Tag: Barbie

March 24, 2016

Body Image Barbie: Doing More Harm than Good? by Keira C. Wingert

It seems like the only times I hear about Barbie anymore are in conversations about her body.

We’ve all heard the statistics that claim that Barbie, if she were a real person, would be six feet tall, weigh 100 pounds, and have the hips of a prepubescent boy (Olson, par. 1). Often, people will use these statistics against the Barbie brand as a way of blaming the doll for the prevalence of unhealthy body consciousness among girls and young women. In fact, competitors have been introduced to the market to address this issue, such as the Lammily doll, a Barbie rival proportionate to the body of an average 19-year-old woman. When the concept for the doll was introduced in 2014, it garnered the attention of many adult women, who loved the idea of an average-looking doll whose accessories include acne, scars, and cellulite (yes, really!).

In January of this year, perhaps as a response to the Lammily doll’s release and the subsequent backlash against the Barbie brand, Mattel released a new line of Barbies that made headlines and sparked a huge conversation among the doll’s fans amd critics alike. This new line of Barbies features dolls with petite, curvy, and tall bodies—a revolutionary move for a brand that has featured only one (inhuman) body type since its conception in 1959 (Pearson & Mullins, 230).

One might think that the introduction of this line of dolls would be the be-all and end-all of conversations over Barbie’s body, but in reality, it may do more harm than good. The new curvy Barbie doll doesn’t fit into the clothes of the petite, tall, and classic Barbie dolls, which begs the question: when two little girls are playing with their dolls together, what will bring more awareness to the doll’s body type than the realization that a curvy Barbie doll cannot wear the same clothes as a petite one?

Perhaps by giving Barbie three new looks, we could be diminishing children’s self-confidence rather than boosting it. In constantly turning the conversation to Barbie’s body rather than the wealth of careers, friends, and achievements her character seems to have, we are, in turn, sending the message to young girls that a woman’s body is more important than her personality or accomplishments. According to unofficial Barbie “biographer” M.G. Lord, Barbie is a toy “designed by women for women to teach women what—for better or worse—is expected of them by society” (Lord, 8). (Interestingly enough, artist Nickolay Lamm, a man, created the Lammily doll). Barbie can be a doctor, an artist, a surfer, a teacher, a babysitter, and more, and yet all anyone seems to care about is how she looks. In only focusing on her body, we are making it clear to little girls what is expected of them by society.

This is not to say that representing body diversity is unimportant or harmful, but why should we needlessly make children more frustratingly aware of the differences between women’s bodies when they themselves are hardly aware of their own bodies? Barbie isn’t the one telling girls to focus on their bodies from a young age; we are. If we want that to change, we have to stop turning the conversation toward Barbie’s measurements and instead focus on how Barbie can inspire girls to strive for something other than aesthetic beauty.

References

Lord, M.G. Forever Barbie: The Unauthorized Biography of a Real Doll. New York: Morrow, 1994. Print.

Olsen, Samantha. “Why Are Barbie’s Body Measurements So Unrealistic? Little Girls Aren’t Buying It.” Medical Daily. IBT Media Inc., 31 Dec. 2014. 23 Mar. 2016.

Pearson, Marlys, and Paul R. Mullins. “Domesticating Barbie: An Archaeology of Barbie Material Culture and Domestic Ideology.” International Journal of Historical Archaeology 3.4 (1999): p. 225-259. Web. 23 Mar. 2016.

Shriver, Lionel. “Sorry Lammily, Your Dumpy Looks Won’t Fool Many Little Girls.” The Guardian. Guardian News and Media, 21 Nov. 2014. Web. 23 Mar. 2016.

March 24, 2016

Barbie: Fashion Model or Role Model? by Christy Weaver

From Barbie’s first appearance on store shelves in 1959, her “chief association was with high fashion” (Pearson & Mullins, 230). Creator Ruth Handler ensured that her original fashion choices were inspired by “Paris fashion shows” (230) and epitomized modern style. Evidently, Barbie was concerned with image from the outset, embodying a marketable version of beauty and culture with every subsequent version of herself. According to archaeologists Marlys Pearson and Paul Mulllins, “Barbie never was designed to be a cipher that could accommodate a vast range of social possibilities or experiences” (256). She was more like a piece of art which produced a clear-cut vision of middle-class womanhood, aiming to achieve mass social appeal.

