By Rich Lusk
I can’t believe I’m actually going to comment on the Barbie movie….but here goes.
A couple of disclaimers: First, I have not seen the movie and do not intend to any time soon, so this is not an attempt to review the movie. In general, I would refrain from commenting on a movie I have not watched, just like I would not talk about a book I have not read. But in this case, I’m really responding more to other people’s reviews and reactions to the movie.
Second disclaimer: I have never liked Barbie. We did not let our girls play with Barbie dolls when they were growing up for all the reasons you might imagine. In many ways, I think the Barbie doll concept represents all that is wrong with modern-day intersexual dynamics. Barbie, with her idealized figure and proportions, her materialistic accessories, her rejection of marriage and motherhood, her detachment from household and obligation to others, and so forth, has always been a damaging and (frankly) oppressive role model for young girls. Barbie has been a tool of the feminist agenda since she was first brought to market.
Barbie is a woman without any meaningful connection — no mother, no father, no husband, no children. She represents the essence of our hyper-individualistic, liberal society in which every person is a self-defining, disconnected atom. But those aspects of Barbiedom are not my main concern here. My purpose in this article is to comment on a few reviews I’ve seen of the movie from conservatives and what I think we can glean from them.
Two Reactions
There seem to be two basic reactions to the movie from the conservative side: There are those like Ben Shapiro, who trash it as feminist garbage and those like Alex Clark and Robin Harris, who tout its subversively traditionalist message, whatever the intent of its creators might have been. It seems to me the movie is very postmodern in that it is disjointed enough for viewers to get just about any message out of it they want.
I am obviously not in a position to adjudicate between the conflicting interpretations of the movie. But the one thing everyone agrees on is that the movie casts the patriarchy in a bad light. The patriarchy is the enemy, standing in the way of female happiness. The movie mentions the patriarchy over and over, always in a negative way. For Barbie to attain full self-actualization, the patriarchy must be smashed, and (apparently, according to the movie) that has not fully happened yet in our world. In response to this theme in the movie, I want to speak a word of defense on behalf of the patriarchy. But I also want to clarify what patriarchy means because I do not think the term is being used accurately.
The Case for the Patriarchy
In defending the patriarchy against the Barbie movie, I am not defending men today in general. In our culture, there is no shortage of scum bag men doing terrible things, treating women in horrific ways, and so on. Men can be evil, and many men in our society today are very evil indeed. But what men generally do cannot be conflated with the patriarchy.
What is the patriarchy? Why is the patriarchy blamed? What has the patriarchy done to wrong women?
Let’s evaluate this summary of what happens at the movie’s climactic moment from Harris’ review:
“Gloria’s speech at the climax of the movie names the impossible position of women under the patriarchy: women must be powerful but also unintimidating, sexy but also serious, intelligent but never critical, an attentive mother but also a powerful career-woman. Society then punishes women for not living up to the standard.”
This is manifestly not what the patriarchy is about. The patriarchy does not put women in this impossible position. The patriarchy actually protects women from this kind of impossible position. Wherever these demands come from, they are not from the patriarchy; they are not from the Christian tradition or the Bible, or nature. The patriarchy does not punish women for failing to live up to this set of standards. In fact, from what I have seen and from what many sociological studies observe, women are far more likely to put each other in this impossible position than men are.
Women tend to be more critical of each other than men are critical of women. Women are far more likely to attack one another’s life choices (e.g., think of the “mommy wars” in which women criticize one another for their choices about work/family balance). Women are far more likely to attack other women’s clothing choices and makeup choices than men. Women are far more likely to “slut shame” one another for being promiscuous than men are. Think of Mencken’s old quip: “A misogynist is a man who hates women almost as much as women hate each other.” In summary, women tend to be far harder on one another than men are on women in general. Women tend to put one another in the impossible position of manifesting contradictory qualities and living out contradictory roles.
This is not to say there is not a “sisterhood” in which women help and support each other; there most certainly is. But it is to say that most of these pressures women feel are not driven by the patriarchy. They are actually driven (ironically) by feminism, which tells women they can (and must!) “have it all.” It is not the patriarchy, but feminism, that requires women to play both roles, e.g., the traditional role of mother as well as the modern role of career woman. It is feminism that tells women they must not only be emotionally supportive of their families at home but also economically productive in the working world. I can certainly see why those demands frustrate women. But dismantling the patriarchy will not make those demands go away; indeed, it will only make them worse. The patriarchy actually relieves the woman of certain burdens feminism has placed on her. The patriarchy does not insist that women bring home a paycheck in addition to caring for young children. Rather, the patriarchy puts the burden of provision squarely on the shoulders of the man and thus frees the woman from the burdens feminism puts on her.
