Forgive me for posting some film commentary.
I really liked the Barbie movie. I think it is really smart, and somewhat subversive in how it makes its feminist arguments. (I will try to avoid spoilers.)
There are two main feminist arguments presented in Barbie. They are presented quite differently, and serve very different functions in the narrative.
The most important narrative driver of the Barbie movie is the idea that there is an essential emptiness in one gender living without power, without access to meaningful or purpose, other than to be seen and valued by the other gender. Ken voices that he is in this position very early in the film. This existential state — and its untenability — is there when the audience is first learning about Barbieland and addressed both by and in the film — to almost the very very end. This is part of Betty Friedan’s Feminine Mystique. The Barbie movie explicitly addresses the untenability of this sort of role, but inverts gender roles in order make the point. Nonetheless, this remains a powerful feminist thrust of the film, one of the most powerful feminist arguments of the 20th century, even though it is presented in the film as the state of men’s positions. It is not overly presented as a feminist argument or problem, just as Ruth Bader Ginsberg — before she was appointed to the courts — used male plaintiffs to illustrate how our society categorizes and determines sex role problematically.
The second main feminist argument in the movie comes from the middle aged mother, when she talks about challenges of being a woman amidst contradictory expectations that leave little room — or no room — for actual ordinary variation in experience and behavior from day to day.
In my view, the feminine mystique argument is about patriarchy, though the film does not make that claim. Of course, the film cannot make that claim, because the Kens do not live in a patriarchal world when they feel the effects of this dynamic. Yes, “patriarchy” is mentioned many times in the film, and something called “patriarchy” is a major element of the narrative. But this feminine mystique issue is not a part of any so-called “patriarchy” in the film, even though in the real world it is entirely a function of pervasive patriarchal expectations for social structures and relationships.
On the other hand, while I think that the mother’s explanations of problematic dynamics around dichotomous expectations for women are both powerful and importantly feminist, I think that it is a stretch to say that they are just about patriarchy. To claim they they all are rooted in patriarchy is the claim that all (social and interior) problems suffered by women are due to patriarchy. I believe that society’s subtle and overt, rare and pervasive, internalized and social subversion and undermining of women has broader roots than simply patriarchy, and it is too easy — to the point of intellectual dishonesty — to put them all at the feet of patriarchy. And this means that this second major feminist argument is actually not about actual patriarchy — despite how it is positioned in the film.
I walked out of the movie theater trying to figure out how anyone could seriously object to the its political contents and messaging, particularly object from the right. I suppose people who feel and say that patriarchy is good — and who use the word “patriarchy” to do so — should be offended by the film. After all, the film’s depiction of “patriarchy” does not address anything about patriarchy that they would defend. Certainly, the vapid Kens (spoiler alert!) do not come to any deep understanding or the nature or power of patriarchy. The only intelligent response from the right that I can imagine is, “If that’s what you mean by ‘patriarchy,’ I can see why you object to it. We object to that, too." As I have thought more (and hopefully deeper), I have realized that the film’s theme’s and idea’s relationship to patriarchy or even more complicated that that.
For example — to spoil a joke, though not anything about plot or character — the idea that love of horses is particularly a masculine or patriarchal thing is obviously false. Girls love horses, too. In our society, horses might even be stereotypically more a girl interest than a boy interest — and they certainly were growing up in my family.
Thus, while the Barbie movie — a fun film full of many funny moments — has a lot to say about feminism, certain ideas of masculinity, self-identity, Mattel, consumer markets, patriarchy, the challenges of being a women (or girl) and the nature (and significance) of Barbie, it quite often masks — or even mislabels — what is saying. Sometimes, it is explicit and on the nose. And sometimes, it is more subversively subtle than that. It twists these two main feminist arguments into an interesting plot and a — for me — politically satisfying resolution.
Barbie covers a lot of ground, and it should not be taken at face value or trusted to be presenting everything as obviously as it presents some things.