Category: Barbie Doll

In this paper I’m going to discuss how Barbie effects young girls. I wanted to research deeper into this topic because I am very interested in body image and the things that affect it, as I believe that this topic is especially relevant to teenage girls in the modern world. I also want to learn more about how consumer complaints affected Mattel and the Barbie brand. I will be researching both sides of the argument (consumer and company), and I am interested to see on one hand the people who were angry that their children were being given unrealistic ideals, and the other Mattel who did not want to ‘ruin’ their brand, arguing through their marketing department that they did not feel showing skinny girls as the front of their brand did not affect their target audience, and that it did not resonate deeply on the young girls or have any lasting consequences, mentally or physically.

The Beginnings of Barbie and Mattel

Barbie started out as a doll that encompassed the American dream, according to Peter Som, with the creator, Ruth Handler, saying that “Barbie has always represented the fact that a woman has choices”. In 1946, World War II was over, there was a baby boom, so toys were in demand, which really helped their sales take off and became popular throughout the world. Their first major toy that was produced was their ‘burp gun’, a toy that focused solely on pleasing children, as opposed to the parents or other adults. And by the day before Christmas, they had all sold out. As a result of this feedback, Handler knew exactly the toy that would appeal in this way to girls, it is now estimated that over a billion Barbie dolls have been sold worldwide in over 150 countries, with Mattel claiming that three Barbie dolls are sold every second.

Body Esteem in Young Girls and the Causes for Low Body Esteem

Over 64% of girls under 17 that took part in my survey (43 girls from Wellington College aged 13 to 18) feel that the media drives their appearance anxiety. These medias have become idealistic projections of what were meant to look like, and they all create huge impressions on everyone; as stated by Compass Youth, even David Cameron was said to be airbrushed in one of his campaigns in 2010.

There are many factors that make some people more likely to develop a low satisfaction with their bodies. Some include:

• Age: body image is frequently changed and shaped during late child-hood, but it can affect someone of any age.
• Low self-esteem and depression: this means that you are more vulnerable to believing that you are not good enough
• Bullying: people who get teased at school or bullied about their bodies, have a highly-increased risk of developing eating or mental disorders as a result of their lowered self-esteem by peers.
• Body size: people with a larger body size have an increased risk of body dissatisfaction.

The physiological world and the sociological world have discovered that the use of media to portray images of airbrushed or idealistic figures has a mental effect and changes the ways in which we act and how our bodies behave. As well as mental influences, it also physically affects you: your hair becomes thinner and gets brittle, muscles become weak, your joints swell and you are more likely to fracture or break a bone. Additionally, your kidneys become more likely to get stones, you can get constipation, or ironically, bloating, and your brain and nerves can’t function properly.

How Barbies Can Have a Negative Effect on the Body Esteem of Young Girls

Barbies negatively affect the minds and opinions of girls by looking unnaturally, but making the girls believe that this is what is normal as they have seen this type of body every day since they started playing with toys. But when issues like low self-esteem start seriously effecting children so young (41% of girls surveyed saying they first had barbies from an early age of 1-4), it becomes harder to change their point of view. According to Penn State, “If Barbie were a real woman, her neck would be twice as long as, and six inches thinner than the average female. She wouldn’t be able to life with her own head! Barbie’s waist would be 16-inches in circumference (smaller than her head), and it means her body would only have room for half a liver and a few inches of intestines”. Barbie would also be 5’9” and weigh 110 pounds (the average woman is 154 ponds, according to BBC News). In addition, her fat percentage would be so low, that she would not be able to menstruate, or live a healthy life. She would literally have to move herself on all fours, because or her distorted proportions.

77% of girls I surveyed agree that Barbies have a bad influence on young girls by putting an unachievable ideal out to children. In the 1960s, Mattel rode the wave of Barbie’s popularity and introduced a new design called ‘Slumber Party Barbie’. The doll came complete with a diet book, scale, a hairbrush and sign that said ‘How to lose weight? Don’t eat’. Even more shockingly, the scale that came with Barbie only went up to 110 pounds. This is another example of where Barbie has been showing girls a wrong impression of what they are ‘meant’ to be behaving like, but what is not realistic at all – you would have to be anorexic or have to have at least six ribs removed in order to achieve Barbies look of a 16-inch waist.

Studies have shown that body image is most unstable and receptive to influences at ages five to eight which is the peak time when girls play with Barbies, according to my survey, so it is vital that markets portray the correct behavior to them in order to reduce the problems for those girls later in life. In 2006, researchers in the United Kingdom published a study in which they gave 162 British girls, ages five to eight, picture books that either didn’t show bodies at all, or books that featured Barbie, or Emme, a more realistically proportioned doll. After the girls looked at the books, researchers asked them questions about their body image. Some researchers even believe that Barbie can influence the choice of job girls make in their futures stating that “Barbie conveys a sexualized world”, despite the fact that Barbie is meant to encompass an independent woman who can choose whatever job she wants – she even ‘ran for president’ in 2008. Younger girls who read the Barbie books were more dissatisfied with their bodies than those who read the Emme or body-less books. However, for the oldest girls, ages seven and a half to eight and a half, the books they read didn’t affect their body image; overall, older girls had greater body dissatisfaction, regardless of which books they looked at. This demonstrates that above the age of 7, girls minds have, for the most part, already been made up on their standings on their bodies.

How Did These Effects Cause Mattel to Change Their Design and Why They Resisted

At first the Mattel workers did not believe that changing their model was necessary and that it had no lasting effect on children. In as recently as 2014, Kim Culmone, Barbie’s vice president of design, stated there was no reason to alter the doll’s proportions to be more realistic. However, in October Mattel announced a 14% global drop in Barbie sales, the eighth consecutive season in which numbers fell, they gave in saying. “To allow for a new variety in body type seemed like the natural progression of an evolution of a brand that has always strived to really reflect the culture and be current”, said Robert Best, one of the lead designers on the Barbie brand.

