Barbie is not just a toy.
Mattel knows Barbie is not just a toy. She is a cultural icon all over the world, and she is reality to those who play with her. She is teaching children what it means to be a girl.
Researchers have concluded that toys represent messages about gender, adult roles, and values that children internalize... children comprehend elements of their society through their toys (Kuther 2004).
Kuther, T.L. et al. 2004. "Early adolescents' experience with and views of Barbie. Adolescence from the Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection: 39; 153.
So what are they learning about their society's values through Barbie? That beauty, material objects, and popularity are coveted. They're learning you have to buy objects and accessories to be trendy, and trendiness means happiness. At young ages they're learning ways to try to improve their appearance. They're learning thin is in. They're learning the hottest accesory a girl can have is a hot boy-toy by her side. They're not learning to be independent, to strive for intellectual achievement, or to accept their appearance the way they were created.
Mattel, the way you market Barbie and the values you promote to children takes away their right to individual discovery and the notion of creating their own identity. You exploit children's readiness to accept values from a toy they look up and aspire to be. And for what? To sell more products? You've contributed to children's image-problems, eating disorders, and a need for materialism that can last all the way into adulthood. What you're really selling to children through your products are a general sense of inadequacy and disapointment in themselves. You've created an unbridled force of influence through your Barbie empire, now it's time to take ownership of your responsibility in the development of youth and make Barbie a true role model. Make her one that doesn't promote unrealistic body types, has more aspirations than being the best dressed or most popular, and tries to improve her intellectual growth and not just her outward appearance.
Make Barbie worthy of being a little girl's best friend.
Thursday, October 22, 2009
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
The Living Barbie
When I was younger, my favorite Barbie was (get ready for this shocker,) the Teresa Barbie. Because we shared a name, she had Caucasian features, the same tan skin complexion, and hazel-eyes, I assumed she must be exactly like me. I'm Italian, so I thought Teresa was obviously Italian too. I was so sure that we were similar that I assumed I would look just like her when I was older. She was the adult version of me. She had my name and my hair and my eyes. I was devasted when I played with her too much and her head accidently popped off her body. That was like MY head popping off my body.
It wasn't until literally a year or two ago that I realized the Teresa Barbie is actually supposed to be the Latina version of Barbie. Teresa Barbie wasn't like me at all. But when I was a kid I thought she was. Her life was what I thought my life would be. She was going to become my reality, I was sure of it. Well, turns out Barbie's perfect life isn't reality, it's not even close. Unfortunately, some people just can't make that disinction though.
This woman's story is admittedly extreme, but it does represent how the deluded reality of Barbie doesn't always end when you're young. Girls' fixation with becoming like her translates into adult life too.
CBS's 48 Hours reported on a woman named Cindy Jackson in 2006 in their segment called "Becoming Barbie: Living Dolls." Cindy had grown up in a small town and admitted as a young girl that she never thought she was good looking. Barbie was the pinacle of perfection, and she had always wanted to look like her. Cindy was recognized as highly intelligent, motivated, and ambitious, but her personality traits never fulfilled her desire to "improve" her outward appearance. At 33 she began to get plastic surgery to become Barbie. "Barbie was the blank canvas I filled in all those years ago. It was still my role model," she said in an interview.
Cindy received 31 operations over the course of 14 years to become Barbie. Her operations included laser surgery on her forehead, upper and lower eye modification, cheek implants, two nose jobs, and eyebrows, eyeliner, lipliner, and full lipstick tattooed to her face.
She spent $100,000 on plastic surgery to become Barbie.
But don't think that just girls are influenced enough to go under the knife to look like the plastic dolls. A man named Tim Whitfield (now named Miles Kendall,) saw Cindy's transformation and decided he wanted to be the male version of her and become Ken. So he dropped $50k on plastic surgery and became Cindy's male counterpart.
The before and after picture proves, at least to me, that the obsession to look like Barbie is insane. Cindy was not ugly to begin with, she looked like a normal human being. In fact, I think her original features made her quite pretty. But her obsession with the perfection of Barbie made her quest to imitate the doll unstoppable. Now being in her 50's, she still does look like Barbie, but she has countless procedures that she will need to have done every year to keep the form of her artificial face. She succeeded in her attempt to look plastic, that's for sure.
Although most little girls would never grow up and go to these extreme measures to change their appearance, the point of Cindy's story is that Barbie's image is extremely powerful and influential. Cindy spent an exorbitant amount of money to make herself look like the doll she aspired to be, but she is a rare case. Most girls just wish they could look like Barbie, with no hopes of actually attaining that image. Barbie is just a reminder, and perpetuator of the dissappointment females have with their body-images.
It wasn't until literally a year or two ago that I realized the Teresa Barbie is actually supposed to be the Latina version of Barbie. Teresa Barbie wasn't like me at all. But when I was a kid I thought she was. Her life was what I thought my life would be. She was going to become my reality, I was sure of it. Well, turns out Barbie's perfect life isn't reality, it's not even close. Unfortunately, some people just can't make that disinction though.
This woman's story is admittedly extreme, but it does represent how the deluded reality of Barbie doesn't always end when you're young. Girls' fixation with becoming like her translates into adult life too.
