Why a Barbie movie now?

I remember begging my mother to buy me my first Barbie. The price was $2.07 back in 1961, and I just had to have one.  

Of course, no one questioned the idea behind Barbie or the fact that she was a huge departure from the typical baby dolls who were plump and squishy. But well-known novelist Jonathan Cahn provides a wealth of unknown context to the origins of the very popular doll which has served as the optimal but unrealistic body-perfect model to which women often aspire to emulate.

In answering the title of this article, “Why a Barbie Movie Now?” Cahn’s clip offers a more than plausible rationale behind the timing. It’s simply uncanny how, after 60 years, a movie based on an iconic doll could be more relevant than ever.

He starts off by discussing the origins of Barbie, depicting how the movie begins and making a case for the message which, in his estimation, “attacks half of the human race and marriage.” He says that the film actually indoctrinates girls against men, as heard from the mouth of Barbie herself, who brazenly declares, “By giving voice to the cognitive dissonance required to be a woman under the patriarchy, you robbed it of its power.”  

Cahn assures us that speech of this type is not normal but more in keeping with either a text that can be found in a radical feminist handbook or views which espouse Marxist doctrine. Because that’s already a heavy claim, Cahn warns that while the film purports to be nothing more than pure fun, it’s far from the “children’s entertainment” that it’s billed to be.  

He points to terms, such as “patriarchy” and “cognitive dissonance” to back his assertion of propaganda being aimed at impressionable children. He further explains that “patriarchy,” a buzzword of feminists, associated with the world’s evils, is used frequently and purposely throughout the film. Men, per the movie, are nothing more than inferior, useless jerks whose “very dangerous idea” of marriage is exposed as subjugation. That message, however, is soon overcome by the “awareness” that women don’t really need men and, in fact, are able to manage quite well without them. This is the basis under which Cahn says, is a vilification of half the human race, as men are shown to be stupid enough to be easily manipulated and then conquered.

Interestingly enough, one Barbie, in the film, is depicted as transexual, and here is where we learn something that most of us never knew. Barbie is a replica of a 1955 German doll named Bild Lilli that was sold in sex shops. The provocative doll was actually patterned off of a prostitute prototype, wearing a skimpy corset. This same image, although clad in a striped bathing suit, brilliantly appears to the young girls, in the film, playing with ordinary baby dolls, almost as if to enlighten them that there is now a better, more-improved replacement.  

Once they become mesmerized by her, they shatter and destroy their old baby dolls as a sign of embracing the new plaything. Here, Cahn makes the shocking symbolic parallel between the rejection and destruction of their baby dolls to today’s rejection of marriage and the destruction of real babies through the very discardable process of abortion.  

Cahn goes on to make the comparison of the emasculated men in the Barbie film to Tamuz, the equally emasculated male companion of Ishtar, the young Babylonian goddess of sexuality and prostitution. In that era, men were nothing more than a sidelined accessory to iconic females. Consequently, motherhood and marriage were not compatible with that image.

We finally get to the exquisite and peculiar timing of this movie, which is not at all coincidental in Cahn’s estimation. 

Today’s progressive philosophy has been systematically “grinding away at the masculinity of men” by portraying them as creatures with toxic proclivities who are in desperate need of reprogramming in order to soften them and make them worthy of retaining their societal place, alongside the more evolved and civilized women who, thank goodness, are free of those same toxic tendencies. 

Male authority is nowhere to be found in this prototype, and with good reason. Men are simply not virtuous enough to be admired.

Cahn’s 2022 book, “The Return of the Gods,” goes into greater detail about “the patriarchy,” explaining that Ishtar’s father was the authority figure with whom she warred, in direct rebellion to his authority. He also attributes the early incremental removal of God from society around the 1960s which, coincidentally, coinciding with the introduction of Barbie. That era birthed the sexual revolution as well as a completely different viewpoint of marriage.

Ever since her successful launch, Barbie enjoyed tremendous popularity, but never more than now, and with good reason. “The success at the box office during the first weekend, combined with positive film reviews and the entire build-up towards Barbie’s release, made it more than a movie. It has become a cultural phenomenon, beating out Oppenheimer at the box office with a record $155 million debut.”

Already, there are talks of a sequel, and why not? Rarely is a goldmine of this caliber struck, and certainly unusual for one that was so unexpected, due to the particular genre of a made-up doll. But if there is any laughing going on, it’s all the way to the bank, because, in addition to the pink-themed movie, the color of Barbie is now green from its massive financial windfall.

It's all tied together so well. The agenda, from emasculating men to liberating women, to establishing a new hierarchy and authority structure, to tearing down traditional family, all culminating in the massive flow of wealth created by Hollywood. Has there ever been such a fortuitous convergence of agendas under one roof? Nothing comes to mind.

So, Barbie, the iconic doll has done the impossible, the message being that no one should underestimate her power – or at least the power behind the deliberate and well-planned message which only took 60 years to come of age in all its fullness.