Wokeism: Good, Bad, and Misguided – a View from Mate Selection Science

Wokeism: Good, Bad, and Misguided – a View from Mate Selection Science

by | Feb 15, 2025 | Biological Difference, Evolutionary Science and Our Political Divide, Gender Politics, Men's Issues

Prologue and Caveat – Let’s Be More Woke

Before I get into the issues of non-binary advocacy and problems with contemporary “wokeism,” as promised last week (What Does Non-Binary Mean? Biology and Politics Collide), I must revisit the true meaning of “woke” and rehabilitate its power at this moment in the early days of the Trump presidency.

“Woke” was a term borrowed from the black civil rights movement that signaled awareness of systemic injustices and a commitment to combating them.

At its root, being “woke” means being awake to (aware of) the things happening around you – including speaking out and not capitulating out of ignorance, denial, self-interest, or fear. Nothing wrong with that if one does not get “too righteous” or “elitist” in tone.

Trump, Musk, and their minions are now engaged in a soft but fast-paced coup of the U.S. federal system and the Constitution. Right now, we need to be MORE AWAKE, not less. We need to resist. I endorse being more woke to save our democracy. To quote “Elon the Great,” “we are at a fork in the road.”

Currents and Countercurrents of “Wokeness.” What a mess.

To complicate the central message of this post almost beyond recognition (and make it even less palatable to my gay friends), we now have a significant backlash against diversity, equity, and inclusion programs and a cessation of hiring targets from dozens of private companies.

Google will no longer mark cultural observances like Pride Month, Women’s History Month, and Black History Month. This is a symbolic but nasty overreach against justice and inclusion. It is another form of the fast-paced coup and demonstrates more capitulation to investors and the Trump administration — performative virtue signaling on the other end of the political spectrum.

At the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, Trump said his administration is moving to “abolish all discriminatory diversity, equity, and inclusion nonsense,” in both the government and the private sector.” Nonsense? What a mess.

(Ok, let’s shift gears and follow up from the last post through the lens of evolutionary psychology and mate selection science. The serious-minded should read the notes at the end.)

The “Wokescenti”

As wokeism infiltrated culture in the last decade, it often constructed hierarchies of moral superiority, intellectual elitism, and cultural gatekeeping, at least in the minds of the political Right. Wokeism began to accrue layers of performative virtue signaling. Meghan Daum’s term “wokescenti”* described a social class of progressive elites who wielded their “enlightened” views like a weapon, silencing descent under the guise of social justice. Yes, sometimes they do.

But the political Right mostly invented the idea of woke elites to mischaracterize their positions and demean their informed views. Science be damned. The college-educated were latte-drinking woke liberals, basking in their self-righteous superiority.

Political Implications of Non-binary Advocacy

Non-binary advocacy (and psychological identity trend) is prone to political motivation and tones of elitist “wokeism.” Such advocacy is warranted for marginalized groups within the broad and diverse LGBTQAI+ community.

But there may be a more profound purpose not openly stated: to weaken men (or “patriarchy” as they define it) and empower women generally.

Giving more power to women and less to men is arguably a good thing – but this advocacy can run off the rails of factual clarity and the rights of free speech.

Posturing and Virtue Signaling – Bad Habits of Wokeism

Modern “wokeism” is known for the display (signal) of “virtue,” or so-called “enlightened thinking,” by giving preference to the rights of oppressed communities. This awareness of outlier group identities provides a stepping stool to an elitist moral high ground, bolstering status as a sophisticated person or organization. Among Gen Z it is, no doubt, “cool” to be queer.

“Virtue signaling” can be seen every single day in advertising. Companies rush to showcase their inclusivity, saturating screens with images of interracial couples and sexual preference diversity. The line between authentic advocacy and virtue signaling is often blurred. Those companies and media productions are clearly “woke.”

Even NFL Football – as Woke as it Gets

In the recent Superbowl commercial (Leave the Past Behind), the NFL assumed it was ok to stereotype teenage boys as stupid, mean, and physically hapless when competing against girls. Featuring a white boy and black girl one-on-one, this was an unnecessary anti-male plot line used to promote girl’s flag football in high schools.

The girls outperformed the boys in a biologically inaccurate comparison of physical strength and agility. Bucking the recent trend by companies cited above, NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell recently said the NFL would continue its diversity efforts; this commercial aligns with that position.

Wokeism Supports a Social Constructivist Model of Human Difference

Contemporary wokeism primarily supports a social constructivist model of human difference. It over-emphasizes the impact of “nurture” and social conditioning and downplays the forces of nature and biology.

Evolutionary psychologists and sociobiologists know that learning (culture) and evolutionary adaptation work together – they do not conflict; they are natural explanatory partners.** Social activism, especially the most woke version, should not throw out biology to make its case.

Sometimes, this emphasis on social conditioning paradoxically conflicts with some of the claims by marginalized groups as it relates to biological sex, gender expression, and (especially) sexual preference (e.g., being born gay.)

Wokeism Paradoxically Stifles Free Speech

Perhaps the most troubling aspect of modern wokeism is its tendency to stifle free speech. Free speech was once seen as the epitome of enlightened thinking and inclusivity. But in recent years, conservative or libertarian voices have been drowned out on college campuses. Cancel culture is used as a tool of suppression. That is antithetical to a liberal education.

Men’s rights advocates (not necessarily conservative or libertarian politically) were shouted down in Canada and universities in the U.S.

Authors and advocates of a biological, evolutionary-based view of male and female differences have also been silenced or censored.

Woke Activism Does Not Include Men (or at least not White Men)

Woke activism does not include men. Wokeness does not acknowledge the legitimate concerns of men’s rights groups.

Embedded in this rationale to discount the impact on men is a pernicious premise (within the concept of patriarchy) that all men have all the power. Class intersectionality is conveniently forgotten when applied to men. Poor men, by fiat, are seen as part of an oppressive patriarchy.

To underscore this point, let me share the incisive observation of Meghan Daum:*

 For all their thinking about theories of intersectionality among oppressed groups, too many women seem to have difficulty understanding why a homeless man who whistles at a young woman as she’s off to her fancy internship every morning is not exactly a foot soldier for the patriarchy.

Mate Selection Science Recasts the Premise of the Patriarchy

As mentioned in the last post, the term “non-binary” gained traction in feminist-driven gender studies academic programs. Empowering women is a worthy goal.

