This past weekend, Hollywood director Greta Gerwig’s “Barbie” hit theaters nationwide. This author (and her poor husband) watched it so you don’t have to. It was everything one might expect it to be — a left-wing feminist propaganda film with vague allusions to the trans agenda — but it also presented some interesting questions that deserve delving into. (Warning, this article contains spoilers.)

Obviously, there was controversy with the film from the outset. There is a male-to-female “transgender” actor who plays one of the main Barbies, though if one didn’t know that Doctor Barbie was a “he” ahead of time, it wouldn’t be obvious. Another red flag was that the film about a child’s toy received a PG-13 rating, which it thoroughly deserved. It had lots of mature adult themes, including talks about the non-sexuality of the dolls and innuendos in spite of the lack of reproductive organs.

The main themes of the film seemed to be identity and feminine and masculine roles in society. By exploring these themes from a perspective of a moral relativist, it actually illustrates all that is wrong with leftist feminist thinking. Moral relativism is the secular philosophy that declares everyone should do what is right in their own eyes. “What’s right for you” or “Your truth” have replaced “The Truth” (morality structured by Judeo-Christian faith).

Moral relativism in “Barbie” actually portrays the highest good as individuals having and maintaining power. In the case of Barbieland (the fictional world of the Barbies), life is so much better when women are in charge of all the power. In Barbieland, the president is a woman, the Supreme Court is made up of women, and all positions of power are held by women. One of the major conflicts in the movie is when Ken, played by Ryan Gosling, comes back from the “real world” of Los Angeles (this in and of itself is problematic and will be addressed later) and brings a patriarchal message to all the Kens back in Barbieland. The Kens take over, and the Barbies are brainwashed into submissive bimbos who would do anything for a man as long as he was in power.

It is disingenuous in its portrayal of the Kens. The whole time, the Kens are portrayed as stupid, jealous, cruel when empowered, feminized, and unnecessary to the Barbies. By contrast, the Barbies are portrayed as excellent, virtuous, boss babes, and kind. This portrayal of adversarial social dynamics between men and women is so dishonest, particularly vis-à-vis women. Women can be fatuous, brutal, or envious, just as men can be exceptional, pious, and kind. This overpraise of women plays an important role in the “rescuing” of Barbieland from the Kens.

One of the heroes of the film, a human mother named Gloria — played by America Ferrera— is able to help the Barbies regain their autonomy by expressing to them the difficulties and inherent contradictions of being a woman and the eternal struggle of not being good enough for society. The victimhood of oppressed feminist ideals snaps the Barbies out of the submissive stupor, and they plot to take back their home from the oppression of the Kens.

Yet the movie willfully ignores the fact that men have the exact same difficulty in the world. Men can’t win for losing. Even if they are gentlemen and strive to do right (like Vice President Mike Pence never dining alone with a woman not his wife), they are ridiculed and declared toxic. Because there is no actual moral standard that the culture adheres to anymore, thanks to the leftist push for moral relativism, no man can ever be good enough either.

Christians also believe that they, in and of themselves, are not good enough. Romans 3:10-12 reminds us: “There is no one righteous, not even one; there is no one who understands; there is no one who seeks God. All have turned away, they have together become worthless; there is no one who does good, not even one.” All people are sinners in need of a Savior. That is why Christ came to earth and died for our sins. We can’t save ourselves.

The conclusion of this dilemma of “not good enough” vs. “good enough” in “Barbie” is never actually resolved. The standard for “good enough” is left up to the individual, and that is deeply unsatisfying and discordant to the viewer. Shallow leftist maxims are the only thing the characters are able to cling to for the feeling of redemption and resolution.

Another major critique of the film would be its disdain for mothers as a role in society. Motherhood is too limiting and backward for any commendation from the film’s writers. The writers were, however, happy to denigrate motherhood throughout the film. There was the early destruction of baby dolls by little girls clamoring to get a Barbie instead. It was actually very jarring to watch as these baby dolls were smashed, tossed, and altogether dismissed. Then there was the snide pooh-poohing of pregnant Barbie Midge. Her only purpose was fodder for anti-pregnancy jokes and as a nod to the discontinued Barbie. Being the mother of the next generation is a miracle and a privilege. It is one of the greatest, most amazing things women can do! Belittling that is shameful.

This anti-mother attitude was very ironic considering it is a mother who is one of the main protagonists. Gloria’s struggle to connect with her moody preteen daughter — who has all the earmarks of left-wing brainwashing, including calling the main Barbie “fascist” — is the impetus for Barbie to have to leave Barbieland and try to fix things in the real world. In spite of initial vitriolic hate from the daughter, the main Barbie ends up being a way for mother and daughter to connect with one another again.

The last major critique involves the choice to set the “real world” in Los Angeles, California. LA is not the real world by any stretch of the imagination. Neither Barbieland nor the “real world” of LA felt real in any way. LA is also not what most of America is like. Los Angeles is a sprawling city where extreme wealth and extreme poverty exist side by side. However, the film chose to focus on the affluent and consumerist-driven side of LA to illustrate American patriarchy. It is interesting to note that in LA, female director Greta Gerwig holds a position of power. The hyper-emphasis on the patriarchy in LA in contrast to the hyper-emphasis on the matriarchy in Barbieland gave both settings a feeling of unreality. It is also ironic the writers decided that LA, the leftist throne in the blue bastion that is California, is having such a patriarchy problem.

Barbie is a famous, identifiable American toy. It is iconic. The doll was a meaningful part of many a young girl’s childhood. However, this reimagining of Barbie as a feminist icon really is an attack on an earlier generation of women’s thoughts, dreams, and values, as well as an attack on future young girls’ view of femininity, girlhood, and what their role is in the culture.

There was one positive to the movie, however. It was very funny. It also had the capacity to laugh at itself. Still, it did overplay some running gags, and by the end of the movie it just read as inane.

Overall, “Barbie” was a feminist treatise that declared men are bad and women are oppressed; that roles and identity are a journey of self-discovery/are self-determined; and that you are enough. Because of the confused morality and the subsequent struggle with identity and gender roles, astute viewers are left with the unsatisfactory feeling of having no real resolution. It is not a film to take your kids to, and it is certainly no intellectually gratifying experience. It would fall into the category of chick flick fluff with a feminist agenda.