Content uploaded by Dikmen Yakali
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Dikmen Yakali on Apr 05, 2024
Content may be subject to copyright.
TYPE Original Research
PUBLISHED 05 April 2024
DOI 10.3389/fsoc.2024.1320774
OPEN ACCESS
EDITED BY
Michael Macaluso,
University of Notre Dame, United States
REVIEWED BY
Angela Smith,
University of Sunderland, United Kingdom
Lauren Dundes,
McDaniel College, United States
*CORRESPONDENCE
Dikmen Yakalı
dyakali@yahoo.com
RECEIVED 12 October 2023
ACCEPTED 19 March 2024
PUBLISHED 05 April 2024
CITATION
Yakalı D (2024) “He is just Ken:”
deconstructing hegemonic masculinity in
Barbie (2023 Movie). Front. Sociol. 9:1320774.
doi: 10.3389/fsoc.2024.1320774
COPYRIGHT
©2024 Yakalı. This is an open-access article
distributed under the terms of the Creative
Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The
use, distribution or reproduction in other
forums is permitted, provided the original
author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are
credited and that the original publication in
this journal is cited, in accordance with
accepted academic practice. No use,
distribution or reproduction is permitted
which does not comply with these terms.
“He is just Ken:” deconstructing
hegemonic masculinity in Barbie
(2023 Movie)
Dikmen Yakalı*
Department of General Culture Courses, Izmir Institute of Technology (IZTECH), Izmir, Türkiye
Scholars have consistently explored Barbie in various contexts, often subjecting
it to critical analysis. However, the release of the Barbie 2023 Movie has
shifted our focus from Barbie to Ken, marking the first occasion when Barbie
has provided a platform for exploring representations of masculinity both in
the patriarchal society and in popular culture. This article aims to investigate
how the 2023 Barbie movie deconstructs symbols of hegemonic and toxic
masculinity and its performative aspects within the framework of (post)feminist
discourse. It examines how the movie satirically employs symbols of traditional,
hegemonic masculinity to challenge normative masculine ideals prevalent
in our patriarchal society. The movie -through its popularity- significantly
contributes to mainstream postfeminist media culture, creating a platform where
discussions on masculinity, its associated crises, and the broader gender wars,
along with their existential ramifications, become unavoidable. Exploring the
ways masculinities are problematized and contested within postfeminist media
culture, I argue that Ken, within this narrative, is positioned as the latest icon of
postfeminist masculinity, symbolizing a critical juncture in the ongoing discourse
on gender roles and identities.
KEYWORDS
Barbie, Ken, postfeminism, children’s media, Barbie 2023 Movie, hegemonic masculinity,
gender identity, hypermasculinity
1 Introduction
Scholars have consistently explored Barbie in various contexts, often subjecting it to
critical analysis as a domain where ideas are scrutinized. However, the release of the
Barbie 2023 Movie has shifted our focus from Barbie to Ken, marking the first occasion
when Barbie has provided a platform for dissecting representations of masculinity in the
postfeminist media landscape. This shift is evident right from the movie’s poster, which
boldly proclaims, “Barbie is everything. He is just Ken.”
This article aims to investigate how the 2023 “Barbie” movie which is directed and
co-written by Greta Gerwig (and Noah Baumbach) employs symbols of hegemonic and
toxic masculinity and its performative aspects within the framework of postfeminist
discourse (Gerwig and Baumbach, 2023). It examines how the movie satirically
employs symbols of hyper and toxic masculinities to challenge normative masculine
ideals prevalent in a patriarchal society. This study suggests that the Barbie Movie
is intricately connected to the postfeminist media culture, creating a platform for
discussions about feminism, patriarchy, and the changing ideas about masculinity.
Contemporary manifestations of feminism, often aligned with neoliberal values that
prioritize individual empowerment over collective societal change, have become
commodified and politically diluted within postfeminist media and celebrity culture (Gill
and Scharff, 2011). This commodification is critiqued for transforming feminism into a
Frontiers in Sociology 01 frontiersin.org
Yakalı 10.3389/fsoc.2024.1320774
fashionable yet superficial concept, devoid of its political
commitment and transformative potential. Under this framework,
the Barbie 2023 Movie emerges as a significant subject of analysis.
The film not only commodifies feminism and the so-called gender
wars but also leverages the extensive academic criticism that
has historically targeted Barbie. However, my contention is that
the movie -through its popularity- significantly contributes to
mainstream media culture, creating a platform where discussions
on masculinity, its associated crises, and the broader gender wars,
along with their existential ramifications, become unavoidable.
It sheds light on the ways masculinities are problematized and
contested within postfeminist media culture. Therefore, I argue
that Ken, within this narrative, is positioned as the latest icon of
postfeminist masculinity, symbolizing a critical juncture in the
ongoing discourse on gender roles and identities.
In the realm of Kendom, Barbie is perceived as the dominating
force that Kens must contend with. In the Real World, while men
are at times portrayed as antagonists to confront, the presence
of a postfeminist masculinity embodied by Ken prompts us to
contemplate how the film actually frames the patriarchal system
as the antagonist in all the narratives it presents. Despite Barbies
governing Barbieland, which operates as a matriarchal system, it
fails to alter the underlying structures of the inherently biased
system. When a hierarchical system persists, featuring varying
degrees of power, marginalization, and everything in between, the
system functions much as it always has. This constitutes a profound
critique of the patriarchal system within the movie. The gender of
those in power is not the core issue; the fundamental challenge
lies in reshaping the system and discerning who the true adversary
is. This enduring critique throughout the movie establishes it as a
feminist text.
Through the analysis of the film, this article seeks to
examine how specific phrases, signs, symbols and narratives
are used in the dialogues or visuals as recurring themes
and patterns to deconstruct social and cultural norms of
masculinity. This approach allows me to not only identify
themes such as humor, satire, or the use of specific symbols
but also to explore how these elements actively participate
in the construction and enactment of gender identities
within the film. It enables a deeper understanding of how
characters’ actions, expressions, and interactions perform
masculinity and how these performances challenge or
subvert traditional norms. It’s important to note that the
film’s transcriptions are available online as open-source
material.
In conversations regarding the film’s narrative and overall
cinematic creation, I intentionally use the term “the film” without
singling out the writer-director Greta Gerwig and co-writer Noah
Baumbach. This choice is deliberate and should not be interpreted
as an attempt to diminish or disregard the importance of their
roles. I aim to emphasize and acknowledge that the existence of
this film is also contingent upon the decisions and actions of
Mattel and Warner Bros. executives who chose to produce and
promote it. This approach serves to recognize the broader popular
culture industry and Mattel’s responsiveness to, and promotion
of, its own critiques, demonstrating a clear intention to engage in
this endeavor.
1.1 Barbie’s global relevance
Barbie, the iconic doll created by Ruth Handler in 1959, has
transcended its role as a toy to become a cultural phenomenon
through animated films, TV shows and magazines. She became a
symbol of beauty, fashion, and femininity. Across various contexts,
Barbie has been a symbol of materialism, cultural adaptation,
and globalization. She embodies ideals and values that transcend
national boundaries, influencing perceptions of beauty, gender
roles, and consumer culture worldwide. Her impact on societal
norms and individual identity formation, especially among young
girls, is significant, prompting both admiration and criticism.
With an expansive array of merchandise that includes decorations,
stationery, and clothing, it has become a part of our material culture
and daily lives. The Barbie 2023 Movie, directed by Greta Gerwig,
has significantly contributed to this legacy, becoming the biggest
film of the year with a $1.45 billion in global box office earnings
(Statista, 2024). This financial success is a testament to Barbie’s
enduring appeal and the effective marketing strategies employed by
Mattel and its partners (Walfisz, 2023).
The craze for Barbie-themed merchandise around the movie’s
release further underscores the brand’s global reach. The film’s
success and the associated merchandise boom are expected to
boost global sales of Barbie dolls, which had seen a decline from
record growth during the pandemic (Reid, 2023). From achieving
record-breaking box office earnings to influencing fashion trends
and consumer behavior, Barbie’s reach is truly global. The 2023
movie and its aftermath not only reinforce Barbie’s status as an
icon of popular culture but also illustrate the brand’s ability to
evolve and remain relevant in the changing landscape of media and
consumer preferences.
