How predictable was it that the new Barbie film would be a vehicle for the worst anti-man prejudices of the modern era, with every male character either an idiot, bigot or loser? Sarah Vine gives her verdict in the Mail, saying that she feels sorry “for those who subscribe to this nonsense — and for the young men growing up in a world that tells them they’re worthless”. Here’s an excerpt.
Every one of the screens in the place had been commandeered by Barbie. I took my daughter Bea, 20, with me — partly because she’d nagged me half to death about coming, partly as an unsullied Gen Z counterpoint to my grumpy mummy stance on Barbie.
Despite the tagline — “If you hate Barbie, this is the film for you” — I didn’t really think I was likely to be the target audience. And so it transpired. She loved every second; me, not so much.
My main criticism, actually, has nothing to do with the subject matter. Barbie or no Barbie, it’s not intrinsically that good a film. It’s uneven, disjointed, the plot makes no real sense — and the dead hand of corporate America weighs heavily upon it.
For sure, Mattel is superficially mocked in the shape of a bumbling CEO and his be-suited sidekicks. But the opening scene, in which a group of little girls smash their boring ‘old‑fashioned’ dolls’ heads in, with alarming violence, at the appearance of their Barbie messiah, is actually quite sinister. As is the appearance of the ‘ghost’ of Ruth Handler, Barbie’s inventor, as some sort of God-like figure.
But my main objection is that Barbie is not really a film about Barbie at all. It’s one hour and 54 minutes of extended misandry, dressed up with a few fun dance routines and one or two (granted fairly decent) jokes.
It’s a deeply anti-man movie, an extension of all that TikTok feminism that paints any form of masculinity — other than the most anodyne — as toxic and predatory, and frames women’s liberation not as a movement based on achieving equality between the sexes but as a cultural revenge vehicle designed to write men out of the story altogether.
Every male character is either an idiot, a bigot or a sad, rather pathetic loser. If the roles were reversed, and a male director made a film about how all women were hysterical, neurotic, gold-digging witches, it would be denounced — quite rightly — as deeply offensive and sexist.
In a nutshell, Barbie and Ken set off on an adventure to the real world to discover the source of Barbie’s sudden and uncharacteristic anxiety. Barbie gets a nasty shock — she’s not as universally popular as she imagined. Ken, on the other hand, has a tremendous time, plugging into the macho culture of LA and discovering that there is such a thing called the ‘patriarchy’.
He then turns into a ‘real man’ (again, sketched in the most one‑dimensional of clichés), goes back to Barbie Land, organises the equivalent of an incel uprising (quite literally, given Ken’s lack of tackle) — and brainwashes all the Barbies into becoming his willing slaves. Strong Andrew Tate vibes, put it that way.
Queen Barbie, a.k.a. Margot Robbie, must then mobilise a counter-revolution, which she does with the help of her human friends — mother and daughter duo Gloria and Sasha. Using their Barbie wiles, they put the Kens back in their boxes. The film ends with her checking into a gynaecology clinic, presumably so she can become a ‘real’ woman.
It only goes to further confirm the infamous double standards of woke culture, where despite the railing against ‘oppressive’ stereotypes, all the worst stereotypes are levelled at any demographic group (men, white people, older people, etc.) seen as falling into the facile ‘privileged’ class.
Worth reading in full.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
Short drop.
There seems to be a common denominator for stabbings and rapes: white victim, non-white perp. But if you point out this observation you’re a “far right, racist extremist”. Trouble is, the white traitors in positions of authority side with said perpetrators. Europe is importing ( and failing to deport ) dangerous individuals. This is irrefutable fact. We pass through way more in the way of security checks at the airport prior to boarding a plane than any of these incomers go through before being let loose on British soil and allowed to come and go from their digs as they please, rubbing shoulders with the unsuspecting public.
Another horrific case that seems to have fallen off a cliff: does anyone remember the young girl who was stabbed in London? She and her mother were visiting from Australia, and the girl was seriously injured. The attacker was arrested at the scene. It might have been Trafalgar Square. I don’t remember seeing any updates or news of a trial for that either. I don’t even know if the girl made a full recovery.
