Christian Reflections on the Barbie Movie – Part Two

Barbie doll, blond beauty toy

“In him was life, and the life was the light of men.”

John 1:4

Articles in this Series

Christian Reflections on the Barbie Movie – Part One

Christian Reflections on the Barbie Movie – Part Two

Feminism

In this section, I aim at a twofold goal: to provide commentary on the opening scene of the Barbie Movie, thereby leading to a discussion of demeaning children and abortion, and to present a Biblical case for the role of men and women.

The trailer or first scene of the movie begins with a landscape shot, shifting to depicting little girls playing with dolls and prams. The girls sit on a barren, rocky landscape. “Since the beginning of time, since the first little girl ever existed, there have been dolls.” says the narrator dramatically. Richard Strauss’ Also sprach Zarathustra, a symphonic poem named after Nietzsche’s nihilistic philosophical work Thus Spoke Zarathustra, begins to play and continues in the background. The narrator continues: “But the dolls were always and forever baby dolls until…”. The music crescendos. A giant Barbie dressed in a black-and-white swimsuit appears. She lowers her sunglasses, smiles at the girls, and winks. The next shot immediately depicts a girl shattering a doll with a different doll. Another doll is thrown into the air.1

I find this scene intensely interesting and deeply ironic. This irony is because feminism (radical feminism particularly), with its Bible-rejecting presuppositions, demeans children and slaughters babies. I am not using hyperbole when I mention slaughtering. Let us move on to the first point of demeaning children.

Feminism, with its inordinate focus on the success of women, demeans children and motherhood. This demeaning is not an accidental characteristic of feminism but is essential to its God-rejecting ideology.2 It is also evident by the types of Barbie dolls available and the Barbies depicted in the Barbie Movie that motherhood is not an especial priority.3 This reality can also be shown in quotes like this: “Every woman who chooses — joyfully, thoughtfully, calmly, of her own free will and desire — not to have a child does womankind a massive favor in the long term. We need more women who are allowed to prove their worth as people, rather than being assessed merely for their potential to create new people.”4 Moran establishes a false dichotomy between being a genuine woman or “women who are allowed to prove their worth as people” and the role of motherhood. While I do not want to fall off the other side of the horse and preclude any Biblically-based celibacy (1 Cor. 7:8-9), it is true that the primary actuation of personhood or people-ness for a woman, if we are to indulge in liberal jargon, is her role as a mother: Adam did not name his wife after her entrepreneurial ability, but rather after her ability to give life (Gen. 3:20). When God cursed Eve, He cursed her in her primary role, namely as birth-giver (Gen. 3:16). More on this later.

I want to address the topic of abortion unconventionally. Abortion is an inevitable consequence of the Barbie Movie’s feminism, though not explicitly mentioned. I will first offer preliminary and hopefully already-known comments. The Scriptures clearly teach that God creates the baby in his or her mother’s womb (Ps. 139:13-16). The Bible recognises no arbitrary point of personhood where, due to this or that quality, the baby becomes a person and hence can no longer be killed. From conception onwards, it is murder and high rebellion against God Almighty to commit abortion because the child is created by God and made in His image.5 This means there is no reason whatsoever for a professing Christian to support abortion and for them to do so disgraces the name of Christ.

The unconventionality, even in the context of evangelicalism, comes in when I suggest that abortion is fundamentally demonic. This point relates to my comments about supernaturalism in the previous article. This point may generate cognitive dissonance for someone (“Did the author really say ‘demonic’? Surely he means something else. No educated twenty-first-century person could possibly say that.”) because we do not tend to associate the supernatural with real-world events or practices. However, this dissonance is because of, to alter a phrase from Lewis, our metaphysical snobbery. We live with our supernaturalism relegated to the sphere of intellectual commitment. We live as functional naturalists.