However, such empowerment should also acknowledge (get ready for a heavy lift):

  • the sexual selection forces on male and female behavior,
  • the power of female preference in mate selection,
  • the collusion of women to create an uphold class hierarchy, and
  • the negative impact on men (of all races) when socioeconomic intersectionality is not applied to them.

Such acknowledgment recasts the premise of patriarchy.

Trans/Non-binary/Queer advocacy sometimes aims to:

  • De-legitimize the biological and psychological differences between the sexes – male and female. One definition of non-binary (What Does Non-Binary Mean? Biology and Politics Collide) is “neither male nor female.”
  • De-legitimize male sexuality and demonize “maleness” with subtle or not-so-subtle expressions of misandry. (See the NFL commercial above.)
  • De-legitimize or deny the existence of the male-female mating economy and the economic-erotic bargain (exchange of resources for sexual access).
  • This “bargain” is an ancient (primarily unconscious) infrastructure that rules human/primate (heterosexual) sexual reproduction and creates the expression of power and dominance hierarchies.***
  • Deny that women help create “patriarchy” and willingly participate in the economic-erotic bargain.

“Woke” Advocacy Mutes the Wisdom of Mate Selection Science

Modern dynamics of heterosexual mate selection are complicated. There are unique vulgarities of dating in the digital world, changing economics for men, and six decades of female empowerment to assimilate into contemporary male-female dynamics.

There is a (long) list of traits women prefer in their mate, some of which do not easily coexist, that exerts enormous complexity into female choice. But the ancient infrastructure, biologically and culturally encoded by thousands of years of evolutionary adaptation, remains as follows:

Men desire power and resources because women desire men who have power and resources. Female choice of mates in sexual selection drives male behavior in nearly all mammals. Female choice is the “first cause.” The motivation of men and women in sexual selection drives most human behavior and forms a symbiotic alliance.

Being Woke as Liberation

Owning our evolutionary adaptations for human reproduction may be necessary for us to be fully awake to our world. Acknowledging our biological underpinnings does not undermine the quest for equality; rather, it enriches our understanding of the forces that shape society. Being “woke” to that is not a bad habit; it is liberation and a beginning.

Acknowledging and upholding fundamental human rights and the truth that diverse teams are more productive and creative than homogeneous teams (in most cases) is also a necessary part of being awake to the world that is emerging. Being “woke” in that way is the only way forward.

One Final Reminder: Our Form of Government is Threatened

American constitutional democracy, with checks and balances, is under assault. Governmental agencies are being purged. Guard rails to protect everyday Americans are being torn down. We do not want a presidential oligarchy and kleptocracy. “I have a dream.” Let’s be “woke” to that!

Notes

*The Problem With Everything, My Journey Though the New Culture Wars, Meghan Daum, 2019

**Evolution and Learning Are Not in Conflict
Construing evolution and learning as automatically in conflict is a mistake. They are not located at the same level of analysis. Learning is a proximate explanation, whereas evolution is an ultimate one. The proximate level of analysis explains how something works, whereas the ultimate level explains why it works that way.

To say that something is a product of evolution does not imply anything about how the behavior comes about during an organism’s lifespan. Furthermore, evolutionary thinking does not suggest that behavior will be uniform across cultures but that the neurocognitive machinery that produces behavior will be uniform across cultures.

Mate selection science primarily studies the neurocognitive machinery at the ultimate level of cause – the essential components for mating and reproduction across all animal and human cultures.

***The Bargain is Part of our Neurocognitive Machinery
The bargain is more subtle and diffuse (if not undiscussable) in modern dating because it now rests primarily upon a foundation of “woke” feminist empowerment narratives.

But it remains pre-eminent or prioritized in mate choice as heterosexual women (primarily, but not entirely, of child-bearing age) navigate a tension or trade-off question: what is the necessary balance between provider-ship power and the character traits that guarantee the caretaking of children?

This question and the “bargain” are at the ultimate level of underlying neurocognitive machinery.

Please Note: Your comment may take up to 12 seconds to register and the confirmation message will appear above the “Submit a Comment” text. 
Reasons for Gender Divide in 2024 Election

Reasons for Gender Divide in 2024 Election

by | Oct 25, 2024 | Evolutionary Science and Our Political Divide, Gender Politics, Men's Issues

 

In the latest USA Today/Suffolk University national poll, women backed Kamala Harris, 53% to 36%. That is a mirror image of men’s overwhelming support for Trump, 53% to 37%. If these margins hold until election day, it will be the most significant disparity since a gender gap emerged four decades ago, in 1980. Among Gen Z voters, one poll had a 2% edge for Harris among men compared to a 33% advantage for Harris among women.

Four years ago, I wrote a seven-part series about our political divide through the lens of evolutionary science. Now, before the most critical election in American history, the gender gap in political affiliation is wider than ever before. In addition to contemporary cultural issues and narratives, there are reasons for this divide based on male and female adaptations for survival and reproduction.

Trump as “Strict Father”

Let’s revisit Trump’s authoritarian impulses (in the links below) and why he appeals to many men and some women. Trump says women should vote for him because he will keep them “safe.”  One of his acolytes, on a rally stage, recently demanded, “Elect Donald Trump, and bring Daddy home.”  (See George Lakoff’s 1996 book, Moral Politics; he explains how conservative moral values arise from “the strict father family.”)

Evolutionary Reasons for the Trump “Bro” Vote

Trump is also appealing directly to disaffected and aggrieved young men in swing states with a gendered, authoritarian message.  (Today, Friday, October 25, Trump is being interviewed by Joe Rogan in Austin – reaching 15 million, with 80% men and 56% between the ages of 18 and 34.) 

What I wrote in 2020 blog posts is even more accurate and troubling in 2024:

These writings are detailed and comprehensive in scope and application of evolutionary science and psychology.  Skim them if you must; read the subheads.   Read Part 2 if you can; it is more targeted for this moment.

Gendered Link Between Liberalism, Conservatism, and Authoritarianism

As explained in the blogs cited above, differences between men and women in cognition, affect, language, and social behavior mirror specific differences between liberals and conservatives. Authoritarianism is a cancerous outgrowth of conservative impulses. These sex (male and female) differences are directly correlated to male and female mating strategies.