The Response from Consumers to the New Designs

On the other hand, consumers are grateful for the first significant change in Barbie’s body size since she first hit shelves in 1959. And they think that by introducing the curvy barbies, girls will be helped to feel a little less pressure. Some believe that it is the first significant change in Barbie’s body since she first hit the shelves in 1959. However, one source states that sales did drop by 15% as a result of the release of curvy dolls (though this is not from a very reliable source and I have disproved that statistic from other sources), and a more negative response such as this one from Virgie Tovar, a body positive activist: “As a child, I honestly think I would have preferred the traditionally thin Barbie because I had already been taught to hate myself and my body”. But I have the view that the realistic dolls will help girls become able to accept their bodies from a young age, because they are now able to relate to their toys like they have never been able to de before, it has also been discovered that girls and boys enjoy toys which look like them as they feel more connected to their games and stories. This will also embed a clearer message about body ideals to young girls. 87% of the people I surveyed also agree that the new models of Barbie are going to be a good thing for girls in the future.

The worldwide sales of Barbie were decreasing quite quickly from 2012 until 2015 (decreasing by 369.4 million USD from 2012 to 2015), then in January, when the modifications to Barbie were made, the sales increased from 905.9 million USD in 2015, and to 971.8 USD in 2016. This shows that the consumers valued Mattel’s changes and therefore bought more, which was as Mattel planned, as they were receiving increasing amounts of complaints, as mothers become more aware of the lasting effects that Barbies can have on young girls’ ideas about body image.

Conclusion

Overall, I believe that Barbies impact girls in many negative ways from a young age, by implanting false goals in their head for them to compare themselves to, however these impacts were not the direct cause for Mattel to add curvy, tall and petite dolls to their line, I believe that their drop in sales was. However, to an extent the incorrect body ideals Barbies put out did make Mattel change their design because the consumers were unhappy as a result of the research that had bought to light the negative lasting mental impacts that Barbie has on children, so then they would stop buying the dolls, which then lead on to the sales dropping in numbers, then causing Mattel to feel the need to change their doll or else their business would stop being successful. Luckily for Mattel, this did work and their sales increased by 65.0 million USD from 2015 to 2016, however this did not last as the sales had decreased again by 2% since the previous year.

Barbie dolls, they’ve around since the late 50’s, most young girls grow up them, and I highly doubt anyone living today doesn’t know what they are. Yet so little people really look into the implications of showing young girls these dolls which are unrealistically and have unattainable to the average person bodies. They’re crazily slim, and have ‘perfect’, model bodies. Yet for young girls who grow up with them it can seem to be the norm, or something that they should be aiming to attain. In this essay I will be writing about how Mattel’s Barbie has really been impacting the life of young girls, positively and negatively for over 60 years.

Firstly, throughout the existence of Barbie, the bright character has worked over 200 jobs in many different fields. As many young girls do, I grew up with these dolls, and got to see Barbie working jobs, like a doctor, the president, a business executive, and many others. This, presumably has greatly inspired many young girls, who otherwise potentially would have only been gave toy kitchens, fake cleaning supplies, and babies with strollers, which could make it seem like being a homemaker, which is also an amazing job, but not what every single young girl aspires to be is their only option in life. Therefore, showing these young girls that there are more options life and could give them an array of things to aspire to. More recently, Mattel released 17 new dolls based off inspiring women, like Frida Kahlo, iconic feminist and artist, Emelia Earhart, aviation pioneer, Katherine Johnson, a NASA mathematician and physicist, and many more. Which I feel shows Mattel’s new commitment to inspiring young women

Despite all of this, Mattel’s Barbie dolls have also been dragged for their size, proportions, and other, questionable, things. Starting with her size, she is supposed to be 5’9”, with 39” breasts with a tiny 18” waist and 33” hips. Weighing in at 110 pounds, she would have a BMI of 16.24, which is extremely unhealthy and many think the only way to reach such a low weight and BMI would be some form of eating disorder… definitely not what I, would want to be presenting to young girls. Nevertheless, it somehow gets worse. In 1965, Mattel released slumber party Barbie, of course she came with multiple accessories, mainly however, a pink scale set at 110 pounds (which I have previously mentioned as her weight, and it is of course a very unhealthy weight, 35 pounds underweight to be exact) and a diet book, which is disturbing that they would even sell that to children, but its contents are scarily worse. The book only said one thing, ‘Don’t eat!’. And this is impacting young girls, one study showed that girls who grow up with Barbie dolls have higher dissatisfaction with their own bodies and desired to be slimmer; this study was done were on girls, ages 6 to 8. Body issues are prevalent to this day; in a survey in 2017, 54% of women said they would rather be run over by a truck that be overweight. Disturbing, right? But most women reading this may not even be shocked by that, as a large majority of us experience body issues, 97% of us. Body issues, along with other things, of course, can be a trigger making people struggle with anorexia. Anorexia has the highest mortality rate of any metal disorder, so tell me again, why are we showing these dolls to young girls if they have even a chance of affecting them this severely?

On a lighter note, Barbies are happily getting a lot more diverse, with new release of Barbies with all different body shapes, sizes, of different races, ethnicities and religions. They recently released a doll of Olympic fencer, Ibtihaj Muhammad, as a part of their sheroes campaign. This doll was the first Barbie released who wears a hijab. They also have released four shapes of dolls, including some new shapes and the original. The shapes are: petite, tall, curvy, and original. Whilst they are far from perfect, and they could definitely befit from more plus sized dolls, and dolls with more realistic portions, the dolls are definitely going more into the right direction, and they’re hopefully only going to get better from here.

Lastly, what I would like to talk about is some of Mattel’s more strange dolls, like Pregnant Midge and Growing Up Skipper. Firstly, the pregnancy doll came with a literal plastic child in its stomach, which was removable, and the doll itself did not look old enough to be having a kid of its own. Many parents claimed it was promoting teen pregnancy, and while I think that may be going too far, I do think that selling dolls that clearly look like teens having kids of their own is questionable, not to mention the fact you could take the baby out of her, kind of creepy, especially for young kids. Next, Growing Up Skipper was supposed to be about Barbie’s little sister, growing through puberty, and while I think it is great to teach kids about this, the doll was not the way to do so. The doll went through little changes, the only notable changes were that she gets a bit taller, and her breasts got bigger, which I find just a little unsettling. Lastly, Mattel released a computer engineer Barbie, which sounds great, right? Wrong. She could not do any engineering and instead got hacked, and had to run to men to get help, not so inspiring anymore, I guess. Mattel have since apologized, but I still find that one quite questionable, considering they’re trying to market themselves as more feminist.

In conclusion, whist I do think the dolls are becoming more diverse, and could be an inspiration to some, mostly I think they have done more harm than good. Growing up with dolls that are unhealthy shaped and calling it beautiful, whether it’s intentional, is promoting body issues, eating disorders, and diet culture to these small, impressionable children, and it is not okay.