CBS's 48 Hours reported on a woman named Cindy Jackson in 2006 in their segment called "Becoming Barbie: Living Dolls." Cindy had grown up in a small town and admitted as a young girl that she never thought she was good looking. Barbie was the pinacle of perfection, and she had always wanted to look like her. Cindy was recognized as highly intelligent, motivated, and ambitious, but her personality traits never fulfilled her desire to "improve" her outward appearance. At 33 she began to get plastic surgery to become Barbie. "Barbie was the blank canvas I filled in all those years ago. It was still my role model," she said in an interview.
Cindy received 31 operations over the course of 14 years to become Barbie. Her operations included laser surgery on her forehead, upper and lower eye modification, cheek implants, two nose jobs, and eyebrows, eyeliner, lipliner, and full lipstick tattooed to her face.
She spent $100,000 on plastic surgery to become Barbie.
But don't think that just girls are influenced enough to go under the knife to look like the plastic dolls. A man named Tim Whitfield (now named Miles Kendall,) saw Cindy's transformation and decided he wanted to be the male version of her and become Ken. So he dropped $50k on plastic surgery and became Cindy's male counterpart.
Although most little girls would never grow up and go to these extreme measures to change their appearance, the point of Cindy's story is that Barbie's image is extremely powerful and influential. Cindy spent an exorbitant amount of money to make herself look like the doll she aspired to be, but she is a rare case. Most girls just wish they could look like Barbie, with no hopes of actually attaining that image. Barbie is just a reminder, and perpetuator of the dissappointment females have with their body-images.
Monday, October 19, 2009
Online Barbie
Mattel has reeeally taken advantage of the internet as an interactive marketing tool for Barbie. Trying to navigate her various websites (she has several,) is actually very overwhelming. There are so many glittery, flashing links and images everywhere, and so much to do that you could literally spend an entire day exploring everything the sites have to offer. The issue I have with the interactive sites though is they are purely materialistic. You can shop for Barbie, visit her closet to pick out her outfits, and give her makeovers. Can you enact various careers for Barbie? No. What fun would that be right? If kids are role-playing careers, how are they going to see all the online clothes they can dress their Barbies in online, which conveniently can also be purchased for their Barbies at home.
What I really found off-putting was the everythinggirl.com link to a "Barbie Grown-ups" section. This portion of the site is supposed to give parents ideas about how to interact with their preschoolers. One of the suggestions was a spa day. With facial masks and manis and pedis and all. I'm 20 years old and have never had a facial in my life. Do 4 or 5 year olds really need to be taught that to be feminine you have to have spa days to make yourself beautiful? That's the underlying connotation I get from that part of the website. Isn't it enough that girls are giving their virtual Barbies makeovers? I don't think they need encouragement to feel makeovers for themselves are necessary too.
The best part of the Barbie websites is that you have to be a member to visit any of the interactive portions of the sites. So what does that mean? It means little girls have to register an email address to be able to play with online Barbie. A lot of kids don't actually have email addresses, and why should they when they're 4 or 5 years old? So they have to register with mom or dad's address. Conveniently for Mattel, that means they can unabashedly send promotional emails with all the latest must-have accessories that parents have to buy for their kids. If kids have their own email addresses, that's even better for Mattel because they can send their merciless promotional emails directly to their target audience.
Making kids want to have all the newest products for Barbie fuels Mattel's bank account, but fuels kids' inclination toward materialism too. Child marketers such as Mattel have done a good job at programming kids to be consumers. Mattel has taken advantage of online tools to market the insane amount of products for Barbie, and from a marketing perspective they are doing a damn good job of it. My problem with these marketing strategies is the lack of substance they are selling to kids. Being an "everything girl," like Barbie boasts to be, includes being an excellent shopper and socialite, and nothing more. But that's really all that any girl should want to be anyway, right? According to Mattel, it is.
What I really found off-putting was the everythinggirl.com link to a "Barbie Grown-ups" section. This portion of the site is supposed to give parents ideas about how to interact with their preschoolers. One of the suggestions was a spa day. With facial masks and manis and pedis and all. I'm 20 years old and have never had a facial in my life. Do 4 or 5 year olds really need to be taught that to be feminine you have to have spa days to make yourself beautiful? That's the underlying connotation I get from that part of the website. Isn't it enough that girls are giving their virtual Barbies makeovers? I don't think they need encouragement to feel makeovers for themselves are necessary too.
The best part of the Barbie websites is that you have to be a member to visit any of the interactive portions of the sites. So what does that mean? It means little girls have to register an email address to be able to play with online Barbie. A lot of kids don't actually have email addresses, and why should they when they're 4 or 5 years old? So they have to register with mom or dad's address. Conveniently for Mattel, that means they can unabashedly send promotional emails with all the latest must-have accessories that parents have to buy for their kids. If kids have their own email addresses, that's even better for Mattel because they can send their merciless promotional emails directly to their target audience.
Making kids want to have all the newest products for Barbie fuels Mattel's bank account, but fuels kids' inclination toward materialism too. Child marketers such as Mattel have done a good job at programming kids to be consumers. Mattel has taken advantage of online tools to market the insane amount of products for Barbie, and from a marketing perspective they are doing a damn good job of it. My problem with these marketing strategies is the lack of substance they are selling to kids. Being an "everything girl," like Barbie boasts to be, includes being an excellent shopper and socialite, and nothing more. But that's really all that any girl should want to be anyway, right? According to Mattel, it is.
