There are a lot of ideas to unpack and discuss from the Barbie movie, which people are doing all over the internet right now. I didn’t think I had anything particularly unique from an LDS woman’s perspective until a few days ago, when I found myself thinking about Ken and how he experienced his world in Barbieland. It was actually a lot like my own experience growing up in the eighties and nineties in Utah as a devout Mormon girl.
For those who haven’t seen the movie but want context for my blog post, here is my basic summary of the parts of the story that apply to what I’m going to be talking about:
The movie starts in Barbieland, where all of the roles are reversed from the Real World. Barbies rule everything, and just like the dolls, women are the lawyers, judges, construction workers, doctors, supreme court justices, and even the president. The Kens are there, but only as accessories. They don’t have their own jobs, paychecks or houses. They depend on the Barbies to invite them to the parties and activities and the men just exist in the background of the women, who receive all of the accomplishments and accolades.
Barbie and Ken leave Barbieland for the Real World, where to Barbie’s shock and Ken’s delight their roles are completely reversed. Men make up most of the jobs that are reserved for women in Barbieland. They are the police officers, the doctors and the top businessmen. Ken goes into the library and finds books about patriarchy, and to his astonishment learns for the very first time in his life about a system where the men are the ones with all of the power. While Barbie is busy in the Real World, he slips back to Barbieland and explains patriarchy to all of the other Kens and they take over.
Just like Ken had spent his entire life in Barbieland unaware there could be any other way to live, I also grew up in a system of deep inequality that I couldn’t recognize at the time.
I was a senior in high school in 1998/99, and my stake created a new calling for laurels and priests that year. They called one boy and one girl to be the president of a stake laurel’s presidency and a stake priest’s presidency (this may or may not be exactly what they called it, because I’ve forgotten). Each president called two counselors and a secretary. I can’t remember what we did, but it was probably planning things like dances and youth conference, and I remember speaking in Sacrament Meetings a few times.
Jenny (not her real name) was called as the stake laurel’s president, and I was honored when she called me as her first counselor. Jenny was really smart, talented and kind, and she was a natural leader. I was thrilled she’d picked me for that role over everyone else in the stake.
The priest they called for the boys’ president was a confusing choice, on the other hand. I think the adult stake leaders were possibly trying to reactivate him by giving him this calling. He was not on top of anything, and he frequently slept in and missed our Sunday morning meetings. I remember one of his counselors getting angry with him during the school year over something and telling the girls he didn’t want to serve under him because of how he was behaving. Another night both presidencies were driving somewhere (Jenny was driving the girls in her car, and this boy was driving his presidency in his), when we saw him swerving dangerously on the road in front of us. We found out a few minutes later that he’d been trying to run over birds he saw perched in the road like some kind of deranged future serial killer. I could not believe this was the guy Heavenly Father wanted to give this calling to.
What did not bother me at the time was the fact that all final decisions were turned over to this boy, not Jenny. In the pattern of the church, the presiding priesthood authority would take everyone’s counsel into consideration and then make the judgment call on how to proceed. They were clearly training us to be future leaders in the church and wanted us to gain experience with this youth calling. Because this boy frequently skipped our meetings and was impossible to track down for days at a time (this was before the age of cell phones), many decisions were held up, waiting for him to decide. Jenny was the much more qualified and engaged teenage youth leader, but because the boy held the priesthood and she didn’t, he could make final decisions and she never could. I was frustrated by his lack of participation, but never once frustrated at the system. While it would’ve infuriated me anywhere else (like if the high school student council rules insisted that decisions were always to be made by the boys), I didn’t even question it in a church setting.
The year before all of this, Jenny and I had been in the same seminary class. One morning a female student was applying mascara at her desk before class started. A boy started to tease her about not getting ready before school, and our male seminary teacher told us about a challenge he’d given in the past to students that all girls had always failed at. He’d challenge students to get up and come to school every day for a week without looking in the mirror once in the morning, and he’d offer some kind of prize for those who managed it. It was hard for the boys, but they could do it. The girls however – they always failed. They had to put on makeup and fix their hair and see what they looked like.