So what is the patriarchy, anyway? The word patriarchy simply means “father rule.” If we want to know what the patriarchy does and what it requires of women, we should look at fathers. What do husbands/fathers require of their wives? What do fathers do for their sons and daughters?
The essence of patriarchy is a man ruling his household in an orderly way (1 Tim. 3:4), with compassion (Psalm 103:13) and love (Ephesians 5:21ff). A true patriarch will not insist that his wife be an attentive mother and a career woman because, again, the patriarchal system puts the burden of provision on the man. The patriarchy does not demand that women be powerful in the same sense that men are powerful; the patriarchy appreciates femininity. Patriarchs want wives they are sexually attracted to (of course), but they want their women to dress modestly in public; the patriarchy does not pressure women to turn themselves into sex symbols/objects. If anything, the patriarchy is considered sexually repressive in a post-sexual revolution culture precisely because the patriarchal system requires strict sexual morality from both sexes.
What does the patriarchy look like in real life? The patriarchy is a man taking on extra hours at work so he can get his kids through college. The patriarchy is a man working two jobs so his wife can stay home with their newborn child. The patriarchy is a father telling his daughter she cannot go out dressed immodestly on a Friday night (how oppressive to keep her from objectifying herself!). The patriarchy is dear old dad taking it upon himself to vet his daughter’s date before prom. The patriarchy is a man getting out of bed in the middle of the night to check on that noise in the basement. The patriarchy is a man breaking his body to do a difficult and dangerous job he really doesn’t like for forty years so that his family can live in a nice house in a decent neighborhood and take the occasional beach vacation. In short, the patriarchy is about men using their masculine strength, energy, and gifts for the good of their household, for the preservation of their family line.
Normal, healthy men actually get a great deal of satisfaction in providing for their families. They embrace the breadwinner and protector roles as badges of manhood. The patriarchy is concerned with the household, with legacy, with honor. The abdicating, absent, or abusive father is not a patriarch worthy of the name — indeed, he is the very opposite of a patriarch. He is not ruling his household. (I agree with Michael Foster that it is possible to speak of two patriarchies in human history — a faithful patriarchy, patterned after divine fatherhood, and a Satanic patriarchy of evil men. But in another sense, the latter are not really patriarchs in any meaningful way. Satan is only a father in a metaphorical sense. He does not actually create or sire offspring. He does not protect and provide for anyone. He is not paternal. Jesus called the Pharisees sons of the devil but that does not actually make the devil a patriarch. He is actually the anti-patriarch, just as he is the anti-christ. So it is with evil, abusive, and abdicating men. A “baby daddy” who refuses to marry the woman he sleeps with is not building or ruling a household. The lazy, abdicating, or abusive man is failing in his fatherly roles, and thus, even if he physically sires offspring, he is not an archon.)
The Attack of the Patriarchy
What does the attack on patriarchy (whether in our society or the Barbie movie) mean? What does it mean to take down the patriarchy? The consequence is an attack on fathers and, thus, the promotion of fatherlessness. It should be no surprise that as feminism has gained influence in our culture, fatherlessness has become increasingly the norm. Today, more than 1 in 3 children does not live under the same roof as their dad. But when feminists talk about “smashing the patriarchy” today, they do not usually have fathers consciously in view, even though they use a word that invokes fatherhood.
Most women who complain about the injustices of the patriarchy today think of men who are their peers (not fathers) but have mistreated them because they have used them sexually. Or they are thinking of highly successful men who have filled the top-ranking corporate positions that ambitious women want for themselves (the thought that the man might have worked hard to get that job precisely so he could provide for his wife — a woman — does not seem to enter the equation). Patriarchy is viewed as a system that favors and privileges men simply for being men. But there are actually very few privileges men in our society receive simply for being men. Competent, qualified, diligent men will find doors opening for them. But lower-status, lower-quality men struggle. (Apparently, the Barbie movie makes this point, as Ken learns in the “real world” that simply being a man does not mean he gets high-status positions. Despite being male, He has to earn them through credentials and competence.)
(more…)
Read more