And this horrible b***** gets to sit in a comfy jail cell, paid for by us, and probably added to the Islamist ranks. Makes me sick.
It just amazes me, really. He couldn’t have been a genuine asylum seeker if that’s the first thing you think of doing while they deal with your claim. I mean, people pay all that money to traffickers, go through such an arduous journey to get here then just go ahead and kill/attack one of the natives when they get here! Who TF does something like that if they’re genuine about fleeing persecution/war or are an economic migrant who’s serious about wanting a better life?
It’s literally like these third world shitholes have emptied all their prisons and mental asylums, given them the fee and said “Off you go. Europe’s that way!” And off on their journey they go. Absolutely moronic.
“Who TF does something like that if they’re genuine about fleeing persecution/war or are an economic migrant who’s serious about wanting a better life?”
Exactly.
The start of the trial should begin by telling the perp that his actions have proven that he is not an asylum seekers and he is confirmed as an illegal immigrant. A bit late though after the short drop I suppose.
I wish I’d shared it when I read it but didn’t have the time, but I read a few weeks back about two Syrian migrants ( in Germany I think ) who fell out of a window where they were staying, and one man then raped the other, who had broken his fall, as he lay there critically injured. The mind boggles, honestly. We’ve had incidences here of volunteers ( i remember one Turk ) at children’s petting zoos found having sex with the animals. Staff became suspicious and planted cameras and caught them having sex with a cow and a pony. To call them “uncivilised” would be the understatement of the century.
Many times though, much like the UK, they’ll refer to suspects of serious attacks, such as the recent bombing of an apartment block in The Hague, which killed six, critically injured four, or the stabbing of a young woman on her bike, as “Amsterdam man” or “Rotterdam man”. Nice and vague. Well I know where my mind immediately gravitates, based on revelations from many, many similar news stories.
If ethnicity is not disclosed I automatically conclude the perp is a sun-tanned muzzie.
Low IQ, Somali crap. Somalia had produced nothing of benefit, only people who are a drain on the planet.
Given the cultural and juridical norms of where he’s from, it would seem reasonable to tie him to a steel chair bolted to the ground and beat him with a baseball bat and the pull his teeth and fingernails out until he confesses.
There’s plenty of Pakistani fathers of young girls who are pretty au fait with this kind of thing.
Sometimes you’ve gotta be cruel to be kind.
What enrages me every time an incomer commits a crime, however minor (or serious in this case), the scumbag socialist commentators are rolled out to say that the incidence of crime is greater in the domestic population and we shouldn’t know where these criminals come from as it is not right to tar them all with the same brush. But this ignores one critical point, if you are welcomed into someone’s home you should go out of your way to behave well. Therefore the incidence of crime amongst incomers should be close to zero not just below the national average and as we know, in some cases it is massively above.
Yes exactly. For a migrant who’s genuine and wants to make a go of things in a Western country, I’d say a pretty obvious first rule would be, “Don’t harm or kill any of the local population”. Don’t commit any crimes at all and abide by our laws, obviously, but not killing or raping natives should kind of be a no-brainer, one would assume. That’s why I think loads ( i wouldn’t like to guess at a % as I’d be plucking numbers out of thin air ) of migrants are known criminals where they come from. In fact, I can only think of two reasons why someone would want to ditch their I.D before they arrive: they intend to pass themselves off as minors or they’ve a criminal record. Of course, in many of these corrupt and lawless countries, you can be a pro at committing crimes as we would view them over here, but in their culture many acts are not viewed as crimes at all. The treatment of females, gays and religious minorities, being obvious examples. Oh, abuse of animals too. I don’t think they’re awfully big on animal welfare in many Islamic countries.
I hope that someday people will understand the real motive behind all these horrific rapes, stabbing attacks, throat-slitting, beheadings and murders by Muslim immigrants worldwide.
It is the most fundamental requirement of their religion, that cannot be fulfilled within their own Muslim countries, where everyone is Muslim.