Ann duCille, a popular author known for her works on race and popular culture, in her article ‘Dyes and Dolls: Multicultural Barbie and the Merchandising of Difference’ speaks about Barbie, a doll with which many users identify their personal experiences with. The questions asked by duCille are eye-opening and revitalize new responses and answers among readers. Lack of a Barbie doll that looked like duCille in her schooling years before the conceptualization of a black Barbie in 1980, solicited mixed reactions in her which resulted to destruction of her then Barbie doll.

The author talks about the commodification of race and gender differences using the figure of a multicultural Barbie. Fantasy manufacturers like Disney, Hasbro and Mattel have in the recent years contributed immensely towards global gratification of children’s play since the world has become small. Nowadays Barbies of all ethnicities are available and have been universalized to make them a household name among children aged three to ten. In 1990, Mattel decided to ‘go ethnic’ in the production of Barbie dolls as a marketing strategy to grow its sales, on the contrary all its advertisements feature white dolls. Introduction of ethnic dolls and similar ads was a good move to improve sales. People of Hispanic and African descent, who had a huge purchasing power, got to know of the other ethnically produced dolls. With all the differences in dolls to capture ethnic audience interests, profit still remains the motivation.

Despite duCille regarding Barbie as an object that does the dirty work of patriarchy and capitalism, she portrays Barbie as just not a toy but a symbol of white womanhood and femininity, and as a foundation of mystiques of gender and race. Racial climate of the 60s, according to Evelyn Burkhalter, contributed to the downfall of a black doll named Colored Francie. Caucasian nature of the doll ideally led to its commercial demise, but there was more to its name, whereby the term ‘colored’ was considered racist. It was in 1980, when Mattel introduced black dolls that were named Barbie, like the white dolls. The dolls became the multicultural dolls of the world today. Barbie’s clothes marked the line between culture and race. They were used to distinguish communities. The difference is also marked by the communities’ cultural history and language which is depicted in Mattel’s doll collection. The back of doll covers, like that of the Jamaican Barbie, is written in the Paitan language, which is Jamaican local dialect.

Negative effects of racism and segregation on black children is mimicked in a study by psychologists Kenneth and Mamie Clark in the 1940s. In this study, when black children were presented with a choice between black and white dolls, they preferred white dolls. In 1985, Clark’s doll test was repeated, and 67 percent of black children chose white dolls. When asked why they said the black dolls were ugly. The Clarks however suggested that parents should be involved in their children’s doll play and complement them both with phrases such as ‘The doll is as beautiful as you’, this would make the children feel good about themselves.

Hopson in collaboration with Mattel they created a new Barbie who had unique body features like different color shades, different hair colors and texture that could create unique hair styles. This uniquely introduced doll was named Shani and she had all desirable features that encompassed the true African pride. What do we mean when we say a doll does or does not look black? How does black look like? What would it take exactly to make a doll look truly African American? These are some of the questions that come up when the issue of authenticity and realistically African American dolls come up with features such as fuller lips, broader nose and hips in mind. The author envisages what doll makers and other image creators in film would do to make dolls authentically African American without using the simplistic approach of big hips and lips. The author seeks to know what it would take to produce dolls that fully reflected the wide variety of shapes, sizes, color and hair that all African American, like all other people come with.

The author’s work on popular culture such as Barbie the doll ends in a fashionable and rather dramatic manner, in that she says Barbie is just a plastic, its effect on societal economy, gender and race is significant, and its negative impact is immense and not good for the society. As much as diversity in production of Barbie dolls is glorified, human curiosity and imagination on what an ideal doll should look like in the face of the vast human race is unimaginable and still remains a mythical mystery.

Since 1959, the iconic Barbie doll has been one of the most popular toys worldwide. It has been the global symbol of a certain kind of American beauty for many generations and has been formed by the broader social climate of what is believed as the ideal female. The doll still circulates in our society today and has evolved to fit the needs of society. Sure, there have been a few missteps along the way, but Barbie has been beloved by generations of girls and boys. She doesn’t just exist in the world; she participates and evolves with it. To Americans, Barbie dolls have become a way of life and continue to shape the lives of many. Does the idea of Barbie really have the power to influence identity and behavior? Looking back, I believe Barbie has unconsciously influenced me to perceive beauty and identity in a different way, so I am curious to look at the big picture and investigate the discourses that portray social and cultural resonance. Throughout this writing, I will be discussing how the perception of Barbie has transformed throughout the years by larger social narratives, and how the doll communicates certain discourses of behavior and identity. The doll was created about sixty years ago and has progressed in her identity, social status, and cultural symbolic power. I will also be exploring the history of Barbie as both a commodity and a cultural icon.

The first Barbie doll was created by Ruth Handler and has been used by children to play make-believe, imagine roles as college students, athletes, and adults with successful careers. However, it was originally designed to represent that a woman has choices. “My whole philosophy of Barbie was that, through the doll, the little girl could be anything she wanted to be. Barbie always represented the fact that a woman has choices” (Handler, 1994). This idea, that women could determine their own destiny, was unheard of in the 1950s. Did society back then view Barbie similar to how Handler viewed it? The 1950s was in many ways a period of conformity with the traditional gender roles. Both men and women followed strict gender roles and complied with society’s expectations, much like Barbie. The doll was created for the children growing up during this time because they were only exposed to the stereotypical gender roles (women were housewives and men were the breadwinners for their family). Girls did not grow up believing that they could pursue any profession they desired. Needless to say, young girls in this society desperately needed a change, and Barbie was created for this exact reason. Except somewhere along the way, the purpose was conceivably distorted. Perhaps, the controversy surrounding the potential of Barbie is highly contingent on moral and emotional discourse.

