Barbie. Love her or hate her, she’s been a cultural icon for over 50 years. Talk about staying power! Just about every young girl owns one or a few, and probably some of her clothes, shoes and accessories/”necessities” like a pink convertible or Dream House, and never mind all the Barbie merchandise adorning shelves of stores. Most grown women can remember playing with their dolls, and maybe even passing them on to their daughters, and reminiscing about the ways Barbies have changed.
Some people view them as toys, as I did, frantically tearing open the boxes to play with them as soon as they were received, and some people, children and adults alike, are collectors who keep them pristine in their boxes and original condition and wouldn’t dream of finding them scattered about a bedroom floor or shoved in a toy box. Mattel themselves consider her more of a cultural icon than a child’s toy.
However you view her, Barbie is a doll. She can’t walk and talk on her own, and no matter how many real-life looking objects she has, she is not real. But, for something that is just a toy/cultural icon/collectors item, she sure has a lot of controversy surrounding her. Critics will say that if she was real, her measurements would be about 36-18-33 and that she would not be able to menstruate, hold up her back and neck, would have to crawl on all fours due to her legs and feet and would have many medical problems. Harvard and Yale did studies on this! HARVARD AND YALE! (Credit for this info here.) Here is a diagram that elaborates this.
The key point here is the fact that she IS NOT REAL! She is a doll!
Critics say that Barbie’s measurements set unrealistic expectations and cause body image issues for young girls. But why would a young girl who is of Barbie playing age be concerned with such things? I know I sure wasn’t! I do get that body image has become a bigger deal at a younger age these days, but I find it hard to believe that a doll has as much to do with this as we give it credit for. And, shouldn’t parents play a part in keeping their child healthy and creating a good self image? Not leave it to a doll? Besides, don’t even kids realize that Barbie is not real? Just like they know their baby dolls aren’t real? As for the collectors, I doubt they concern themselves with such things! I do realize that there are women who want to be “real life Barbie’s,” but these are adults who are making this choice. For the most part, I hear little girls wanting to be princesses (even if Barbie princesses) for Halloween and when playing dress up, not actual Barbie’s. But maybe I’m out of the loop. Which is fine. I just don’t see all the controversy over this doll, especially when they have this! But that’s a whole other situation.
Apparently, the latest uproar over Barbie is the doll being in a (LIMITED QUANTITY) 50th Anniversary edition of Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Edition. People are in an uproar that this “kids toy” will be in such an “adult” magazine. Remember that Mattel considers Barbie a cultural icon, not a toy, and they are the ones who paid for her to appear on the cover anyway, again, in limited quantities, which goes to show that it’s probably more for collectors. People are saying that the doll is “oversexed” and that this crosses a line.
At first, I found it a little strange too, I’ll admit it. I (incorrectly) assumed that Barbie was a young girls’ toy, and wondered the logic behind putting it in such a magazine. Upon seeing Mattel’s statement of how they view Barbie and discussing this with a friend who happens to be a lifelong collector who happens to not see them a toy either, just a collectors item, she thought it was a cool idea.
It’s not that the magazine will be marketed to young girls, and since Barbie won’t be gracing the cover and several pages of every newsstand issue, it won’t be for the typical audience either. I see this as strictly a good marketing ploy from Mattel, and a new item for collectors, and a new collectors doll to go along with it, of course. And in my experience, the collectors dolls cost more!
Furthermore, the swimsuit Barbie is wearing for the photo shoot is quite tasteful and not the usual for the magazine. See for yourself…
Besides, there are Barbies on the toy aisle and ones I myself have owned, that wore way less or were more skimpily clothed! I certainly don’t remember a big fuss being made about this!
My advice is, if you don’t like it, don’t buy it. You probably weren’t going to anyway if you’re not a collector, right? For Barbie’s stance, she has remained #unapologetic, and yes, she’s used that hashtag.
When you think about it people, it’s Sports Illustrated, people. It’s a pretty big magazine here in the States! They mostly focus on (you guessed it!) Sports! The Swimsuit Edition has itself become a cultural icon, much as the figure gracing 1,000 copies of its pages. How Brilliant for them to team up!
Now, if Mattel wants to pay Hugh Hefner to feature a lingerie clad or nude Barbie in Playboy magazine? THAT would be inappropriate and cause a (rightful) controversy! Don’t get any ideas now, Mattel!
UPDATE: “Barbie” has written an open letter on the subject. You can read it here.
A Bird Uncaged 