Your description of the "Ken-ologue" describing how men suffer at the hands of the patriarchy is just brilliant. ("Devalue women—as the embodiments of traits you have learned to despise in yourself (tenderness, nurturing)—even as you desperately crave their love.") And I LOVE that your students were annoyed that Ken feels entitled to Barbie's affection! It's not our job to figure out how to help men out of the patriarchy, but it's all of our work to dismantle it.
Ken doesn't feel "entitled" to Barbie's affection, he DESIRES Barbie's affection. Just because a man longs to be loved by a woman doesn't mean he feels "entitled" to love from a woman... but, then again, men aren't REALLY human so the presumption that their desire for love, family, purpose, and belonging is probably fairly characterized in the way that feminists do: as "MALE entitlement" rather than HUMAN DESIRE.
Loved this! I think my favorite moment in the film that nods to how patriarchy hurts men is when Ken flounders at the end as he’s faced with the idea that he will have to figure out a way to define himself as something other than Barbie’s mate. He’s sort of delighted and relieved but also terrified.
SO interesting you say this bc I think this moment is so easy to miss/get confused! It's like Ken, figure out what it means to be yourself not in relationship to (looking down on) women. But I have feminist friends who are confused by this scene and are like, "But I feel bad for Ken! What is Ken supposed to do? He's in love with Barbie and he has no place in Barbieland?"
I asked my college students about this and they were immediately like, um, no...Kens just exist in Barbieland and can do whatever they want. The Kens under patriarchy turned Barbies into servants and stole their homes?? Ken is free to do whatever he wants and why should Barbie have to figure that out for him too?! They are also supremely annoyed that Ken feels entitled to Barbie's affection and doesn't know what to do without it. They actually thought Barbie should not have apologized to Ken for not paying more attention to him, which I thought was an interesting generational difference!
Ken doesn't feel "entitled" to Barbie's affection, he DESIRES Barbie's affection. Just because a man longs to be loved by a woman doesn't mean he feels "entitled" to love from a woman... but, then again, men aren't REALLY human so the presumption that their desire for love, family, purpose, and belonging is probably fairly characterized in the way that feminists do: as "MALE entitlement" rather than HUMAN DESIRE.
This showed up in my notes feed, not quite sure how, Amanda maybe, but I'm so glad it did. This is so, so true. That Ken-ologue. That was me for so many years. It cost me my marriage back then. Most of my friends these days are women. There's a guys hiking group I spent time with, and I notice I'm an outlier. Most of them are fully invested in the patriarchy and can't see they've been more victim than beneficiary.
This is exactly how the patriarchy wants it. Black vs white. LGBTQ vs cis hetero. Women vs men. Keep us fighting among ourselves and distracted from the real enemy. We need to stick together.
Thank you for this, John!! This is so refreshing to read. I just saw an oped by a well-known NYT columnist who was like, "Barbie is a confused movie bc it doesn't want Kens in charge but it doesn't really know what purpose men should serve." "A guy can organize a revolution and still not impress a girl I guess, right?!" And it's so disappointing to see that he is still supporting the status quo/patriarchy uncritically 100% after seeing the film, and seeing none of the ways that it's harmful to him and everyone. Amen we need to stick together. Thanks for this and for restoring my faith! :)
Thanks Lane. This is actually quite a theme for me. I don't believe we solve any of the major problems we have - climate change, environmental destruction, inequality, loss of rights, threats to democracy - without addressing the patriarchy and the closely related dominator model of much of western society. I'm still trying to get my arms around it all, but it's something I really want to write about. I'll give you a heads up when I can put a post together.
Insightful comment, John. I appreciate your frankness here. I wholly agree that it seems to nearly always take loss for men like us to extricate ourselves from the privilege - and pain - of the patriarchy. I am very inspired by the younger generations of males who seem to be tackling this as early as possible (and hopefully without the loss/failures that our generation seems to need to even begin questioning patriarchal constructs).
Reading your “Ken” monologue I could feel the tears welling up. And your analysis of Kens’ musical number felt so profound…
“Does he love her, or merely feel entitled to her devotion because he believes himself to be attractive (enough) and inherently superior?
Does he know the difference? Is he allowed, under the strictures of American masculinity, to find out?”