Sunday, October 18, 2009
The Breakup
Call me old-fashioned, but I like to think that it is possible for couples to happily stay together for 50+ years. With the increasingly high divorce rates in this country, it's nice to think that there are still people that can support and love one another for the rest of their lives.
Most people don't like to see their favorite couples fail. We hate to see our friends that have been dating for years and years since high school finally hit a wall in their relationship and breakup. When those perfect couples can't make it together anymore, it makes us feel hopeless about the success of our own relationships, because those people were the epitome of the devoted and loving relationship we all desired.
This may be my traditional family-attitudes talking, but I think families should stay together. Kids have better childhoods and home lives when they have a strong parental support system and both parents are living under the same roof. For that reason I think that children should not only receive that kind of support during their years of development, but they should be encouraged to build those kinds of solid relationships when they get older. Children should be taught to value the people they are intimately involved with, they shouldn't be taught promiscuity or the unwillingness to create bonds with others.
There's enough instances of divorce and failed relationships in our society for children to witness, some of which may be occuring with their own parents. Not to mention every single drama on TV has characters with serious relationship and infidelity issues. Shouldn't there be at least one iconic relationship that shows children that successful long-term relationships are possible? That's what I always loved about Barbie. She had Ken, they were in love for years. Forty-three years in fact...
...Until Mattel decided that an iconic, universally recognized relationship isn't trendy anymore. And that's when Barbie dumped Ken, her beau of 43 years, on February 12, 2004, just 48 hours before Valentine's Day.
I couldn't believe it. Barbie and Ken were like peanut butter and jelly. That relationship was one of the only good values that Barbie demonstrated. Unlike her predecessor Bild Lilli, she had a decades-long relationship with her "soul-mate." Do you know how many times Barbie has married Ken over the years in little girls' bridal fantasies? Too many to count. Well, now they're added to the divorce list too.
Mattel took the shallow Barbie image to a new level when they offed Ken in 2004. They didn't just dump Ken and make Barbie an independent, single lady, they made her out to be a cheating, man-eating bitch. Poor Ken, after sticking by Barbies side for 43 years, he got dumped for Blaine, the "hot Australian surfer" doll. Barbie dumped her lifelong partner for the younger, cuter, more exotic Aussie doll. But I guess that's the thing to do now right? Always trade-up for the newer, more exciting version of everything. Way to be super trendy, Barbie.
Blaine, Barbie, and Ken
I like the statements Patricial O'Connell made in her 2006 BusinessWeek article about the breakup: "Barbie having a significant other never inhibited her before. In fact, having a constant steady seemed to suit Barbie just fine... [a theory is] all this is just a marketing ploy -- a publicist's dream -- to boost interest in the Cali Girl and Blaine dolls. After all, Demi Moore -- a woman of just about the same age as Barbie -- has taken up with a boy toy, Ashton Kutcher, and it has done wonders to keep her front and center in the gossip columns."
With the Barbie-Ken incident, Mattel has added another instance of betrayal to the long list of questionable relationships kids are exposed to in this society. That's all kids see in the media and TV and movies, right? Which is exactly my point. That's all kids ever see!! Why couldn't Mattel leave the one lasting relationship alone and let little kids see the possibility of strong, successful relationships in a barrage of ones that always fail?? The Barbie-Ken breakup was a ploy for media attention by Mattel, but what they either didn't realize or didn't care they were doing was promoting values, (dare I say suggestively promiscuous values,) through Barbie's actions.
I don't care how "trendy" or starved for publicity you are, STOP promoting values to kids, Mattel!
Most people don't like to see their favorite couples fail. We hate to see our friends that have been dating for years and years since high school finally hit a wall in their relationship and breakup. When those perfect couples can't make it together anymore, it makes us feel hopeless about the success of our own relationships, because those people were the epitome of the devoted and loving relationship we all desired.
This may be my traditional family-attitudes talking, but I think families should stay together. Kids have better childhoods and home lives when they have a strong parental support system and both parents are living under the same roof. For that reason I think that children should not only receive that kind of support during their years of development, but they should be encouraged to build those kinds of solid relationships when they get older. Children should be taught to value the people they are intimately involved with, they shouldn't be taught promiscuity or the unwillingness to create bonds with others.
There's enough instances of divorce and failed relationships in our society for children to witness, some of which may be occuring with their own parents. Not to mention every single drama on TV has characters with serious relationship and infidelity issues. Shouldn't there be at least one iconic relationship that shows children that successful long-term relationships are possible? That's what I always loved about Barbie. She had Ken, they were in love for years. Forty-three years in fact...
...Until Mattel decided that an iconic, universally recognized relationship isn't trendy anymore. And that's when Barbie dumped Ken, her beau of 43 years, on February 12, 2004, just 48 hours before Valentine's Day.
I couldn't believe it. Barbie and Ken were like peanut butter and jelly. That relationship was one of the only good values that Barbie demonstrated. Unlike her predecessor Bild Lilli, she had a decades-long relationship with her "soul-mate." Do you know how many times Barbie has married Ken over the years in little girls' bridal fantasies? Too many to count. Well, now they're added to the divorce list too.