Over the years, Barbie has generated significant academic
interest, leading to a multitude of scholarly works exploring its
influence on children’s development, gender roles, body image,
and societal values (McDonough, 1999;Rakow and Rakow, 1999;
Toffoletti, 2007) in the same brackets. The evolution of Barbie’s
critique within academic discourse has been marked by notable
shifts, particularly in how academia perceives popular culture, as
observed by scholars like Rogers (1999). Over time, Barbie has
faced criticism for being portrayed as a symbol of objectified
sexuality. This feminist lens positions Barbie as a mechanism that
perpetuates and bolsters the male-dominated consumer culture
(Steinberg, 1997,2009;Varney, 2002, p. 155). She has been
criticized for promoting impossibly slender and disproportionate
body standards of emphasized femininity that are associated with
numerous issues among teenage girls and young women (Urla and
Swedlund, 1995;Varney, 2002).
On the opposite end of the spectrum, Barbie is seen as a feminist
figure, offering liberating potential for young girls. Barbie embodies
careers beyond motherhood, encouraging girls to envision diverse
future possibilities (Brill, 1995). This perspective serves as the
central premise on which Barbie 2023 is initially built, only to
undergo a continuous process of deconstruction throughout the
film. However, this view has also been challenged, with arguments
asserting that playing with Barbie dolls did not necessarily lead
little girls to believe that they could be anything (Sherman and
Zurbriggen, 2014).
Frontiers in Sociology 02 frontiersin.org
Yakalı 10.3389/fsoc.2024.1320774
There exists an alternative viewpoint in relation to those who
assert that “it is just a doll,” indicating that the inherent meaning
is not contained within the doll but rather constructed externally
by how it is played with (Reid-Walsh and Mitchell, 2000). In fact, it
has been observed that girls who play with Barbie can, and often do,
engage in games that challenge normative ideals (Brill, 1995;Rand,
1995;Reid-Walsh and Mitchell, 2000).
The producers of Barbie are attuned to critical discourses
surrounding the doll and actively position their product in
response. For example, responding to the concerns and critiques of
Barbie’s bodily standards, Mattel initiated innovative product lines:
“Barbie Fashionista” and “M2M—Made to Move.” These initiatives
involved the creation of dolls designed to embrace a diverse range
of body images which also appear in the movie. However, studies
subsequent to M2M investigated how exaggerated features, such as
those seen in Barbie and Ken dolls, can influence expectations and
perceptions of weight (Saccone and Chouinard, 2019) or how levels
of body appreciation are influenced by Barbie play in comparison
to Lego Friends play sets (Webb et al., 2023).
In my other studies, I have contended that Barbie has
transitioned into a postfeminine icon and, concurrently, a
postfeminist figure. This status is attributed to her unique ability
to navigate and harmonize seemingly conflicting historical notions
of femininity, bridging the gap between seemingly incongruent
feminine and feminist subject positions. This positioning can
be seen as occupying an intermediary space. I argued that this
postfeminine identity of Barbie is a narrative identity that is
dialogically constructed, reflecting the influence of poststructuralist
feminist and queer theories (Yakalı-Çamoglu, 2020a,b). However,
in this latest movie, her identity is reset once again, and she asserts
herself as the ultimate “feminist” subject. She is determined to resist
any meanings or ideas imposed on her, aspiring instead to be an
“ordinary” Barbie/woman. This new stance allows her to create
and construct meanings and ideas, rather than being merely the
subject or object of conversation, narrative, or discourse (Yakalı,
2024). With this new movie, on the other hand, Barbie brings
masculinity into the spotlight as well. Ken doll who was named
after Ruth Handler’s son, and made his debut in stores in 1961,
had lived in the shadows until this 2023 movie (Carlin, 2023).
By highlighting the dialogical construction of Ken’s identity and
exploring its subversive potential, this study contributes to a deeper
understanding of the interplay between masculinity, feminism, and
postfeminism in the context of Barbie’s cultural influence.
1.2 Theoretical framework: postfeminist
masculinities
Barbie 2023 Movie positions itself within ongoing theoretical
and academic discussions related to gender and identity through
a (post)feminist deconstructive stance. It also highlights the
performative nature of gender, emphasizing that gender has no
intrinsic qualities but is instead constructed through performances
(Butler, 1988). The satirical and humorous style it employs in
discussions on gender wars, critiques of patriarchy, and the state
of gender identities in this postfeminist landscape opens a space for
discussing various aspects of gendered lives.
The concept of postfeminism remains highly debated (see, Lotz,
2001, p. 11–113). It may denote a sense of “after” in relation
to feminism, but it can also signify resistance or rejection of
feminism itself (Genz and Brabon, 2009, p. 3–4). Postfeminism
indicates the transformation and infusion of feminist discourse
and categories into media and popular culture products (Lotz,
2001;Genz, 2009;Genz and Brabon, 2009). It also represents
a cultural sensibility emerging from and reacting to feminism’s
legacy. According to McRobbie (2004,2008) and Gill (2007,2014),
postfeminism is not a unified ideology but consists of conflicting
discourses on gender roles. This sensibility is characterized by
an emphasis on individualism, empowerment, and self-regulation,
intertwined with the broader neoliberal context. Postfeminism
acknowledges feminist achievements but simultaneously implies
their redundancy in the contemporary era, often trivializing
ongoing feminist struggles. Negra’s (2009) analysis illustrates
how postfeminist media celebrates female achievements in male-
dominated spheres while subtly undermining feminist politics.
Gill’s (2007) approach, which emphasizes the study of
postfeminist media culture and necessitates a shift from relying
on a fixed, authentic feminism to drawing from postmodern and
constructivist perspectives for examining gender articulations, will
be relevant for the purposes of this study. According to Gill (2007,
p. 254) twenty-first-century media consistently highlights certain
themes and structures in the representation of gender, including
the embodiment of femininity; a transition from objectification
to subjectification; emphasis on self-surveillance, discipline, and
control; individualism; the power of choice; a paradigm of
reinvention; the interplay and intertwining of feminist and anti-
feminist ideas; the sexualization of culture; consumerism; and
the commodification of differences. While Gill primarily discusses
these themes in the context of femininity, they also offer a crucial
framework for examining masculinities in postfeminist contexts.
For instance, the portrayal of masculinity through both feminine
and homosexual gazes suggests a transition from subjectification
to objectification. Consequently, there is an emphasis on self-
surveillance, discipline, and control which can be explored in
how masculinity is represented and negotiated in media. The
power of choice and the paradigm of reinvention may reflect
the contemporary man’s wavering between traditional and new
masculinities, challenging and reshaping the boundaries of what it
means to be masculine in a postfeminist era. Therefore, employing
Gill’s framework to analyze these themes in the representation of
masculinities can uncover the ways in which gender is constructed,
performed, and contested in postfeminist media culture.
The so-called crisis in masculinity dates to the last century,
where male identity is depicted as fractured, vulnerable, and
constrained. In a patriarchal society, men are conditioned to be
rational and aggressive, neglecting their emotional and experiential
life. Many stereotypes lead to the entrapment of men within
these very stereotypes, with machismo emerging as self-destructive
and masochistic (Horrocks, 1994;Kimmel, 2017). Definitions of
manliness have evolved in response to feminism, and the crisis in
masculinity has set the stage for the emergence of hypermasculinity
and toxic masculinity (Kimmel, 1996). Hypermasculinity refers
to an exaggerated or extreme form of traditional masculinity
found in a heteronormative patriarchal society which emphasize
traits like physical strength, aggression, dominance, emotional
Frontiers in Sociology 03 frontiersin.org
Yakalı 10.3389/fsoc.2024.1320774
suppression, and the devaluation of characteristics and behaviors
perceived as feminine (Vokey et al., 2013). It often suggests a
firm belief in male superiority and performances of stereotypical
male gender roles associated with power, dominance and control
which contribute to issues such as sexism, misogyny, and violence
against women (Alonzo and Guerrero, 2009). Incels, or involuntary
celibates, also exemplify the resistance to postfeminist culture, often
exhibiting extreme forms of toxic masculinity, including misogyny
and violence, in reaction to their perceived marginalization in
romantic relationships (Stijelja and Mishara, 2022;Bogeti´
c et al.,
2023). This resistance underscores a clash between evolving gender
norms and deeply rooted patriarchal attitudes.
