Trapped in a barbie world
Photo courtesy of Sandra Gabriel via Unsplash
If Barbie were human, she’d be unable to function due to her proportions. She couldn’t walk, her neck wouldn’t be strong enough to lift her head and her abdomen would be far too small to contain her organs. The horrifying image that I’ve described can’t exist, and something so unrealistic shouldn’t be displayed to children.
As a child, I remember thinking how lucky Barbie was that she was always pretty. Her hair was perfect; she had tiny feet and a perfect painted smile. I was the type of child that kept my dolls in pristine condition. If there was even a hair out of place, I didn’t want the doll anymore – I no longer had a reason to admire the Barbie.
Looking back at it, that was totally wrong, but I was just following the propaganda set in front of me by Barbie’s creators.
According to History.com, Ruth Handler, the creator of Barbie, said she found inspiration for the doll by watching her own daughter play with paper dolls shaped like adult women.
Handler realized there was an unfilled niche in the market for a toy that allowed children to imagine their futures.
From that, sweet, perfect, beautiful little Barbie was born. Mattel, which grossed $903.5 million last year, estimates that approximately 90% of girls aged 10 and younger own or have owned a Barbie doll. So why are parents still buying these dolls for their children?
Likely because they don’t understand what exactly they’re buying. Most people don’t realize that Barbie’s origins aren’t honorable or child-friendly at all. Handler modeled the dolls’ looks after a 1940s German caricature and adult gag gift by the name of Lilli – a manipulative character famous in the comics for prostitution and gold-digging.
Now I’m not in a position to judge someone’s parenting, but I can safely assume most parents aren’t buying their young children sexy prostitute dolls on purpose. Mattel’s targeted age range coincides directly with a child’s formative years when their intellectual, social, emotional and physical development is at its height.
Research shows that a child’s awareness of their body image develops between 6 and 11 years old, with eating disorders often developing as early as 14. Obviously, eating disorders or body dysmorphia can’t be blamed entirely on Barbie, but the Barbie brand hasn’t been a positive contributor.
Right around the time the body positivity movement began to make some noise, people started to call the Barbie brand out. Between 2012 and 2014, sales dropped 20% due to the backlash. As a result, Barbie introduced more body types in 2016 to combat the negative press, and for the most part, it worked. People moved on because of the slight alterations that were made.
Mattel pandered to their consumer’s wishes and won. They repaired their image, increased overall sales by 16% and managed to release several new dolls. This is done without even attacking the root of the problem: the main Barbie still has Lilli’s problematic proportions that people couldn’t achieve even if they wanted to.
A quick Google search shows that people have tried, but even thousands of dollars of surgery can’t get those results.
We’re already seeing that Mattel’s little trick didn’t work. Follow-up studies have shown that adolescents don’t see the new Barbies as beautiful and that they likely won’t pick them over other Barbies.
Sorry, Mattel – your half-ditch efforts to fix your 80-year-old trainwreck seem shallow when you won’t fix the original problem in the first place.
