You’ve most likely seen a headline or two about Blake Lively and Justin Baldoni’s very public war. Even if Hollywood drama is not your cup of tea, the public brawl raises important and interesting questions about the failures of feminism.
The film at the center of it all, It Ends With Us (IEWU), had the potential for conveying a positive, pro-woman message. Based on the book of the same title by Colleen Hoover, IEWU follows Lily Bloom (Blake Lively), a young woman who falls in love with Ryle Kincaid (Justin Baldoni), a successful neurosurgeon. As their relationship deepens, Lily discovers that Ryle has a dark side, and she is forced to confront the painful scars she bears from her own parents' troubled marriage. The story explores themes of domestic abuse, self-worth, and the difficult choices one must make to break out of toxic relationships.
Initially, the casting of Lively and Baldoni seemed like a full-proof mix.
Baldoni has a podcast called The Man Enough Podcast, in which he discusses the role of men in feminism and encourages men to step it up. Baldoni has admitted to being exposed to porn at a very young age and struggled with an addiction for some time. He uses his personal story to encourage others to quit porn. In his career, Baldoni has intentionally sought out projects promoting feminism, earning him the title of a feminist ally. He acquired rights to, co-starred in, and directed IEWU – the latest addition to his personal brand. Casting Blake Lively was meant to give the film its A-list star, drawing big crowds to the theaters.
The Baldoni-Lively pairing worked. IEWU grossed around 350 million dollars worldwide, but neither the movie itself nor its commercial success saved it from the looming 400-million-dollar lawsuit currently on the table.
Trouble in paradise: The complaint
The red flags started to wave when Justin Baldoni was absent from the film’s premiere and Blake Lively gave some awkward responses to interview questions at the event. Now famously, she was asked how she would respond if someone were to approach her and share they were facing a domestic violence situation. She answered sarcastically “Asking for my address, my phone number, or location share?” The comment section for this interview went so wild, that the channel turned it off. This sparked a social media firestorm of speculation. Old interviews started resurfacing in which Lively seemed out-of-touch. One previous awkward interview gathered over 6 million views in less than five months.
At the time, it was not clear how this was all connected. Why wouldn’t the film director attend his own premiere? How is the A-list protagonist suddenly so unlikeable? These questions remained unanswered until December when Blake Lively filed a complaint against Baldoni for inappropriate behavior on set. This complaint was accompanied by a New York Times op-ed: “‘We Can Bury Anyone’: Inside a Hollywood Smear Campaign.” In it, the authors supported Blake’s charges against Baldoni and argued that the negative press she had received was a well-planned attack coordinated by Baldoni and the PR company working with him. Baldoni then sued the New York Times for defamation, raising the question: Who is burying who in this smear campaign?
In her complaint, Lively specifically accused Baldoni of showing her inappropriate material on set, including a video she claimed to be pornographic. However, it was later revealed that the video in question was a recording of Baldoni’s wife giving birth, which was relevant to a scene in the film where Lively's character gives birth. She also claimed that Baldoni would walk into her trailer while she was breastfeeding and consequently partially undressed, but text messages came to light proving that Blake had invited Baldoni to her trailer knowingly to both that she was breastfeeding.
It became evident that Blake was intentionally portraying Baldoni as a misogynist and herself as his victim. By doing this, Blake attempted to earn sympathy and support by painting herself as a feminist during the public controversy by maintaining that she was being treated unfairly.
In response to the NYT article, Baldoni wasted no time suing Lively and setting up a website filled with emails, text messages, and many other documents proving his arguments. This battle is being fought in the legal and public courts alike. While all the questions have not been answered, now it is clear that the tension has been piling up for a very long time and it only keeps escalating.
The bigger picture: Why should we care?
Celebrity drama has always been a popular attraction, but this particular story goes far beyond petty gossip. The Lively-Baldoni fiasco reveals what modern feminism really is and its place in popular culture. During the glory days of the #metoo movement, Hollywood faced many of its demons, specifically the objectification of women on movie sets. While I do believe this brought much positive change, it also weaponized women’s vulnerability.
The #metoo movement encouraged us to “believe all women” and cancel anyone showcasing misogynistic behaviors ranging from oggling to rape. While this sent an important and clear message and brought many injustices to light; “smashing the patriarchy” is, after all, what feminism is all about. It reduces the relationship between the sexes to a power game women must play against men.
