Feminism 101 and Barbie's Plastic Ceiling

From the advertising for the Barbie movie, it was obvious that the film intended to make some feminist commentary. I fully expected it to provide a surface-level look at sexism and the impact of Barbie. While I won’t say that it gave us any shocking new perspectives on misogyny, we did get more than a girlboss Barbie breaking the plastic ceiling.

The film initially shows us Barbie Land, where Barbies run everything and Kens are an afterthought who simply exist as accessories. Whilst Barbie Land doesn’t have all the same structures we do in the real world – lacking a police force or landlords or even money – the allegory is clear; Kens are the second sex to the Barbies’ dominant one. Though Barbies are still spoken about and seen as “women” and the Kens are viewed and discussed as “men”, their gendered experience differs hugely from the real world.

Despite Barbie Land being intended to contrast the real world with regards to gender and the social hierarchy, it does not have a direct substitution of misogyny for misandry. Since Barbie Land is devoid of structures like money and police, Kens are not subjugated in most of the ways women are in the real world. Sexual threat is absent because the Barbies and Kens don’t have genitals or the knowledge of what sex is. The homelessness the Kens potentially face, which is never directly confirmed but is implied, is brought up for laughs, without serious consideration, because they are dolls who won’t freeze or starve or suffer mistreatment on the streets.

The jobs that Barbies do in Barbie Land are well-defined careers, like doctor, president, or postal worker. The Kens are for decoration and have vague and poorly-understood duties. Ordinarily, you’d expect the role that the Kens are stuck in as a second sex class would include jobs where they are subservient to the dominant group and provide them services. Because of the absence of a profit incentive or sexual desire, they are forgotten instead.

Once Barbie enters the real world, sexual threats become a reality for her, and she is assaulted by a man who smacks and gropes her whilst Ken is left unscathed. Ken’s day-to-day mistreatment in Barbie Land pales in comparison to what Barbie experiences in this real world, even factoring in what a stereotypically attractive white woman she is and how she benefits from those traits. Her experiences of misogyny are still far more limited than those of the average, in-film woman, because she never has to consider the impact of money or of motherhood. Ken is forgotten, yes, but not attacked or demeaned. He faces no employment discrimination or poverty.

Some of the questions Barbie raises are thought-provoking, if basic. The questions it doesn’t raise, however, demonstrate the flaws with this kind of liberal feminism. Gender is still treated in an extremely binary way, because there are no non-binary Barbies made by Mattel. A trans actress playing one of the Barbies is a nice, if superficial representation. I’m always happy to see trans actors and actresses getting work, but there’s no consideration for the existence of trans people in the narrative or commentary. The arc with the character Alan appears to be an allegory for allyship between gay men and women and their shared oppression under patriarchy, yet we see no explicitly gay characters or mentions of them. Subtext, played for laughs, feels like no text at all.

First and foremost, Barbie is a brand that exists to make money. Feminist discussion is held back by the mechanism of capitalism, and the patriarchal systems the film seeks to criticize. Mattel wants to look inclusive, so they’ll allow a trans actress in the film, but they don’t want to be seen to actively support trans people’s political interests. Because that has consequences. That might cause backlash and a boycott of their products. That the film is self-aware of the limitations imposed through working with Mattel and criticizing them, isn’t enough to negate that.

At certain points in the film we’re given brief glimpses at rejected Barbies and Kens that broke the unspoken rules about how these dolls should be. The film points out Mattel’s mistakes: launching a pregnant Barbie named Midge, an accidental gay rave-chic Ken, and Sugar Daddy Ken. All of these dolls broke the facade that of Barbie and Ken’s assumed heterosexuality and sexlessness. The tween character even recognizes what a sugar daddy is upon hearing this Ken’s name, and has to be corrected that he’s simply the “daddy” of his pet dog, Sugar. All to dispel the notion that there could be any kind of sex work in Barbie Land.

Barbie is an icon. It is easy to find people who played with some sort of Barbie doll as a child. Every time I talk to someone about playing with Barbie dolls as children, we inevitably end up discussing how we made them kiss or have sex. How the interactions were often lesbian by default because we didn’t even own Ken dolls or maybe only had one. I’m not expecting those kinds of themes  to be depicted in a film about a toy beloved by kids, even when that film was already mature enough for a PG rating, depending on the region. Even so, it was strange for me to see them joke that Barbie and Ken don’t know what sex is.

The conclusion the film seems to be driving home is that we all need to find ourselves outside of our expected gender roles. Barbie becomes Barbara and Ken decides not to be “just Ken”, yet that feels a little hollow, with the absence of sex and material barriers. Whilst not everyone who watches the film will want to evaluate this colourful and fun movie about a children’s toy with such a critical lens, I think many people will be unable to fully connect the story to their own experiences under patriarchy, because of this lack of depth.

After I left the Barbie movie, a new friend of mine commented that she would have wanted Barbie’s moments in the real world to be grittier and for her to experience more hardship to make the ending more impactful. She suggested the idea of Barbie descending into “prostitution” or getting into “hard drugs.” Though I’m used to people viewing sex work this way and making insensitive comments, it did initially strike me as strange that the film provoked this thought. It is precisely because Barbie Land lacks both sex and money that my friend envisioned this change to the storyline. To me, I think it would have been a reductive and stereotypical depiction of sex work, if it was inevitably poorly executed.

Attitudes around sex and money are on my mind more than most. Ultimately this film is supposed to be fun, make some simple feminist points, and get people to buy dolls, so I don’t think it’s going to have any real effect on the public’s views on money and sex. If you’re someone who thinks like I do, the Barbie movie might just give you some extra insight into how sexuality and sexual performance for money is sanitized or censored, even within feminist works.

Are you a sex worker with a story, opinion, news, or tips to share? We'd love to hear from you!

We started the tryst.link sex worker blog to help amplify those who aren't handed the mic and bring attention to the issues ya'll care about the most. Got a tale to tell? 👇☂️✨