“Stereotypes about liberalism having a feminine quality and conservatism a masculine one have empirical backing and are rooted in our neuropsychology, which was shaped by selective pressures of the natural and social environments of our ancestors. In turn, our evolved political orientations reflect those pressures. While there have been many explanations for what drives our political stances, few have as much explanatory power as the strategies we employ to survive and reproduce.”

   ~  Hector Garcia, Sex, Power and Partisanship.  How Evolutionary Science Makes Sense of Our Political Divide 

Of Men and Boys

Related to this male-female political divide in America is the work of Richard Reeves (Of Boys and Men) on the crisis of men and boys. My blog has eleven posts explaining this phenomenon – with causes and solutions.

Thank you for your attention. We desperately need to pay attention right now.

 

Please Note: Your comment may take up to 12 seconds to register and the confirmation message will appear above the “Submit a Comment” text. 
Gamma Bias: Cognitive Distortions About Sex and Gender

Gamma Bias: Cognitive Distortions About Sex and Gender

by | Mar 3, 2024 | Biological Difference, Dating & Mating Economy, Gender Politics, Men's Issues, Relationship Issues

“Although we live in times where we rightly talk about the conscious and unconscious bias against women, we are not yet conscious of our biases against men.” ~ Martin Seager and John Barry

A bias is a prejudice in favor of or against a thing, person, or group usually considered unfair, misleading, or a direct distortion of the truth.

“Gamma” bias is a form of cognitive distortion that builds on the existing concepts of alpha bias and beta bias. Alpha bias is the magnification of gender differences. Beta bias* is the minimization of gender differences. Gamma bias illustrates how these opposing distortions can operate simultaneously.

Gamma Bias and Gender
Gamma bias is a form of cognitive distortion that operates within a matrix of four possible judgments about gender**: 
  1. Doing good (celebration/valuing)
  2. Doing harm (perpetration)
  3. Receiving good (privilege)
  4. Receiving harm (victimhood)
Gamma Bias has an Ugly, Unfriendly Face

As described recently by British psychologists Martin Seager and John Barry in “Gamma Bias: A New Theory” (The Psychologist), the theory predicts:

  • Within mainstream Western cultures, masculinity is highlighted only in the domains of privilege (receiving good) and perpetration (doing harm).
  • Masculinity is hidden in the domains of celebration (doing good, heroism, etc.) and victimhood. Heroism may be gender neutralized (“firefighters”), and male victimization by women domestically is excluded in gender narratives.

Effects of Gamma Bias on Men and Women 

  • Men receive less credit for doing good and less support for being victimized.
  • Women receive more significant support for being victimized and are held less accountable for being perpetrators.
Summary of Four Judgments Related to Gender
revised gender distortion matrix
Female Privilege is Ignored in Gamma Bias

Though not explicitly addressed by Seager and Barry, female privilege (female receipt of “good” benefits) is almost entirely unaddressed because of gamma bias. This is a critical oversight for understanding the preeminence of female choice in mate selection as a gender-specific privilege.

This privilege is demonstrated by the exchange of sexual access (fertility) for resources and security inherent in the unconscious sexual psychologies for reproduction and childrearing — the supply and demand dynamics of millions of sperm (and hundreds of men) chasing one, quite privileged egg. Physically attractive, fertile-aged women (in the West) have significant privilege in securing mates and advantages in other domains of life.

The Four Judgments Operate Independently

All four judgments can operate concurrently; the opposing distortions are not zero-sum.

  • Women can be victims and perpetrators.
  • Women can be privileged and be victims.
  • Men can be heroes and perpetrators.
  • Men can be privileged and victims.

The four cognitive distortions function as independent “dials” of influence.  Each dial operates on a continuum or gradient of strength; they are not on-off switches.

Gamma Bias is Pernicious – Let’s Do Better

Gamma bias has an ugly, unfriendly face. It has never been more pernicious in American culture than it is now. Let’s be aware of our judgments, pay attention to our narratives, and be fair to all.

 

Notes:

*Beta bias is more characteristic of today’s narrative about gender and sex. It often includes minimization of biological differences between males and females.

**“Gender,” used here, means biological females (presenting as women) and biological males (presenting as men).

Please Note: Your comment may take up to 12 seconds to register and the confirmation message will appear above the “Submit a Comment” text. 
Why Bella’s Sexuality in Poor Things Disturbs Men

Why Bella’s Sexuality in Poor Things Disturbs Men

by | Jan 7, 2024 | Biological Difference, Dating & Mating Economy, Gender Politics, Men's Issues, Sexuality, Women's Issues

“You mean I actually get paid for that?”
~ Bella Baxter

Bella is a female Frankenstein “monster” in the movie Poor Things. For most of the film, she is an unbridled child with primal sexual urges detonating within her adult female body – a kind of “erotomania.” Bella scares the sh…t out of men.

Bella does some “whoring” in a Paris brothel to find herself. She discovers that her sexuality is easily exchanged for money. Bella acknowledges and accepts the utility of her sexual passion, saying, “I am my own means of production.” But that is not what scares men. She most disturbs men when she inquires with amazement: “You mean, I actually get paid for that?” Let me explain.

Bella’s Sexuality is Outside the Norm

Evolutionary psychology, mate selection science, and studies of female sexuality describe long-term and short-term mating strategies of women, both ancient and modern in their relevance. Bella’s sexuality is outside the understood norms of mate selection science. (See Long-term and Short-term Mating Strategies: Domain #2 of Male-Female Differences.)

 
Women’s Long-term Mating Strategy

A woman’s long-term heterosexual mating strategy seeks a sexual relationship with a man who has the resources and character traits that ensure stability, protection, and loyalty to her and her children over the long term.

Women’s Short-term Mating Strategy

A woman’s short-term mating strategy seeks, first and foremost, genetic fitness in male sexual partners – traits of muscularity, strength, masculinity, and features associated with symmetry. Short-term mates need only minimal generosity and kindness – but may require a modest amount of resources (less than required in the long-term strategy) in case of pregnancy or the desire to switch mates. (See Mate Switching Hypothesis).

A woman’s short-term strategy is not dominant in female mate selection; it is secondary and selective. But rarely is the sex act itself the only reason.