The antithesis between Satan’s offspring and Eve’s children established post-Fall (Gen. 3:15) manifested itself when Pharaoh tried to kill all the Israelite boys (Ex. 1:15-16) or when Herod killed all the boys in Bethlehem (Matt. 2:16-18). Satan aims at children because it is through children that God’s redemptive purposes are accomplished, like Isaac being born to Abraham (Gen. 15:4-5, 21:1-7, etc.) or Jesus being born to Mary (Lk. 1:54-55). Even now, after Christ, children still play a redemptive role because it is primarily through children and the passing down of Christianity to subsequent generations (Eph. 6:4; 2. Tim 1:5) that the culture is redeemed and salt and light is spread (Matt. 5:13-16). Therefore, it is no wonder that the world which is under the sway of Satan (Eph. 2:1-3) walks the same path that paganism did in Old Testament times (2 Kg. 21:6, etc.), sacrificing our children on the altars of career advancement, convenience, financial preservation, and a multitude of other idolatrous trivialities. There is a darker and deeper reality to feminist support of abortion than Christians usually acknowledge.

Secondly, the Biblical view on feminism must be presented as that of introducing patriarchy. This is such a contentious term that one may wonder why I use it. The simple answer is that “patriarchy” is easier to understand than terms like complementarianism, though there would be a significant overlap between broad complementarianism and Biblical patriarchy in particular. Patriarchy is also Biblical language (Ac. 7:8, etc.). We must also distinguish between the purposefully caricatured, men-exalting patriarchy of the Barbie Movie and the Christ-exalting patriarchy of the Bible (Eph. 5:25, etc.). One of the brilliancies of the Barbie Movie is that it satirises the one extreme of radical feminism leading to an extreme, pervasive matriarchy on the one hand, and the other of radical, woman-depreciating patriarchy. But the end product is only a slightly subtler feminism.6

I must be incredibly selective in what I discuss here. The Father reveals Himself in masculine terms, connotative of protection and strength. When Christ was incarnated, He was incarnated as a man: a male human. He was not a woman because He was to be the Serpent-crusher, the head of a new race, the husband of His people, an authoritative teacher, and the one who would redeem His people.7 If we are to consistently apply the principle of analogia Scriptura, wherein Scripture is a coherent, flowing whole that does not contradict itself, then we are to wonder how egalitarianism or feminism can breathe air in such a Biblical environment. There is more: the patriarchs were men, the judges appointed by Moses were men, the kings were men, the judges excepting Deborah were men, the prophets prophesying publicly were men, the apostles were men, and elders and pastors are to be men (1 Tim. 2:12, etc.).

The obvious qualification here is that this recognition of the masculine nature of Christianity in no way degrades women, who are made in the image of God. Anyone who accuses such reiteration of Biblical teaching on masculinity of bigotry or misogyny is really committing an unwarranted ad hominem attack. It is not because women are less valuable in the eyes of God; it is that they are commanded by God to a different sphere than what was mentioned above. Egalitarian appeals to the example of Deborah (Judg. 4), or to “submitting to one another” (Eph. 5:21), or to Junia (Rom. 16:7) and the like both ignore this analogia Scriptura and also are remarkably susceptible to exegetical refutation.8

I will provide three comments on the different sphere that I mentioned just now. The Bible clearly deems children to be a gift, and it is a fearful, precious reality that new, eternal souls can be brought into the world as tiny, crying, helpless babies with flesh and sinews knitted intricately by the loving hands of the Triune God (Ps. 139:13-16). This reality, contrary to our cultural insanity, is one that is primarily wrought by the woman as mother, who acts as birth-giver and subsequent nurturer. Any contrary claim is at root Satanic, malevolently resonating the serpentine “Did God really say?”. It is not misogyny or oppressive force but Biblical theology that leads us to exalt and prioritise the role of women as mothers, for in a glorious reality, woman is the only creature able to produce immortal souls, destined everlastingly to heaven or hell.

Furthermore, the Biblical teaching on womanhood is not captured by stereotypical Victorian culture or some modern instantiation of Austen’s Pride and Prejudice.9 The Biblical teaching on femininity involves qualities like financial ability, diligent work, physical fitness, resourcefulness, trustworthiness, and so on (Prov. 31). If the Bible is God’s Word and God does not aim to restrict but to liberate, then we are to conclude that the true woman’s liberation movement lies not in the God-hating grasp of modern feminism but in faithful subservience to God’s Word.