I also felt that “Alan” (Kens’ discontinued friend), whose character struggled with fitting in to the rigid ideals of masculinity, was an interesting addition that added depth to the concept of patriarchy and forced masculinity is damaging for boys/men. Although Alan certainly elicited some awkward, pitiful chuckles it made me feel deeply sad to see a caricature on the big screen of what I can only imagine so many men feel constantly.
I loved this movie for so many reasons, and would (will!) recommend to anyone and everyone I know. I do however agree with the sentiment “ [I wish] the writers/director had done something slightly different, or pushed something further.” I wasn’t able to pinpoint exactly what it was until I read your article.
Yes, "Alan"! My college students LOVE Alan and it was the thing that *they wished the movie had done more with," so you're not alone. FWIW they definitely identify with him and don't feel pity but see him as one of their own? I'm always delighted by how much Gen Z is comfortable with non-binary and non-rigid ideas about gender and I learn so much from them that way. I think Alan might be the future :)
So very Mormon! "Most Mormon influencer thing?" Big discussion. I guess it depends on how you define "influencer," which is a newish word that I think of as meaning "having fame for having an online audience." Influencers are new, but publicly performing the "correct" way to family/mother/father/wife/husband/man/woman has been très Mormon all of my life, and it's not new to "influencers." Remember "mommy bloggers?" that was a heavily Mormon phenomenon, though not as skewed to "trad." I think folks like Design Mom were entering the conversation at a time when the internet was a platform for Mormons looking to shed "trad" stereotypes that didn't apply to them. But a lot of what you saw a more modern take on something that is actually very traditionally Mormon (women lead domestic artistry, i.e. "homemaking.") Now, we're in an internet culture that is being used equally or more by conservatives. This feels like the clear response to that early 2000s call, in a way.
And while it's a more traditional craft-fame dynamic than "influencing," there was just that NYT piece about the prevalence of Mormon YA writers that comes to mind. I think there's a strong human impulse to put story to experience in a way that explains our lives and gives them meaning, and that's main fuel of the Mormon experience as well, whether it's scriptural tales, the Joseph Smith fables, or the constant retelling of personal narratives in "testimony." In a way, "influencing" is just the newest manifestation of this tradition and it pops up almost everywhere Mormons touch the culture. I assume you read that Atlantic piece about Mitt Romney. We don't share a lot politically, though I respect his character, but you can also see how he is almost unable to frame his life in anything but a very Mormon-typical "hero's journey."
It's a great subject to explore for sure. I'd also be super interested in your take on the psychic costs of engaging in this kind of engagement with the idea of "correct" womaning/mothering. The long, sad struggles of Heather Armstrong and the awful detachment from love and compassion in the abuse accusations of Ruby Franke (another successful "trad" Mormon influencer) come to mind. Armstrong seemed to never be able to detach from the "good enough" struggle many of us internalised in our Mormon upbringing, and Franke seems to have detached from reality and basic morality in attempting to fully commit to her version of "trad" parenting. To me, these feel like two sides of a Mormon-minted coin. Not that these are solely Mormon phenomena, but they are so recognisable to me from my experience.
I look forward to reading your take on all of it. Always love to hear what you have to say!
Alex, thanks for this very thoughtful comment! I esp had never connected this to Heather Armstrong or Ruby Franke which is a lot to think about. You actually left this comment on a different post (this post is about Barbie) and if you're up for it I think you should copy and paste and leave it over on the Ballerina Farm post, bc I think some people there who are also Mormon-adjacent would be v interested in what you have to say!
Just catching up on all of the Barbie essays. I love your analysis of Ken’s lyrics and that you wrote his so each for us. Brilliant. Kimmel reminds me of the book Raising Cain: On Protecting the Emotional Lives of Boys. An older book but similar territory about what happens if we don’t let boys have feelings beyond just anger.
Your description of the "Ken-ologue" describing how men suffer at the hands of the patriarchy is just brilliant. ("Devalue women—as the embodiments of traits you have learned to despise in yourself (tenderness, nurturing)—even as you desperately crave their love.") And I LOVE that your students were annoyed that Ken feels entitled to Barbie's affection! It's not our job to figure out how to help men out of the patriarchy, but it's all of our work to dismantle it.