Why Women Have Sex

In research for their book Why Women Have Sex, Cindy Meston and David Buss surveyed 1006 women in seven countries about their reasons for having sex (defined as sexual intercourse.) Two-hundred and thirty-seven (237) reasons were identified. The number one reason given was related to “biochemical attraction” – what Buss and Meston said conferred unconscious signals for genetic and resource benefits. The #2 reason was “because it feels good” – to experience pleasure. But this was never the only reason. Of paramount importance was the need to experience love and enhance an emotional bond.

Buss and Meston concluded: “What motivates a woman to have sex is often multifaceted, containing various combinations of motivation. It is a fungible asset that provides great utility to secure many tangible and intangible benefits.” For more on the topic, see the Mating Straight Talk page Why Women Have Sex.

But Bella Wants Sex Only for the Sensory Feedback

A woman’s short-term, potentially non-monogamous mating strategy is concerned with a man’s genetic material, resources, and sometimes the goal of securing a long-term mate. It is not about sex as an end in and of itself.

That is why Bella in Poor Things is so disturbing. In her sexual awakening, Bella seeks a singular experience of titillation and release. Her pleasure is entirely a personal event of her nervous system; it is not interpersonal.

Male-oriented porn depicts sex as an end in and of itself. No form of women’s erotica (or modern female sexuality in practice) depicts sex that way.

Sex For Money

Bella eventually discovers the “fungibility” of her sexuality in the Parisian bordello. Sex for money becomes her motivation. Her sexuality is a business. But sex for resources is not where she starts. Initially, she can’t believe she will be paid for something so inherently pleasurable. Bella’s lesbian encounters with her female bordello friend are not in the context of her sexual fluidity or bisexuality. No, Bella, at that point, is more of a pansexual – up for anything that turns her on

Females Sexuality with No Moral Compass

Bella scares heterosexual men because, in the early exploration of her sexuality, she acts like a man with a strong sex drive and no moral compass. She acts like some gay men who have unrestrained access to express their sex drive with like-minded men. (No judgment here — just the statistical facts about the ease and frequency/quantity of lovers for gay men.) Ultimately, Bella’s early sexuality is an existential threat to men and their evolutionary need to be chosen in competition with other men. There would be no loyalty to a man who had “competed” successfully for her because she cannot be “won.” There would be no paternal certainty or genetic legacy with Bella, which is a preeminent directive of sexual selection.

Bella As Feminist Crusader

By the conclusion of this science fiction story, Bella’s primitive self “evolves” into a wise philosophical narrator (even a philanthropic “do-gooder”). Along her journey of adult self-discovery, Bella articulates a clear, feminist, anti-misogynist message, adding a dose of sweet revenge. Good for her. “Evolved” Bella does seem to have some allegiance to the doctor scientist who wants to marry her.

The Book Behind It All

Poor Things, the movie, is based on Alasdair Gray’s novel (of the same name) about a young woman who frees herself from the confines of the suffocating Victorian society she was created to serve. Poor Things (the book) is a hilarious political allegory and a thought-provoking duel between men’s desires and women’s independence.

Who Are the “Poor Things?”

Bella develops an awareness of the poor and oppressed while in Alexandria. However, some reviewers have said that it is the men of that time (including her sadistic former husband) who are the “poor things.” But modern male moviegoers may also be troubled by Bella’s sexual liberation and independence from the rules of romantic partnership.

Bella is a Heroine

For all its explicit sex and foul-mouthed dialogue, Poor Things (the movie) is a romance about a woman learning to fall in love with herself, no matter what others think she should be. For that reason alone, Bella is a cinematic heroine, and Poor Things is a unique piece of artistry.

 

Please Note: Your comment may take up to 12 seconds to register and the confirmation message will appear above the “Submit a Comment” text. 
What Am I Made For? Barbie Goes Beyond The Battle of the Sexes

What Am I Made For? Barbie Goes Beyond The Battle of the Sexes

by | Sep 3, 2023 | Dating & Mating Economy, Gender Politics, Men's Issues, Relationship Issues, Sexuality, Women's Issues

“I don’t know how to feel, but I wanna try.”
~ Barbie speaks through Billie Eilish

At the end of the movie Barbie, Ruth Handler (creator of Barbie) tells Barbie: “You should not take this leap into the real world unless you know what this means.”

Ruth gently holds Barbie’s hands. She asks Barbie to close her eyes and feel, and Barbie sees images of girls and women of various ages. She sees (as do we) images of mothers and children embracing, connecting, playing, and bonding. This montage – made from footage that Gerwig sourced from the film’s cast and crew, fills Barbie with emotion as she understands the full scope of womanhood, including birth, childhood, motherhood, and generational love. We see the entire life cycle as a female human being and the expressions of female emotions. It is quite beautiful. Barbie says, “Yes,” she wants this.

“I Don’t Know How to Feel, But I Want to Try”

As the video montage runs, the movie is essentially over; it is easy to dismiss or not fully “see” this fleeting black-and-white montage — or truly savor the haunting melody and poignant lyrics of Billie Eilish singing, What Was I Made For? The images are more profound because of this background music. Eilish wrote this song specifically for Barbie in an immersed zone of connection; she channels the critical message at the movie’s end with this chorus: “I don’t know how to feel, but I wanna try. I don’t know how to feel, but someday I might.”

Please watch and listen to the video. (Lyrics in video and in the Appendix.)

 

Barbie Enters the Human World of Mate Selection and Sexuality

Barbieland is asexual and non-maternal; it has no children. The entire film is devoid of young children until the scene with Ruth. When stereotypical Barbie (Margot Robbie) goes to the real world, she owns her sexual reproductive instincts and visits the gynecologist. She enters the real world of mating and dating; Barbie must begin to swim in the streams of heterosexual dynamics with men.

Sexual Reproduction and Motherhood Are Aspirational

The real-world “Kens” come fully equipped, and they do know (unlike Kens in Barbieland) why they might want to sleep over with Barbie. This is the world that Barbie must navigate to fulfill Ruth’s assertion and promise. Sexual reproduction and motherhood are included in the mix of aspirations for Barbies to be anything they want to be.