Gill (2016,2017) suggests that postfeminism should continue
to be used as a critical tool to understand the coexistence of
feminist and anti-feminist ideas within media culture. This study
positions postfeminism as a critical framework for unpacking
the interaction between feminist and anti-feminist narratives in
media culture to examine masculinities. The postfeminist media
and cultural landscape is characterized by a significant tension
between, on one hand, traditional, heteronormative masculinities
that valorise physical strength, dominance, and emotional restraint,
including its more problematic forms like hypermasculinity and
toxic masculinity, and on the other hand, the celebration of
alternative masculinities. This phenomenon can also be interpreted
as a “double entanglement,” applicable to the representations
of masculinities in postfeminist media culture. It refers to
the simultaneous incorporation and undermining of feminist
achievements within the media, thereby creating a complex
web of both progressive and regressive narratives surrounding
masculinities (McRobbie, 2008). The alternative masculinities
advocate for emotional intelligence, empathy, and the dissolution of
the binary between strength and vulnerability, encapsulating what
Gill (2014) identifies as “unheroic” masculinities.
Postfeminist media culture has significantly reshaped the
representation of masculinities. Tasker and Negra (2007, p. 21)
introduced the concept of postfeminist masculinity as a discourse
that celebrates the strength of women while offering subtle critiques
or gentle mockery of stereotypical masculinity. In simpler terms,
postfeminist masculinity portrays stereotypical masculinity as
foolish or comical, and at times, even portrays it as immature or
inadequate, with the intent of emphasizing the capabilities and
independence of women (Macaluso, 2018). Recurring depiction
of men as somewhat hapless or inept “victims” or “losers”
within the context of the “sex wars,” all the while presenting
feminism as extreme, outdated, and, in some cases, redundant
or unnecessary also becomes a part of postfeminism (Gill, 2014,
p. 191). Ken’s “blonde fragility” in the movie also refers to the
concept of the New Man in the 1980’s, which presented women
with “the possibility of an active female gaze” (Cohan, 2007, p.
182). Gill (2014) exploration of “unheroic masculinity” in popular
fiction reveals a departure from traditional portrayals of male
characters. Instead of embodying flawless heroism, these characters
display vulnerabilities and flaws, reflecting a broader critique of
traditional male dominance. This portrayal aligns with Connell
and Messerschmidt’s (2005) expanded concept of hegemonic
masculinity, which now includes subordinated masculinities that
challenge the dominant forms (Connell, 1995). In postfeminist
narratives, men are often shown as not always strong or in control,
a stark contrast to older ideas of manhood, suggesting a redefinition
of what it means to be a man in contemporary society.
Another genre within this landscape is lad flick films which
often humorously depict the juvenile nature of traditional
masculine values and ideals as the product of an anxiety-ridden
pursuit of collective male approval (Nixon, 2001). The comedic
tension in these films often stems from the male protagonist’s
struggle to live up to or maintain unrealistic versions of masculinity,
as dictated by their male peer group (Gill and Hansen-Miller, 2011,
p. 39). The concept that manhood is homosocial—that is, men need
to prove themselves to each other rather than to women—becomes
the main theme to be deconstructed (Kimmel, 1996). Eventually,
the “lad” character is compelled to grow up and overcome their
subordination to homosocial values to become a proper adult.
The narratives and character developments within lad flick may
reflect elements of “hybrid masculinities.” Hybrid masculinities
refers to a conceptual framework within the field of gender
studies that examines how contemporary masculinities incorporate
elements traditionally considered feminine or otherwise not
aligned with hegemonic masculinity (Bridges and Pascoe, 2014).
This approach suggests that men’s identities are increasingly
becoming a blend of traditional masculine norms and those
characteristics or behaviors that have historically been marginalized
or devalued in men.
Mocking hypermasculinity and toxic masculinity in movies
serves as a critique within postfeminist media culture. This form
of ridicule can subvert and question traditional narratives around
masculinity, introducing ambivalence by blending humor with
critique, thus reflecting the mixed sentiments of postfeminist
media culture. It enhances consumer appeal by making serious
critiques more accessible and entertaining, potentially normalizing
alternative masculinities by presenting them as preferable to their
hypermasculine and toxic counterparts. Ultimately, by engaging
with feminist discourse and challenging problematic aspects of
traditional masculinity, Barbie 2023 contributes to the ongoing
dialogue about gender norms, balancing critique with commercial
viability in a neoliberal context. While mocking hyper and toxic
masculinity might seem progressive, it can also provoke backlash
from those who feel their identities or values are being threatened
(Dosser, 2022).
It can be argued that postfeminist media landscape is an arena
for the so-called “gender wars” which aptly describes the ongoing
conflicts and debates in postfeminist media culture surrounding
gender roles and identities. These wars are characterized by
a reevaluation of traditional gender roles, a backlash against
feminism, and contradictory representations of empowerment. The
struggle for gender equality, negotiation of masculinities, and the
role of intersectionality in these debates further compound the
complexity of these wars (Gill and Donaghue, 2013). Digital and
social media have amplified these conflicts, providing platforms
for a multitude of voices and perspectives, sometimes leading to
polarization (Kolehmainen, 2012). The Barbie Movie becomes the
ultimate postfeminist icon of our media landscape by making these
gender wars the central theme of a film that has reached a wide and
diverse audience. It cleverly turns its critiques into a major theme,
generating billions in revenue, and counterattacks by positioning
Frontiers in Sociology 04 frontiersin.org
Yakalı 10.3389/fsoc.2024.1320774
Barbie as a “feminist” character who will liberate women from
their misery.
However, it must be noted that the Barbie 2023 Movie
is also a feminist text, as it suggests the real enemy in
gender wars is the patriarchal system rather than gender itself,
representing a significant and progressive narrative shift within
postfeminist media culture. This approach aligns it more closely
with feminist critiques of societal structures, moving beyond
individual behaviors, identities, or personal choices to address the
systemic foundations of inequalities.
1.3 The emplotment of the movie
The movie begins with a scene reminiscent of Stanley Kubrick’s
“2001: A Space Odyssey” and continues to build upon the scholarly
perspective that posited Barbie play as a means for young girls
to envision lives beyond the roles of wives and mothers. Then,
we go to Barbieland, a matriarchal society inhabited by various
Barbie and Ken dolls, along with a group of discontinued dolls who
face societal exclusion due to their unconventional traits. Barbie
grapples with existential concerns after experiencing physical
changes overnight, including bad breath, cellulite, and flat feet.
Weird Barbie, an outcast who functions as the mentor character,
informs Barbie that she must locate the child playing with her in
the real world to cure these afflictions. Ken secretly joins her on
this journey.
Their quest leads them to Venice Beach, LA, where Barbie
realizes that it is not a matriarchal society and that the goals of
feminism have not been attained. She stands up to a man who
gropes her, and this results in a brief arrest. When this draws the
attention of Mattel’s CEO, the firm orders Barbie and Ken’s capture.
Barbie eventually finds her owner, Sasha, a teen girl who criticizes
her for promoting unrealistic beauty standards and creating a
backlash of feminism. Barbie’s existential crisis mirrors that of
Gloria, Sasha’s mother, and a Mattel employee, who began playing
with Sasha’s old Barbie toys, unintentionally setting off Barbie’s
internal turmoil and existential crises. Mattel tries to put Barbie
in a toy box for remanufacturing, but with the help of Gloria
and Sasha, she escapes and returns to Barbieland, pursued by
Mattel executives.
