Thank you for pushing back on that immature narrative of victimhood and helplessness; the philosophy of personal responsibility that you espouse is helpful to everyone.
My comment requires some clarification. That Barbie Monologue isn’t an “immature narrative,” but rather a fully-developed narrative of immaturity, victimhood and helplessness.
“…women being impervious to legitimate criticism and enforcing conformity of opinion such that extremes rule, providing a cover for bad behavior. The hollowness of mainstream feminism manifested in Barbie indicated to me that we need an entirely new framework for reaching the good life that is not gender specific.”
Agreed. Although this extends beyond women, I’ve found it’s much more strongly present in women. Not only does that make it difficult to have meaningful or even level headed conversations with some, but it prevents growth in those who refuse to question or attempt to see things as they are.
It was lonely for a while steering away from many female friendships that couldn’t not be toxic. But refusing to give in to the insanity allowed me to connect more deeply with those meant for me.
This is exactly the sort of dialogue stereotype I imagine goes on in women’s heads, specifically women with the time and resources to be successful even if they just stopped being their own worst enemy.
Excellent article. Feminism has always been about increasing female power and freedom whilst absolving women of any responsibility for achieving this also any negative or unintended consequences. This naturally leads to a decrease in male freedom and power whilst increasing social responsibility. The Barbie monologue achieves this perfectly. It reinforces the idea that women are perpetual victims of an unjust society and so society (men) needs to do more and do better to achieve "equality".
I had a friend tell me that the Barbie movie was one of the most important movies of the year and that I should see it. I grew up considering myself a feminist but I am so over listening to the kind of whingeing, highlighted here, from women. Being an adult is a learning experience. These proclamations from young women propagate the idea that being a grown-up should be easy. It isn't. Instagram isn't adult life. The fact that you let your body and your looks rule your self-esteem is your problem. Don't throw that on men. Confident, strong, real women get their self-esteem from being a good child, friend, spouse, (grand) parent, community member. That's it. That's all.
Thank you for sharing your thoughts on this and for sharing your experiences.
One question i have is why so many women have heard this speech and feel it speaks to the truth of their lives. Perhaps it is most of the women who vote Democrat/liberal but perhaps also some who vote conservative.
I don’t want to dismiss their experiences either.
I’m wondering why women who all know what it’s like to be a woman come to such very different responses to this Barbie speech. Why do some women feel it speaks to the truth of their experiences and others feel it doesn’t?
This is a good question. I think that many women have internalized the idea that men still have all the power and are oppressing us with patriarchy, which simply isn't true for me. I used to believe it but now find it disempowering, and I wish more women would think about it before reflexively blaming patriarchy for everything. Women uphold social order, and this is not simply because they want to uphold the power of men. They put women under their thumbs because they want power, and the supposed scarcity of resources imposed by men doesn't excuse that. An example - women bullying each other at work and in social contexts, or Indian mothers in law treating their daughters in law like dirt. People can make different choices, and women invoking patriarchy as some kind of universal explanation every time I try to talk about this makes me bristle. They need to think critically about their own behavior. It never once occurred to me to behave thus, and I think many use it to excuse the lack of virtue I see among women. I see far fewer women concerned with actual virtue and philosophy than I do men these days. In fact, I've never once conversed with a woman about the four cardinal virtues, though I've certainly tried. Honestly, having once believed this bullshit, I do dismiss their experiences because they serve no one. Their interpretations are a perspective on events, and the stoics taught us that our initial emotionally tinged perspectives should not be acted upon or trusted as the truth.
I think women either come at this thinking they are oppressed and others like me who don't consider ourselves oppressed in a society in which women have the most power they've had in human history. People don't remember this objective truth. I don't know of any other society than North America/Western Europe where women enjoy this kind of freedom to self-determine. It's a matter of orientation - if you think you're in charge of the outcomes of your life and choose to take responsibility for your actions, you'll think the speech is a facile argument. If you think the opposite, that gender and race based oppression determine outcomes, this speech will describe your experience.
Thank you for taking time to write and think about this. I recently read your article debating the “men are trash” claim. What you say here and in these articles gives a lot to think about. Thank you for writing them. And for this comment.
Though a part of me thinks what really needs to happen is there needs to be more women of different viewpoints making discussion circles with each other.