Lastly, this Biblical teaching on femininity is something to be cherished and meditated on, not to be brandished as an exegetical sledgehammer (well, not most of the time, except the breaking down of feminist strongholds). Both men and women are under the curse of the Fall (Gen. 3:16-19), and sin permeates every part of our lives, including our calling as male or female humans. To place imperatives (you ought to do this as a male or female) before indicatives (you are redeemed by the blood of Christ) is to engage in unbiblical legalism (see the progression of Rom. 6) under the veneer of conservative Christianity. The indicatives lead into imperatives as the Lordship of Christ seeps into every nook and cranny of a Christian’s life.

Existentialism

Jean Paul-Sartre, a famous French existentialist, was known for his maxim “existence precedes essence”. If I can introduce the concept of Geworfenheit10 from another existentialist named Heidegger, Sartre’s idea is that we are hurled into this world, faced with the sheer reality of existence, and that this precedes any essence or purpose. Humans are not essentially or inherently teleological; we have no determined end or purpose. Rather, this end or purpose is achieved through taking an agonising responsibility for our behaviour; we are “condemned to be free”.11 Existentialism encompasses such figures as Kierkegaard, Sartre, Camus, Nietzsche, Beauvoir, Heidegger, Marleau-Ponty, Husserl, and many more. The difficulty is that it cannot be precisely pinned down. Aside from Sartre’s maxim, some helpful themes of existentialism are its focus on the individual, its notion of radical freedom and responsibility, authenticity, search for meaning, and so on.12

This existentialism is manifested in the Barbie Movie as Barbie and Ken go on a path of self-discovery, travelling from their utopic paradise to the real world and then returning to Barbieland with changed views, like a more nuanced concept of the self. Ken realises that his worth is not to be found in his relationship with Barbie but in his own personal experience. Ruth Handler, at the end of the movie, meets with Barbie in a pseudo-heavenly scene where the entire background is pure white, telling Barbie that her purpose is to be self-determined: it is her choice whether she wants to become human or not. Tangentially, platitudinous phrases with an existentialist flavour are widespread and may include “well, I don’t think that life has any objective meaning, but we just find individual meanings for ourselves” or “I’m on my path of self-discovery”. Anyone who thinks existentialism is dead only needs to talk to university students, among whom such phrases dominate.13

The difficulty with the Barbie Movie’s existentialism is that it does get things correct. One point is that without God, there is no ultimate meaning (only, as Camus would say, the “benign indifference of the universe”14); another is that human beings live in the present moment as volitional creatures. The Barbie Movie’s particular existentialist nuances also capture a third truth: we are not ultimately dependent on other humans for our meaning. There are more truths, but space will not permit me to list more. I will briefly exposit these truths and then offer a twofold critique of existentialism.

Existentialism grasps the reality that without God, there is no ultimate meaning. We cannot glorify God and enjoy Him forever15 if there is no God to glorify and enjoy. The logical conclusion of atheism is a despairing nihilism because no divine anchor prevents our pessimistic plunge. Evolutionary biology does not provide this meaning: we cannot get from what we are, mere products of naturalistic mechanisms like natural selection, to any transcendent meaning over the entire thing. Appeals to the betterment of society or providing for a family as an ultimate meaning only begs the question of why these things are important. On atheistic grounds, why is bettering society better than wreaking havoc and murdering everyone we see? Why is bettering society preferred to sowing the seeds of societal discord? Why is self-preservation important? For the atheist, how could they avoid the unavoidable conclusion that there is “one truly serious philosophical problem and that is suicide”?16 No amount of pink can smother this ghastly portrait.

Existentialism also profoundly understands that we are volitional creatures. Humans really do decide stuff; we are not bland, lifeless automatons. We exercise our choices and face many choices every day. We are a people of great laughter, deep love, profound anguish, restless nostalgia, searing anger, incipient bitterness, and resplendent joy; we are a passionate species because we have passions and feel them strongly. The question for existentialism at this point is whether these choices and emotions will ultimately amount to anything, from Heidegger’s choice to join the Nazis to Kierkegaard’s lost love in the form of Regina Olsen, or whether they will form a meaningless story “full of sound and fury, signifying nothing”.17 Is it the reality that these emotions, some sinful and some not, point us to the need for a Saviour and the heavenly city that awaits us (Heb. 11:10), or are they the futile exertions of man as he grasps at the meaning that existentialism deprives him of? The Bible’s answer is the first.