If we think of Barbie in this way, her cultural missteps become a little easier to bear. For instance, during the late 1960s, Mattel, Inc. made certain that Barbie was absent from any counter-cultural protest or drug-ridden commune. Instead she was busy enjoying “Lunch on the Terrace,” (1966) or a “Music Center Matinee” (1966) (Pearson & Mullins, 244). Although commentators have criticized this era of Barbie for glossing over important historical moments, the doll’s core mission wasn’t to comment on cultural turmoil; it was to be a toy, a beautiful, fashion-forward, profitable toy. The ideas embedded in counter-culture were inherently radical, and Barbie’s brand needed to appeal to a mainstream audience.

A more modern example of Mattel’s questionable Barbie releases was its “Great Eras Collection,” which appeared on shelves from 1993 to 1997 (Milnor 215). The series depicted Barbie as versions of prominent women throughout world history, including Egyptian Queen Barbie and Chinese Empress Barbie (215). Egyptian Queen Barbie wears an “intricately detailed golden headdress with turquoise beading reflect[ing] that she is indeed Egyptian royalty” (“The Great Eras Collection”). Her dress is bold, bright blue, and shiny; again, fashion is a main concern for the doll. Chinese Empress Barbie is equally as stunning. Her costume is highly detailed, featuring faux jade beads and dragon stitchings. On Barbie’s website, Empress Barbie is described as capturing “… the authentic look and feel of the Qing dynasty” (“The Great Eras Collection”). Each of these versions offers a prime example of Mattel concerning itself mostly with Barbie’s looks. In each doll’s description, Barbie’s clothes are the only thing discussed. Her actual historical role is absent entirely, underscoring the argument that Barbie is, in reality, not a teaching tool; she is an attractive commodity.

In its most recent campaign, however, Mattel has allowed Barbie to encourage her consumers with the mantra “You can be anything” (“You Can Be Anything”). Ads feature young girls filling in the “you can be” blank with words like “President,” “Doctor,” “Ballerina,” and “Game Developer” (“You Can Be Anything”). Although Mattel has encouraged young girls to use Barbie as a tool for personal growth and imagination in the past, this campaign actively promotes the idea that young girls can look to Barbie to show them what’s possible. Barbie now embodies virtually anything, so you can too. This evidence contradicts the notion that Barbie is purely a pretty face to be bought and sold. This campaign, likely demanded by a feminist turn in the toy market, may complicate things for Mattel. Now that Barbie is an active role model, rather than just a fashion model, Mattel will need to be even more careful about what its brand promotes.

Milnor, Kristina. “Barbie as Grecian Goddess and Egyptian Queen: Ancient Women’s History by Mattel.” Helios 32.2 (2005): 215. JSTOR. Web. 23 Mar. 2016.

Pearson, Marlys, and Paul R. Mullins. “Domesticating Barbie: An Archaeology of Barbie Material Culture and Domestic Ideology.”International Journal of Historical Archaeology 3.4 (1999): 225-59. Web.

“The Great Eras® Collection.” The Great Eras® Collection. Barbie.com. Web. 23 Mar. 2016. “You Can Be Anything.” Barbie.com. Mattel, Inc. Web. 23 Mar. 2016.

March 24, 2016

When Icons Collide: Barbie’s Bountiful Meanings by Samantha Smyth

When Mattel released Barbie in 1959 they hardly could have known the plastic doll’s impact. She was revolutionary, she was a career woman who had no man, she was modelled after a buxom German blonde pin-up, and she was now decidedly America. As Pearson and Mullins point out: “Unlike the mass of baby dolls populating toy stores, Barbie was an “adult” doll marketed in a box illustrated with designer fashion sketches of Barbie outfits [. . .]. Barbie’s stylish consumption, idealized labor discipline (i.e., in her modeling “career”), and clean-cut middle-class values found a mass of eager consumers among girls and their parents alike” (230). Barbie’s clean-cut values have ensured her survivability, but also adaptability through the decades.