Discourses circulate around Barbie’s representation to serve different purposes and points to the process by which she becomes a cultural icon. Thus, we must focus on the historical background that suggests the discourse shines a light on what Barbie reveals about our culture. The first barbie was designed to mimic the appearance of 1950’s glamour stars such as Marilyn Monroe and Elizabeth Taylor. She had pencil-thin legs, flawless skin, the perfect hourglass waist, blond hair and blue eyes. The Barbie doll had many different styles and clothes. Since women in this time period were expected to look like the ‘girl-next-door’, they did not get to completely express themselves through their appearance. Barbie made it possible for women to dress the doll as they pleased and imagine a life with no boundaries. Women saw the unorthodox and more revealing clothing, which was not socially acceptable to wear during this period, and began to question why they couldn’t wear the same. The young girls were obsessed with the doll and envied her lifestyle. Ruth Handler created a story that came with the doll. Barbie was said to be a ‘Teenage Fashion Model’ in 1959, but soon broke boundaries in male-dominated fields. It comes as no surprise to me, that young girls wanted to be just like the doll, because it seems as though the creator was very strategic throughout this phenomenon. The doll gave these first-generation Barbie consumers exactly what it needed at the time, the ability to dream outside the realm of social expectations. The problem is that the consumers had no idea what the doll was capable of. It rapidly impacted the lives of millions of girls in a materialistic way.

When the Ken doll was introduced a few years after Barbie, the idea of women breaking the molds of society was shifted in a way. The discourse that is detached with earlier images of the doll as a fashion model, athlete, and a college student, fails to acknowledge that Barbie once appeared in a wedding dress alongside Ken. This image leads to a disagreement in her former representation as a single woman. He was introduced to the market as Barbie doll’s boyfriend and had a built figure, dressed in a red bathing suit with blonde hair and blue eyes. He was designed to be the ‘perfect man’ that any women would be lucky to have. Since both dolls have a certain appearance, children might begin to cultivate false expectations of what they should look like. Girls potentially desired to look like Barbie and have a boyfriend who looked like Ken. And for boys, they anticipated finding a girlfriend comparable to Barbie. Consequently, the myth that women must look like the Barbie doll in order to be attractive begins to form and circulate within the generations to come. Can this cause young children to develop an unhealthy form of sexuality? If Ken is attracted to Barbie, then all males must be attracted to the same appearance, right? This is when we see a rise in societal beauty standards, and those principles only flourish.

Soon after the demand for Barbie was sky high, Ruth decided to introduce a new version of the doll in the early 1960s. The new additions that came with the doll was a diet book, a scale that only went up to 110 pounds, and a sign that said, ‘How to lose weight? Don’t eat’ (Slumber, 1). This popular discourse has constituted an expansive array of questions of representation. Naturally, Americans became skeptical of the doll, in the rise of young consumers. Barbie began to have a profound personality of her own, despite the original intention to allow young girls to create their own personalities for the doll. It was not just a toy anymore; it started to give false expectations of what women should look like, which can potentially be very damaging to the media. Even though this new version was taken off the market soon after it was released, its affects still linger in society. Mattel company argued the criticism was misplaced: “It’s all about choices. Barbie had careers at a time when women were restricted to being just housewives. Ironically, our critics are the very people who should embrace us” (Dickson, 2019). The company has always claimed that Barbie does not have any influence on how girls view their body, but is this claim accurate?

Researchers began to conduct experiments and tests to see if the doll actually effected how body image is viewed and, ultimately, if it communicates certain discourses of identity and behavior. “The Alliance for Eating Disorders Awareness reported that 70 million people worldwide suffer from eating disorders like anorexia and bulimia. About 90 percent of those with eating disorders are young woman between the ages of 12 and 25. During this survey, the women stated that they played with Barbies shortly before they were diagnosed at a young age” (‘Barbie and Body Image’, 2). Why were young girls being influenced so heavily by this plastic toy? The youth has always had high risk of being influenced by what they see and hear. Conceivably, they take much more from the Barbie experience than one can even imagine. They are constantly processing and analyzing information in their heads. Barbie’s image, and the discourse about her representation, seem to have directed countless girls on the path of low self-image and poor mental health.

Barbie has been one of the first major symbols of what a body image should look like, and this idea has translated into my life. In my own experience with Barbie dolls, I have realized that the discourses involved have unconsciously influenced me to perceive beauty and identity in a different way. I played with Barbies at a young age, just like most young girls, and I aspired to be like her. With her long, blonde hair and stylish wardrobe that fit perfectly on her slim figure, I was in awe of her. As a child, I was misled to believe beauty came with certain standards, and ultimately, was looking like Barbie. I wasn’t as confident with myself as a whole because I did not obtain any features that were similar to Barbie’s. It was almost impossible to refrain from measuring myself against Barbies idealized perfection. I would often imagine what it would be like to look like the doll, have her amazing fashion sense, and live in her ‘dreamhouse’. Such factors might have influenced my self-esteem and the way I perceived beauty.

Within the social and political conflict of the 1960s and 1970s, Barbie’s image, and the discourse about her representation, took shape and changed. If young girls grow up seeing the image of Barbie, they are ideally taught that beauty is having a thin body, blonde hair and blue eyes. “As a doll with which young girls could emulate an ideal womanhood, Barbie quickly became an object of cultural criticism” (Tulinski, 2017). The discourse surrounding her status was nationally acknowledged as having a significant sway in American history. The ideal body image of has always played a big role in the early ages. Around the time the Barbie doll hit the market, the feminist movement was unfolding. Women did not want to be confined and restricted within a certain role, which brings forth questions on Barbie’s endurance. How did Barbie ‘survive’ this social change with the sense that her marketed image confines Barbie to a limited range of identities? The doll’s consistency of changing representation has significantly aided its endurance. However, society’s body image expectations never completely disappeared. Discourse persisted throughout the 20th century, leaving its mark on today’s society.

So, how has Barbie changed over time to maintain the interests of a wider audience and how has this effort assisted her in achieving an iconic status? Mattel Company received years of criticism and struggled to boost sales because Barbie’s looks did not reflect her diverse audience. In the year 2016, a fashion designer featured plus-size models in his show during New York Fashion Week. That same year, with the rise of beauty taking all shapes and sizes, toy manufacturing company Mattel decided to debut a line of ethnically diverse dolls including three new body types, seven skin tones, twenty-two eye colors and twenty-four hairstyles (Howard, 2018). The idea of these dolls is surrounded by discourse that offers Barbie a sense of personhood, which was built up by her ethnic consumers. She was able to appeal to new consumers because her appearance changed. Appearing in likeness to the young children that played with the doll, gave Barbie a new, realistic identity. Her a sense of personhood is displayed by the many facets of her social identity, such as her new ethnically diverse appearance.