The implied conclusion to his social experiment was that girls are too focused on their looks and thus more vain than the boys. As the guys chuckled about this with their teacher, Jenny stood up to them by saying, “You make fun of us for spending so much time getting ready, but if we showed up at school without makeup on you would complain about how ugly we all looked. Girls are supposed to always be beautiful for you to look at, but somehow we aren’t allowed to spend any time making ourselves beautiful?!”
Her bravery standing up to those boys and that teacher reminds me now of the speech given at the end of the Barbie movie where the impossible standards women are held to are laid out. (If you haven’t seen the movie and want to read this speech, here’s a link where you can read the entire thing.) Looking back I realize that girls in my high school were very restricted in ways we could access power, and looking pretty was our major tool. Individually we were limited in our ambitions, but if we became beautiful and appealing enough we could snag a man who did have real power. (For example, I heard many girls say, “I want to be a mission president’s wife someday!”, which is honestly not very different than Ken crying near the end of the movie and saying, “I don’t know what I am without you, Barbie! It’s supposed to be Barbie *and* Ken.” Ken and LDS women are too often viewed not by their own unique abilities, but by the romantic partner they were able to attract to themselves.)
As a real life example of this, here’s a post from The Church News on Instagram last week:
This is a post about Patricia Holland’s own funeral, but they don’t even say her name. They only call her “Sister Holland” yet use her husband’s full name (including the middle initial) and talk about his church calling before mentioning hers (and it doesn’t specify what her calling was).
The correct way to say this would’ve been: “Family members gather for the graveside service of Patricia T. Holland, former counselor in the general Young Women’s presidency. She leaves behind her husband, Elder Holland.”
They used his full name, but not hers, and led with his church calling, not hers. It’s HER funeral. She’s the one they’re supposed to be honoring! Women in the church as often treated as an accessory (like Ken) to their husbands rather than being seen as unique individuals with their own accomplishments.
Getting back to my stake calling as a senior in high school, the fact that even smart, brave Jenny never questioned the unfair system we were in makes me realize how hard it is to recognize inequality when it’s all you’ve ever known.
Ken had zero reference for any world where the Barbies weren’t automatically in charge of everything or where he could potentially have any job he wanted, rather than just “beach”. Just like girls in my high school wanted to look pretty enough to attract the interest of a boy who could grow up to become powerful, Ken desperately wanted to look cool enough that Barbie would notice him. He had no other means of advancing in the Barbieland society other than being acknowledged and accepted by Barbie. As a Mormon girl or as a Ken doll, your power comes from your looks and being noticed by someone else who has real power. By contrast a Mormon young man or Barbie had many other ways to gain self-worth, so they weren’t nearly as insecure about their looks.
High school ended, I graduated from college, got married and had three kids. When I was thirty two years old, I read this brief story in a packet of material produced by Ordain Women:
Just like Ken when he found books on patriarchy at the library and was introduced to the idea, this was my first time exploring the concept as an adult woman. I googled phrases like “Is patriarchy a bad thing?”. As both Ken and I embarked on our respective journeys to learn about patriarchy, he became more and more excited and I became more and more ill at ease. My entire life I’d only heard variables of the word “patriarchy” in positive contexts – patriarchal blessings, patriarch of the home, stake patriarch, the patriarchal grip. Nobody had ever suggested it wasn’t the best way to live life to me until I started reading an entire internet full of reasons why it might not be.