Ken returns to Barbieland after learning about patriarchy and
shares his newfound knowledge with the other Kens. The Kens
assume control, relegating the Barbies to submissive roles. Despite
Barbie’s efforts to revert to the previous order, her attempts fail,
leading to her descent into depression. However, Gloria steps in and
delivers an empowering speech that addresses the contradictory
expectations placed on women in society, restoring Barbie’s self-
confidence. With the support of Sasha, Weird Barbie, and Allan,
Barbie and Gloria rally the Barbies to break free from their
subordination. They manipulate Kens into war, preventing them
from establishing male dominance in Barbieland.
The Barbies ultimately reclaim their power, having personally
experienced systemic oppression, and commit to rectifying the
flaws in their previous society. They emphasize the importance of
fair treatment for all, marking a significant shift in their approach
to governance.
Barbie and Ken reconcile, acknowledging their mistakes. Ken
struggles with his sense of purpose without Barbie, but she
encourages him to discover an autonomous identity. Barbie, still
uncertain about her own identity, encounters the spirit of Ruth
Handler. Ruth explains that Barbie’s story has no predetermined
ending, and her evolving history transcends her origins. After
bidding farewell to the Barbies, Kens, and Mattel executives, Barbie
decides to become human and return to the real world as an
“ordinary” woman.
2 Results
2.1 Structure of feeling and insecurity
Barbie 2023 Movie constructs a postfeminist story universe in
Barbieland. Postfeminist masculinity serves as an analytical lens for
understanding masculinity in the specific context of this movie,
where multiple aspects coexist simultaneously. The film suggests
that despite significant progress toward gender equality, achieving
some feminist goals, the overarching patriarchal system remains,
continuing to adversely affect people of all genders. This perspective
prompts a reevaluation of traditional gender roles and also shifts
attention toward issues related to men and masculinity.
One aspect of postfeminist masculinity explored in the film is
its invitation for us to reflect on the current state of masculinity.
A primary question it raises is to what extent does this hybrid
masculinity incorporate emotional expression? In line with lad
flick genre or unheroic masculinity of the postfeminist media
landscape, the film challenges traditional norms that discourage
men from openly expressing emotions or vulnerability. Ken who is
portrayed as childish and insecure challenges the conceptualization
of “heroic” men of the patriarchal narratives. It advocates the idea
that men possess feelings and should have the freedom to articulate
a full spectrum of emotions.
The initial impression we gather of Ken revolves around
his deep-seated insecurity and his desire to make a favorable
impression on Barbie. This sense of insecurity within the context
of Barbieland is explicitly articulated by the narrator in the very
first scene that introduces the stereotypical Ken, as well as the other
Kens, on the beach:
“Barbie has a great day every day, but Ken only has a great
day if Barbie looks at him.” (00:08:04)
In this scene, Ken injures himself while attempting to
impress Barbie by confronting the plastic waves. Shortly after,
we observe him engaging in a juvenile competition with the
Asian Ken, displaying readiness for a potential fight. However,
Ken also remarks that he would “beach him off” if he weren’t
severely injured, indicating an inclination for aggression. The
interaction between Ken and the Asian Ken encapsulates the
themes of hypermasculinity. These behaviors highlight the struggle
to adhere to exaggerated masculine ideals, fostering insecurity
about gender performance within their homosocial group. This
scenario resonates with Kimmel’s (1996) discussion on the crisis
in masculinity, where male identity is depicted as fractured and
constrained by patriarchal expectations. Ken also resonates with the
Frontiers in Sociology 05 frontiersin.org
Yakalı 10.3389/fsoc.2024.1320774
“lad flick” character who feels compelled to showcase his prowess
both within his homosocial group and to the Barbies. The Asian
Ken, in response, appears to belittle him, questioning why he’s
displaying such emotion. This interaction serves as a reminder
that both the expression of emotions and resorting to physical
conflict driven by emotions are viewed critically in our postfeminist
society. Consequently, throughout these scenes, we witness the
characters grappling with their identities and feeling insecure about
their gender performance. This portrayal aligns with the notion
of “hybrid masculinities,” where traditional and non-traditional
masculine behaviors coexist and often conflict (Bridges and Pascoe,
2014).
As they make their way to the hospital van, Ken is overcome
with desperation and clings to Barbie:
“Ken- Barbie, hold my hand!
Barbie- You’re okay.
“Ken- Stay with me, Barbie!” (00:10:25)
The doctor Barbie examines the X-ray film and confirms that
there is no fracture, reassuring Ken that he will be okay. In response,
Ken experiences a blend of relief and remorse for his previous
actions, and he replies:
“Shredding waves is much more dangerous than people
realize.” 00:10:32
Barbie answers with an unemotional tone:
“You’re very brave, Ken.”
Ken’s reliance on Barbie’s attention for validation and
his subsequent expressions of vulnerability and desperation
encapsulate the “double entanglement” of postfeminist media
culture (McRobbie, 2008). Ken’s actions, juxtaposed with
Barbie’s unemotional responses and insincere praise, critique the
traditional gender dynamics perpetuated by patriarchal society.
Barbie’s treatment of Ken, particularly in praising his “beaching,”
deconstructs the societal dynamic where women often bolster the
egos of men, a dynamic rooted in hegemonic masculinity (Tannen,
1992;Walker, 2020).
2.2 Ken’s existential crises
Ken undergoes an existential crisis, reflecting the broader
challenges faced by masculinity in the postfeminist era. He
experiences two distinct existential crises in the Movie. First, in
Barbieland, he grapples with a profound sense of identity loss. In
this fantastical world, he lacks agency, power, occupation, and even
a place to call home. He often serves as a mere sidekick or helper
during beach outings or parties. This mirrors the way women have
historically been positioned in a typical patriarchal society, often
relegated to secondary roles, or rendered invisible in the male-
dominated world. This also aligns with the dynamics of girls’ play,
where male figures frequently assume secondary roles.
The film’s exploration of Ken’s identity crisis and Barbie’s
encouragement for him to find self-definition beyond their
relationship directly engages with feminist critiques of traditional
gender roles and the concept of individual agency. Barbie’s response
to Ken’s existential dilemma is articulated in the words of Barbie:
“Maybe it’s time to discover who Ken is... you have to
figure out who you are without me. You’re not your girlfriend.
You’re not your house, you’re not your mink. . . . You’re not
even beach. Maybe all the things that you thought made you
aren’t... really you. Maybe it’s Barbie and... it’s Ken.” (01:35:25)
This echoes feminist calls for autonomy and self-realization
that challenge patriarchal structures which often define individuals
by their roles in relation to others.
Furthermore, the movie’s subversion of traditional gender
roles, as demonstrated through Ken’s vulnerability and search
for identity, aligns with postfeminist media culture’s approach
to gender representation. Postfeminism, with its contradictory
relationship to feminism, both utilizes and critiques feminist gains
by highlighting the limitations of traditional gender norms while
exploring the complexities of identity in the contemporary era
(McRobbie, 2004;Gill, 2007). For example when Ken says: “I
just don’t know who I am without you.” Barbie answers: “You’re
Ken.” He desperately goes on: “But it’s ‘Barbie and Ken.’ There is
no just “Ken.” That’s why I was created. I only exist within the
warmth of your gaze.” This kind of a subjectivity without agency
have been what feminism have challenged. Barbie’s encouragement
for Ken to redefine himself beyond societal expectations and the
“warmth of [her] gaze” resonates with the postfeminist emphasis
on individualism and self-regulation, albeit through a feminist lens
that advocates for the dismantling of restrictive gender norms.
Thus, the binary points of identification; and the dichotomous
ways of defining identities in a heteronormative relationship are
challenged. The film suggests that these conventional binaries are
being questioned or undermined in the context of gender and
identity politics. The postfeminist subjectivities, which are closely
connected to neoliberal consumerism under the auspices of choice
and empowerment, also call for reconsideration.
Ken’s second existential crisis occurs when he enters the Real
World. Here, he suddenly becomes aware of the presence of
patriarchy and the apparent dominance of men. However, he soon
realizes that merely being a man does not automatically grant him
a place in this world. To succeed, he needs education, financial
resources, experience, and qualifications, much like women do. He
also discovers that women hold various occupations, as evident
in the doctor scene, and that similar rules apply to both genders.
