Ryan Gosling’s portrayal of Ken in all his blond fragility has made my year
When I decided to start a newsletter to write about topics that I’ve always been interested in without any particular agenda, the first ideas that came to mind were identity and belonging (I’ve lived abroad for almost half my life now so I feel a bit out of place everywhere), languages (I speak four and there’s a close connection between each language and how it allows me to present myself to others), and books because I’ve always been a reader and, above all, a book lover. Those are the pillars that have significantly played an important part in defining who I am today.
Surprinsignly enough being a woman has never been something central to my identity. It was a fact, my reality, nothing to overthink or worry too much about. Until very recently I was oblivious to how being a woman conditions how you see yourself, and how others see you, in a patriarchal society. It was only five years ago that everything started to slowly sink in and I felt for the first time the crushing weight of stereotypes, expectations, and centuries of social conditioning shaped by the patriarchy landing abruptly on my shoulders.
Like Neo, I was finally awaken to life outside The Matrix and I couldn’t understand how I failed to notice it before then. The answer won’t probably surprise you: I too was the patriarchy and it took me a long time to accept it and deconstruct the absurd expectations society had placed on myself simply for being a woman and that I, at some point, had adopted as my role in life when I wasn’t even interested in applying for the part.
I now pay extra attention to details because I’ve been initiated in the arts of feminism, so I pick up very quickly on things I would have ignored not so long ago, like I did today when responding to a post shared by a contact in my LinkedIn network.
The post was intended to showcase, in a humorous tone, how fast AI is evolving and how we are not the first ones to be worried about rapid technological progress. This was the caption and image accompanying it:
In 1933 American Weekly imagined that by 1950 robots would be our slaves, get drunk and assault the maids because we made them a little too human. Don't say we weren't warned.
As I write often about AI and I love a good play on words -and so does the person who had posted this content, who is authoritative but also doesn’t take himself too seriously- I replied with a comment that I found fitting: “PatriAIrchy at it again…” which this person found was an interesting spin on things. So I added that it’d be fun if it weren’t so real, by which I was referring to how technology was supposed to set us free but it’s still to be seen and how it may end up replicating systems we’re trying to eradicate. Hence PatriAIrchy.
To my surprise, someone responded to my comment with the following:
Robots taking over in the 1950s was as true as patriarchy being still alive in today’s world.
I had to read that a couple of times as I wasn’t sure I had understood. It happens often that I skim through things and then I miss half of the information, so I was convinced it was the case in this instance. But a careful reread proved me wrong. Someone had really responded with that comment. That someone was, unsurprisingly, a man. I don’t know how familiar you are with LinkedIn but if there is a platform where those comments are particularly out of place and hardly ever seen that is LinkedIn, the playground of matter-of-fact conversation about topics centered around what you do for a living.
I didn’t want to ignore this comment but also I didn’t want to create something that could spiral out of control in someone else’s feed1, so I opted for the most diplomatic response I could think of and I typed: “You're entitled to think that as a man but it is quite far from the truth and the daily reality of many women.”
And in that comment there are so many centuries of patriarchy contained that I don’t even now where to start.
Because as a man (and a white one as it is, the pinnacle of patriarchy) he is indeed entitled because he has been brought up in a system that has put him at his centre, as well as on top, telling him he deserves everything he wants just for being a man. I am not surprised that for this person anyone that remotely hints at how that system might be oppressive for anyone that happens not to be another white man -and therefore takes steps to change it, to question the straightjacket it has put both men and women in, assigning them restrictive roles that keep them chained to stereotypes and prejudices- is a potential threat. Another rogue agent eroding the pillars of the world he knows, the foundation of his identity.
I imagine this man, seated in front of his computer, not giving credit to his eyes as he sees my comment. How can patriarchy, this man probably wonders, be still a thing when someone like you, a woman, can mock it freely with a comment in response to another man, a superior specimen of our race? And how can that other man betray us by finding your response funny? Where is the respect we are due? Where has everything we’ve built gone? Patriarchy is dead, long gone are the days men ruled the world, decay has started… God, is that the time? Mum, is lunch ready?