Yes, and the issue here is that women are allergic to debate among each other. It’s framed as rude, and my theory is because women are stronger rule based thinkers and value social cohesion above all else because we are overall more agreeable than men. Men have no problem debating with me.
One last thought: a viewpoint being different or dissenting can still help biased or bigoted in ways unconscious to the person having the viewpoint. Meaning that defending disagreement is a vague position, unless we’re ready to defend a speaker’s choice to speak their views anywhere, regardless of how bigoted, misinformed, or unconsciously biased it may be.
But if we are going to advocate that private organizations and individuals do have good reasons to exclude these types of speakers from certain conversations, then we really need to be sure (or sure enough) that our own views aren’t bigoted, misinformed, or unconsciously biased in order to justify that we have good reason to be included in those discussions.
I suppose I am what the woke call a free speech absolutist. Institutions that serve a broad swath of society like universities should allow freedom of speech because everyone does indeed have biases. I could argue that the woke paradigm is actually biased against the people it purports to protect. Free speech is a binary; it can’t have caveats. No one can truly be sure that they’re unbiased because the nature of experience is to bias a person, but people seem to be arrogant enough to believe they’re free of it. I’ve changed my mind on many topics in the last few years, and people should have room for doing that because we should revise our opinions given new information. Opinions should be loosely held, but social media gives the impression that they should be tightly held and never change. Open to disagreement on this.
New thought: I can see how my “we need to be sure we’re not bigoted before we speak” standard may stifle our own expression. But it could also be a variation of the more common wisdom: “think before you speak”
Perhaps a better question is: what criteria should private organizations and individuals use when determining what is bigoted or misinformed speech that justifies exclusion from their spaces? This isn’t a First Amendment issue since the question is only focused on private organizations and individuals. This is more question for how should individuals and private organizations use their spaces to exclude bigoted or misinformed speech? Or should they do this at all? And what about people who don’t want to be an audience for this type of speech? Can they walk out without getting fired or otherwise permanently excluded, or are they obligated to sit and listen to anyone saying anything no matter how bigoted or misinformed?
Thank you for pushing back on that immature narrative of victimhood and helplessness; the philosophy of personal responsibility that you espouse is helpful to everyone.
My comment requires some clarification. That Barbie Monologue isn’t an “immature narrative,” but rather a fully-developed narrative of immaturity, victimhood and helplessness.
“…women being impervious to legitimate criticism and enforcing conformity of opinion such that extremes rule, providing a cover for bad behavior. The hollowness of mainstream feminism manifested in Barbie indicated to me that we need an entirely new framework for reaching the good life that is not gender specific.”
Agreed. Although this extends beyond women, I’ve found it’s much more strongly present in women. Not only does that make it difficult to have meaningful or even level headed conversations with some, but it prevents growth in those who refuse to question or attempt to see things as they are.
It was lonely for a while steering away from many female friendships that couldn’t not be toxic. But refusing to give in to the insanity allowed me to connect more deeply with those meant for me.
This is exactly the sort of dialogue stereotype I imagine goes on in women’s heads, specifically women with the time and resources to be successful even if they just stopped being their own worst enemy.
Excellent article. Feminism has always been about increasing female power and freedom whilst absolving women of any responsibility for achieving this also any negative or unintended consequences. This naturally leads to a decrease in male freedom and power whilst increasing social responsibility. The Barbie monologue achieves this perfectly. It reinforces the idea that women are perpetual victims of an unjust society and so society (men) needs to do more and do better to achieve "equality".
I had a friend tell me that the Barbie movie was one of the most important movies of the year and that I should see it. I grew up considering myself a feminist but I am so over listening to the kind of whingeing, highlighted here, from women. Being an adult is a learning experience. These proclamations from young women propagate the idea that being a grown-up should be easy. It isn't. Instagram isn't adult life. The fact that you let your body and your looks rule your self-esteem is your problem. Don't throw that on men. Confident, strong, real women get their self-esteem from being a good child, friend, spouse, (grand) parent, community member. That's it. That's all.
The monologue fits into the view that social norms are imposed from the top by “society” or by a social group, here “men”. I wrote a related critique here: https://www.optimallyirrational.com/p/social-norms-as-rules-of-social-games
Hi Radha,
Thank you for sharing your thoughts on this and for sharing your experiences.
One question i have is why so many women have heard this speech and feel it speaks to the truth of their lives. Perhaps it is most of the women who vote Democrat/liberal but perhaps also some who vote conservative.