Thirdly, existentialism understands that we are not ultimately dependent on one another. Ken realised regarding Barbie that his identity was not found in her; he failed when he thought that his identity was found instead in himself. The solution to Ken’s dilemma is what I will call transparent love. Existentialism’s love is transparent insofar as all loves terminate in the self and the self’s discovering of purpose. But transparent love in the Christian sense is the notion that two people who love each other, and let us use the example of a husband and wife here, when they stand face-to-face18, are not to see the termination point in the other person; rather, they are to see through them, so to speak, viewing the loving Triune God (1 Jn. 4:8) in whose image they were made (Gen. 1:27). Our ultimate meaning is not to be found in familial, romantic, or other inter-human relationships because they come from God and are meant to be directed back to Him through a transparency wherein we view Him through the beloved (Rom. 11:36). This metaphor fails insofar as our view of God is not to be finally determined by viewing Him through others, for all have sinned (Rom. 3:23) and hence provide a fraudulent filter. Still, it captures the essential truth that it is in interaction with others that the beauty of God is accentuated all the more.

I will offer here two brief critiques of existentialism. The first was already mentioned in the discussion of no objective meaning. Let us say that existentialism seems romantic in the Parisian sense. With the clinking of champagne glasses and the Eiffel Tower warmly emanating in the vespertine darkness, all seems well. Eating, drinking, and being merry, for tomorrow we die (Lk. 12:19, 1 Cor. 15:32) seems like a good idea after all; death is close, but merriment is closer. I want to ask how on earth this is so. If man results from nothing as the mere product of an impersonal cosmos and its naturalistic mechanisms and is destined to nothing, then how can there be any meaning in between?19And also let us not kid ourselves about romantic notions of subjective meaning: the same principle that allows for our Parisian existentialism and its pursuit of jam-filled pastries, silky coffee, and cute views also allows for the serial killer who believes that his meaning is found in ruthless torture, cold-blooded murder, and the frenzied screams of his victims. Suddenly, a frigid philosophical perversity rends asunder the Parisian atmosphere.

The second critique, previously briefly mentioned, is that existentialism, for all its phenomenological sophistication, does not account for our existence. It can describe the birdsong ringing throughout a verdant forest, the calm unbearableness of waking up on Christmas day and waiting to unwrap your presents, the piercing nostalgia when one gazes upon their childhood photos, and the longing to be known and loved, warts and all. But existentialism can never satisfy. Existentialism can describe this terrible reality that we live in the present as volitional creatures, making choices that genuinely do change things, but it can never provide satisfaction for the clamorous fervency that characterises these volitions. Existentialism is like a doctor who diagnoses but who can offer no medicine; a movement that declares us rightly as those who “labor and are heavy laden” without the cry to “come” (Matt. 11:28-30).20

I will end by saying that the sheer coherent beauty of Christianity, when applied to reality, is what I believe led Lewis to state through Puddleglum as he spoke to the witch: “Suppose we have only dreamed, or made up, all those things—trees and grass and sun and moon and stars and Aslan himself. Suppose we have. Then all I can say is that, in that case, the made-up things seem a good deal more important than the real ones. Suppose this black pit of a kingdom of yours is the only world. Well, it strikes me as a pretty poor one. And that’s a funny thing, when you come to think of it. We’re just babies making up a game, if you’re right. But four babies playing a game can make a play-world which licks your real world hollow. That’s why I’m going to stand by the play-world. I’m on Aslan’s side even if there isn’t any Aslan to lead it. I’m going to live as like a Narnian as I can even if there isn’t any Narnia.”21 The Christian worldview, in its resplendent beauty, licks existentialism hollow, pink and tongue-in-cheek though it may be.