Gerwig and Motherhood

During the writing of Barbie, Greta Gerwig was nursing and attending to her new baby boy, Harold, with partner Noah Baumbach. Gerwig and Baumbach had another baby boy in March 2023. So, two kids were on the Barbie promotion circuit under the watchful eye of their mother. Suffice to say, being a mother is one crucial element of Gerwig’s personality. Mattel discontinued Pregnant Barbie, but Gerwig had not lost sight of this part of the female experience, even though there is no maternal instinct in Barbieland. (Gloria and Sasha represent a central mother-daughter plot in the real world.)

Feminism Includes Motherhood

Gerwig is undoubtedly not endorsing a return to 1950s motherhood – being a wife and stay-at-home mother (often pregnant). Gerwig’s feminism includes maternity as an option. It is part of the natural order for many women, even women with creative, full-time careers.
“In creating Barbie,” Ruth Handler explained, “my philosophy was that, through the doll, girls could become anything they wanted to be. Barbie has always represented a woman who chooses for herself.”

Barbies Do Not Have an Ending, But Humans Do

Ruth tells Barbie: “Humans only have one ending. Ideas live forever.” Barbie accepts that she will die. Barbie says “yes” to entering the real world because the experience of human emotion is what we are made for.

Old Woman on A Bench

In one scene, Barbie sees an old woman on a bench and tells her, “You are beautiful.” The woman says, “Yes, I know.” This is not a commentary on physical attractiveness or even the inner beauty of older people; it is an endorsement of the beauty of the full spectrum of human experience.

Barbie Wants to Imagine as Subject, Not Object

“I want to be the one imagining, not the idea.”

When Barbie decides whether to return to a worry-free life or experience humanity (the opposite), she says, “I want to be the one imagining, not the idea.” Barbie’s desire to be subject, not object, is a longing felt by human women whose worth in society is often measured by how aesthetically pleasing they are to men. (Many women have a place in their sexuality for being “object,” but that is another topic.) Barbie would be more objectified in the real world than in Barbieland, so why does she want to be human?

Female Emotion as a Strength

The reason to be human is the exaltation of feeling the range of human emotions, especially as a woman. The ending to Barbie shows women’s emotions as a strength, not a weakness. A central thesis of Barbie may be that emotion isn’t just an accessory to the human experience – it plays a vital role in making the human experience worthwhile.

Barbie Wants the Human Experience – She Wants “Ubuntu”

“Ubuntu” is a South African term popularized by Desmond Tuto. Ubuntu means “I am what I am because of who we all are.” You cannot exist as a human being in isolation. We are interconnected. People are not people without other people.

We Even Need People We Have Never Met

 Barbie experiences memories of people she has never met, but that’s the whole point: We don’t have to know the women in the montage to resonate with them. Female moviegoers across the globe connected to this scene in ineffable ways – they cried together, not always knowing why they were sad or moved. (Men cried too, empathizing with the spirituality of the human experience, longing for their mother, or even longing for their father and a similar intergenerational bond between boys and men.)

The Infinite Chain

The essence of womanhood and humanity has nothing to do with careers or pink outfits. By taking Ruth’s hand, Barbie becomes another link in an infinite chain of mothers and children. She glimpses a sweet intergenerational heritage of beings incarnated as Homo sapiens — an experience not available to her as a fictional construct. Barbie feels a spiritual connection between generations of women, passing down their hopes and dreams for a better world. Barbie becomes human.

Now She is Barbara Handler

Final scene: Barbie walks up to a reception desk (in her pink Birkenstock sandals) and says: “I’m here to see my gynecologist.” Barbie is now “Barbara” and part of the legacy of female creation and personhood. She’s a Handler now, like Ruth.

Barbie’s Transition: Maslow’s Hierarchy and Attachment Bond

Briefly shifting gears, please allow me to connect Barbie to psychological theory. You might be familiar with Abraham Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. Maslow believed that we begin life by trying to satisfy physiological and social motives (love, belonging, and esteem /respect), which he viewed as deficiency needs. If you fulfill those deficiency needs, you can move on to growth needs; the highest level is self-actualization. Maslow’s work was done before the modern integration of evolutionary biology and psychology, so he gave no attention to the central Darwinian themes of reproduction. Maslow gave incomplete attention to one of the essential elements of Barbie’s transition — the preeminence of the attachment bond between mothers and children.

Barbie and the New Hierarchy of Human Motivations

After studying the evolutionary psychology of human motives for 20 years, psychologist and researcher Douglas Kenrick (Solving Modern Problems with a Stone-Age Brain) updated Maslow’s hierarchy of needs to reflect developments in the behavioral and biological sciences. Self-actualization was removed from its hallowed place at the top.

Finding Mates, Retaining Mates, and Parenting

The new hierarchy of human motives addresses the missing goal that is paramount from a Darwinian perspective, adding three more layers associated with reproduction: finding mates, retaining mates, and parenting. In this new model, the seven human needs or motivations are not stacked on top of one another but are seen as overlapping. Yet, Kenrick suggested that kin care, or parenting, is the ultimate goal of humanity.

What Was I Made For?

According to Kenrick, if you have young children, parenting motives become increasingly linked to your sense of self-actualization and meaning in life. Cue the Barbie movie montage of women, relationships, and human emotions. Cue the Billie Eilish song. This answers Barbie’s question: what was I made for? You were made for acquiring a mate, retaining a mate, and taking care of your family (and the families of all women) with all its attendant joys and pathos. Ruth holds Barbie’s hands and shows her that this is what it means to take the leap from Barbieland into the real world of humanity.

Postscript: What I Left Unsaid About Barbie (related to the film’s message, not its production)

This post and my last post on Barbie (Unpacking Barbie’s Apotheosis – Which Complaints Hold Up Under Scrutiny?) can be seen as bookends in tone: embracing and honoring the human-female experience vs. a detailed critique of Barbie’s central feminist message. But there is a lot left on the table to talk about; I just choose to move on.

