Your Voice: Greta Gerwig’s Barbie movie shows absurdity in perfection; why affirmative action is needed (letters)

Director Greta Gerwig has brought Mattel’s most famous doll to the big screen in a cotton-candy-pink extravaganza starring Margot Robbie and Ryan Gosling. The movie’s enchanting storyline is captivating for all ages, and the vibrant sets and costumes are a visual feast.

Just as the director’s work in Little Women surprised me with its commentary on the saving power of storytelling, Barbie left me floored with its examinations of femininity, patriarchy, and self-actualisation.

I anticipated the movie to just be fun, pink vibes, but it turned out to be a must-watch that redefines what Barbie represents – no longer a symbol of unattainable beauty standards, but instead, a girl who should be free to have her own goals without the pressure of society’s expectations.

Barbie review: Greta Gerwig’s pink, plastic fantasy is a hilarious, feminist satire

In the debate of whether Barbie is good or bad for society, Gerwig’s film argues that it is both – and that perfection is absurd.

The film acknowledges the thorny contradictions that cling to the doll: unrealistic representations of women’s bodies and, up until recent years, a lack of diversity in its collection. But it still presents a comedy that leans into the delightful weirdness of the Barbie universe and delivers valuable life lessons.

As Robbie’s character in the film embarks on an eye-opening journey to the real world, Gerwig explores not only the doll’s meaning, but reflects on the patriarchy through Gosling’s Ken.

The comedy is developed in Barbie’s predicaments – her naive understanding of society as she crosses into the real world are hilarious, but her moments of growth and discovery shine through as well.

Gosling is a delight to watch as a Ken whose struggles with existing in Barbie’s shadow brings laughs without losing sight of his character development. The assortment of other Barbies, Kens and other dolls is also lots of fun to watch.

Barbieland is a marvel of production and costume design, replicating the look of many the brand’s classic products. The choreography in the film’s dance sequences is also impressive, with casts of different shapes, sizes and abilities taking part.

This all works together under one message: you don’t have to be blonde, white, or X, Y, Z to find your inner beauty.

Your Voice: How Brandy Melville continues a legacy of exclusion (long letters)

Chloe Lau, Princeton University

On March 30, I was among the frenzy of students around the world staring at the screens waiting to see if Ivy League colleges had accepted us.

I have been told by many that getting accepted to Princeton was because of my “merits”: the hours spent studying, the many drafts of essays, and the dedicated pursuit of my interests both inside and outside school.

But, America is not a meritocracy.

Last month, the US Supreme Court made the decision to ban race-based admissions in higher education, overturning more than four decades of court precedent. Proponents of this decision argued that this reversal would protect Asian Americans from being “judged by ancestry instead of by his or her own merit and essential qualities”.

But excluding race from “judgment of one’s merit” is impossible in the reality of America’s entrenched inequality. In fact, this will worsen the problems embedded in the college admissions process.

For example, college applicants are judged by their standardised test results, class rankings and grades. Often, performance on standardised exams are influenced by family wealth – if you have money to pay tutors, you are likely to score better on the exam. In America, there are huge disparities in wealth that are based on race. This is already a hidden inequality. Many have argued that standardised exams themselves are racist as well, with some studies supporting this conclusion.

Also, colleges use “holistic review” to evaluate applicants beyond their test scores, taking into account family commitments, work experience, community service and hardships they’ve faced. For many people of colour, these aspects are tied to racial inequalities in America.

US Supreme Court bans race-based university admission

As Princeton University President Christopher L. Eisgruber wrote on the school’s alumni website, race and ethnicity are among the many factors that “help us to understand the challenges that applicants have overcome and the perspectives that they can add to our campus”. To disregard how racial disparities have affected applicants is like burying one’s head in the sand.

The ban on affirmative action puts more pressure on minorities to discuss their race through essays. Chief Justice Roberts wrote in the majority opinion that “nothing prohibits universities from considering an applicant’s discussion of how race affected the applicant’s life”. Applicants then feel the push to write about their race-related trauma to appeal to colleges.

There was one exception to the affirmative action reversal. The footnotes mentioned that military academies could continue using affirmative action methods. If racial diversity is required for military academics, why is this not the case for other higher education institutions?

Instead of getting rid of affirmative action, colleges should scrutinise other policies, such as legacy admission, which gives preference to applicants with parents who attended the school. Race has mattered and will continue to matter. The only way to equity is a collective acknowledgement of society’s imperfections and acting to improve it.

Don’t follow Trump – affirmative action can help ease Hong Kong’s education woes

Annabel Leung, German Swiss International School

On a recent trip to Thailand, I discovered that although many elephant sanctuaries strive to protect elephants, capitalism and tourism have still driven many small businesses to exploit elephants for money. These businesses are common in many countries, such as Thailand, India and Indonesia, but despite their efforts to make elephant riding seem more ethical, it is almost never the case.

According to a report from World Animal Protection, roughly 77 per cent of elephants in the 220 venues they studied from 2014 to 2016 were kept in severely inadequate conditions.

Many venues also offer chances to see elephants paint a picture or perform circus tricks. Unfortunately, behind such flashy shows are cruel processes that beat the elephants into obedient show animals. They are hurt, starved and tortured into submission from a young age, and they are forced to perform until they are unable to. Then, elderly elephants are often killed or traded away.

The brutal practice of riding elephants also causes health issues for the animals. Their spines cannot support the heavy weight of people, and this can lead to permanent injuries. Many elephants suffer from malnutrition and are exhausted from working – some work for 20 hours a day.

The elephant riding industry is cruel and inhumane, but it is legal in many countries. Director and founder of the Wildlife Friends Foundation in Thailand, Edwin Wiek, told CNN: “It’s important to understand that elephants, unlike horses, are not bred to be ridden. They are not domesticated animals and are taken from the wild and kept in awful conditions.”

Elephants are already an endangered animal species. However, elephant riding make conservation efforts worthless. To stop these practices from continuing, sign a petition to outlaw these activities and prevent further exploitation of elephants.

• Focusing on Wildlife petition

• Wildlife SOS petition

• World Animal Protection