Not very long before my personal patriarchy deep dive was the first Wear Pants to Church Day by Mormon feminists in late 2012, when I was thirty one. I lingered after Sunday School that day chatting with a male neighbor, friend, high councilman (and future bishop) of mine. This man asked me for my opinion on Pants Day, and I told him, “I love wearing dresses, actually. I like to get dressed up and feel girly, and Sunday is my only day to really do that. I don’t want to wear pants on Sundays!” As soon as the words had left my mouth, I knew that I was oversimplifying the entire movement, and that I’d just told a man what I knew he’d want to hear from me rather than really investigating the ideas and forming my own opinion on the matter. I had picked the answer the patriarchy expected from me, even though I hadn’t quite learned what the patriarchy was yet. My instinct told me this was a man on his way up the priesthood leadership ladder, and I wanted him to have a good opinion of me.
So when I hear an LDS woman exclaim, “I love the way this church treats women!” I have so much compassion and understanding for that statement, even though I disagree. I would’ve said the exact same thing myself right up to the day I first googled “Is patriarchy bad?”. Ken would’ve said he was very happy any day that Barbie had acknowledged him. He had no idea he could even wish for something better than that.
In 2004 when I was twenty three years old, I gave the opening prayer in Sacrament Meeting on the day a high councilman was speaking. It was right before Thanksgiving, and in my prayer I said, “Please bless President Hinckley, as this is his first holiday season without his wife.’ Plenty of time passed during the meeting between my prayer and the high councilman’s talk, but to my delight he opened his remarks by saying that my prayer had been beautiful and inspiring to him, and that it hadn’t even occurred to him to think about our prophet having his first Thanksgiving as a widower until I brought it up.
This praise probably lasted, I don’t know … twenty seconds? And yet, I remember it almost two decades later because I was so honored to be noticed by a higher up male leader. I realize today that this was an example of younger me figuring out a way to please the patriarchy. When I was noticed and acknowledged by a member of the bishopric, I felt delighted, just like Ken when Barbie waved at him. Likewise failed attempts to be noticed were disappointing to both myself and Ken. (And yes, I know that men also try to please male authorities, but the enormous difference between men and women is that a man might actually *be* in that authority position someday himself. He might be called to work with the man in that position as his counselor. He might’ve already spent years in the same position already. He belongs to the same quorum as that man and attends classes and activities and plays basketball with him. It’s worlds away from a woman’s experience, as she will forever have zero personal access to the power that man holds.)
One thing I really appreciated about the Barbie movie is that it came right out and used the word patriarchy over and over again. It didn’t tiptoe around anything or try to be super subtle. We live in a patriarchy – at school, in government, in city council meetings, in law enforcement, in the film industry, and in the most extreme example of all – our church. With so many younger girls seeing Barbie this year, I am now hopeful that very few will reach the age of 32 and still need to ask Google to explain patriarchy to them like I did. And hey, those girls might decide for now that patriarchy is God ordained and the order of heaven and that they’re perfectly okay with it. But at least going forward from here, they’ll be able to label the system they live in rather than just existing in it – and that is the first necessary step to taking control of their own futures as women in our society.
(AUTHOR’S NOTE: I added a Part Two to this blog post on August 11th, which you can read here.)
44 Responses
I love this so much! And sadly I relate to it way too much. For the past year been thinking about how strange I act when I’m in the bishops office. Even if I had a bad day or didn’t like something about church, I suddenly turn into a smiley, happy, fawning person as soon as I’m in the bishops office.
I can totally see myself as Ken trying to be noticed by Barbie. I’ve literally been in the Bishops office thinking, “Please notice me and give me a good calling.” Ugh.
Last year, I skipped tithing settlement for the first time in my life because I didn’t want to go into that office and turn into a completely different version of myself.
Thanks for putting into words things that I’ve been feeling for a while.
I also noticed that I act strange in a bishops office as well so I also do not go to tithing settlement. I have wondered if the fawn response on my part (and it sounds like I am not the only one!) is a trauma response.
I figured out a work around for this, to ground me in who I am and who the bishop is. I use only first names. Some will say that’s disrespectful, but for some reason, saying “Brad” instead of Bishop So and So, really helps to keep my head in the right space.
I do this too! First names make us equal.