Therefore, in the postfeminist era, being a man in a patriarchal
society is not as straightforward as it may seem.
As Ken experiences an overwhelming sense of happiness upon
discovering that he has a place as a male in the Real World, he
becomes eager to learn more about it. He decides to visit the
library at Sasha’s school and ends up stealing a few books. This
act is a reference to the concept of bibliotherapy and reflects the
postfeminist world’s obsession with self-improvement through self-
help books, courses, and therapies (Cohan, 2007). In a society where
everyone is striving to find their place or narrative identity within
an ever-evolving context, Ken selects four books. This act serves
as a deconstruction of the self-help and makeover paradigm, with
Ken choosing the books: “The Origins of the Patriarchy” by Godfrey
Hogarth; “Why Men Rule (Literally)” by Richard Merritt and “Men
Frontiers in Sociology 06 frontiersin.org
Yakalı 10.3389/fsoc.2024.1320774
and Wars” and a last one titled “Horses” by Ryan Bessin, all of which
are fictitious books.
Subsequently, we witness his transformation of Barbieland into
Kendom, effectively giving it an extreme makeover through the
themes of these books. This time the film deconstructs patriarchy
through this paradigm and identifies the symbols of hegemonic
masculinity and deconstructs them.
2.3 Deconstructing hypermasculinity
through symbols
As he is unable to belong in the Real World, Ken returns
to Barbieland to enlighten the other Kens about the concept of
patriarchy. Ken’s transformation and the establishment of Kendom
within Barbieland offer an illustration of the makeover paradigm,
particularly in the context of gender roles and identities. The
makeover paradigm, often associated with postfeminist media
culture, typically emphasizes self-reinvention and transformation
as a path to empowerment. However, Ken’s humorous makeover
and the subsequent establishment of Kendom reverse this narrative,
showcasing a transformation that reinforces patriarchal and
hegemonic norms rather than challenging them. This twist also
provides a critical commentary on the limitations and potential
repercussions of the makeover paradigm.
Ken establishes Kendom by orchestrating the Barbies into
submissive roles mirroring those observed in the Real World.
Barbies obediently serve men beverages and food, offer foot
massages, and willingly embrace their subordinate positions.
Meanwhile, the Kens readily embrace and adopt any symbols and
acts associated with hegemonic, hyper or toxic masculinity that Ken
had observed in the Real World.
Ken’s initial appearance in traditionally “feminine” colors such
as pink, white, and turquoise and his later shift to “masculine”
colors such as navy blue and black reflect a deeper narrative on the
fluidity of gender identity and the performative nature of gender
roles, as discussed by Butler (1990). Ken’s appearance undergoes
a significant transformation in the movie. In the Real World, he
comes across a picture of Sylvester Stallone, inspiring his choice of
wardrobe. This includes a fur coat, a headband, a revealing six-pack,
and leather half-gloves that leave his fingers exposed. Moreover, he
wears three wristwatches simultaneously, prompted by an incident
where a woman asked him for the time, leading Ken to believe he’s
finally gaining respect and recognition in the Real World. He even
layers two pairs of sunglasses atop each other, thinking it looks cool,
though it renders him somewhat absurd. All the other Kens dress
in cowboy costumes.
Ken transforms Barbie’s dream house into what he calls “Ken’s
Dojo Mojo Casa House.” Parked outside is a robust, masculine van
used by the rangers. The space is stocked with sports equipment,
including American football gear, boxing gloves, golf equipment,
and a mini fridge for storing beer, which they seem to consume
incessantly alongside snacks. In every scene set in Kendom, a
visible jar of protein powder used by bodybuilders is featured. The
display of protein powder as a symbol of the artificial construction
of hypermasculinity aligns with Butler’s (1990) notion of gender
performativity. The emphasis on Ken’s six-pack abs as a result
of this artificial enhancement further illustrates the performative
aspects of masculinity, challenging the notion of hypermasculinity
as a natural or desirable state. This critique aligns with postfeminist
media critiques that often expose the labor behind seemingly
natural or effortless gender presentations, revealing the societal
pressures that dictate strict adherence to gender norms.
The saturation of Kendom with horse symbolism and Ken’s
revelation about “men extenders” articulate a critique of how
traditional symbols of power and masculinity are often leveraged
to reinforce male dominance (00:58:33). The movie’s exploration
of this symbolism, culminating in Ken’s realization about the
performative basis of patriarchal power, provides a commentary
on the mechanisms through which masculinity is asserted and
maintained in society.
This portrayal not only satirizes the exaggerated aspects of male
stereotypes and masculinities mentioned above but also critically
examines the societal norms and expectations that perpetuate these
behaviors. By presenting these traits in a hyperbolic and humorous
light, the narrative invites the audience to question and reflect
upon the underlying issues of gender inequality and performative
character of such attitudes. The film explores Ken’s development
to critique the makeover paradigm and the concept of the “gaze,”
noting how men, too, are objectified; it delves into gender fluidity
and the effects of hegemonic and toxic masculinity.
2.4 Subversion of masculinity traits
through uses of micro-power
The movie humorously presents the typical characteristics
of masculinity within a patriarchal context, using satire to
highlight these norms. When Barbie and Gloria decide to
harness men’s competitive nature, setting them against each other
in their quest for power, they cleverly exploit these common
traits and stereotypical characteristics. This strategy not only
reveals the often-unspoken rules governing gendered behavior
in a patriarchal society but also displays the artificiality and
absurdity of such expectations. By doing so, the film deconstructs
these established norms and deeply rooted performances of
masculinity that have long been prevalent in various forms
of representation. The narrative, therefore, becomes a tool for
questioning and challenging the status quo, encouraging viewers to
reconsider their own perceptions of gender and power dynamics in
contemporary society.
Gloria’s guidance on manipulating Kens through gendered
performances prompts reflection on the tactics women employ to
survive in a patriarchal society:
“Kens cannot resist a damsel in distress. You have to
make them believe that you’re complacent. That they have the
power. And when their guard is down, you take the power
back.” 01:17:31
“You have to be their mommies but not remind them of
their mommy.” 01:18:19
“Any power you have must be masked under a
giggle.” 01:18:22
Frontiers in Sociology 07 frontiersin.org
Yakalı 10.3389/fsoc.2024.1320774
“You can tell him that you’ve never seen The Godfather.
And that you’d love them to explain it to you.” 01:18:41
“You have to find a way to reject men’s advances without
damaging their egos. Because if you say yes to them, you’re a
tramp, but if you say no to them, you’re a prude.” 01:19:01
“Another one, be confused about money.” 01:19:12
“And then there’s pretending to be terrible at every sport
ever.” 01:20:03
Gloria’s instructions—acting complacent, masking power with
a giggle, pretending to be ignorant in sports or financial matters—
highlight how women often perform prescribed gender roles to
cope with the patriarchal structures that seek to define and limit
their agency. This performance is a survival mechanism within
a system that rewards women for conforming to subservient
and stereotypically feminine roles while penalizing them for
deviation (Yakalı-Çamoglu, 2017). Hence, the film goes beyond
merely mocking men and their ego in hypermasculinity; it also
deconstructs the conventional interpersonal dynamics between
men and women within a patriarchal framework. It reveals how
women have wielded micro-power in subtle ways and developed
various strategies to control men and their idiosyncrasies within
this system (Henley, 1973).
The humorous depiction of the Kens’ eagerness to “help” the
Barbies with sports serves as a critique of patriarchal courtship
rituals and the broader societal expectation that men should assume
a position of knowledge and authority. This scene also touches
on the concept of “mansplaining,” where men feel compelled to
explain things to women under the assumption that women lack
knowledge or expertise. The movie critiques the constraints of
performative gender roles across all genders, spotlighting both the
limitations on power and agency, and the ways women resist and
reclaim autonomy. This critique extends beyond merely depicting
the actions of one particular gender, addressing instead the broader
system and order that underpin these gender roles.