And yet this morning, hours before I had to hear of the downfall of patriarchy by a completely unknown man online, I’ve woken up to the news that two policemen in Spain have been judged for having abused a woman they had offered to escort to her house during the lockdown.
Apparently the woman was on a walk with another man, the policemen stoped them as they were on the brink of curfew and told them they needed to go home. They let the man go and offer to drive the woman to her house. Once they arrived, one of the policemen told the woman that he needed to frisk her for safety (maybe she had hid a bit of Coronavirus for personal use?) and they needed to get inside her building as he couldn’t do it in the middle of the street. The woman trusted him, it was a policeman, someone who is there to protect her. Once inside, the policeman proceeded to grope her for six minutes, while his colleague -another man- waited outside in the car, aware of the situation, not even thinking for a second to intervene or being in the least disgusted by his colleague’s behaviour.
Two days ago another headline left me even more shocked and beyond perplexed.
Again in Spain, a woman was testifying against his sexual aggressors was accused by the prosecutor of not having actually being gang-raped as she had the opportunity to bite one of his aggressors when he forced her to practice oral sex on him and she didn’t, which in the contorted prosecutor’s mind meant that she must have somehow not felt threatened by the situation when she didn’t take the opportunity to attack.
I don’t know if I’m more appaled by the prosecutor’s implication -which ignored the fact that while this woman was forced to practice oral sex on his aggresor there were other men watching her closely waiting their turn and, perhaps, she only thought of making it out of the assault alive by not opposing resistance- or by the fact that the prosecutor didn’t flinch making these assumptions.
For in fact, the prosecutor was a woman, and at that also the lawyer defending one of the aggresors. Clever move on his side, you can’t deny it. This is where the patriarchy has done its best work: getting women on board to question each other’s behaviour and, doubting women’s innocence, and ultimately worthiness, if they don’t follow the dotted line of acceptable reactions for decent women no matter the circumstances.
Patriarchy is indeed so last century that women are most likely guilty even when they’re victims, but men can always be excused.
The 67 year janitor that groped a student is absolved because it lasted less than 10 seconds; a rape that lasts less than 11 minutes is not really a rape and therefore the sentence can be reduced, and in any case, the woman had been sending the wrong signals; the girl that was raped by seven men this summer in Palermo was accused of having put herself in danger by going out with them and drinking, because wolves are always around, as journalist Andrea Giambruno, the former partner of the Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, declared following the news.
In a turn of events that I like to call poetic justice, Giambruno’s sleazeball nature came to light shortly after his statement as he was caught off record trashing women with a ton of sexist remarks. He was immediate dismissed from the role of consort PM.
No matter how you look at it, it’s always women’s fault to be assaulted by men but is the patriarchy that is in bad health.
The above are only a short list of examples from people who despite the absurdity of the situation they have to see themselves in, having endured not only physical violence by their aggressor but also victim shaming by society, have made it alive and can tell their version of the facts.
Others, many, are not as lucky.
The patriarchy likes to remind us that it takes no prisoners. In fact, the patriarchy has developed such a clever system that even though it has women in chains, when they decide to break free it is the men that are strangled. The message is clear: it’s better for everyone if they remain where they are.
Last month the body of Giulia Cecchetin, a 22 year-old girl from Northen Italy, was finally found after she had been missing. Giulia and her boyfriend Filippo Turetta had disappeared out of the blue and the authorities feared the worst. He was eventually caught on the run and was arrested on suspicion of having committed the murder. The reason: Giulia broke up with him and he couldn’t accept it.
From the information that Giulia’s family has made available to help the inquiry one piece of evidence is particularly heartbreaking. An audio message from Giulia to her friends where she confesses to her friends she no longer knows what to do with Filippo a the situation has spiralled out of control. She doesn’t want to be with him anymore, she is afraid for herself but above all she is afraid of what he may do to himself if she leaves him, as he keeps telling her that she’s his only reason to be alive. Giulia doesn’t want Filippo anymore, but she certainly doesn’t want him to harm himself. One day, after they eventually broke up, Filippo contacted Giulia and asked her to meet him and talk one more time. Giulia went reluctanctly, perhaps she hoped that a final conversation would help Filippo move on. That was the last time the two of them would speak before Giulia was murdered.