Conclusion

In this article and the previous one I have presented three reflections on the Barbie movie. The first concerned more methodological issues concerning no neutrality, the use of rhetoric, and the employment of our imagination. The second and third focused on feminism and existentialism, respectively. I purposefully did not seek to present a historical narrative of both movements: that would take too much space, and both are incredibly hard to pin down. Instead, I chose to address various issues about each in an almost haphazard manner. I aimed not at total refutation but to convey the general themes of each movement and the general themes of the Biblical response.

The Barbie Movie ought to be a sobering call for Christians to a defense of their faith (1 Pet. 3:15) and one that is not only intellectually rigorous but aesthetically and emotionally compelling. We ought to feel compassion for others caught in the worlds of existentialism and feminism, void worldviews that have been licked hollow. If Christ is the “light of men” (Jn. 1:4), and He is, then that light must shine in the existentialist and feminist darknesses. It is the duty of each Christian to proclaim this light unwaveringly (1 Pet. 2:9), regardless of what controversy we may engender and what names we are called.

And unto the name of the Triune God, the Father of lights (Jm. 1:17), the Incarnate Light of men (Jn. 1:4), and the Spirit of light who regenerates us (2 Cor. 4:6; Rev 4:5), be all the kingdom, power, and glory, forever and ever, world without end. Amen.

  1. See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8zIf0XvoL9Y.
  2. See Zachary Garris’ Masculine Christianity and his chapters on feminism. I would heartily agree with everything he says, apart from wishing more nuance on the suffrage issue. I do believe that his fundamental point concerning first-wave feminism is sound, however.
  3. See the front page of https://shop.mattel.com/collections/barbie-dolls!
  4. This quote comes from Caitlin Moran.
  5. See Nancy Pearcey’s Love Thy Body for the philosophical argument against the concept of personhood. She argues that personhood establishes an arbitrary dichotomy between the philosophical category of personhood and biology.
  6. In using the term “patriarchy”, I am simply meaning rule by fathers. Male headship in the home is Biblical. However, the application of this is contentious, and I would not align myself with movements like Doug Wilson and other Moscow pastors fully.
  7. See Masculine Christianity for the point of the Father’s revelation. See https://www.desiringgod.org/articles/why-jesus-was-not-a-woman.
  8. Zachary Garris’ Masculine Christianity deals excellently and exegetically with common egalitarian arguments. Regarding the analogia Scriptura argument that I referenced, the point could be made that I am engaging fallaciously in begging the question in assuming that the individual passages support the overall analogy. However, I believe that there is sufficient individual refutation of egalitarianism on key passages. Even if it was assumed that the egalitarian and complementarian positions were equally plausible, the coherence with which they fit into an overall analogy, also considering other factors outside of the proof texts (which is a dubious theological method), may indicate the truth of either position.
  9. See Rebekah Merkle’s Eve in Exile: The Restoration of Femininity for more on this point.
  10. From German, translated roughly to “throw-ness”.
  11. This quote comes from Jean Paul-Sartre.
  12. See No Excuses: Existentialism and the Meaning of Life by Robert Solomon, a lecture series he gave with The Great Courses. Also, see Sarah Blakewell’s At the Existentialist Café for more themes and a delightful biographical overview of the existentialist movement. Both these authors, to my knowledge, are not Christian and are sympathetic towards existentialism.
  13. The notion of no objective meaning but many individual meanings is one that I have encountered repeatedly when doing surveys and evangelism with a club at my university.
  14. This quote comes from Albert Camus’ The Stranger.
  15. This is what the Westminster Shorter Catechism defines as the “chief end of man”.
  16. This quote comes from Albert Camus.
  17. This quote comes from Shakespeare’s Macbeth.
  18. See C. S. Lewis’ The Four Loves for this imagery.
  19. This sentence is paraphrased from R. C. Sproul.
  20. I am well aware of the dangers of pluralism in drawing from existentialist philosophy and applying it to theology. I am also well aware of the liberal tendencies in synthesising existentialism and Christianity. I do not aim at a synthesis in this section; rather, I only aim to highlight the truths that existentialism does realise, and even these truths are recognised in a distorted, incomplete fashion.
  21. This quote comes from C. S. Lewis’ The Silver Chair.