NO MUSLIM MAN, WOMAN OR CHILD can be GUARANTEED ENTRY to their Paradise Brothel with 72 Virgins & “Boys Like Pearls”,
UNLESS THEY HAVE KILLED AN INFIDEL,
or Died trying to kill one,
ANY WAY THEY CAN.
They only celebrate if the victim dies, for only then have they “won” their entry ticket to Paradise. If the victim survives, no matter how horrifically injured, the Muslim attacker must attempt murder again, according to the precepts of his or her “faith”, which they carefully conceal from Gullible Westerners.
This requirement to perform human sacrifice is exactly the same as in Satanism. Hindus also perform human sacrifice, especially of their own children, but killing a non-Hindu is not required in Hinduism.
I know what I’d like to do to them.
Why does the victim in this article get referred to simply by her surname, without the dignity of a respectable honourific title, yet the oxygen-theiving PoS accused of killing her gets respectably referred to as ‘Mr’..?
May God bless you for noticing that.
And may God rest the soul of Miss Rhiannon Skye Whyte.
I remember years ago asking a lawyer why some defendants, who can speak perfectly good English in police interviews, turn up in court asking for a translator. He replied that he recommended that approach from his clients for two reasons. Firstly it meant that they could hear the question from the prosecuting KC (which they could understand perfectly) and use the time that the translation was being given to compose themselves before giving a response thus being far less likely to slip up. Secondly, they could claim that something illegal they had done was entirely or partly down to a miscommunication problem (eg: ‘the English word no sounds similar to the word in my language for yes’).
As long as the right for people who can claim English is not their first language to a translator is maintained this abuse of the system will continue
Some psycho has gone and shot 5 men around the migrant camp in Dunkirk. It’s breaking news so expect updates. Are they going to spin this as some “far right extremist” attack, do you think? Likely. I can’t see it being a migrant targeting fellow migrants, so that’ll work out well for their narrative, then.🙄
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2024/12/14/five-killed-by-lone-gunman-dunkirk-migrant-camp/
So as usual this countrys citizens are footing the bill for the Governments complete disregard for us, firstly Rhiannon and every other victim, and then the taxpayers, for this scum, in this case, whom I am perfectly sure does understand exactly what he has done, and doesn’t care, as he will have it cushy in prison, and will then be housed and paid benefits when released. How many more lives have to be lost/ruined??.
Obviously Rhiannon would be alive now had it not been for the “suicidal empathy” that is the open borders fiasco and the treacherous Uniparty governments. But her and how many others natives have been killed/raped/attacked by migrants so far, in whatever time frame you care to choose? This is the sort of info, which should be available anyway, but we know why it’s not, that Rupert Lowe is attempting to prise from the government, because a simple FOI request won’t even cut it. Other countries keep this information so I don’t buy the cover story that the UK does not.
Has Hope Not Hate warned yet of potential riots in 100 towns and cities by “far right” groups objecting to this “alleged” murder of a white woman by an asylum seeker?
Yes it’s ironic, isn’t it? Where are all the ”refugees welcome” muppets, who are all too happy to label protesting farmers as ”Nazi scum”? Radio silence. Probably already known to many but will surprise precisely nobody, but the Home Office has funded HNH in the past;
”And the 2020 Annual Report of HNH Charitable Trust (HNHCT) shows it received funding from the Home Office Counter Extremism Unit which gave it three grants totalling £75,401 in 2019, and a further £12,500 in 2020.”
https://www.conservativewoman.co.uk/hope-not-hate-the-charity-built-on-deceit-part-two-2/
Charlotte Gill has done extensive research on who funds HNH, here;
https://www.charlottecgill.co.uk/p/who-funds-you-hope-not-hate-case
I thought the organisation was called Hate not Hope.
It should be as it’s certainly more appropriate.
‘Amjad Malik, Mr. Majek’s barrister,’ Ah, I see the usual legal suspects defending fellow Afro immigrants/Muhammadan believers. We know what is going on.
The civil war is not far away.