Though Barbie continues to adapt through cultural changes and reveal new dimensions of her identity, there was a lack of advertising for these new dolls. Most people did not even know about the new doll. Perhaps Mattel intended for this result? Considering it was a huge risk to introduce these new dolls, it appears very likely that they were envisioned to be overlooked. Even though the new product failed to affect consumers positively, it still goes to show how drastically our social world has changed throughout the years. This was the first time we saw revisions to the idea that women need to be thin in order to be beautiful. “It was society that made Barbie – literally and figuratively. Her world was destined to evolve, like ours” (BillyBoy, 1987). More and more people are breaking the molds of societal expectations while exerting self-confidence. We have become more accepting of all shapes and sizes.

American beauty ideals have evolved drastically because people are more likely to be influenced through the media. With some still upholding the thin image, others are breaking away from this idea. In 2007, the show ‘Keeping Up with the Kardashians’ aired its first episode. We saw their figures onscreen that disregard the notorious Barbie appearance. The media shifted to idolizing curvaceous bodies such as Kim Kardashian West, Beyoncé and Christina Hendricks. Their looks have become iconic today and is fueling a movement that promotes body acceptance.

So, would this be the end for Barbie dolls since we have new cultural icons in the media? Considering Barbie is known to adapt and change to comply with societal expectations, it is expected that Mattel would conform to these prevailing attitudes. Predictably, Mattel introduced a line of celebrity Barbie dolls that include singers, actors, and even athletes, that all have a significant place in contemporary society. Some mimic the appearance of Beyoncé, Nicki Minaj, and even Diana Ross. Mattel had hopes to stay relevant and honor contemporary and historical role models. Unfortunately for Kardashian fans, they still have yet to appear in a line of Barbie dolls. However, I recently saw on Twitter that Kim Kardashian West has her own prototype from Mattel. Even though we have experienced a change in standards, some celebrities still appear to encourage Barbie dolls. Kylie Jenner, a large influencer in the media, recently transformed into a real-life Barbie doll for Halloween. Needless to say, Barbie continues to stay relevant throughout the 60 years of her existence.

Barbie has without a doubt impacted many lives and is viewed as a cultural icon. The historical background of Barbie proposes the discourse shines a light on what Barbie reveals about our culture. It shows where we have come from, where we are, and where we are going in terms of the social world. Barbie fueled the unrealistic expectations of what women should look like. Even though our society today is much more accepting and embraces all body types, the effects of the doll still linger, and I don’t think we will ever be able to escape it.

It was very interesting for me to investigate this topic. As it has played a role in my life, it has also left its mark on society for six decades, and I personally believe that Barbie will remain in contemporary society for many more years to come. She hasn’t failed to stay relevant as she is continuously molding and evolving to fit in society. I assume her controversial identity and representation will continue to progress. The ideals of Barbie endure a conflictual and collective process of consideration among the social factors involving the doll, the consumer, and the creator. In whatever way you choose to view and interpret the nature of Barbie, I believe her nature is that of a constantly reworked object, that has revealed evidence about social life as a whole.

Works Cited

1. Bellis, Mary. “Biography of Ruth Handler, Inventor of Barbie Dolls”. ThoughtCo, ThoughtCo, 6 May 2019, http://thoughtco.com/history-of-barbie-dolls-1991344
2. “Bleeding Blue & White”. Bleeding Blue White, 8 Dec. 2013, http://sites.psu.edu/jyh5445/2013/12/08/brainwashed-by-barbie-what-a-doll/
3. Dockterman, Eliana. “Barbie Has a New Body Cover Story”. Time, Time, 2019, http://time.com/barbie-new-body-cover-story/
4. Holland, Brynn. “Barbie Through the Ages”. History.com, A&E Television Networks, 29 Jan. 2016, https://www.history.com/news/barbie-through-the-ages
5. Howard, Jacqueline. “The Ever-Changing ‘Ideal’ of Female Beauty”. CNN, Cable News Network, 9 Mar. 2018, http://cnn.com/2018/03/07/health/body-image-history-of-beauty-explainer-intl/index.html
6. Masunaga, Samantha. “How Barbie Has Transformed Over the Years”. Los Angeles Times, Los Angeles Times, 28 Jan. 2016, https://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-barbie-timeline-20160128-story.html
7. Propheta, Danielle. “The Incredible Story of the Real Human Barbie”. DirectExpose, 24 July 2019, http://directexpose.com/real-human-barbie-lives/

Barbie is a cultural artefact that many people have once owned and adored in their lifetime, if not still do. The doll, which arose in 1959, was created by the American company Mattel. They proved hugely successful and continue to do so, sold today by the second. Despite the immense victory of the doll, it comes with its complications and has been heavily criticized by many. The aim of this writing is to explore these contradicting arguments and discover: should our children really own and play with Barbie?

In 2015, Barbie was applauded when it collaborated with fashion brand, Moschino. The brand brought a new dimension to Barbie, creating a more diverse and inclusive outlook. The doll line created was launched with an advertisement which featured a young male, this was a first for the Barbie brand (Afaqs, 2015). Moschino is a well-known Italian fashion brand ran by creative director, Jeremy Scott. They have collaborated with other well-known brands aside from Barbie, such as the high street store H&M. Due to the brands presence within the fashion market, the Barbie collaboration gained high interest. The advertisement showed the boy playing with the Barbie doll alongside two young girls, he then made eye contact with the camera and stated, “Moschino Barbie is so fierce!” (Afaqs, 2015). He can be seen playing with the doll, engaging in role-play with the other two children and performing actions such as aiding the doll to answer her phone. This was ground breaking and revolutionary for Barbie, the doll has previously been considered a female toy due to advertisements, collaborations, the doll’s careers, clothes and other elements being aimed towards young girls. By collaborating with this well-known brand, Barbie has gained a wide viewing hence why including the boy in the advertisement was so impactful. People who have previously criticized the brand are likely to have seen the advertisement therefore changing their view that the brand is aimed towards a female audience. Along with this, parents, who believe this view that Barbie is for females, could change their opinion as a result of seeing a young boy in the advertisement, therefore allowing their sons to purchase and play with a Barbie doll. Alternatively, young boys may see the advertisement and feel more comfortable about purchasing/playing with a Barbie doll, they may even desire to have one, whereas previously they felt they shouldn’t/weren’t allowed to because they aren’t female. Despite this, the advertisement featured the young boy with a mohawk. Some may argue this hairstyle is unusual for a boy of his age, therefore presenting questions such as, is the advertisement really promoting being a genderless brand/toy or is it creating the idea that boys who desire to play with Barbie are ‘different’?