Left unsaid and not fully discussed by me:

  • Barbie’s misandry (the movie is anti-male on the surface): no men in Barbieland or in the real world have any redeeming qualities. They are portrayed as silly, stupid buffoons — superfluous for the most part and oddly attached to horses. (Allen is a special case that does not disprove the point.)
  • After the Barbies retook Barbieland, it was close to an apartheid state for men. Men will have no voice or real representation — less representation than women in the real world. (It is unclear if the Kens get places to live.)
  • Barbies use trickery and their erotic power over men to retake Barbieland. They lie to the men when they act interested in what the men are saying or singing. Barbies strategically use jealousy (intra-sexual competition) between the men to cause them to fight one another. (This is of course common in the real world, but it is almost interesting here, given Barbieland is supposedly an asexual environment.)
  • Relatedly, Barbies exploit male fragility; the movie does have relevant things to say about the fragility of men. Kens need a Barbie more than Barbies need a Ken. There is an existential threat to men if they are not sexually acceptable to a woman. Ken: “I only exist within the warmth of your gaze.” And, “Barbie has a great day everyday, but Ken has a great day only if Barbie looks at him.” Ultimately, Ken might be “enough” of a nice guy, but he will not be a suitable sex partner or mate. Barbie is not interested. Full stop.
  • There are perhaps relevant reflections (and reviews to share) about non-binary gender presentation and even implied queer sexual preference in Barbie.
  • There is a rise of bimbo feminism (especially on TikTok) in response to this movie – the combination of hyper-femininity and feminism.
  • There is a message about patriarchy via Mattel’s corporate capitalism windfall.
  • There is a twist on the creation myth: analog to the Garden of Eden and Adam and Eve.
  • There is a possible connection in the Barbie video montage to the alloparenting instinct – pair bonds with fellow female alloparents who help raise children. (see It Takes a Village – Alloparenting and Female Sexual Fluidity.
Final thoughts: Barbie is Allegory and Satire

Given all this, it is important to remember that the movie Barbie is an allegory and satire. Greta Gerwig is a sly filmmaker. As the marketing promotion said: if you love Barbie, you will love this movie. If you hate Barbie, you will love this movie. But you might hate this movie in both cases. Not me. I was intrigued and stimulated more than I wanted to be. I cannot hate that.

Appendix

What Was I Made for – Lyrics by Billie Eilish

I used to float, now I just fall down
I used to know but I’m not sure now
What I was made for
What was I made for?

Takin’ a drive, I was an ideal
Looked so alive, turns out I’m not real
Just something you paid for
What was I made for?

(Chorus)

‘Cause I, ’cause I
I don’t know how to feel
But I wanna try
I don’t know how to feel
But someday I might
Someday I might

When did it end? All the enjoyment
I’m sad again, don’t tell my boyfriend
It’s not what he’s made for
What was I made for?

‘Cause I, ’cause I
I don’t know how to feel
But I wanna try
I don’t know how to feel
But someday I might
Someday I might

Think I forgot how to be happy
Something I’m not, but something I can be
Something I wait for
Something I’m made for
Something I’m made for

 

Please Note: Your comment may take up to 12 seconds to register and the confirmation message will appear above the “Submit a Comment” text. 
Unpacking the Barbie Apotheosis – Which Complaints Hold Up Under Scrutiny?

Unpacking the Barbie Apotheosis – Which Complaints Hold Up Under Scrutiny?

by | Aug 20, 2023 | Gender Politics, Men's Issues, Relationship Issues, Women's Issues

“It is literally impossible to be a woman.”
~ Gloria, Mattel Executive

 

One moment in Barbie has become a rallying cry for women. Across social media, women have said the speech given by America Ferrera’s character, Gloria (a Mattel executive), perfectly articulates the silent expectations and challenges they face under patriarchy. After the monologue concluded, applause and howls erupted from my Austin audience and reportedly from audiences around the country.

Ferrera told Vanity Fair that the scene took two days and between 30 to 50 takes. Obviously, director Greta Gerwig wanted to get this right. This speech may be her apotheosis – the main message of the movie. (See full text of the speech in Appendix below.)

Gloria’s rant appears to have no satirical intent (unlike much of the movie). Gerwig is playing it straight. She believes these complaints, expectations, and double binds are true for women and are primarily imposed or entirely imposed by men or the patriarchy – even if, it seems, other women are also involved in creating or upholding them. (A double bind is a situation where you are damned if you do, damned if you don’t, and usually damned if you talk about it.)

Set Up for the “Impossibility of Being a Woman” Speech

After Barbie returns to Barbieland with Gloria and her daughter Sasha, she is devasted to find the Kens have taken over and (somehow) brainwashed the rest of the Barbies. Barbie sobs, telling Gloria that she feels she’ll never be good enough. Gloria then launches into a monologue outlining the contradictions and challenges suffered by womanhood.

Gloria’s Real-Life Struggles?

There is no depiction of Gloria’s real-life struggles in the movie. Does she have problems with discrimination at work? Abuse by her husband? Pay discrepancy? Marriage problems? Her sadness is the root of Barbie’s sadness, yet what is the source of her sadness? What are the transgressions of the patriarchy — the actual examples of her subjugation specifically? We get none of that. We know Gloria has a parent-daughter issue. Gerwig said in one interview that Barbie is mostly a film about a mother-daughter conflict. (Gerwig said many different things, as does the movie.)

Twelve “Complaints” by Women in Barbie

1. Body shape and being thin

“You have to be thin, but not too thin. And you can never say you want to be thin. You have to say you want to be healthy, but also you have to be thin.”

Women carry the burden of needing to be physically attractive to be desired as a mate. Physical features signal fertility: waist-to-hip ratio, lower back curvature, and facial and body symmetry. “Thin” generally means a waist-to-hip ratio of around .7 or .8. If a woman has a large waist and belly fat, she would not be considered sexually desirable because she would be perceived as less fertile. Women have babies; men do not. Fertility matters for women in the science of attraction. This is the basic biology of sexual reproduction. (Stereotypical Barbie was definitely thin; “curvy” Barbie, introduced in 2016, was heavier but still had close to a .7 waist-to-hip ratio.)

But Is There a Double Bind?

How many men say to women, “please be thin, but not too thin?” How often do men commonly rebuke women for saying they want to be thin? Hmm. I am skeptical about the frequency of this.

Thinness is a definite requirement (burden) for women and a possible double bind.

2. Need to have money but never ask for money

“You have to have money, but you can’t ask for money because that is crass.”

Going to have to call “poppycock” on this one. Do young women feel they have to have money to be attractive to men? Relative to men, women do not have to have money to be desired. Almost never. In fact, this is an insult to men because of the strong expectation for men to have resources to be datable or marriageable. I am surprised that this was written into the speech. This is not a requirement for women.

Asking for money is considered crass by anyone and everyone. Is it a special burden for women? Well, if they are very reliant on a man for their economic survival, then asking for money can be a burden. More necessary than crass.