Mattel took the shallow Barbie image to a new level when they offed Ken in 2004. They didn't just dump Ken and make Barbie an independent, single lady, they made her out to be a cheating, man-eating bitch. Poor Ken, after sticking by Barbies side for 43 years, he got dumped for Blaine, the "hot Australian surfer" doll. Barbie dumped her lifelong partner for the younger, cuter, more exotic Aussie doll. But I guess that's the thing to do now right? Always trade-up for the newer, more exciting version of everything. Way to be super trendy, Barbie.
Blaine, Barbie, and Ken
I like the statements Patricial O'Connell made in her 2006 BusinessWeek article about the breakup: "Barbie having a significant other never inhibited her before. In fact, having a constant steady seemed to suit Barbie just fine... [a theory is] all this is just a marketing ploy -- a publicist's dream -- to boost interest in the Cali Girl and Blaine dolls. After all, Demi Moore -- a woman of just about the same age as Barbie -- has taken up with a boy toy, Ashton Kutcher, and it has done wonders to keep her front and center in the gossip columns."
With the Barbie-Ken incident, Mattel has added another instance of betrayal to the long list of questionable relationships kids are exposed to in this society. That's all kids see in the media and TV and movies, right? Which is exactly my point. That's all kids ever see!! Why couldn't Mattel leave the one lasting relationship alone and let little kids see the possibility of strong, successful relationships in a barrage of ones that always fail?? The Barbie-Ken breakup was a ploy for media attention by Mattel, but what they either didn't realize or didn't care they were doing was promoting values, (dare I say suggestively promiscuous values,) through Barbie's actions.
I don't care how "trendy" or starved for publicity you are, STOP promoting values to kids, Mattel!
Saturday, October 17, 2009
Leather, Fishnets, Tattoos, and Barbie
Luckily Barbie has come a long way since the Bild Lilli days mentioned in the previous post. She's no longer scantily clad and suggestive like her predecesser doll was. Barbie has definitely left the sexual promiscuity thing behind...
Well, wait, except for maybe the new collector's Barbie, fondly referred to as the "S&M Barbie."
This is the 1950's-60's Bild Lilli doll
And below is the 2008 Black Canary "S&M Barbie"
There's an odd resemblence between the 1950's-60's sex doll Bild Lilli and the Barbie doll released in 2008. In fact, these dolls are almost identical.
Not only are both dolls dressed like prostitutes, but they both began as over-sexualized comic strip/book characters. The S&M Barbie is justified by Mattel because it is a recreation of DC Comic super heroine Black Canary. Mattel aptly describes her outfit on their website as a signature black leather body suit and patterened tights. Come on Mattel, cut the euphemisms. Those tights are fishnets like you see hookers wearing on the street corner, and that leather underwear does not have enough material to qualify as a "bodysuit."
To Black Canary Barbie's defense, she is not intended as a children's toy. She is marketed as an adult toy or collector's item. But that does not guarantee that she won't make it into the hands of children.
So if S&M Barbie isn't meant to be a children's toy, let's talk about a Barbie that is supposed to be appropriate for children.
In April 2009, Mattel released "Totally Stylin Tattoos" Barbie, and "Totally Stylin Tattoos Nikki", the brunette version.
Not surprisingly, parents slammed Tattoo Barbie with complaints. In fact, this is actually Mattel's second time trying to market tattoos to kids. In 1999 Mattel released "Butterfly Art Barbie" which was also a tattoo-able Barbie but was pulled from shelves four months later due to compaints from parents.
Don't get me wrong, I don't have anything against tattoos. However, I do think there is a problem when children's good pal Barbie is advocating tramp stamps with men's names in the middle of hearts.
Does that say independence and girl power to you? It says "I'm Ken's bitch" to me. Children don't need to get the idea that they should be so devoted to men that they should get his name tattooed on their body. Mattel has openly defended the tattoos as "a way for children to express themselves and be creative." Somehow I don't find "I love Ken tatoos" to foster anything other than the idea of female submission to her male counterpart.
And wait, aren't girls supposed to love themselves as they are, instead of covering up their own skin? This seems like another way Mattel is telling girls they're not ok the way they look right now.
Once again, Mattel, stop marketing values to kids. There's a reason why the first tattoo Barbie got booed off the shelves. Kids might not fully understand you're marketing ideas that are sexualized or suggestive through Barbie dolls, but parents do and they don't like them. You should try listening to your consumers and stop pushing Barbies into the hands of kids when most parents don't even find them appropriate.
Well, wait, except for maybe the new collector's Barbie, fondly referred to as the "S&M Barbie."
This is the 1950's-60's Bild Lilli doll
And below is the 2008 Black Canary "S&M Barbie"
There's an odd resemblence between the 1950's-60's sex doll Bild Lilli and the Barbie doll released in 2008. In fact, these dolls are almost identical.
Not only are both dolls dressed like prostitutes, but they both began as over-sexualized comic strip/book characters. The S&M Barbie is justified by Mattel because it is a recreation of DC Comic super heroine Black Canary. Mattel aptly describes her outfit on their website as a signature black leather body suit and patterened tights. Come on Mattel, cut the euphemisms. Those tights are fishnets like you see hookers wearing on the street corner, and that leather underwear does not have enough material to qualify as a "bodysuit."