This issue with the brand is ongoing, many still perceive the doll as a female toy due to its heavy femininity. Rogers (1999) proposes that “nothing about Barbie ever looks masculine, even when she is on the police force; Police Officer Barbie comes with a night stick and a walkie-talkie but no gun and no handcuffs”. Barbie throughout the generations has been heavily considered a girl’s toy, it is unclear where this distinction came from, however there are many contributing factors which suggest Barbie should only be used by females. The doll is traditionally pink, which is generally accepted as a female’s color, whereas blue is for males. This paired with the heavy use of florals, glitter, ballgowns, tiaras, soft fabrics, small animals, etc., creates the connotation that Barbie is for females, as everything often associated with the doll, as listed above, is typically associated with this gender.

Along with this, it could be argued Barbie causes gendered socialization, the idea that certain behaviors are considered appropriate for a specific sex. Barbie is often sold in playsets that advertise her as a mother, wife, model, etc.; these roles are often characterized by selflessness, willingness to please and beauty. She is often seen with a handbag, high heels, a child or small animal, flowers, clothes or homeware items. Many, often parents who purchase the doll for their child, argue this encourages girls to see themselves in roles such as housewives or mothers, teaching them that their career aspects are much different to those of males. The idea is created that females are pretty, petite and guided by a male, whereas males are rough, controlling and essential for a woman to succeed; it is evident why this could be damaging to a young female. Sherman and Zurbriggen (2014) conducted a study which showed the impact of females playing with Barbie. Their results showed: “Girl’s ideas about careers for themselves compared to careers for boys interacted with condition, such that girls who played with Barbie indicated they had fewer career options than boys”. This highlights the severity of the issue and the potential large impact Barbie has on the younger generation. Despite this, it could also be argued that Barbie is a perfect feminist. She has had careers ranging from an astronaut to a dog walker along with jobs within parliament, she represents a wide range of careers despite their female or male connotations. Does this create the idea for young girls that they too can be independent and earn their own living? These roles have progressed over the years along with societies views, for example, in 1961 Barbie was a nurse, and Ken, her male equivalent, was a doctor. By 1973 Barbie was herself a physician, showing young impressionable girls that everything is possible, regardless of gender (Thomas, 2007).

The brand may ague/try to portray the idea that there are plenty of males who play with a Barbie doll (for example, by including a young boy within their advertisement), however, as stated prior, there is the argument that boys who play with Barbie are ‘different’. If Barbie is heavily feminine in everything she does, does that mean that boys who play with her have feminine tendencies? The media is full of parents questioning if their sons playing with Barbie is a negative thing, is he gay? Is he transgender? He is dressing up a Barbie as a princess, is he a girl? It is subconsciously inbuilt that Barbie is for females, meaning many consider a boy playing with a Barbie doll an issue/problem. In contrast to previous norms, gender inclusivity is on the rise as of 2019, it isn’t only impractical, but it is ludicrous to consider Barbie a female toy in today’s society.

Mattel, an American company, led the toy industry for some time with their brands including those such as Hot Wheels, Barbie and Fisher-Price. Despite the huge success of Barbie (estimated that over a million Barbie dolls have been sold in more than 150 countries), there has been huge controversy, even lawsuits, over her body weight/proportion. The doll itself is small and petite, with a height of around 27 cm, bust of 12 cm, waist of 8 cm, and a hip measurement of 13cm. These numerical values may seem harmless in paper, however upon closer inspection of the measurements and doll itself it becomes clear that her shape is unrealistic and extremely dangerous. It is said that if Barbie was a real woman, her measurements would translate to a chest of 36 inches, waist 18 inches and hips of 33 inch. This lack of weight translates into an extremely low BMI, in fact it is suggested Barbie wouldn’t menstruate (Rössner, 2014). This raises the question of whether it is ethical for children to play with Barbie. It could be suggested that playing with a Barbie doll at a young impressionable age creates the view that her body type is ideal and ‘normal’. Children see the doll as a mannequin paired with her revealing clothes, often crop tops, dresses and those which accentuate this petite figure. This also causes a problem as children become aware that when they wear these clothes alike to Barbie’s, they look different. Barbie’s weight/proportion is unavoidable and a key feature of her appearance. This creates an unrealistic ideal causing children to have distorted perceptions of themselves and their body image/weight; they desire to be like Barbie as they think this is normal and expected, whereas in reality, it is totally unrealistic and extremely dangerous. This is known as the Barbie syndrome: a person attempts to emulate the doll’s physical appearance, even though it has unattainable body proportions (Rössner, 2014). Today, the percentage of teenagers developing eating disorders is rapidly rising every year, statistics show children being treated for eating disorders in Wales has seen an increase of 36% over the last ten years (Community Practitioner, 2015). This raises the question of whether companies, such as Mattel, creates these deep-rooted psychological issues with their products such as Barbie, and whether they stem from childhood.

More recently, Barbie has launched ‘The Dream Gap Project’. PR Newswire (2018) states that research has shown that girls, beginning at five years old, are less likely than boys to perceive their gender as ‘smart’ and lose confidence in their abilities. As part of the project, Barbie has decided to dedicate the brand to funding research along with showcasing role models for girls, this is being done by producing 10 dolls a year that resemble “empowering female role models” (Barbie, 2019). The dream gap is a reference to how girls are more likely to lower their aspirations compared to boys, Barbie has vowed to help research into this and aim to make a huge impact. Alongside this, they will release Barbie dolls with new careers, perhaps those that are male dominated. As discussed earlier, it is evident that Barbie can criticized for being discriminatory and negatively impacting young impressionable children. This project could signal a change for the brand, it is possible they are becoming more contemporary and considering gender inclusivity, body perception, feminism and other subjects which are prevalent today.