Ken doesn't feel "entitled" to Barbie's affection, he DESIRES Barbie's affection. Just because a man longs to be loved by a woman doesn't mean he feels "entitled" to love from a woman... but, then again, men aren't REALLY human so the presumption that their desire for love, family, purpose, and belonging is probably fairly characterized in the way that feminists do: as "MALE entitlement" rather than HUMAN DESIRE.
Loved this! I think my favorite moment in the film that nods to how patriarchy hurts men is when Ken flounders at the end as he’s faced with the idea that he will have to figure out a way to define himself as something other than Barbie’s mate. He’s sort of delighted and relieved but also terrified.
SO interesting you say this bc I think this moment is so easy to miss/get confused! It's like Ken, figure out what it means to be yourself not in relationship to (looking down on) women. But I have feminist friends who are confused by this scene and are like, "But I feel bad for Ken! What is Ken supposed to do? He's in love with Barbie and he has no place in Barbieland?"
I asked my college students about this and they were immediately like, um, no...Kens just exist in Barbieland and can do whatever they want. The Kens under patriarchy turned Barbies into servants and stole their homes?? Ken is free to do whatever he wants and why should Barbie have to figure that out for him too?! They are also supremely annoyed that Ken feels entitled to Barbie's affection and doesn't know what to do without it. They actually thought Barbie should not have apologized to Ken for not paying more attention to him, which I thought was an interesting generational difference!
Ken doesn't feel "entitled" to Barbie's affection, he DESIRES Barbie's affection. Just because a man longs to be loved by a woman doesn't mean he feels "entitled" to love from a woman... but, then again, men aren't REALLY human so the presumption that their desire for love, family, purpose, and belonging is probably fairly characterized in the way that feminists do: as "MALE entitlement" rather than HUMAN DESIRE.
YES! I am still turning this scene over and over in my head. It really hits the nail on its head.
This showed up in my notes feed, not quite sure how, Amanda maybe, but I'm so glad it did. This is so, so true. That Ken-ologue. That was me for so many years. It cost me my marriage back then. Most of my friends these days are women. There's a guys hiking group I spent time with, and I notice I'm an outlier. Most of them are fully invested in the patriarchy and can't see they've been more victim than beneficiary.
This is exactly how the patriarchy wants it. Black vs white. LGBTQ vs cis hetero. Women vs men. Keep us fighting among ourselves and distracted from the real enemy. We need to stick together.
Thank you for this, John!! This is so refreshing to read. I just saw an oped by a well-known NYT columnist who was like, "Barbie is a confused movie bc it doesn't want Kens in charge but it doesn't really know what purpose men should serve." "A guy can organize a revolution and still not impress a girl I guess, right?!" And it's so disappointing to see that he is still supporting the status quo/patriarchy uncritically 100% after seeing the film, and seeing none of the ways that it's harmful to him and everyone. Amen we need to stick together. Thanks for this and for restoring my faith! :)
Thanks Lane. This is actually quite a theme for me. I don't believe we solve any of the major problems we have - climate change, environmental destruction, inequality, loss of rights, threats to democracy - without addressing the patriarchy and the closely related dominator model of much of western society. I'm still trying to get my arms around it all, but it's something I really want to write about. I'll give you a heads up when I can put a post together.
Agree. Heather mcghee and others have helped me see how racism is also bad for everyone and makes it so we “can’t have nice things” as a country.
And pls do give a heads up on your post!
Insightful comment, John. I appreciate your frankness here. I wholly agree that it seems to nearly always take loss for men like us to extricate ourselves from the privilege - and pain - of the patriarchy. I am very inspired by the younger generations of males who seem to be tackling this as early as possible (and hopefully without the loss/failures that our generation seems to need to even begin questioning patriarchal constructs).
100% YES to all of this.
Reading your “Ken” monologue I could feel the tears welling up. And your analysis of Kens’ musical number felt so profound…
“Does he love her, or merely feel entitled to her devotion because he believes himself to be attractive (enough) and inherently superior?
Does he know the difference? Is he allowed, under the strictures of American masculinity, to find out?”