To Black Canary Barbie's defense, she is not intended as a children's toy. She is marketed as an adult toy or collector's item. But that does not guarantee that she won't make it into the hands of children.
So if S&M Barbie isn't meant to be a children's toy, let's talk about a Barbie that is supposed to be appropriate for children.
In April 2009, Mattel released "Totally Stylin Tattoos" Barbie, and "Totally Stylin Tattoos Nikki", the brunette version.
Not surprisingly, parents slammed Tattoo Barbie with complaints. In fact, this is actually Mattel's second time trying to market tattoos to kids. In 1999 Mattel released "Butterfly Art Barbie" which was also a tattoo-able Barbie but was pulled from shelves four months later due to compaints from parents.
Don't get me wrong, I don't have anything against tattoos. However, I do think there is a problem when children's good pal Barbie is advocating tramp stamps with men's names in the middle of hearts.
Does that say independence and girl power to you? It says "I'm Ken's bitch" to me. Children don't need to get the idea that they should be so devoted to men that they should get his name tattooed on their body. Mattel has openly defended the tattoos as "a way for children to express themselves and be creative." Somehow I don't find "I love Ken tatoos" to foster anything other than the idea of female submission to her male counterpart.
And wait, aren't girls supposed to love themselves as they are, instead of covering up their own skin? This seems like another way Mattel is telling girls they're not ok the way they look right now.Once again, Mattel, stop marketing values to kids. There's a reason why the first tattoo Barbie got booed off the shelves. Kids might not fully understand you're marketing ideas that are sexualized or suggestive through Barbie dolls, but parents do and they don't like them. You should try listening to your consumers and stop pushing Barbies into the hands of kids when most parents don't even find them appropriate.
Friday, October 16, 2009
Barbie's "Mom" was a Total MlLF?!
Let's rewind for a moment and discuss a little Barbie history. Barbie had an interesting beginning. Her predecessor, the "mother" of Barbie was a 1950's controversial working girl.
The creation of Barbie was inspired by a doll in Germany named Bild Lilli. The german doll was derived from a comic strip and then later adapted into a doll.
Bild Lilli was sold as an "adult" doll, and selling her to children was unheard of. Her doll persona was sassy, fashionable, talked openly about her sexual endeavors, had a lot of friends, and dated (and slept with) old rich men.
She was first and foremost a socialite fashionista. (Sound familiar?)
Feminists considered Lilli to be a "sex doll," and she was originally marketed as an adult novelty, for joke or gag gifts. She wasn't supposed to be a toy for children, but Ruth Handler, a founder of Mattel, bought three of the dolls and was determined to market them in America. Handler didn't realize that Bild Lilli was sold in bars and tobacco shops, meant as a titilating joke between men who found the sexuality of the doll amusing.
These are some of my favorite Bild Lilli images:
Well, Handler thought these dolls would be worth selling to children in America and brought Lilli back anyway, and then made her into the modern day Barbie doll.
Barbie might have questionnable values now, but at least she was founded on good morals, right!!?....
You can read more about Bild Lilli in an article from Associatedcontent.com here.
An even more awesome blog with a great analysis of Barbie history, including Bild Lilli facts can be read here.
The creation of Barbie was inspired by a doll in Germany named Bild Lilli. The german doll was derived from a comic strip and then later adapted into a doll.
Bild Lilli was sold as an "adult" doll, and selling her to children was unheard of. Her doll persona was sassy, fashionable, talked openly about her sexual endeavors, had a lot of friends, and dated (and slept with) old rich men.
She was first and foremost a socialite fashionista. (Sound familiar?)
Feminists considered Lilli to be a "sex doll," and she was originally marketed as an adult novelty, for joke or gag gifts. She wasn't supposed to be a toy for children, but Ruth Handler, a founder of Mattel, bought three of the dolls and was determined to market them in America. Handler didn't realize that Bild Lilli was sold in bars and tobacco shops, meant as a titilating joke between men who found the sexuality of the doll amusing.
These are some of my favorite Bild Lilli images:
Well, Handler thought these dolls would be worth selling to children in America and brought Lilli back anyway, and then made her into the modern day Barbie doll.
Barbie might have questionnable values now, but at least she was founded on good morals, right!!?....
You can read more about Bild Lilli in an article from Associatedcontent.com here.
An even more awesome blog with a great analysis of Barbie history, including Bild Lilli facts can be read here.
Thursday, October 15, 2009
Barbie Can Be ANYTHING She Wants to Be?
Barbie marketing strategies don't just sell dolls and clothes, they sell ideas. Barbie commercials tell girls to "be who you wanna be, be a Barbie girl." But if girls can be who they want to be, then why are all Barbie girls portayed as overtly feminine, for lack of a better word, girlie-girls?
This commercial for a 2009 Barbie camper exemplifies what a Barbie girl is really like:
Apparently Barbie girls can't spend time in nature without all the modern immenities at hand. For a Barbie girl, things like plasma TV's are necessities on those family vacations, when roughing it in the wilderness...
Barbie's always have been, and still are, marketed in predominantly female careers. Barbies have jobs that are often related to domestic female gender roles. Popular Barbie careers from the 50s-present day include secretary, teacher, nurse, cheerleader, chef, ballerina, and flight attendant.