In summary, it is evident that there are significant and potentially extremely dangerous issues with the Barbie doll. Some of which may result in dire consequences often surrounding mental health. It is clear that Barbie has faults, her proportion and size is extremely unrealistic, and whilst many may feel this is a hypercritical observation and she is a harmless children’s toy, it is obvious that this will have an effect, potentially subconsciously, on young children. All children have a role model, somebody they desire to be, as stated prior statistics show millions of young children own a Barbie doll, therefore it is likely many consider her as their epitome. As these children age, it is highly likely they will begin to notice the differences between Barbie and themselves, such as weight and body proportion, creating a distorted perception of themselves. Alongside this, the lack of male-dominated careers, e.g., engineer, businessman, etc., for Barbie and her obedience to authority, who are always males, will no doubt have a negative impact on their lives. It teaches children from a young age that genders are drastically different, hence why insults such as ‘you’re acting like a girl’ are used massively by young children. It acts as a form of reinforcement, girls are taught by their Barbie dolls that being a housewife, mother, babysitter, etc., is achievable and enjoyable, whereas it is impossible for her to be a pilot as she isn’t a male and she would struggle. This struggling acts as punishment and reinforces in a young child not to repeat the behavior, therefore teaching them these careers are unachievable as they are female and they are destined to only succeed in ‘careers for females’.

To conclude, there are significant factors which suggest young children should not play with a Barbie doll, as it has harmful effects. Mattel may be making a conscious effort to change this, for example, #CloseTheDreamGap, however these efforts need to be significantly improved to ensure the success of the Barbie doll survives in today’s society.

Bibliography

1. (2015) ‘Eating Disorders in Welsh Teens at Record High’. Community Practitioner. 88(6). P. 5.
2. (2018) ‘Barbie Pushes Global Initiative to Champion Girls’. Limitless Potential with ‘Dream Gap Project’. PR Newswire. 8.
3. Afaqs.com. (2015) Viral Now: Moschino Barbie Ad Breaks Gender Stereotype. Afaqs. [Online] [Accessed on 25th March 2019] http://link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/A435062404/STND?u=mmucal5&sid=STND&xid=775ad2fd
4. Mattel. (2015) Moschino Barbie!. Mattel/Moschino. [Online] [Accessed on 25th March 2019] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TULVRlpsNWo
5. Mattel. (No date) Barbie. 2019. [Online] [Accessed on 27th March 2019] https://barbie.mattel.com/shop#
6. Rogers, M. (1999) Barbie Culture. London: SAGE Publications Ltd.
7. Rössner, S. (2014) ‘Barbie’. Obesity Reviews: Stephen’s Corner. 15(3). pp. 224-225.
8. Sherman, M. A. and Zurbriggen, L. E (2014) ‘Boys Can Be Anything: Effect of Barbie Play on Girls’ Career Cognitions’. Sex Roles, 70(5-6) pp. 195-208.
9. Teague, K. (2007) ‘Mattel, Inc’. Encyclopedia of Major Marketing Campaigns. 2. pp. 953-956.
10. Thomas, J. L. (2007) ‘Barbie’. Encyclopedia of Sex and Gender. 1. pp. 115-117.

Did you play with Barbie as a child? Did you ever wish you looked like the blonde bombshell? Since her launch in 1959, Barbie has had a huge impact on those girls who owned her. With over one billion dolls sold in 60 years, she has set an unattainable standard of beauty. From a young age, children are influenced by images around them. What message does Barbie send to young children about what is normal? Mattel, the toy manufacturer, has clearly questioned what is normal as they have greatly extended their range. Was this to increase profits? Or reflect differences between individuals in society? One thing that needs clarification is whether Barbie has led to a generation of girls who have grown up with body image issues and an increase in eating disorder figures as they try to achieve the unrealistic standard set by this perfect fashionista.

There is an unrealistic perception of beauty held by modern society. The bar has been set at an almost unachievable level by models, celebrities and Barbie. This piece of plastic with luxurious golden hair has set the example that to be ‘pretty’ you must be tall, weigh 54kg, have an eighteen-inch waist, hourglass figure and thigh gap. If Barbie was to take a step out of her plastic shell she would barely function as a human. A 2019 study led to the discovery Barbie would be roaming around on all fours as her small body would not carry the weight of her perfectly formed head. Barbie would be starving herself every day. This coincides with the message portrayed by the 1965 ‘Slumber Party Barbie’ who came equipped with a diet book screaming, “DON’T EAT” on the front. This message is what generations grew up believing, this could explain why those in the spotlight like Lilly Collins have suffered an eating disorder. Barbie is one piece of a large puzzle where the current definition of beauty comes from today.

Children aren’t born with self-doubt, but influenced by things around them as they grow up. It is alarming the number of children who think the only way to attain Barbie’s perfect appearance is by starving themselves. For example, three Barbies are sold every second making two hundred and fifty-nine thousand sold each day and millions every year, making many happy children being influenced by the popular fashionista doll. This forms their understanding of ‘normal’, but what is normal? Kids question their own bodies and have done so for many generations. Although the issue of body image is highly diverse, over half of all girls as young as five are already troubled by their appearance and the thought of becoming ‘fat’ is a thought infecting their young brains. Cases of bulimia in young females tripled in five years between the late 1980’s and early nineties The number of cases has increased since and the link has to be made to everyday role models. A UK study tested girls’ reactions to being told a story while observing one of three images. Each child was shown an image of Barbie, Emme (an alternate doll) or a picture not related to dolls. The study found those girls who had observed an image of Barbie emerged feeling less satisfied with their bodies and more in favor of a ‘smaller figure’. In spite of this, the Internet is a significant part of society today, not only Barbie can be blamed for this. But we need to question her involvement. Young girls have been proven to compare themselves to the plastic doll and this is having an extremely negative impact on their view of the body.

Many girls own Barbies and nowadays they are also most likely on social media, where one is constantly bombarded with images of models and celebrities appearing perfect in every way. How does this affect one’s mindset who already feels far from perfect? Teenagers may compare themselves to models thinking, ‘I wish I looked like that!’, reaffirming existing beauty standards from social media. Dr. Emanuele, speaking at the Child Mind Institute, compared this to how “kids view social media through the lens of their own lives”. This outlines how teens correlate their lives with a model who is constantly dieting and at the gym relentlessly, but these facts are hidden behind the scenes away from the prying eyes of ordinary society. Barbie could be accused of having what we view as the ‘perfect life’, including the perfect figure, luxurious living conditions, exotic travel, infinite income, and gorgeous friends. But is this real life? This does not matter as some who view these works of fiction will immediately make comparisons and view their own lives as dismal in comparison. So, how did Matel attempt to alter this perception of perfection?

