When my mother was young, her favorite toys were Barbies. Fast forward to the late '90s, when I was 5, playing with Barbara Millicent Roberts too (did you know that's actually her real name?). While I enjoyed playing with Barbies and the perfect Barbie Dreamhouse that I received for Christmas one year, she was never my favorite toy. I never knew why, but maybe my miniature self had the right idea.
Invented in 1959, these perfectly sculpted plastic imitations of women have been around for a long time, which is actually kind of surprising. Barbie has barely deviated from her limited original creation. She's progressed from fashion model, stewardess, and ballerina to NASCAR driver, computer engineer, and even president, but her list of careers still only has 150 options. It may sound like a lot, but it really isn't. She's had 50 years to develop and her possibilities are still over-saturated with objectified professions.
Just looking at Barbie, even now, I see heavy makeup, a tiny waist, and let's not forget, those feet that are specifically designed to only fit into heels. Anyone who has worn heels for more than two hours can tell you that this is not only incredibly impractical and painful, but unrealistic as well. It's also a horrible way to represent women. No woman's foot naturally looks like that (barring some sort of pre-existing condition).
Additionally, her dimensions are incredibly unrealistic for the majority of the population. Long, slender legs, incredibly tiny waist, eyes that are bigger than her wrists, and perfectly crafted makeup and hair. This is the toy that's teaching children what girls should look like? This is what's teaching people what women should look like?
If you think Barbie represents something else now, I challenge you to type "Barbie" into Google. When I did, I was instantly overwhelmed with white skin, platinum blonde hair, and pink backgrounds. This is Barbie's trademark, despite all of the "diversity" that Mattel claims to promote.
You might say that Barbie promotes more careers now, and—to her credit—she has definitely expanded the list, but I still see that perfectly made up blonde hair and teeny tiny body. In fact, if her proportions were applied in the real world, she would be physically incapable of walking. Instead, she would have to crawl on all fours—because a 16-inch waist and children's size 3 feet simply aren't able to support a body, let alone an disproportionate head and chest.
(If you want more of the shocking details about Barbie's build, check out this article.)
This all being said, I haven't even touched on the amazing lack of diversity in Barbie creations.
When I see this image, I do see that Mattel has attempted to be more inclusive and culturally and ethnically aware. But instead of attempting to create real physical approximations, I still see the same doll just painted with different colors and given different types of hair. I identify as a white female and I just so happen to have dark brown curly hair and a ton of light freckles. I see one curly haired Barbie out of eight other with perfectly sleek, straight hairdos, and it appears that she's modeling an 80's look. I see preppy, expensive looking clothing that only a privileged young woman would be able to afford. She simply does not represent the average person in America, unless you happen to think that person is a feminine, thin, blonde, wealthy, perfectly styled woman.
Also, let's not forget the role of Ken in this whole Barbie debacle. He literally only exists to be Barbie's prom date/boyfriend/husband (an interesting, yet incredibly problematic perspective in itself). Going off of that, I don't even think there has been talk about representing a homosexual or transgender Barbie, other than Dina Goldstein's photos representing Ken as "in the closet." If there have been murmurs about giving Barbie an LGBT identity, the idea certainly isn't popular.
Ultimately, the whole reason that I decided to write this article is in response to Mattel's new Barbie commercial, "Imagine the Possibilities."
It's cut,, it shows little girls in various careers from college professors to veterinarians and it made me smile. It's shown how far Barbie has come and it represents a more progressive ideal. It ended with the "experiences" being all in the little girls' imaginations as they played with their Barbies. However, there are still problems with this. Only little girls are represented. It glosses over the sexism that female professionals face on a daily basis in favor of cute factor and humor. Lastly, and I know this might sound silly, but no one takes these girls seriously. Yes, they're children, but even children shouldn't be discounted. It's showing girls (because that is the intended audience) that they can expect to not be taken seriously if they have these careers, and I just don't think I can get on board with that.
Mattel, you've made huge steps in overcoming Barbie's inherent sexism and problematic design, but don't stop now. There's still so much room to grow. (Seriously, give Barbie a couple different options of body type.) Just imagine the possibilities.
