression etc.
Again it brings to mind Melanie Philip's observation that feminism is an ideology appealing to the adolescent and feminists remain so for most of their lives, while most women discover the biological clock and rediscover reality, often too late to procreate. In this case we have an exposition that effectively says the feminist heaven exists only in a children's toy land created by men (the apparently incompetent men of Mattel) a world maintained by the magic of a child's imagination rather than by the real effort and work the real world requires. Rather like Marie-Antoinette's pretend village in the grounds of the massive royal palace where she and her ladies and gentlemen could pretend to be shepherds and milkmaids. And of course this is its appeal, rather like the songs women delight in from soul divas. And then for most real life intrudes. I suppose for the well off or those aspiring to be so it is seductive for their whole lives. But for others its just a cheap pop song.
Way back in the seventies there was in the UK a strong strand of feminism against Barbie, fashion, "beauty" and so on, the huge "new" (about 20 years after the USA) consumer society. It is curious how this has been completely eclipsed by a feminism that is devoted to consumption. Just today in a casual conversation with my son he expressed amusement that his partner was bemoaning the £40+ she spent each month getting her "nails done". The amusement was that she couldn't grasp the idea that she could simply not have them "done" but keep them neat herself. As he said its not like there is a law. But it is an illustration of the strange alliance between so much of the retail industries with feminism. From faddy diets to throw away fashion to endless cremes and potions, and dolls and toys there is actually a massive wave of consumption, often now labelled "empowerment".
Barbie the movie seems to be the apotheosis of this. Look beautiful, keep your figure, wear the right dress and have a lovely sash, and you can be President!
To think that this repellent trash is the highest grossing movie of recent years is to lose all hope for our species' future!
I hope you will pardon my saying so,
Thanks but no thanks.
I will take your word for it and be grateful that someone had the stomach to sit though such a mountain of trash so that we don't have to.
I certainly will not be paying real money to see it.
If and when it appears for free somewhere, or as part of a pre existing paying account ( Netflix springs to mind as an outlet which would jump at the chance to screen this and I am still a subscriber there, at least for now ) I may give it a look.
Until then i will manfully suppress my zealous impatience to gaze upon this latest iteration of feminist wisdom for it would be unfair of me to deprive a feminist and her ally of a seat in a theatre.
And, to conclude, I really do hope i do not have to give an irony alert for the paragraph immediately above . . .
I'm of the same mind. Nobody should have to experience that much pink, and that much infantilsation - before we even begin with the ideology. Janice has truly taken one for the team.
"The result was... pink. The pinkness was only one aspect of the thing, but it was so... pink that it dominated everything else, even the topiary-effect tail with the fluffy knob on the end. The front of the dog looked as though it had been fired through a large pink ball and had only got halfway. Then there was also the matter of the large glittery collar. It glittered altogether too much; sometimes glass glitters more than diamonds because it has more to prove."
The Truth - Terry Pratchett
All the women in my life dressed up as outrageous Barbie caricatures and got together to drink pink drinks and see it in the theater. High camp; self-consciously girl-bonding-silly. Fair enough. We raised two of them on The Spice Girls, so what can one expect? Day-to-day, they don't live this way.
As such, I was willing to entertain the possibility that the film was a tongue-in-cheek, deliberate self-parody. (I have not seen it.) After reading your post though, it sounds like the punch line is that it's deadly serious. They should be ROTFL; instead, they may be waiting for real-life president Barbie.
I therefore find it interesting, in light of recent headlines, that you uses the word "deprogram" three times. Or perhaps it is more interesting that she-whom-I-will-not-name (but let us call her Carolynn Lilith; let the reader understand) used it seriously (in regard to a disproportionately male majority of the American electorate) in her recent CNN interview. Now, understanding this movie better, it becomes apparent to me that her Mao-earnest proposal surfs a meme which should be a joke.
Deprogramming is a crucial word in the movie because it is what must be done to any woman who takes pleasure in loving and caring for her man, especially if she is willing to put aside career interests to do so. And she can only be properly deprogrammed by internalizing the feminist rant in whatever particular form applies to her. (Each time a Barbie is deprogrammed, she is given a slightly different form of the speech). It is a marvelous illustration of the flexibility of the feminist program (sometimes it is sexist if your boss asks about whether there will be time conflicts because of your kids; sometimes it is sexist if he doesn't; but it's always sexist, and so on). At first, my husband and I wondered if there was an element of satire in it all, but there isn't. It is pure female supremacism dressed up in a pink ribbon.
"It is a marvelous illustration of the flexibility of the feminist program"
Those desperately seeking out oppression can find it in a blade of grass.
Interesting. Sparks the thought that truth (reality as God designed it, including male & female) is singular, whereas untruths are myriad. E.g., Christ is idiomatically portrayed in Scripture as Light, while those who refuse Him are cast into "outer darkness" (anywhere *but* there).
In feminist analysis, it is wrong to abort a baby because she is female, but it is not wrong to abort a female baby because she is an unborn baby. That might be the best example.
Truth is singular, yet infinite?
Untruths are legion, yet finite?