Barbies can be doctors too though, which is a traditionally male profession...
...But when Barbie is a doctor, she is still in a predominantly female role of holding, rocking, and caring for babies. The other kind of doctor Barbie can be is the Pet Doctor Barbie. Naturally a Barbie Girl would only want to care for adorable things like newborn babies and fuzzy puppies and kittens. It would be completely out of character for Barbie to be some kind of surgeon, where that career (and outfit) involves icky things like wearing ugly scrubs and a surgeon's cap that covers her pretty blonde hair.
When searching "Barbie's careers" on Mattel's Barbie website, the only results that are found are a Barbie pet vet, gymnastics coach, preschool teacher, newborn baby doctor, a SeaWorld trainer, a salon stylist, and a TV chef. Even when Barbie is marketed with visible jobs, which is usually only once a year, she is kept in careers implying traditional gender roles. If Ken had a more thorough identity and Mattel actually marketed him with a job, I highly doubt he would be marketed as having a career in any of Barbie's professions. They all have a feminine connotation that is consistent with Barbie's ultra-girlie persona. If Barbie is going to represent "what girls can be" then she should be marketed with a deeper scope of careers. If there is going to be Barbies like a preschool teacher and a baby doctor Barbie, then there should also be Barbies like an attorney, CEO, and scientist.
Women are excelling in all professional fields, and if Barbie is going to be representative of adult women then she should accurately portray them, in more than just stereotypically female-oriented fields.
This commercial for a 2009 Barbie camper exemplifies what a Barbie girl is really like:
Apparently Barbie girls can't spend time in nature without all the modern immenities at hand. For a Barbie girl, things like plasma TV's are necessities on those family vacations, when roughing it in the wilderness...
Barbie's always have been, and still are, marketed in predominantly female careers. Barbies have jobs that are often related to domestic female gender roles. Popular Barbie careers from the 50s-present day include secretary, teacher, nurse, cheerleader, chef, ballerina, and flight attendant.
Barbies can be doctors too though, which is a traditionally male profession...
...But when Barbie is a doctor, she is still in a predominantly female role of holding, rocking, and caring for babies. The other kind of doctor Barbie can be is the Pet Doctor Barbie. Naturally a Barbie Girl would only want to care for adorable things like newborn babies and fuzzy puppies and kittens. It would be completely out of character for Barbie to be some kind of surgeon, where that career (and outfit) involves icky things like wearing ugly scrubs and a surgeon's cap that covers her pretty blonde hair.
When searching "Barbie's careers" on Mattel's Barbie website, the only results that are found are a Barbie pet vet, gymnastics coach, preschool teacher, newborn baby doctor, a SeaWorld trainer, a salon stylist, and a TV chef. Even when Barbie is marketed with visible jobs, which is usually only once a year, she is kept in careers implying traditional gender roles. If Ken had a more thorough identity and Mattel actually marketed him with a job, I highly doubt he would be marketed as having a career in any of Barbie's professions. They all have a feminine connotation that is consistent with Barbie's ultra-girlie persona. If Barbie is going to represent "what girls can be" then she should be marketed with a deeper scope of careers. If there is going to be Barbies like a preschool teacher and a baby doctor Barbie, then there should also be Barbies like an attorney, CEO, and scientist.
Women are excelling in all professional fields, and if Barbie is going to be representative of adult women then she should accurately portray them, in more than just stereotypically female-oriented fields.
Monday, October 12, 2009
Being Thin Is In... In 3rd Grade
When I think of being in elementary school again, I imagine myself learning cursive, memorizing timetables, playing kickball at recess, and having backyard play-dates with my best friends after school. The important things on my mind were the newly released Beanie Babies I had to have and what snacks I could trade with my friends to get those fruit roll-ups my mom never bought.
These days kids have more on their minds than just stuffed animals and math problems though.
A study of 261 3rd, 4th, and 5th graders assessed the children's view of their current body shape.
The results found that over 50% of the children reported they were "dissatisfied" with their current body shape.
(Skemp-Arlt, 2006)
41.8% of those children wanted to be thinner. Almost half of the surveyed 8-11 year-olds didn't like the way they looked and wanted to lose body weight.
There's no other way for me to describe these statistics other than to say that those numbers just make me sad. When kids are growing up, starting to get a sense of the world and gaining life experience, it is heartbreaking to know that part of their social education is learning that their bodies just aren't good enough.
So what's the relevance between children's body dissatisfaction and Barbie?
According to a journal article published in the American Psychological Association, there definitely is a correlation between Barbie and young girls' low self-esteem.
The journal article was titled "Does Barbie Make Girls Want to be Thin? The Effect of Experimental Exposure to Images of Dolls on the Body Image of 5-8 Year Old Girls." Check out the link to read more about the study.
162 girls were exposed to Barbie dolls, Emme Dolls (a size 16 doll,) or no dolls at all (this was the control of the experiment.) After the girls viewed the dolls, the girls took a test to assess their body image self-esteem.
The results of the assessments were very conclusive:
"Girls exposed to Barbie reported lower body esteem and greater desire for a thinner body shape than girls in the other exposure conditions."