2.5 Doing gender, doing love
The portrayal of Ken’s interactions with Barbie in Kendom,
serves as a critique of toxic masculinity, illustrating how the film
deconstructs such behaviors through both narrative and character
development. Ken’s proposition to Barbie, offering her the option
to stay as his “bride wife” or “long-term-low-commitment-distance
girlfriend,” alongside his later aggressive behaviors, underscores a
satirical examination of toxic masculinity. These actions reflect not
only a desire for dominance but also an insecurity and entitlement
characteristic of toxic masculine norms. This is emblematic of the
behavior observed in certain incel or misogynistic subcultures,
where unreciprocated affection leads to aggressive and entitled
attitudes toward women (Lindner, 2023).
The film utilizes Ken’s character arc to highlight the absurdity
of such toxic traits. Ken’s transition from a character marked by
insecurity and a desire for Barbie’s approval to one who embodies
aggressive dominance and entitlement when he gains power in
Kendom mirrors broader societal critiques of how toxic masculinity
manifests. His insistence on Barbie serving him and the symbolic
act of discarding her dresses from the house represent psychological
aggression and control, further illustrating the toxic dynamics
at play.
This narrative strategy aligns with concept of gender
performativity, suggesting that gender identities, including toxic
masculine behaviors, are enacted performances shaped by societal
expectations rather than innate qualities. Moreover, the movie’s
humorous yet critical portrayal of these dynamics engages with
McRobbie’s (2008) notion of the “double entanglement” of
postfeminism, as it both utilizes and critiques traditional gender
norms to explore complex gender relations. Barbie’s response
to Ken’s behavior, marked by a mix of disdain and depression,
reflects the emotional toll of living in a society immersed in
toxic masculinity.
Another illustrative scene on the topic of gender and love is
the satirical depiction of Kens playing guitars to impress Barbies
on the beach. The guitar scene where multiple Kens simultaneously
play their guitars and sing the same song to Barbies on the beach,
creating a circle around a fire transforms the act into a repetitive,
predictable, and mundane ritual, thereby serving as a symbol that
exposes the performative nature of gender roles within romantic
contexts. This also critiques the authenticity of such performances,
suggesting they are more about conforming to societal scripts than
about genuine expression.
Furthermore, this scene directly engages with the postfeminist
critique of romantic narratives propagated by media and
culture. Postfeminism often explores the contradictions and
complexities within contemporary gender relations. The explicit
acknowledgment of the act’s performative nature in the dialogue
between Barbie and Ken serves as a meta-commentary:
“Barbie: That’s a beautiful song that you’re playing. Did you
write it?”
Ken- “Yes. You want to sit here and watch me do it, while
I stare uncomfortably into your eyes for 4½ min?”
Barbie- “I would love that.” (01:24:35)
Inviting the audience to question the authenticity and
spontaneity of gendered behaviors in courtship, the film
deconstructs traditional romantic rituals by exposing their
formulaic and performative aspects, thereby challenging viewers
to reconsider the ways gender and love are enacted and expressed
in society.
2.6 Men and wars
The film’s fight scene, drawing inspiration from the Normandy
attacks during World War II, unfolds on a beach—a setting
historically associated with the utmost seriousness of warfare,
combat, and sacrifice within the realm of men. However, in
this movie, the concept of war and fighting is subjected to
deconstruction, beginning with its underlying motivations. The
Kens engage in combat not due to any external threat but as a
result of psychological manipulation masterminded by the Barbies
who exploit the masculine egos and competitive performativity and
“petty jealousy” of the Kens. Barbies turn Kens against each other
to regain power. Consequently, the Kens are portrayed as rather
Frontiers in Sociology 08 frontiersin.org
Yakalı 10.3389/fsoc.2024.1320774
foolish, their egos are ridiculed, and they are intentionally depicted
as comical even within the context of a seemingly serious battle.
The deconstruction of the gravity associated with war and
death is exemplified through the choice of weapons. Drawing from
previous fighting Barbie narratives, such as in “Barbie and the
Three Musketeers,” the Kens employ unconventional items like
tennis rackets, gymnastic ribbons, beach balls, and toy archers as
their weaponry (Sheridan et al., 2009;Yakalı-Çamoglu, 2011). The
choice of unconventional weapons and attire, such as tennis rackets
and gymnastic ribbons, further diminishes the traditional gravity
of war and combat, presenting these elements in a playful and
absurd light.
Notably, Ken wears an Action Man attire comprising a black
leather vest adorned with tasseled epaulets. Epaulets, typically worn
by soldiers to signify their rank in the army, is only enjoyed
by stereotypical Ken played by Ryan Gosling. His black leather
trousers, along with a “Ken”-emblazoned black belt specially
crafted for him and adorned with thunder strike-like figures at the
bottom of the letters “K” and “N,” in addition to a black and white
headband, all serve as reminiscent of Action Man in action. Ken’s
costume amplifies this satire by drawing on childhood symbols
of masculinity.
Through a satirical deconstruction of traditional masculine
ideals, especially those tied to war and combat, the film critiques
and mocks stereotypical notions of masculinity. By staging a fight
scene reminiscent of historical warfare on a beach, then subverting
expectations with the characters’ motivations and actions, it not
only challenges traditional concepts of masculinity but also ties
into the broader discourse of gender wars mentioned in our
theory chapter. The Kens’ engagement in combat, driven not by
noble causes or external threats but by the Barbies’ psychological
manipulation of their egos and competitive nature, serves as a
microcosm of the gender wars. These wars are not just literal
battles but are fought on the psychological and social fronts,
where masculine behaviors such as aggression, competitiveness,
and the desire to assert dominance are revealed to be not innate or
inherently admirable but easily manipulated and subject to ridicule.
2.7 Depictions of hegemonic masculinity: a
critique of neo-liberal capitalist culture
In the movie, Mattel and its board serve as symbolic
embodiments of both hegemonic masculinity and the actors of
neoliberal capitalism. However, their portrayal is not one of
intelligence but rather cunning to the point of absurdity. They are
depicted as two-faced individuals who wield power; they are fully
aware of the need for political correctness but show little concern
for those with less power or for women.
Their headquarters is itself designed with a phallic shape and
they humorously acknowledge it. The interior of the building is
notably unexciting, exuding an industrial atmosphere characterized
by a monotonous gray color scheme and an abundance of dreary
cubicles. Within this structure, populated by exclusively male mid-
management personnel, the film paints a stark picture of the
“reality” of working life in a capitalist society. It becomes evident
that this portrayal does not depict a contented patriarchal existence
where every man finds fulfillment. Instead, the representation of
the male-dominated corporate environment is dull, emphasizing
the entrapment of both bodies and spirits for those who are a part
of it.
The employees’ monotonous and uninteresting work lives
sharply contrast with Barbie’s vibrant world and her colorful
fashion choices. The staff members are uniformly dressed in
plain canvas trousers and serious college sweaters, while the
boardroom is populated by men all wearing identical black suits.
Their unachieved determination to appoint women to managerial
positions appears to be a response to feminist pressures. The
film adopts a satirical tone when it portrays the embodiments
of hegemonic masculinity during the CEO’s speech, particularly
when Barbie expresses surprise upon realizing the stark difference
between the environment in the Mattel boardroom and her own
world in Barbieland.
Barbie asks:
“Are any women in charge?”
The CEO answers in a defensive manner
“Listen, I know exactly where you’re going with this, and I
have to say I really resent it. We are a company literally made
of women. We had a woman CEO in the 90’s. And there was
another one... at some other time. So that’s—that’s two right
there. Women are the freaking foundation of this very long
phallic building. We have gender-neutral bathrooms up the
wazoo. Every single one of these men love women. I’m the son
of a mother. I’m the mother of a son.... I’m the nephew of a
woman aunt. Some of my best friends are Jewish. What I’m
trying to say is... Get in the box, you Jezebel!” 00:46:37
This scene serves as a humorous critique of Mattel, shedding
light on the scholarly criticisms directed toward the company.
Furthermore, it acts as a reflection of the broader culture,
revealing that political correctness often serves as a mere facade.
