Do you know why NATO annexed Sweden?

Sorry, but nope.

Attempting to discredit an argument, because of who said it and why they supposedly said it, is a text book ad hominem.

It’s especially painful, because you’re defending a corporation (run by a white male) with an abysmal record on women’s rights, who sell a product that has a track record of damaging young girls’ self image, from accusations of purplewashing. Purplewashing being a term, that as far as I know, was originally termed by female feminists. It’s a bit like if I quoted Emmeline Pankhurst, and you said the quote was nonsense because I don’t know what’s it’s like to be a woman.

But more generally, I suppose that’s the danger of a superficial understanding of identity politics. In practice it is often used to divide groups with a common cause, like how the far right have used TERF ideology in an attempt to divide the LGBTQ+ movement and pit feminists against the trans community, claiming trans women aren’t real women, because of (and I quote) “lived experiences”. (Luckily actual lesbians don’t often fall into this trap, because they know that this is nonsense because they know actual trans people and know they face similar struggles and live through similar experiences.)

And from a feminist perspective it perpetuates gender binaries and essentialism. The whole men are form Mars, women are from Venus nonsense. In the case of the Barbie movie, purplewashing is very similar to pinkwashing, greenwashing, bluewashing, etc. So you don’t need to actually be a woman to understand why purplewashing is problematic, just like you don’t need to be gay to understand why pinkwashing is problematic.

But hey, what do I know. I’m just Ken.

Anyway, agree to disagree.

is likely coming from a place that is uncomfortable with the kernels of meaning in the film. … in part because the gender of the critic you linked to is also male.

Nah. That’s just an ad hominem. The linked article was the second to top link when you do a quick google.

I know the right disliked Barbie because it was feminist. (Mattel denies the movie’s feminist, btw. Which should also tell you something. Presumably they were worried it’d cost them money in feminist utopias like Saudi Arabia).

I liked the movie, but was simply pointing out it was also purplewashing for a company with a poor reputation. Which it is. That’s a left-wing feminist argument. I mean, the movie’s fun and it was super pretty, but patriarchy isn’t really all that funny is it? Andrea Dworkin this ain’t.

to mere corporate dissent generation when both can be equally true. … I have to presume is what the creators of the film actually cared about

They can’t be equally true in a movie made by a large corporation. IRC Margot Robbie made $50 million. Understandably if you’re getting paid that much, you aren’t going to spend much time dwelling on stuff like their treatment of women in their factories:

https://chinalaborwatch.org/mattels-unceasing-abuse-of-chinese-workers-an-investigation-of-six-mattel-supplier-factories/

Instead you’ll focus on the pretty outfits and avoid mentioning femicide during press junkets.

Why do you think Mattel, a company that’s been accused of profiting of child labour and whose dolls have been shown to be damaging to young girls body image, made a Barbie movie?

Nah.

The reality is that this Mattel using feminism to shift product. It’s fundamentally no different than when brands pretend to be gay friendly through marketing, to distract from their past and current record. Or when an oil company pretends to be green.

In the case of Mattel, their dolls have causes young girls body image problems and have been accused of using child labour

A relevant bit from a guardian article:

So, what are those bevies of pink-bedecked filmgoing females supposed to make of all this? They will see seductive but dubious stereotypes embellished rather than subverted. Muddled messaging may dispel rather than stimulate any impulse to crusade. What might therefore leave the most residual impact is Sarah Greenwood’s luscious production design. A clear call to action does in the end emerge: go forth and buy the products of the film’s sponsor, Mattel, and its galaxy of commercial partners. If Barbie constitutes a triumph, it’s a triumph not of feminism but of the patriarchy’s so far most unassailable scion – capitalism. Women have been spending millions to watch a giant advertisement more likely to bewilder than inspire them. And now they’re spending millions more on the merch. Mattel’s (male) chairman and CEO, Ynon Kreiz, has plenty of cause to be pleased. But feminists? Perhaps not so much.

Capitalism commodifies dissent. It turns protest movements that argue against the unfairness of the current system into a product or marketing campaign to sell their imaginary solutions. The Barbie is a prime example of this.

I liked the I’m Just Ken song though, and it was a fun movie, but still.