Once more the patriarchy in action, conditioning women to support, to console, to put men’s priorities and wellbeing before their own for fear these men aren’t really able to live without them. Because who wants to live with someone else’s death in their conscience, especially if there is something they can do to avoid it?
Contrary to what the kind stranger on LinkedIn thinks, patriarchy is still very much alive and kicking these days. And that’s why another phenomenon has shaken Italy in the past two months.
In October, weeks before Giulia Cecchetin was found dead, Paola Cortellesi presented her directorial debut at the Rome Film Festival, a film called There’s Still Tomorrow (C’e ancora domani)
Shot in black and white and set in post-WWII Rome, the film follows Delia, a wife and mother of her time, and renters around the relationship with her husband, a man that like many before and after him is the perfect son of the patriarchy.
In different interviews, Paola Cortellesi, a well-known and seasoned actress in Italy, has explained that with this film she wanted to pay homage to all the women that have come before her and that were raised in the belief that it was their duty to endure any pain inflicted by a man and not make a fuss about it. Cortellesi wanted to thank them for their struggles, their sacrifices, their bravery and everything past generations of women have done to improve the future of many others.
With this film Cortellesi also wanted to show how far the influence of the patriarchy and its pernicious effects on both men and women can be felt back in time and how we need to understand where certain attitudes come from to be able to eradicate them so we can all be finally free and equal in today’s society.
Stories cannot be extrapolated from the context in which they are told and There’s Still Tomorrow is a perfect example of it. Italy, a country that I love and have lived in, has always been more socially backwards than Spain and as of late is worringly slipping towards more conservative and retrograde attitudes, especially against women. Giulia Cecchetin is unfortunately only one more victim of the system, specifically the 105th as that’s the number of women having been murdered in Italy since the beginning of the year.
It is therefore hardly surprising that Cortellesi’s film has been seen by over 3 million people and has grossed over 30€ million at the box office in Italy, surpassing both Barbie and Oppenheimer, and has received the Nastro d’Argento, an award given by film journalists to the best film of the year in Italy.
And yet, the film didn’t receive the support of the Italian Ministry for Culture when Cortellesi first applied for funding to produce it as it was judged of “scarce value”. Again, patriarchy doing what it does absolutely best: gashlighting women’s reality. “Why make a film about how things were back in the 40s? That’s a thing of the past, we’ve moved on, no one wants to see that now, we’re an evolved country” Said no woman ever in Italy in the last half a century.
After the body of Giulia Cecchetin was found on 18th November, public outrage followed and many took to the streets on Saturday 25th November for the International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women. The media didn’t speak about anything else, it was the time to shine a light about one of the country’s darkest realities: violence against women just for being women. Giulia had become the victim that made a country say enough and Cortellesi’s film about a woman that has accepted her life under a violent husband resonated with thousands across the country.
Patriarchy doesn’t want people to speak up or have agency and rebel because it knows it will be its undoing.
It doesn’t want to fund movies like There is Still Tomorrow by Cortellesi because they can stir something in people, awaken them, urging them to take action to change the system because it is not a thing of the past, but rather a problem of the present.
It’s why a movie like Anatomy of a Fall is so enthralling - it’s not remotely about solving the main event in the movie, that is almost secondary, but about the power struggles in a couple where the woman is clearly more successful than the man and he resents her for it. Which is a topic further explored in Fair Play, a film that gets uncomfortable to watch the moment its female protagonist starts her professional ascend and we can’t believe what we’re witnessing. But if as my friendly LinkedIn trol claims the patriarchy is dead in this day and time, why are we getting so worked up by these movies? Why are they even made?
Worst still than being portrayed for what it is and what it has created, patriarchy can’t stand being made fun of.
Patriarchy is completely outraged that a movie like Barbie -the blockbuster of the year- has had any success at the expense of making fun of how the system is broken and how it keeps men from being what they want to be for fear of not being man enough just as they are.
Wrapped in all its pink fluff glory and light-hearted entertainment, and stripped from anything else (especially from the capitalist aura but also from any over intellectualisation as it’s not a philosophical treaty on the future of society), Barbie is about being free to choose who you really want to be -man, woman, doll, real person, Allan even- beyond the label that has been put on you.