In this postfeminist world, the treatment of women’s roles is
portrayed with a dual nature, akin to the two faces of Janus.
Hegemonic masculinity remains firmly entrenched in positions
of power, and feminism has only managed to make inroads into
discourse, without fundamentally altering the status quo. The
movie’s underlying critique suggests that those in positions of
power are willing to adopt subject positions in the culture if it
proves profitable, with little change in their core understanding
of femininity or any non-conforming subjectivity. It’s crucial to
recognize that the inclusion of this scene and the portrayal of
Mattel in such a light constitute the core feminist critique of the
Barbie Movie, as it targets the broader system rather than focusing
on individuals.
3 Discussion
In 2016, Gill observed a transformation of feminism from a
marginalized identity to a fashionable and “cool” presence within
mainstream youth culture. Yet, this shift often results in an uneven
focus on feminist issues in media, at times trivializing significant
concerns and rendering feminist activism with limited visibility
(Gill, 2016). The emergence of a neoliberal feminism, emphasizing
Frontiers in Sociology 09 frontiersin.org
Yakalı 10.3389/fsoc.2024.1320774
personal empowerment over collective societal change, calls for
a discerning critique. This trend commodifies feminism into a
marketable yet politically detached notion in media and celebrity
culture, necessitating a critical examination and challenge. Being
a part and parcel of this postfeminist cultural landscape, The
Barbie 2023 Movie steps into this discourse, sparking mainstream
discussions on feminism, patriarchy, and notions of masculinity.
This study posits that the Barbie Movie is deeply embedded
within the postfeminist media landscape. On the one hand it is
the ultimate postfeminist text but on the other hand it carves
out a niche for critical discussions on patriarchy, and evolving
concepts of masculinity. I have suggested that the film not only
commercializes feminist debates and the so-called gender wars
but also leverages the longstanding academic criticism directed at
Barbie to engage with these themes. Despite this commodification,
the movie contributes to the discourse on masculinity, gender
conflicts, and the systemic challenges influencing all genders. It
not only highlights the absurdity and malleability of traditional
gender performances but also points to the patriarchal structures
as the narrative’s true antagonist. In the realm of Kendom, Barbie is
perceived as the dominating force that Kens must contend with. In
the Real World, while men are at times portrayed as antagonists to
confront, the presence of a postfeminist masculinity embodied by
the executives of Mattell and Ken prompt us to contemplate how
the film frames the patriarchal system as the antagonist in all the
narratives it presents. By doing so, it underscores that the issue lies
not in the gender of those in power but in the patriarchal system
itself, advocating for systemic change over superficial fixes.
This analysis reveals the film’s layered critique, using satire
to comment on men’s competitive nature within patriarchy and
how women, like Barbie and Gloria, navigate and subtly subvert
these norms. Barbie 2023 Movie thus becomes a reflection
on postfeminist masculinity and the performative nature of
gender, challenging the audience to question the authenticity
of societal gender constructs. The film, with its humor and
satire, deconstructs the established symbols of masculinity within
patriarchy, highlighting the complex and often absurd nature of
these constructs. It sheds light on the performative aspect of gender
identities, emphasizing how individuals, including men, have an
existential crisis within our gendered society. It highlights the
notion that many of the “realities” we live by are merely facades,
janus-faced socially constructed illusions.
As Ken becomes the ultimate icon of postfeminist masculinity,
the film’s broader critique extends to capitalism’s role in
commodifying social movements, including feminism, urging a
deeper engagement with gender equality beyond the superficial.
It also underscores the potential of popular culture as a site of
resistance and critique, offering insights into the ongoing struggle
for gender equality and the reimagining of masculinity in the
postfeminist era. As such, the Barbie 2023 Movie is not merely a
reflection of current gender discourse in the postfeminist media
landscape but also opens a space for its evolution, inviting us to
rethink our roles and the potential for transformative change within
this landscape.
4 Further research
Audience reaction to the movie’s gender-related themes merits
further investigation in a reception research. Future studies should
include how individuals of diverse gender identities interpret
the movie.
Data availability statement
The original contributions presented in the study are included
in the article/supplementary material, further inquiries can be
directed to the corresponding author.
Author contributions
DY: Writing – original draft.
Funding
The author(s) declare that no financial support was received for
the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Conflict of interest
The author declares that the research was conducted in the
absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be
construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Publisher’s note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the
authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated
organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the
reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or
claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or
endorsed by the publisher.
References
Alonzo, D., and Guerrero, V. (2009). Hypermasculinity, intimate partner violence,
sexual aggression, social support, and child maltreatment risk in urban, heterosexual
fathers taking parenting classes. Child Welfare 88, 135–155. Available online at: http://
www.jstor.org/stable/45400432
Bogeti´
c, K., Heritage, F., Koller, V., and McGlashan, M. (2023).
Landwhales, femoids and sub-humans: dehumanising metaphors in incel
discourse. Metaphor Soc. World 13, 178–196. doi: 10.1075/msw.23005.
bog
Frontiers in Sociology 10 frontiersin.org
Yakalı 10.3389/fsoc.2024.1320774
Bridges, T., and Pascoe, C. J. (2014). Hybrid masculinities: new directions
in the sociology of men and masculinities. Sociol. Compass 8, 246–258.
doi: 10.1111/soc4.12134
Brill, A. (1995). “Barbie, My Liberator.”Howe, Florence. Re-visioning Feminism
Around the World. New York, NY: Feminist Press.
Butler, J. (1988). Performative acts and gender constitution: an essay in
phenomenology and feminist theory. Theatre J. 40, 519–531. doi: 10.2307/32
07893
Butler, J. (1990). Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity.
New York, NY: Routledge.
Carlin, S. (2023). The History Behind Barbie’s Ken. Available online at: https://time.
com/6296386/barbie-ken- history/ (accessed October 4, 2023).
Cohan, S. (2007). “Queer eye for the straight guise: camp, postfeminism, and the fab
five’s makeovers of masculinity,” in Interrogating Post-feminism:Gender and the Politics
of Popular Culture, eds. Y. Tasker and D. Negra (London: Duke UP), 176–200.
Connell, R. W. (1995). Masculinities. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Connell, R. W., and Messerschmidt, J. W. (2005). Hegemonic masculinity:
rethinking the concept. Gender Soc. 19, 829–859. doi: 10.1177/0891243205278639
Dosser, M. (2022). I’m gonna wreck it, again: the false dichotomy of “healthy”
and “toxic” masculinity in Ralph Breaks the Internet. Crit. Stud. Media Commun. 39,
333–346. doi: 10.1080/15295036.2022.2067347
Genz, S. (2009). Postfemininities in Popular Culture. New York, NY; London:
Palgrave Macmillan.
Genz, S., and Brabon, B. A. (2009). Postfeminism: Cultural Texts and Theories.
Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Gerwig, G., and Baumbach, N. (2023). Barbie. Burbank, CA: Warner Bross.
Gill, R. (2007). Postfeminist media culture: elements of a sensibility. Eur. J. Cult.
Stud. 10, 147–166. doi: 10.1177/1367549407075898
Gill, R. (2014). Powerful women, vulnerable men and postfeminist masculinity in
men’s popular fiction. Gender Lang. 8, 185–204. doi: 10.1558/genl.v8i2.185
Gill, R. (2016). Post-postfeminism? New feminist visibilities in postfeminist times.
Feminist Media Stud. 16, 610–630. doi: 10.1080/14680777.2016.1193293
Gill, R. (2017). The affective, cultural and psychic life of postfeminism:
a postfeminist sensibility 10 years on. Eur. J. Cult. Stud. 20, 595–771.
doi: 10.1177/1367549417733003
Gill, R., and Donaghue, N. (2013). “As if postfeminism had come true: the turn to
agency in cultural studies of ’sexualisation’,” in Gender, Agency, and Coercion. Thinking
Gender in Transnational Times, eds. S. Madhok, A. Phillips and K. Wilson (London:
Palgrave Macmillan), 14.