The study further suggests that early exposure to dolls exhibiting an unrealistically thin body ideal may damage girls' body image, which would contribute to an increased risk of eating disorders and weight issues.
(Dittmar, 2006)
It seems pretty clear that there are body-image issues plauging children and their self-esteem these days. It also seems pretty clear that a certain plastic doll might have something to do with these image issues too. So, Mattel, the evidence is against you, can we please stop pretending that Barbie isn't contributing to the problem?
(Dittmar, Helga et al. 2006. "Does Barbie Make Girls Want to be Thin?..." American Psychological Association, Journals Department. vol. 42-2; 283-292.)
(Skemp-Arlt, Karen et al. 2006. "Body image dissatisfaction among third, fourth, and fifth grade children." California Journal of Health Promotion. vol. 4-3; 58-67.)
These days kids have more on their minds than just stuffed animals and math problems though.
A study of 261 3rd, 4th, and 5th graders assessed the children's view of their current body shape.
The results found that over 50% of the children reported they were "dissatisfied" with their current body shape.
(Skemp-Arlt, 2006)
41.8% of those children wanted to be thinner. Almost half of the surveyed 8-11 year-olds didn't like the way they looked and wanted to lose body weight.
There's no other way for me to describe these statistics other than to say that those numbers just make me sad. When kids are growing up, starting to get a sense of the world and gaining life experience, it is heartbreaking to know that part of their social education is learning that their bodies just aren't good enough.
So what's the relevance between children's body dissatisfaction and Barbie?
According to a journal article published in the American Psychological Association, there definitely is a correlation between Barbie and young girls' low self-esteem.
The journal article was titled "Does Barbie Make Girls Want to be Thin? The Effect of Experimental Exposure to Images of Dolls on the Body Image of 5-8 Year Old Girls." Check out the link to read more about the study.
162 girls were exposed to Barbie dolls, Emme Dolls (a size 16 doll,) or no dolls at all (this was the control of the experiment.) After the girls viewed the dolls, the girls took a test to assess their body image self-esteem.
The results of the assessments were very conclusive:
"Girls exposed to Barbie reported lower body esteem and greater desire for a thinner body shape than girls in the other exposure conditions."
The study further suggests that early exposure to dolls exhibiting an unrealistically thin body ideal may damage girls' body image, which would contribute to an increased risk of eating disorders and weight issues.
(Dittmar, 2006)
It seems pretty clear that there are body-image issues plauging children and their self-esteem these days. It also seems pretty clear that a certain plastic doll might have something to do with these image issues too. So, Mattel, the evidence is against you, can we please stop pretending that Barbie isn't contributing to the problem?
(Dittmar, Helga et al. 2006. "Does Barbie Make Girls Want to be Thin?..." American Psychological Association, Journals Department. vol. 42-2; 283-292.)
(Skemp-Arlt, Karen et al. 2006. "Body image dissatisfaction among third, fourth, and fifth grade children." California Journal of Health Promotion. vol. 4-3; 58-67.)
Sunday, October 11, 2009
Not My Size Barbie
Roughly 80% of women in America are dissatisfied with their appearance.
Out of ten of your girl friends, eight of them don't like the way they look. My roommate is one of them, my boss is one of them, my sister is one of them, my mother is one of them, I am one of them. And why do we hate our own appearances? Because we are constantly being told our own bodies aren't the desired prototypes of female beauty. What is the "ideal" female body type? Barbie, of course. Barbie has the body we all wish we had. She is precisely what women want their bodies to look like. She is the model of perfection.
And here's why she shouldn't be:
The average American woman age 22-32 is 5'4" and weighs 140 pounds. She has a 37" bust, a 29" waist, and 40" hips.
If Barbie was a real person, at a height of 5'6" she would have a 30" bust, an extraordinarily small 20" waist, and 29" hips. Even super-skinny Victoria Beckham has at least a 23" waist.
Check out this article from BBC to get a visual idea of what Barbie's proportions would look like on a real human being, and read about the body proportion stats mentioned in the blog.
Not only would Barbie's proportions make her taller and skinnier than most women in the world, but if she was a real human she would not even have the 17% body fat necessary to menstruate. Also, her legs are 50% longer than her arms. The average woman's legs are only 20% longer than her arms.
If Barbie's proportions were applied to a woman's body, the woman would have to increase her height by 24 inches, increase her bust by 5 inches, reduce her waist by 6 inches, and lengthen her neck by 3 inches to attain a Barbie's body.
(Brownell, K.1995. Distorting reality for children: Body size proportions for Barbie and Ken Dolls. International Journal of Eating Disorders, 18, 295-298.)
Here's another visual representation comparing average women and barbie from teen-beauty-tips.com. Slightly different measurements but the same idea.
So let's recap:
Barbie's human dimensions basically give her a waist 9 inches smaller than the average woman, hips 11 inches smaller than the average woman, 30% longer legs than the average woman, and a lack of body fat that would classify her as clinically underweight.
It is possible that one in 100,000 women could have the potential body proportions to have the same body shape as Barbie, So is her body type impossible? No, but it's extremely rare. The important point to understand is that achieving this body type for any woman is extremely unhealthy.