And that’s why the movie has been criticised as feminist propaganda -to be expected- and why many have flippled the praise Ryan Gosling has received for his performance to question why the best part of a film that wants to empower women is actually the Ken plot line. Aren’t Barbies oppressing the Kens just as patriarchy is oppressing women? Can they only be happy by making others feel less of, which sparks the whole Kens uprising? Isn’t this a clear case of feminism showing us at last how useless it is? Shouldn’t patriarchy take over and show us how to do a proper movie about feminism?
That’d be quite the plot twist if we weren’t used to this trope by now.
Barbie has actually received far more press than it probably deserves -and this comes as a fan - precisely because of the efforts some have made to dismantle what it’s above all an entertaining film to watch, which happens to make fun of the roles we are assigned in society by putting men -for less than two hours and in a fictionalised account about dolls, I remind you- in the position many women find themselves every day. If we weren’t living in the domains of the patriarchy, I doubt the film would have received the attention it has, probably many would have ignored it altogether as we would be beyond the stereotypes it portrays and subverts.
But the patriarchy has drilled its lessons on us for centuries so we cannot expect to unlearn them in years. God forbid men en masse admit that maybe it isn’t such a great system in first place and that it has put men in a place where unless they are strong, dominant, and show their intellectual and physical dominance at all times, they are not worthy of being a son of the patriarchy. That would be conceeding too much.
Instead let’s stick to being outraged at how on earth women dare question a system that has been working just fine for centuries with a movie that makes fun of men for wanting to live in a Mojo Dojo Casa House with their long-term, long distance, low commitment, casual girlfriend who tends to their every need (foot massage, brewsky beer, or even watching The Godfather) instead of wanting to be happy neon-clad nincompoops that have fun playing with each other all day on the beach and just love their friends, whether they are Kens or Barbies.
America Ferrera’s speech about feminism could also work for men - they too have been conditioned to be a very reductive version of an ideal, which for centuries has been linked to the only acceptable version of what being a man was and which was based on exerting power and violence over others as a way to prove their masculinity, superiority and that they are deserving of respect. And of course of the attention of women. When Ken discovers that in the real world men are superior beings he can’t believe his eyes and he rushes back to challenge the status quo, only to realise that he actually likes being the way he is and that perhaps that’s all he ever needs to be.
I don’t think this needs to be said, but just in the event that you happen to be a fervent defensor of the patriarchy -in which case I am impressed if you’ve read this far without having a stroke-, Barbie and Ken are the vehicles used in this story to channel a message, which ultimately is about deciding for yourself the role you want to play in life, in your life, without being an accessory to someone else and much less another victim of a system that benefits no one but itself.
Ryan Gosling’s portrayal of Ken marvelling at the wonders of the patriarchy, and how it puts man on top, is fun because it is a very familiar image that women can immediatly recognise and have had to endure against our will since time immemorial. The patriarchy, whether in the form of close or distant relatives, friends, partners, exboyfriends, colleagues or random strangers, is always ready to jump in with unsolicited advice on any topic under the sun when you are a woman. That’s why the vignettes captured in “Men to Avoid in Art and Life” by Nicole Tersigni are so relatable no matter the century.
And that’s why the “here, let me show you” line that Kens repeat to Barbies in one of the sequences that pokes fun at the fragile masculinity the patriarchy has fuelled hits home every single time. Regardless of the man, and of their well-meaning intentions, they all have memorised the same script, which goes like this: As the superior male being that I am let me explain your reality to you because you clearly are not understanding it correctly.
For instance, even though I am a white man (top of the patriarchy pyramid) and you are a woman, and probably have been in situations that I am oblivious to thanks to me being a man, I must enlighten you on the fact that robots taking over in the 1950s was as true as patriarchy being still alive in today’s world.
Anytime, love.
Abroad is an independent publication about identity and belonging, living in between cultures and languages, the love of books, music, films, creativity, life in London, and being human in the age of artificial intelligence.
Subscribe to receive new posts directly in your inbox and never miss updates.
And yes, not all men are like that. In fact, the man who published the post that I responded to has had the good sense to remove the unsolicited advice of this LinkedIn trol ipso facto.