I also felt that “Alan” (Kens’ discontinued friend), whose character struggled with fitting in to the rigid ideals of masculinity, was an interesting addition that added depth to the concept of patriarchy and forced masculinity is damaging for boys/men. Although Alan certainly elicited some awkward, pitiful chuckles it made me feel deeply sad to see a caricature on the big screen of what I can only imagine so many men feel constantly.
I loved this movie for so many reasons, and would (will!) recommend to anyone and everyone I know. I do however agree with the sentiment “ [I wish] the writers/director had done something slightly different, or pushed something further.” I wasn’t able to pinpoint exactly what it was until I read your article.
You nailed it, once again!
Aw thank you so much and thank you for reading!
Yes, "Alan"! My college students LOVE Alan and it was the thing that *they wished the movie had done more with," so you're not alone. FWIW they definitely identify with him and don't feel pity but see him as one of their own? I'm always delighted by how much Gen Z is comfortable with non-binary and non-rigid ideas about gender and I learn so much from them that way. I think Alan might be the future :)
So very Mormon! "Most Mormon influencer thing?" Big discussion. I guess it depends on how you define "influencer," which is a newish word that I think of as meaning "having fame for having an online audience." Influencers are new, but publicly performing the "correct" way to family/mother/father/wife/husband/man/woman has been très Mormon all of my life, and it's not new to "influencers." Remember "mommy bloggers?" that was a heavily Mormon phenomenon, though not as skewed to "trad." I think folks like Design Mom were entering the conversation at a time when the internet was a platform for Mormons looking to shed "trad" stereotypes that didn't apply to them. But a lot of what you saw a more modern take on something that is actually very traditionally Mormon (women lead domestic artistry, i.e. "homemaking.") Now, we're in an internet culture that is being used equally or more by conservatives. This feels like the clear response to that early 2000s call, in a way.
And while it's a more traditional craft-fame dynamic than "influencing," there was just that NYT piece about the prevalence of Mormon YA writers that comes to mind. I think there's a strong human impulse to put story to experience in a way that explains our lives and gives them meaning, and that's main fuel of the Mormon experience as well, whether it's scriptural tales, the Joseph Smith fables, or the constant retelling of personal narratives in "testimony." In a way, "influencing" is just the newest manifestation of this tradition and it pops up almost everywhere Mormons touch the culture. I assume you read that Atlantic piece about Mitt Romney. We don't share a lot politically, though I respect his character, but you can also see how he is almost unable to frame his life in anything but a very Mormon-typical "hero's journey."
It's a great subject to explore for sure. I'd also be super interested in your take on the psychic costs of engaging in this kind of engagement with the idea of "correct" womaning/mothering. The long, sad struggles of Heather Armstrong and the awful detachment from love and compassion in the abuse accusations of Ruby Franke (another successful "trad" Mormon influencer) come to mind. Armstrong seemed to never be able to detach from the "good enough" struggle many of us internalised in our Mormon upbringing, and Franke seems to have detached from reality and basic morality in attempting to fully commit to her version of "trad" parenting. To me, these feel like two sides of a Mormon-minted coin. Not that these are solely Mormon phenomena, but they are so recognisable to me from my experience.
I look forward to reading your take on all of it. Always love to hear what you have to say!
Alex, thanks for this very thoughtful comment! I esp had never connected this to Heather Armstrong or Ruby Franke which is a lot to think about. You actually left this comment on a different post (this post is about Barbie) and if you're up for it I think you should copy and paste and leave it over on the Ballerina Farm post, bc I think some people there who are also Mormon-adjacent would be v interested in what you have to say!
I am the Alan of internet comments: earnest and out-of-place. I'll move it!
Just catching up on all of the Barbie essays. I love your analysis of Ken’s lyrics and that you wrote his so each for us. Brilliant. Kimmel reminds me of the book Raising Cain: On Protecting the Emotional Lives of Boys. An older book but similar territory about what happens if we don’t let boys have feelings beyond just anger.
Thanks so much and thanks for reading, Carley! listed your Barbie essay in my post last week as one of my favorites on the subject--such a good read!
I know! I was so happy! Thank you!
This is brilliant!! Thank you for your reflections about the movie and for discussing how men are affected by the patriarchy.
I am forwarding this far and wide.
Aw, thanks so much Ani I’m glad you liked it! And thx for reading :))