Both parts of this complaint seem invalid, but “having to have money” does not comport with heterosexual mating and sexual psychology or with dating survey data.

3. Leadership 1 and 2

#1: “You have to be a boss, but you can’t be mean.”

This is the most legitimate of the double binds listed. I wrote a blog post on this: Double Binds for Women in Leadership.” I noted the case of Carol Moseley-Braun, comments about Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, and especially the case of Hillary Clinton. I cited a Pew Research Center study of 2017 on the biases women face, additional research on gender stereotypes, and the “three predicaments” identified by Catalyst, an organization that supports “workplaces that work for women.”

#2: “You have to lead, but you can’t squash other people’s ideas.”

This is not really a double bind regarding intelligent leadership (you can and should lead without “squashing”), and it also applies to male leaders. But, going along with the above double bind about meanness, women are probably given less leeway to squash other people’s ideas than men. Men probably can get away with this autocratic style more than women.

4. Motherhood

“You have to be a loving mother but don’t talk about your kids all the damn time.”

Yes, we expect mothers to be loving. No doubt. But who is telling women not to talk about their kids? Men or male partners? Bosses at work? Other women? Other mothers? Other couples or mixed company in social settings?

Is this really a double bind? Isn’t it easy to demonstrate that you are a loving mother without talking about (bragging about) your kids all the time?

5. Be a career person but always look out for other people

“You have to be a career woman, but always be looking out for other people.”

Who or what is putting on this pressure on women to have a career other than the economic reality of being a single breadwinner and head of a household? Most American families need dual incomes to survive. But who is saying that you must have a career? Men? The “patriarchy?” Or just the reality of needing enough income to pay the bills. The “richness” of this so-called unfair expectation is that men REALLY DO have to have a career or a decent job to be considered upright and acceptable.

Working after Work

The second part of this complaint is “always look out for other people.” If “looking out for other people” means that working women must care for their children and also “keep the home afloat” (even though they work 40 or more hours a week), then this is a legitimate complaint. Men generally do not do 50% of the work around the house or equal caretaking of children. Thus, working women have a “second job” when they get home. (But, it is unclear this is what is meant in the speech.)

6. Men’s bad behavior

“You have to answer for men’s bad behavior, which is insane, but if you point that out, you’re accused of complaining.”

This one needs examples. What is the bad behavior, and what does the “answering” look like? Who is pressuring women to do this “answering?” To whom are women answering?

This sounds like a valid part of a woman’s experience. Still, the general public of men, (the holders of the patriarchy) may need some direct feedback and behavioral coaching to correct this. We need to hear these stories/examples. And who is accusing you of complaining? The aforementioned men who behaved badly?

The possibility of a double bind exists with this complaint (with perhaps overtones of gaslighting in extreme cases), but it needs more detail.

7. Being pretty (by itself) and being pretty related to sisterhood

“You’re supposed to stay pretty for men, but not so pretty that you tempt them too much or that you threaten other women because you are supposed to be part of the sisterhood.”

Yes, men want you to be pretty, especially if you are their girlfriend or wife. But “not so pretty?” Perhaps that means — be attractive to me as my partner, but somehow don’t be attractive to other men. Ok, that is a double bind. And if you tempt men who belong to other women, you are not a good “sister.” Fair enough. That is part of the same double bind, although women engage in intrasexual competition and attempt to poach the men of other women.

The Core Belief of the Barbie Apotheosis – the System is Rigged Against Women

8. Acknowledge that the system is rigged, but always be grateful.

“But never forget that the system is rigged. So, find a way to acknowledge that but always be grateful.”

What is meant by the system being rigged? How is the system rigged? Is it an amalgam of patriarchal oppression signified by the aggregate wage gap or the percentages of women in the upper echelon of government and corporations?

Aggregate Wage Gap and Women in C-Suites Do Not Prove Rigging

“Patriarchy” in feminist theory (and in “Barbie) is often associated with the idea of inordinate male power fueled by a malicious intent to hold women down using outright discrimination. But the aggregate wage gap and the percentages of women in government and corporate executive suites do not prove discrimination. That sacred trope of left-feminist politics does not reflect the evidence from economic research. It is a misreading of women’s choices related to academic disciplines, career tracts, and preference to have and raise children. (A complete discussion of this is beyond the scope of this post.)

A Zombie Lie

Bill Maher called Barbie a “zombie lie” in its depiction of patriarchy and a “rigged” system. A zombie lie is a lie that never was true, but certain people refused to stop saying it; or it is something that used to be true but no longer is, even though some people pretend it is still valid. (Like trickle-down economics or an aggregate wage gap caused by discrimination.)

Maher went on to say that “the real Mattel board is pretty close to a mirror of the country where 45% of the 449 board seats filled last year in Fortune 500 companies were women.” Barbie depicts the Mattel board as all men. In reality, it has seven men and five women.

Women Are Part of the System

Barbie seems to believe that there is a patriarchal system that holds down the empowerment and advancement of women and that they have no causal relationship to that system; it’s rigged, and women are not involved or responsible for how the system is constructed. From a perspective of mate selection science, women collude with men and are causal to men running things at the top — because women want to mate with those men.

The Dream Gap and Achievement Gap

This idea of the system being rigged against women ignores the dramatic advantage in achievement (the achievement gap) that girls and women currently have over boys and men in academia and in the careers of millennials and Gen Z Americans. Forbes reported in 2020 that the law reviews of the top 16 law schools in the US all had a female editor-in-chief. That is 16 out of 16!

At my movie theatre in south Austin, a pre-movie ad advocated for closing the “dream gap” for girls. But it is boys who need support in their dreams and achievement in 2023 America. The girls are doing much better than the boys right now. If you want more girls in STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics), fine. Give them that dream. But they will have to have a natural inclination and want it.

Mattel Has Been in the Girl-Dream Business from the Very Beginning

Mattel has given Barbie 200 different careers since 1959 – including surgeon, dentist, math teacher, judge, architect, aircraft engineer, astronaut, astrophysicist, chemist, microbiologist, robotics engineer, business executive, space scientist, and US President. It is not foolish to say that Barbie has done more than its part to “unrig” the patriarchal system. Barbie was nearly a feminist icon before she found the big screen.