This is well explained by Carrie Gress in her latest book The End of Woman: How Smashing the Patriarchy Has Destroyed Us; here she argues that the effort to debase men in the name of feminism has in fact hurt women. The #metoo movement didn’t address some of the bigger issues of first-wave feminism: self-loathing and the occult, all of which are still quite prevalent in Hollywood.
That is why we should care about the Baldoni and Lively drama. At a higher level, the IEWU feud is not about Blake or Justin, but about how the public perceives feminism and how it has been weaponized for the sake of egos, power, and profit.
Empowerment vs. power
Baldoni and his feminist friends have argued passionately for women’s empowerment, but what is happening in the Lively-Baldoni story is not about empowerment – it is about power and control over narratives, businesses, and even egos. It remains unclear how the conflict between Lively and Baldoni escalated to a $400-million-dollar-lawsuit, but Candace Owens suggests a theory that Blake Lively wants to take over the Colleen Hoover franchise which Baldoni currently has rights over. If this turns out to be true, it would be Exhibit A of the weaponization of feminism for commercial and egotistical purposes.
A specific example of this weaponization is Blake’s claim in her legal complaint that she was inappropriately touched and spoken to while on set. Baldoni responded by releasing a 10-minute long raw footage of the scene in question as proof that it is visibly clear that Lively’s statements are untrue. The key issue is whether the behavior in question was in character or not. Public opinion is divided, and Baldoni has provided evidence that Lively did not meet with the intimacy coordinator, often acting as her own intimacy coordinator on set. Lively’s lawyers released a statement that appealed to feminism and specifically women who’ve experienced workplace harassment by saying “Any woman who has been inappropriately touched in the workplace will recognize Ms. Lively’s discomfort.” This statement does not respond to the facts in question; instead, it is a clear attempt to position Lively as a victim of “toxic masculinity” and makes an emotional appeal to a public primed to “believe all women.”
Narrative control
It gets even more interesting, now that Baldoni has sued and provided so much evidence against Lively’s claims. Now, Lively appears to be the one misleading the public by sharing half-truths that don’t hold up in context. (For example, Lively accused Baldoni of showing her pornographic material. It turned out that Baldoni had shown her a video of his wife giving birth, which was relevant since there is a scene in which Lively gives birth.)
Controlling narratives is at the core of the feminism crisis of our times.
While releasing so much information on a website may seem excessive, Baldoni understands well that this is a race to control narratives. By providing all this evidence, Baldoni has been able to gain the upper hand.
What feminism is
The Baldoni-Lively feud has suddenly become an opportunity for our culture to clarify its understanding of feminism. Is it truly about gathering support around women when they ask for it? Is it a movement aimed at destroying men's and all non-feminists’ lives? Is it another opportunity for virtue signaling? Neither of these propositions solves the struggles women face.
Feminism as a movement has a long history of conflicting ideas such as the push for women’s sexual perversion, ties to the occult, and self-loathing attitudes. It is important to remember, however, that in the past 150 years, women have enjoyed expanding to flourish in education, political participation, activism, and greater financial opportunities. But the suffragettes who fought for these rights and opportunities didn’t use feminism to sell books, be liked, or endorse products. Their feminism was radical, uncomfortable, and often costly to themselves. But for many early feminists, their struggle was intended to highlight women’s dignity and inherent worth.
Is feminism rotten all the way down?
In conclusion, the ongoing public feud between Blake Lively and Justin Baldoni is not merely a celebrity scandal but also a reflection of deeper issues within the modern feminist movement writ large. What began as a potential opportunity to promote a pro-woman narrative through It Ends With Us has spiraled into a complex battle over power, control, and the manipulation of feminist ideals for personal and commercial gain.
The weaponization of feminism undermines a much-needed rediscovery of the beauty, power, and grace of authentic womanhood.
As the conflict between Lively and Baldoni unfolds, it becomes increasingly clear that the weaponization of feminism — in which the language of women’s empowerment is used as a tool to advance personal agendas—undermines a much-needed rediscovery of the beauty, power, and grace of authentic womanhood.
Instead of focusing on genuine empowerment and women's dignity, modern feminism, as illustrated in this drama, has become entangled in a fight for dominance over narratives and egos. Ultimately, this scandal forces us to reconsider what feminism truly stands for: Is it about supporting women’s flourishing, or has it been hijacked as a means to control and manipulate?