There isn’t any arguing that Shakira is a feminist icon. Getting into the 12 months on the heels of a really public cut up from her long-term companion and the father of her two sons, Gerard Piqué, she managed to take a painful expertise and switch it right into a shared triumph. Her newest studio album, “Las Mujeres Ya No Lloran,” is a testomony to independence and the power that comes with it. It is a sentiment that many, particularly girls, will have the ability to relate to. In her current Attract cowl interview printed on April 1, Shakira delves into what that power seems like and what it means to be a lady therapeutic in the present day. However one factor that stood out from the interview was the singer’s controversial tackle one other feminist popular culture pillar: the “Barbie” film.
Shakira shares her sons “completely hated” the movie as a result of they “felt it was emasculating.” “I like popular culture when it makes an attempt to empower girls with out robbing males of their chance to be males,” the singer says.
And whereas a part of me understands that response, I can’t assist however respectfully disagree along with her. Feminism is not only a concept, it is a follow, and completely different folks follow it otherwise. Shakira not liking the “Barbie” film does not make her much less of a feminist. Nonetheless, her opinion of the movie is one shared by a vocal minority, and one I’ve heard reiterated by a number of males (and right-wing politicians like Ted Cruz), a lot of whom will not even see a “lady’s film.”
So, as a person who not solely completely loved “Barbie” however discovered the message to be extra delicate than “males suck, girls are higher,” I needed to look at how so many individuals may misconstrue Greta Gerwig and Noah Baumbach’s script. For starters, the film does not painting males as bubbly and shallow characters only for the sake of emasculating them. The film portrays them as what they’re: victims. The Kens have been robbed of any actual company and alternative to be something greater than eye sweet by Barbieland’s matriarchy, a system that, conversely, locations girls in each main position all through society. Sound acquainted? It’s the precise reverse of a patriarchy and but nonetheless manages to realize the identical outcomes: oppression of the reverse intercourse.
Sure, a lot of the Kens’ dilemma and ensuing takeover of Barbieland sees the dumb dial turned as much as the max — taking the piss out of machismo tradition. However at its core, it is a commentary on the significance of being valued on a societal degree. At each nook, the Kens are marginalized in the society they serve. This places them at odds with the Barbies — not with girls. As a substitute, the Kens’ battle is supposed to parallel the battle girls expertise in actual life. It additionally exhibits how patriarchy may be damaging for the males it empowers.
By adopting patriarchy, the Kens rope themselves into accepting the usually inflexible standards to which males should conform to be thought of manly. Therefore, the overabundance of cowboy hats, vehicles, horses, and Mojo Dojo Casa Homes, no matter whether or not or not the particular person Ken has an affinity for these items. They achieve energy, sure, however they’re nonetheless denied individuality, solely this time by their very own hand.
Shakira mentions that “males have their objective too” and that “she desires her sons to really feel highly effective . . . whereas respecting girls.” However that is precisely the observe the film ends on. For the first time, the Kens are allowed to determine what their position in society might be. And for the first time, it will not be centered round supporting the Barbies’ needs or wants, however as a substitute on what they need for themselves.
However what about the notion that the film “emasculates” the males? Certain, the Kens may have had extra depth than having “seashore” as a job, however I do not assume it might have been as humorous or as efficient an allegory for the lack of company that comes with oppression. I did not discover it emasculating. However I do discover the uproar round it telling.
As an afropuertorriqueño, I do not usually profit from narrative plurality, or the existence of a mess of movies, exhibits, or different media that showcase my folks in a wide range of completely different roles and views. However as a person? Completely, I do. I can activate my TV proper now and discover a film a few badass killing machine who loves canine (“John Wick”), a present a few bodily missing, uncared for little one who makes use of his wits to outsmart and outlive a number of empires (“Sport of Thrones”), a film a few reluctant savior who inherits his mom’s magic and his father’s kingdom and makes use of each to grow to be a literal fucking messiah (“Dune”), and the record goes on. Narrative plurality signifies that there are sufficient optimistic depictions of characters like us that the unfavorable depictions do not maintain as a lot weight. Or no less than you’d assume.
However you make one film wherein the males — or on this case the Kens — are portrayed as superficial equipment in fixed competitors for the affections of a lady and don’t have any objective apart from to service her needs, and it undoes all the remainder of it. Maybe, in the identical vein, we must always contemplate the influence of the unfavorable portrayals of girls and folks of shade on display screen.
Miguel Machado s a journalist with experience in the intersection of Latine id and tradition. He does the whole lot from unique interviews with Latin music artists to opinion items on points which might be related to the group, private essays tied to his Latinidad, and thought items and options regarding Puerto Rico and Puerto Rican tradition.