Curvy Barbie appeared on the market in 2016 to battle the original ‘perfect’ Barbies’ message about body image. ‘Curvy Barbie’ is an attempt to teach youngsters values about the diverse world out there. However, although ‘curvy’ Barbies message is definitely that of a positive one, has this reformation attempt backfired? The typical impression of curvy Barbie is ‘she is fat Barbie’. Conclusions cannot be drawn yet about the impact of curvy Barbie, as she has not been available until recently. One child sent curvy Barbie to the bin after claiming “…I don’t like her. Her arms aren’t right. Her legs are too big. She doesn’t look like my other Barbies” (Independent). This emphasizes the negative attitude some children can develop towards ‘fat’ people, whether that is themselves or others. Barbie has most definitely had a positive makeover, but her original appearance has not yet been overshadowed.

In conclusion, Barbie holds an influence over what we see as the embodiment of beauty in society today. She has played a role in influencing how young girls view themselves, and she has shaped their conception of what is pretty. Social media also plays a role in manipulating the minds of children. Over the past sixty years, since Barbie’s release, our attitude towards beauty has changed, and not for the better. It appears that although Barbie has had a modern-day reboot it seems she can’t shake her image of perfection with the tiny waist and skeletal frame. Do we want another generation of beautiful, happy little girls growing up dissatisfied with their bodies? Things need to change. Toy manufacturers need to open their eyes and take responsibility for the generation of girls they let down. Body positive Barbie could be the way forward.

Did you play with Barbie as a child? Did you ever wish you looked like the blonde bombshell? Since her launch in 1959, Barbie has had a huge impact on those girls who owned her. With over one billion dolls sold in 60 years, she has set an unattainable standard of beauty. From a young age, children are influenced by images around them. What message does Barbie send to young children about what is normal? Mattel, the toy manufacturer, has clearly questioned what is normal as they have greatly extended their range. Was this to increase profits? Or reflect differences between individuals in society? One thing that needs clarification is whether Barbie has led to a generation of girls who have grown up with body image issues and an increase in eating disorder figures as they try to achieve the unrealistic standard set by this perfect fashionista.

There is an unrealistic perception of beauty held by modern society. The bar has been set at an almost unachievable level by models, celebrities and Barbie. This piece of plastic with luxurious golden hair has set the example that to be ‘pretty’ you must be tall, weigh 54kg, have an eighteen-inch waist, hourglass figure and thigh gap. If Barbie was to take a step out of her plastic shell she would barely function as a human. A 2019 study led to the discovery Barbie would be roaming around on all fours as her small body would not carry the weight of her perfectly formed head. Barbie would be starving herself every day. This coincides with the message portrayed by the 1965 ‘Slumber Party Barbie’ who came equipped with a diet book screaming, “DON’T EAT” on the front. This message is what generations grew up believing, this could explain why those in the spotlight like Lilly Collins have suffered an eating disorder. Barbie is one piece of a large puzzle where the current definition of beauty comes from today.

Children aren’t born with self-doubt, but influenced by things around them as they grow up. It is alarming the number of children who think the only way to attain Barbie’s perfect appearance is by starving themselves. For example, three Barbies are sold every second making two hundred and fifty-nine thousand sold each day and millions every year, making many happy children being influenced by the popular fashionista doll. This forms their understanding of ‘normal’, but what is normal? Kids question their own bodies and have done so for many generations. Although the issue of body image is highly diverse, over half of all girls as young as five are already troubled by their appearance and the thought of becoming ‘fat’ is a thought infecting their young brains. Cases of bulimia in young females tripled in five years between the late 1980’s and early nineties The number of cases has increased since and the link has to be made to everyday role models. A UK study tested girls’ reactions to being told a story while observing one of three images. Each child was shown an image of Barbie, Emme (an alternate doll) or a picture not related to dolls. The study found those girls who had observed an image of Barbie emerged feeling less satisfied with their bodies and more in favor of a ‘smaller figure’. In spite of this, the Internet is a significant part of society today, not only Barbie can be blamed for this. But we need to question her involvement. Young girls have been proven to compare themselves to the plastic doll and this is having an extremely negative impact on their view of the body.

Many girls own Barbies and nowadays they are also most likely on social media, where one is constantly bombarded with images of models and celebrities appearing perfect in every way. How does this affect one’s mindset who already feels far from perfect? Teenagers may compare themselves to models thinking, ‘I wish I looked like that!’, reaffirming existing beauty standards from social media. Dr. Emanuele, speaking at the Child Mind Institute, compared this to how “kids view social media through the lens of their own lives”. This outlines how teens correlate their lives with a model who is constantly dieting and at the gym relentlessly, but these facts are hidden behind the scenes away from the prying eyes of ordinary society. Barbie could be accused of having what we view as the ‘perfect life’, including the perfect figure, luxurious living conditions, exotic travel, infinite income, and gorgeous friends. But is this real life? This does not matter as some who view these works of fiction will immediately make comparisons and view their own lives as dismal in comparison. So, how did Matel attempt to alter this perception of perfection?

Curvy Barbie appeared on the market in 2016 to battle the original ‘perfect’ Barbies’ message about body image. ‘Curvy Barbie’ is an attempt to teach youngsters values about the diverse world out there. However, although ‘curvy’ Barbies message is definitely that of a positive one, has this reformation attempt backfired? The typical impression of curvy Barbie is ‘she is fat Barbie’. Conclusions cannot be drawn yet about the impact of curvy Barbie, as she has not been available until recently. One child sent curvy Barbie to the bin after claiming “…I don’t like her. Her arms aren’t right. Her legs are too big. She doesn’t look like my other Barbies” (Independent). This emphasizes the negative attitude some children can develop towards ‘fat’ people, whether that is themselves or others. Barbie has most definitely had a positive makeover, but her original appearance has not yet been overshadowed.

In conclusion, Barbie holds an influence over what we see as the embodiment of beauty in society today. She has played a role in influencing how young girls view themselves, and she has shaped their conception of what is pretty. Social media also plays a role in manipulating the minds of children. Over the past sixty years, since Barbie’s release, our attitude towards beauty has changed, and not for the better. It appears that although Barbie has had a modern-day reboot it seems she can’t shake her image of perfection with the tiny waist and skeletal frame. Do we want another generation of beautiful, happy little girls growing up dissatisfied with their bodies? Things need to change. Toy manufacturers need to open their eyes and take responsibility for the generation of girls they let down. Body positive Barbie could be the way forward.