Here is What Rigging Actually Looks Like

If Gerwig had said the following about a rigged system, she would have been correct:

– American corporate culture is rigged against women by not providing paid leave for childbirth, provisions for childcare, and flexible work scheduling. (It is also rigged against men by not allowing paid paternity leave.)

– American capitalism, tax laws, and consumer credit are rigged to advantage the rich and disadvantage the poor and middle class.

– U.S. federal government is run primarily by men who protect the rich, although these men were elected by women as well.

– Presidential political primaries and our electoral college system can rig outcomes against the will of the simple majority.

– American judicial system and legal representation are rigged in favor of the monied class.

– Insurance, drug, and hospital corporations rig American health care to its detriment.

Who is to Blame for the Rigging of Profit Over People?

Is all this “rigging” a patriarchal plot? Perhaps. It is primarily men who make the federal laws and the governing rules inside corporations.

Maybe the corporate capitalistic culture in America is rigged against women because of the lack of a social safety net for the family — like the systems in the social democracies of Europe. Who is to blame for that? Just men? Who is to blame for rigging the American system to value profit over people? Just men? Well maybe. But I don’t think that is made clear by Gerwig. I don’t believe that is what she means by saying the system is rigged. We do not know precisely what she means by rigging the system. Gerwig’s movie is deft with satire and replete with internal contradictions.

Pressure to Acknowledge and Be Grateful?

Assuming that women believe the system is rigged against them, why must they acknowledge that, as asserted in the apotheosis speech? Who is pressuring them to acknowledge that? What is the political motivation for that pressure?

And women are expected to be grateful no matter what? Who says that? Perhaps some men do. But most men in today’s environment do not say that women should be grateful – that has zombie lie written all over it.

9. Never get old, show off, be rude, or selfish, or get out of line

“You have to never get old, never be rude, never show off, never be selfish…… never get out of line.”

Never getting old probably relates to the need to be (stay) pretty, as in #7 above. It is a legitimate “pressure” given the need to attract and keep men as mates.

Never be rude, show off, be selfish, or get out of line, relates to #3 above, the double bind of women as leaders. That is a real double bind. The question is how forceful and pervasive is the request to “never be” (fill in the blank) and who is doing the asking. Is it coming from men?

10. Never fall down, fail, or show fear

“You have to never fall down, never fail, never show fear.”

This expectation feels entirely self-imposed. It totally makes sense for men and the expectations for virile masculinity (what is called the “man box.”) This expectation of men is so pervasive (and women impose this, directly or indirectly) that it feels ironic (and thus irritating) as a complaint from women. Men do not, as a rule, need their women to never fall down, never fail, or never show fear. Those qualities may be great, even attractive, but they do not contribute much to the male desire of women sexually or as partners. If anything, men want the opportunity to catch a woman when she falls . . . men need to be useful and want to do that. This “Barbie” complaint is self-imposed by women on women.

11. You are doing everything wrong. It is all your fault.

“And it turns out in fact that not only are you doing everything wrong, but also everything is your fault.”

Who is saying this to women? In what context? “Everything?” “All?” This assertion needs clarification and evidence. This complaint also seems quite ironic if you consider just how pervasive the memes are that men are toxic, useless, stupid, and unnecessary. Those messages about men are everywhere in print, on the internet, and in many cultural art forms (television shows, commercials, and movies). I would submit that men, not women, are getting the message that “it is all your fault.”

Is it possible that Gerwig is engaging in satirical speech? Or is she shooting it straight with female-centric self-loathing? Women may indeed feel this. (Actually, I suspect they do.) But don’t make it part of the feminist position paper inside this movie unless you put some “meat on the bones” with examples or wink at the audience so they know this is presented tongue-in-cheek.

12. Never being appreciated for all of this

“Nobody gives you a medal or says thank you!”

This is a human failing on both sides of the gender divide. But it is worth noting that Mother’s Day is considered somewhat more important in the United States than Father’s Day as measured by gifting behavior and survey responses.

Conclusion

Women have legit complaints about the need to be pretty, the lack of permission to be angry and mean as a female leader and having to do more than their share of household management. Many of the apotheosis complaints and double binds also exist for men. In fact, the double binds about never failing, and never showing fear are almost exclusively a problem for men and not women. Most importantly, the system is rigged by both men and women to value profit over people and rich over poor — not men over women. Women and girls in 2023 are doing better than men and boys by a significant margin. Barbie perpetuates a “zombie lie” – but the fun is just starting. Stay tuned for my next post about the movie Barbie.

*Apotheosis: the highest point of development of something, the culmination or climax

Appendix: Full text of Gloria’s Apotheosis Monologue

“It is literally impossible to be a woman. You are so beautiful and so smart, and it kills me that you don’t think you’re good enough. Like, we have to always be extraordinary, but somehow, we’re always doing it wrong. You have to be thin, but not too thin. And you can never say you want to be thin. You have to say you want to be healthy, but also you have to be thin. You have to have money, but you can’t ask for money because that is crass. You have to be a boss, but you can’t be mean. You have to lead, but you can’t squash other people’s ideas. You have to be a loving mother but don’t talk about your kids all the damn time. You have to be a career woman, but always be looking out for other people. You have to answer for men’s bad behavior, which is insane, but if you point that out, you’re accused of complaining. You’re supposed to stay pretty for men, but not so pretty that you tempt them too much or that you threaten other women because you are supposed to be part of the sisterhood. But always be grateful. But never forget that the system is rigged. So, find a way to acknowledge that, but always be grateful. You have to never get old, never be rude, never show off, never be selfish, never fall down, never fail, never show fear, never get out of line. It’s too hard! It is too contradictory, and nobody gives you a medal or says thank you! And it turns out in fact that not only are you doing everything wrong, but also everything is your fault. I’m just so tired of watching myself and every single other woman tie herself into knots so that people will like us. And if all of that is also true for a doll just representing women, then I don’t even know.” (In another part of the movie Gloria also says that women must “always stand out.”)

Author’s Note:

Another Barbie post is coming! I will discuss issues of gender, patriarchy, degree of man-hating (misandry) and Barbieland as an apartheid state, male fragility, male and female sexuality, mate selection and reproduction in the real world vs. Barbieland, and much more.

 

Please Note: Your comment may take up to 12 seconds to register and the confirmation message will appear above the “Submit a Comment” text.