I love every bit of this, Abby. We’re the same age and I had similar experiences learning about patriarchy. The movie brilliantly satirized it in a way that will have people talking about it and thinking about patriarchy for years.
I was horrified to see myself in Ken begging Barbie to love him. This is a timely piece. Thank you.
This reminds me of a sermon I found in a book of collected sermons from an apostle (published in 1954 but still available today). It was given on occasion of a woman’s funeral but her name is never mentioned. Her husband is named multiple times by the apostle, and he recounts a few experiences he had with her husband, but nothing about her or her life other than she was his wife and had children, apparently. Her name isn’t even in the title of the sermon- she’s referred to as Mrs. Husband’s First and Last Name. When I saw that post about Sister Patricia Holland it reminded me of that sermon. This culture treats women like NPCs.
“this culture treats women like NPCs” you summed up my entire experience in the church in six words. I had a preset wardrobe, a preset character arc, preset quests to give to the main character, preset lines, and I had no autonomy or true personality. My actions all depended on the MC’s choices, because my choices didn’t matter. And it comes through SO CLEARLY with this example.
And God help you (literally) if you cannot or do not fit into the preset character arc set up for you. People get shaky and suspicious if you try to tweak it to work you to be a “better” NPC in non-standard ways.
And if the MC that you are connected to doesn’t “perform as expected” in the church and/or the community, you wind up flailing and flubbing your lines and roles because there is no story arc for you. You get unmoored at the same time they do (“because of course, you are responsible for men’s choices”).
excellent examples, and well-written.
I’ve experienced breaking away from my Ken-ness and giving the bird to the patriarchy just in the last couple of years and I feel so powerful now looking at leaders and knowing they have no power over me. I have it all within me. Loved your personal experiences and I think most lds women can share very similar ones! The part about Patricia Holland’s funeral post really struck a nerve. It’s unbelievable.
Thank you so much for this important and timely post!
I relate to this so very much, and it makes me so sad. I fear I will never really be able to get through this, and through my need for perfection. I feel like for me these things damaged my self esteem and made me not feel confident to take charge of my life, and need I’ll with mistakes. I can’t grow without being I’ll with making mistakes. But I just don’t know how to get there
This is so well written. Thank you. The caption for Patricia Holland hit like a gut punch. Women truly are invisible in this church.
Thank you so much for this post.
What really hit me about the Church News caption was that not only is “Sister Holland” referred to as the “wife of” Elder Jeffery R Holland, but the name she was given at birth by her parents was completely erased in exchange for the label she was given by being married to an apostle.
HIS name is used in full. HER birth name is erased and replaced with HIS name.
HIS church position is listed in full. HER church position is listed generically.
That’s a very good point. I use both my maiden name and married name (maiden name is Maxwell, married name is Hansen) on the blog here, on my social media accounts, and anywhere that asks for a middle name I include it (which means my real middle name is actually erased, too). When someone “Mrs. Hansen” or “Sister Hansen”, all parts of my original identity are erased and I am just the name of my spouse. I want women to always be individuals, not just the name of who they are married to.
This is one reason why I like the idea of the newly married couple picking their own, new surname. Be it a combination of both their names, or something meaningful to the two of them, it is truly a unique name for THEM together. (That won’t erase the problem depicted in Sister Patricia’s funeral, but at least the name itself doesn’t erase your identity. And it makes the male have to deal with some of the p.i.t.a. issues of having to change your name on every legal document.)
I like that idea. I could’ve been Abby Maxsen or Abby Hanswell. Or just called myself Abby IsSoCool. 🙂
My legal name is Summer Flowers. I never changed it after I got married, yet the church automatically put me in their system after our sealing as summer Bennett. I’ve asked multiple times to have it changed to my legal name but no one would help me.
I have heard a lot of women have that issue! I know I’ve read blog posts about it right here on Exponent before. It’s got to be so frustrating. I’m sorry!