So my question for Mattel and Mr. Dickson is why would Barbie be marketed as a role model with a body type that is virtually unattainable for most women and is blatantly unhealthy? Considering Mattel is very aware of how influential and iconic Barbie is, why would they market their doll, who is the epitome of beauty and something that women try and model themselves after, as this image that will never be possible for almost any woman to ever achieve?
Mattel, stop pretending Barbie is just a plastic toy, she represents much more than just a child's plaything and females of all ages realize that. Give Barbie realistic body dimensions and make her body something that women can attempt to look like without having to starve or liposuction themselves to death.
Out of ten of your girl friends, eight of them don't like the way they look. My roommate is one of them, my boss is one of them, my sister is one of them, my mother is one of them, I am one of them. And why do we hate our own appearances? Because we are constantly being told our own bodies aren't the desired prototypes of female beauty. What is the "ideal" female body type? Barbie, of course. Barbie has the body we all wish we had. She is precisely what women want their bodies to look like. She is the model of perfection.
And here's why she shouldn't be:
The average American woman age 22-32 is 5'4" and weighs 140 pounds. She has a 37" bust, a 29" waist, and 40" hips.
If Barbie was a real person, at a height of 5'6" she would have a 30" bust, an extraordinarily small 20" waist, and 29" hips. Even super-skinny Victoria Beckham has at least a 23" waist.
Check out this article from BBC to get a visual idea of what Barbie's proportions would look like on a real human being, and read about the body proportion stats mentioned in the blog.
Not only would Barbie's proportions make her taller and skinnier than most women in the world, but if she was a real human she would not even have the 17% body fat necessary to menstruate. Also, her legs are 50% longer than her arms. The average woman's legs are only 20% longer than her arms.
If Barbie's proportions were applied to a woman's body, the woman would have to increase her height by 24 inches, increase her bust by 5 inches, reduce her waist by 6 inches, and lengthen her neck by 3 inches to attain a Barbie's body.
(Brownell, K.1995. Distorting reality for children: Body size proportions for Barbie and Ken Dolls. International Journal of Eating Disorders, 18, 295-298.)
Here's another visual representation comparing average women and barbie from teen-beauty-tips.com. Slightly different measurements but the same idea.
So let's recap:
Barbie's human dimensions basically give her a waist 9 inches smaller than the average woman, hips 11 inches smaller than the average woman, 30% longer legs than the average woman, and a lack of body fat that would classify her as clinically underweight.
It is possible that one in 100,000 women could have the potential body proportions to have the same body shape as Barbie, So is her body type impossible? No, but it's extremely rare. The important point to understand is that achieving this body type for any woman is extremely unhealthy.
So my question for Mattel and Mr. Dickson is why would Barbie be marketed as a role model with a body type that is virtually unattainable for most women and is blatantly unhealthy? Considering Mattel is very aware of how influential and iconic Barbie is, why would they market their doll, who is the epitome of beauty and something that women try and model themselves after, as this image that will never be possible for almost any woman to ever achieve?
Mattel, stop pretending Barbie is just a plastic toy, she represents much more than just a child's plaything and females of all ages realize that. Give Barbie realistic body dimensions and make her body something that women can attempt to look like without having to starve or liposuction themselves to death.
Wednesday, October 7, 2009
Let Kids Be Kids, Give Them Back Their Toys
"My thighs are too big."
"My stomach is too fat."
"I wish my boobs were bigger."
Considering the bombardment of beauty images women are faced with everyday, hearing body image complaints such as these from women really isn't all that surprising. What is shocking is the sad reality that children as young as six years old are saying the same things about their own bodies. Young children in this country are already wired to be dissatisfied with their tiny, undeveloped bodies. They resent their bodies for not looking just like the "perfectly sculpted image of female beauty," before they even have a chance to grow into their adult figures.
It's impossible to pin-point one culprit responsible for poisoning women's minds with the message of body inferiority, there are too many companies out there targeting women's insecurities to determine which one sends the worst messages. The messages are everywhere at all times, and the fact is that children are going to absorb negative body image messages in TV, movies, magazines, and on the Internet. There is just no way to censor everything a child is exposed to.
I can't pick a fight with every marketer that uses women's insecurities to sell them beauty products. That is an endless battle. What I can fight, and will fight, are companies that market body image values to children through their favorite and most cherished toys.
Mattel has been marketing Barbie to little girls since 1959. In fact, the perfect plastic doll recently celebrated her 50th anniversary, while miraculously maintaining the body features of a twenty-something year old supermodel. For 50 years, Barbie has been marketed as a little girl's best friend... someone to look up to. They do a good job convincing parents and children alike that Barbie is a necessary part of a young girl's childhood. Mattel markets this so-called "role model" that has a body type only attainable through countless plastic surgeries, an obsession with shopping and materialism, and exemplifies stereotypical female gender roles.
I implore Richard Dickson, general manager of Barbie and senior vice president of Mattel, to rethink the company's marketing practices of the influential brand, Barbie. It's time to take responsibility for the impact the brand has on children's self-esteem, and stop marketing beauty values to an easily influenced and emotionally malleable target audience. Let kids be kids and create their own perceptions and opinions, and stop telling them what's important to strive for. Stop telling children how to look, what to buy, and stop teaching them that narcissism, fixation on outer appearances, and consumerism equates happiness.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)