I don’t want to dismiss their experiences either.
I’m wondering why women who all know what it’s like to be a woman come to such very different responses to this Barbie speech. Why do some women feel it speaks to the truth of their experiences and others feel it doesn’t?
This is a good question. I think that many women have internalized the idea that men still have all the power and are oppressing us with patriarchy, which simply isn't true for me. I used to believe it but now find it disempowering, and I wish more women would think about it before reflexively blaming patriarchy for everything. Women uphold social order, and this is not simply because they want to uphold the power of men. They put women under their thumbs because they want power, and the supposed scarcity of resources imposed by men doesn't excuse that. An example - women bullying each other at work and in social contexts, or Indian mothers in law treating their daughters in law like dirt. People can make different choices, and women invoking patriarchy as some kind of universal explanation every time I try to talk about this makes me bristle. They need to think critically about their own behavior. It never once occurred to me to behave thus, and I think many use it to excuse the lack of virtue I see among women. I see far fewer women concerned with actual virtue and philosophy than I do men these days. In fact, I've never once conversed with a woman about the four cardinal virtues, though I've certainly tried. Honestly, having once believed this bullshit, I do dismiss their experiences because they serve no one. Their interpretations are a perspective on events, and the stoics taught us that our initial emotionally tinged perspectives should not be acted upon or trusted as the truth.
I think women either come at this thinking they are oppressed and others like me who don't consider ourselves oppressed in a society in which women have the most power they've had in human history. People don't remember this objective truth. I don't know of any other society than North America/Western Europe where women enjoy this kind of freedom to self-determine. It's a matter of orientation - if you think you're in charge of the outcomes of your life and choose to take responsibility for your actions, you'll think the speech is a facile argument. If you think the opposite, that gender and race based oppression determine outcomes, this speech will describe your experience.
Thank you for taking time to write and think about this. I recently read your article debating the “men are trash” claim. What you say here and in these articles gives a lot to think about. Thank you for writing them. And for this comment.
Though a part of me thinks what really needs to happen is there needs to be more women of different viewpoints making discussion circles with each other.
Yes, and the issue here is that women are allergic to debate among each other. It’s framed as rude, and my theory is because women are stronger rule based thinkers and value social cohesion above all else because we are overall more agreeable than men. Men have no problem debating with me.
One last thought: a viewpoint being different or dissenting can still help biased or bigoted in ways unconscious to the person having the viewpoint. Meaning that defending disagreement is a vague position, unless we’re ready to defend a speaker’s choice to speak their views anywhere, regardless of how bigoted, misinformed, or unconsciously biased it may be.
But if we are going to advocate that private organizations and individuals do have good reasons to exclude these types of speakers from certain conversations, then we really need to be sure (or sure enough) that our own views aren’t bigoted, misinformed, or unconsciously biased in order to justify that we have good reason to be included in those discussions.
Or, perhaps I’m missing something. I’m listening.
I suppose I am what the woke call a free speech absolutist. Institutions that serve a broad swath of society like universities should allow freedom of speech because everyone does indeed have biases. I could argue that the woke paradigm is actually biased against the people it purports to protect. Free speech is a binary; it can’t have caveats. No one can truly be sure that they’re unbiased because the nature of experience is to bias a person, but people seem to be arrogant enough to believe they’re free of it. I’ve changed my mind on many topics in the last few years, and people should have room for doing that because we should revise our opinions given new information. Opinions should be loosely held, but social media gives the impression that they should be tightly held and never change. Open to disagreement on this.
“different or dissenting can still help biased or bigoted…”
Sorry i meant to say “can still be biased or bigoted…”
I type fast and make spelling errors or bad autocorrect.
New thought: I can see how my “we need to be sure we’re not bigoted before we speak” standard may stifle our own expression. But it could also be a variation of the more common wisdom: “think before you speak”
Perhaps a better question is: what criteria should private organizations and individuals use when determining what is bigoted or misinformed speech that justifies exclusion from their spaces? This isn’t a First Amendment issue since the question is only focused on private organizations and individuals. This is more question for how should individuals and private organizations use their spaces to exclude bigoted or misinformed speech? Or should they do this at all? And what about people who don’t want to be an audience for this type of speech? Can they walk out without getting fired or otherwise permanently excluded, or are they obligated to sit and listen to anyone saying anything no matter how bigoted or misinformed?