Great post. I think I’ve been bucking the system for a long time – in my 70s now and definitely see the deficiencies more clearly now. I’m pretty sure the church is bleeding youth because we’ve raised our children differently and not as many young women will put up with the patriarchal b.s. anymore.
Thank you for writing this! You laid it all out so clearly.
I never felt like a true “girly girl” as a kid and honestly did not relate that much to Barbie while watching the movie. And now I realize- it’s because I relate to Ken.
Great post. Thank you.
And just to add to what you’ve said, when I saw the movie, I was bothered by the fact that Ken, who could do nothing but “beach,” was able to go and brainwash all these doctors and supreme court justices and Nobel prize winners into adopting patriarchy. It was a weakness in the plot, I thought. These brilliant, accomplished women could never be manipulated like that.
Oops.
You know, I think I get that part of the movie. They explained that the Barbies in Barbieland had never experienced or even heard of patriarchy, so they had absolutely zero defense against it (like smallpox on a group of people who have no immunity to it obliterates them, right?).
I had no defense against patriarchy as a young woman either, and when they told me “Girls are so lucky not to have to hold the priesthood, because you never have to be a bishop or worry about giving blessings or stack chairs or anything super hard like that!”, I was always like “Phew, I’m so glad I never have to be in charge or make decisions or be the one responsible for giving a healing blessing at 2 am…I just get to sit back and be blessed!”
One of the Barbies who was brainwashed said, “It’s like a vacation for my brain!”, and it reminds me of how I viewed patriarchy as such a blessing as a woman – even though it was actually oppressing me and holding me back. I had no immunity to it because I was born into it. The Barbies were smart and accomplished and also had no immunity to it because they were born into it was well. It was sold to them as a good thing they should love, just like it was sold to me.
That’s how I interpreted it, at least! (But I had to think about it for minute before I made that connection to my own life.)
The more I think about it, the more I remember when I was part of Ordain Women almost ten years ago. More than anything else, I heard LDS women saying this: “I don’t want the priesthood. I don’t want all of that work that would come along with it! I’m so much happier letting my husband do all of that and not having to worry about it.”
That is the same attitude (in my opinion) as all of the smart capable Barbies bringing their Ken’s brewskies and listening to them play their guitars at them endlessly. It feels a little brainwashed, and when a woman finally wakes up (and has a feminist awakening), it’s like she’s seeing everything in color for the first time and wonders why she put up with everything for so long.
Abby Hansen, exactly!!
Cate, your comment inspired me to write a Part Two about the Barbie movie that will be on the blog in the morning (Friday the 11th) – so please check it out!
I appreciate the thoughts in this article, but it’s notable that prior to this unfortunate post on Sister Holland, there were three prior posts that rightfully shared her full name and title first.
That’s good to hear! I just happened across this post on Instagram because multiple friends of mine had hearted it.
I agree but (I’m afraid that with this word, many ears will close) there’s a noticeable shift toward women and away from men, which has been subtle for many years. For my daughters, I tell them they can be anything; they can work or not, work in whatever field or stay home and raise kids, pursue their passions or work for the sake of work. I hear this message to women all the time and I’m saying it.
What is not said is you’ll need to work to provide for you family and you may not like that work, but that’s not what’s important. What’s not said to them is that they shouldn’t want to stay home and if they do, they are inadequate or failing. What is not said is that they are expected to provide a good living for the kids and a spouse who can choose whatever his heart desires. These are the words communicated to men.
Many men, including myself, choose fields of work they don’t enjoy, because we don’t have the luxury. While women see men receiving accolades at work (which is true for some or many), they don’t see the men trudging through it day im and day out to ensure everyone at home is comfortable.
In many cases, both spouses work in a field they don’t want to, but the men are generally viewed or made to feel inadequate if their spouse has to work. Women struggle with staying at home or working, but they have a choice. Men are often left with one choice. I wonder if women would feel the same need to care for their spouse to ensure he is taken care of. Probably so, but the pressure on men is immense and most of the time, most of us are never looking to impose on women, and simply try to provide them all they need and give them and their daughters every opportunity available
I hope I’m not vilified. I sympathize with the post and am merely sharing some of the other side’s feelings.