Gill, R., and Hansen-Miller, D. (2011). “Lad flicks: discursive reconstructions
of masculinity in popular film,” in Feminism at the Movies: Understanding
Gender in Contemporary Popular Cinema, eds. H. Radner and E. Pullar (London:
Routledge), 36–50.
Gill, R., and Scharff, C. (2011). New Femininities: Postfeminism, Neoliberalism and
Subjectivity. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Henley, N. M. (1973). Power, sex, and nonverbal communication. Berkeley J. Sociol.
1973, 1–26.
Horrocks, R. (1994). Masculinity in Crisis: Myths, Fantasies, and Realities. New
York, NY: St. Martin’s Press.
Kimmel, M. (2017). Angry White Men. New York, NY: Bold Type Books.
Kimmel, M. S. (1996). Manhood in America: A Cultural History. New York, NY:
Free Press.
Kolehmainen, M. (2012). Managed makeovers? Gendered and sexualized
subjectivities in postfeminist media culture. Subjectivity 5, 180–199.
doi: 10.1057/sub.2012.7
Lindner, M. (2023). The sense in senseless violence: male reproductive strategy and
the modern sexual marketplace as contributors to violent extremism. Adapt. Hum.
Behav. Physiol. 9, 217–251. doi: 10.1007/s40750-023-00219-w
Lotz, A. (2001). Postfeminist television criticism: rehabilitating critical
terms and identifying postfeminist attitudes. Femin. Media Stud. 1, 105–121.
doi: 10.1080/14680770120042891
Macaluso, M. (2018). Postfeminist masculinity: the new disney norm? Soc. Sci.
7:221. doi: 10.3390/socsci7110221
McDonough, Y. Z. (1999). The Barbie Chronicles: A Living Doll Turns Forty. New
York, NY: Touchstone.
McRobbie, A. (2004). Post-feminism and popular culture. Feminist Media Stud. 4,
255–264. doi: 10.1080/1468077042000309937
McRobbie, A. (2008). The Aftermath of Feminism: Gender, Culture and Social
Change. London: Sage.
Negra, D. (2009). What a Girl Wants: Fantasizing the Reclamation of Self in
Postfeminism. Abingdon, VA: Routledge.
Nixon, S. (2001). Resignifying Masculinity: From “New Man” to “New Lad”. Morley,
David and Kevin Robins. British Cultural Studies: Geography, Nationality, and Identity
(Oxford: Oxford University Press), 373–386.
Rakow, L. F., and Rakow, C. S. (1999). “Educating barbie,” in Growing Up Girls:
Popular Culture and the Construction of Identity, eds. S. R. Mazzarella and N. O. Pecora
(New York, NY: Peter Lang), 11–20.
Rand, E. (1995). Barbie’s Queer Accessories. Durham; London: Duke
University Press.
Reid, H. (2023). Global Retailers Cash in on Barbie Movie Craze. Reuters. Available
online at: https://www.reuters.com/business/retail-consumer/global- retailers-cash-
barbie-movie- craze-2023-07- 21/ (accessed July 21, 2023).
Reid-Walsh, J., and Mitchell, C. (2000). Just a doll? “Liberating” accounts of
barbie-play. Rev. Educ. Pedag. Cult. Stud. 20, 175–190. doi: 10.1080/1071441000220205
Rogers, M. F. (1999). Barbie Culture. London: Sage.
Saccone, E. J., and Chouinard, P. A. (2019). Barbie-cueing weight perception.
i-Perception 10:2041669519850590. doi: 10.1177/2041669519850590
Sheridan, K., Curry, T., and Lau, W. (2009). Barbie and the Three Musketeers. El
Segundo, CA: Mattel Entertainment. DVD.
Sherman, A. M., and Zurbriggen, E. L. (2014). “Boys can be anything”:
effect of Barbie play on girls’ career cognitions. Sex Roles 70, 195–208.
doi: 10.1007/s11199-014-0347-y
Statista (2024). Global Box Office Revenue of Barbie by Region Worldwide.
Statista. Available online at: https://www.statista.com/statistics/1401601/global-box-
office-revenue- barbie-by-region- worldwide/ (accessed January 18, 2024).
Steinberg, S. (1997). “The bitch who has everything,” in Kinderculture: The
Corporate Construction of Childhood, eds. S. Steinberg and J. Kincheloe (Boulder:
Westview), 207–218.
Steinberg, S. (2009). “Barbie: the bitch still has everything,” in Media/cultural
Studies: Critical Approaches, eds. R. Hamer and D. Kellner (New York, NY: Peter
Lang), 270–279.
Stijelja, S., and Mishara, B. L. (2022). Psychosocial characteristics of involuntary
celibates (Incels): a review of empirical research and assessment of the potential
implications of research on adult virginity and late sexual onset. Sex. Cult. 27, 715–734.
doi: 10.1007/s12119-022-10031-5
Tannen, D. (1992). You Just Don’t Understand: Women and Men in Conversation.
Time Warner Books.
Tasker, Y., and Negra, D. (eds.). (2007). Interrogating Postfeminism: Gender and the
Politics of Popular Culture. Durham; London: Duke University Press.
Toffoletti, K. (2007). Cyborgs and Barbie Dolls: Feminism, Popular Culture and the
Posthuman Body. London; New York, NY: I.B. Tauris.
Urla, J., and Swedlund, A. (1995). “The anthropometry of barbie: unsettling ideals
of the feminine body in popular culture,”in Deviant Bodies: Critical Perspectives on
Difference in Science and Popular Culture, eds. J. Terry and J. Urla (Bloomington, IN;
Indianapolis, IN: Indiana University Press), 277–313.
Varney, W. (2002). Of men and machines: images of masculinity in boys’ toys.
Feminist Studies 28, 153–174. doi: 10.2307/3178498
Vokey, M., Tefft, B., and Tysiaczny, C. (2013). An analysis of hyper-masculinity in
magazine advertisements. Sex Roles 54, 562–576. doi: 10.1007/s11199-013-0268-1
Walfisz, J. (2023). Global Box Office Takings Make Barbie the Biggest Film of
2023. EuroNews. Available online at: https://www.euronews.com/culture/2023/09/05/
global-box- office-takings- make-barbie- the-biggest- film-of- 2023 (accessed October
3, 2023).
Walker, A. M. (2020). Men Need Their Egos Pumped up Regularly“: Primary
Partnerships Sow the Seeds of Men’s Doubt. Chasing Masculinity: Men, Validation and
Infidelity (Cham: Palgrave Macmillan), 59–75.
Webb, J. B., Ford, N. M., and Meagan, P. P. (2023). Fashion versus fitspo:
the effect of viewing images of contemporary Barbie R
dolls in passive versus
active poses on college women’s body image and affect. Body Image 4, 201–209.
doi: 10.1016/j.bodyim.2023.03.004
Yakalı, D. (2024). Is she a feminist icon now? Barbie 2023 movie and a
critique of postfeminism. Stud. Media Commun. 12. doi: 10.11114/smc.v12i1.
6478
Yakalı-Çamoglu, D. (2011). Barbie ve Üç Silah¸sörler’i Okumak: Ataerkil Söylem,
Postfeminizm ve Çocuklar. Ileti¸sim Çali¸smalari Dergisi, Medya-Siddet-Çocuk Özel
Sayisi 2011, 50–71.
Yakalı-Çamoglu, D. (2017). Kaynana Ne Yapti, Gelin Ne Dedi: Ailedeki Kadinlar ve
Ili¸skileri. Istanbul: Ileti¸sim.
Yakalı-Çamoglu, D. (2020a). “Barbie: is she a postfeminine icon now,” in
Masculinity/Femininity: Re-framing a Fragmented Debate, eds. A. Cereda and J. Ross
(London: Brill), 97–108.
Yakalı-Çamoglu, D. (2020b). “Monstrous action-men and jealous princesses:
defining the villain in gendered narratives,” in Global Perspectives on Villains and
Villainy Today, eds. B. Genc and C. Lenhardt (London: Brill), 125–133.
Frontiers in Sociology 11 frontiersin.org