That’s the other side of the patriarchy coin. It’s ultimately not fulfilling for men or women. Neither gender can be fully whole when their roles are prescribed rather than freely chosen.
I mostly agree.
Hey Brent! I wrote this blog post and would never vilify you for pointing out the bad side of patriarchy for men, too. I totally agree! It’s a dumb system and nobody gets out of it unscathed. We should really pick something better.
I agree with Trackee here. One of the main takeaways from Barbie is that the patriarchy is bad for both women AND men. The most wholesome character is Allan. If boys and girls were taught from a young age that they can do anything (and not boys taught that they’ll be the provider one day). They’ll then align (if they so choose) in a romantic relationship that works for both of their needs, passions and pursuits. Then choosing to add kids into the family (if they want), will be in a way that works together, whoever is the provider. It’s hard to come in now, understandably with the massive amounts of pressure (I see this in my husband too), and try to change it. I didn’t see Barbie as anti-men, but a love letter to men as well — they are enough as they are. The idea isn’t for men or women to be like Ken nor Barbie, but to kind of be more like the side characters (Allan and weird Barbie coming to mind).
But we enable the patriarchy because we refuse to do anything about it. We must enjoy it. Why give them power over us in any way? Stop going to the bishop’s office for everything. Until we walk in the opposite direction of that office NOTHING will change. But, I know you’ll back down and continue on the course you’ve always known. This is why they call it brainwashing. Sad.
In 20 years, society is going to be a huge mess because of the sentiments on this post. Mostly due to the fact that everyone ignores the message given by Brent. In general I see the overall sentiment of ‘forward thinking’ women in the Church (and society) being: “It is not enough for the young women to suceed, the young men must fail”. Young men are dropping out of life becuase society is telling them that they are evil, control hungry, and are now uneeded. I am glad that I will be dead before I have to watch it happen.
Did you read the responses by multiple women (including myself, the author of this blog post) to Brent’s comment? We were all sympathetic and agreed that he was hurt by the system we are living in. I don’t want young men to fail. I have a 16 year old son who I want to be wildly successful in life. Letting women succeed in no way leads to failure for men. I think we’re all made better when we stop trying to put one gender in charge of the other and force everyone into strict gender roles despite our interests and talents.
But thank you for reading and for the comment! I’m always happy to have a discussion.
There are some that understand the problem, but most don’t. From the time they are born, today’s young white males are told that they are fundimentally racist, part of the patriarchal machine, and the cause of most the pain in the world. They are told that women are advancing and will be replacing them. They are told that they don’t matter any more. And more than that, they are told that no one wants them to matter anymore. High School graduation rates for white males are dropping, college enrollment and graduation rates are rapidly dropping. The number of able young white males leaving the workforce is increasing at an alarming rate. There is no ‘patriarchy’ trying to hold women back in society (religion is a different dynamic). There is a group of powerful, greedy, money hungry individuals that will crush anyone in there way to get more power. Most of the people they crush are men. Some are women. Women today think they have a monopoly on being repressed. That is the most giant elitest attitude in the universe.
Love this so much! Great writing Abby. Wanna know what’s even worse than the highlighted post on instagram about Patricia Holland? The actual funeral remarks by Nelson. Truly women are an accessory. Also, the title of high councilor (it’s actually not high councilman) gives me hope that someday women can hold that calling since high councilors hold no priesthood keys. It’s just another male only calling for zero reason other than, duh, men!
Thanks for reading and commenting, Cynthia! You know I love you and your insights. (Or in case you didn’t know…I love you and I love your insights!!)
There are only 4 people in your ward that hold Priesthood keys. And Two more in your Stake.
So then why can’t women (at the very least) be in all the callings that don’t hold keys?
Holding keys and holding the Priesthood are two very different things