To go back to Martin Kemp’s ideas on what makes an icons: “An iconic image is one that has achieved wholly exceptional levels of widespread recognizability and has come to carry a rich series of varied associations for very large numbers of people across time and cultures, such that it has to a greater or lesser degree transgressed the parameters of its initial making, function, context, and meaning (3). Barbie’s recognizability draws people in, whether to critique her or love her. Her varied associations allows for varying interpretations for whoever gazes upon her hard plastic shell.

Since 2002, there has been a group in San Francisco dedicated to Barbie and her image. They deal primarily in altered Barbie. Journalist Chris Cadelago writes of the altered Barbie art show: “At the center of this burgeoning summer institution is Barbie, a kind of three-dimensional blank canvas that allows artists to display their reverence, humor or biting satire. Barbie is used to create stories about contemporary culture, and also used as a yardstick to measure American progress” (SFGate). Because of her blank canvas, Barbie has vaulted so far beyond her initial inception of fashion-maven for young girls to admire in the United States of the ‘50s.

She’s now been mashed together with other worldly icons to create a sort of icon-chimera-hybrid, a super icon (if you want to think like that).

Mattel has certainly capitalized on Barbie’s adaptability. Using blank canvas Barbie as inspiration, here are some of Barbie’s mashed iconic iterations using our classes’ syllabus as the framework:

Released in 1997, Patriot Barbie and Colonial Barbie are the closest we get to a Betsy Ross figure. The Barbie Collection describes Patriot Barbie as: “Lovely Patriot Barbie® doll brings us back to revolutionary times in her elegant gown and navy military jacket. She wears a navy tricorner hat with a feather and carries a golden liberty bell.” So here we have both the Revolution and another one of our classes’ icons, the Liberty Bell, being memorialized by Barbie herself. Colonial Barbie comes with a “framed” embroidery with an eagle design on it! She also has a book discussing the new nation of 1776. Perhaps this book mentions Betsy’s flag.

Frontier Barbie poses an issue because the Frontier itself is vast, both metaphorically and in actuality. Do we look for Cowboy Barbie? There are countless versions, including an entire collection known as the “Western Fun!” collection. How about Native American Barbie? As Maureen Trudelle Schwarz points out there is many versions of this Barbie, all with their own degree of difficult interpretation and misinterpreted and presented backstories. See above Princess of Navajo Barbie and Way Out West Barbie.

Dorothy was deemed worthy of study in our own class. We had discussed perhaps the ruby red slippers were the iconic image from the Oz world, and Barbie comes equipped with them. In fact, Disney has released multiple versions of the Dorothy doll, all with the slippers, and interestingly Toto as well. For the 75^th anniversary of The Wizard of Oz, Mattel released an entire series of Oz-inspired dolls commemorating the event. Pictured above is the 75th Anniversary Wizard of Oz Dorothy Barbie modelled after Judy Garland.

Interestingly, none of Barbie’s official Disney versions are featured on the Barbie Collection website. This is because Mattel has recently lost its exclusive Disney contract to Hasbro due failing sales and inability to do justice to Disney’s princess brand image (Bloomberg.com). However, a cursory Google search can bring up hundreds of hits for Barbie and Mickey being used together including 25^th anniversary collector’s editions and a Disney Fun! series with Ken.

Barbie, the ultimate canvas. Her ability to portray anything the designer wants allows her to transcend her original purpose of fashion-doll. My definition of an icon included the addendum of “not without their contradictions,” and Barbie certainly fits this as well. However, her image continues to change and resonate. Her appeal allows her to fit any mold, even though she’s made of hard plastic. Her chameleon-like capability to change to support her surroundings ensures Barbie’s longevity and iconicity.

Sources:

Images: Pinterest

http://www.thebarbiecollection.com/patriot-barbie-doll-17312

http://www.thebarbiecollection.com/american-stories-collection/colonial-barbie-doll-12578

http://www.thebarbiecollection.com/pop-culture/the-wizard-of-oz-dorothy-doll-y0247

http://www.sfgate.com/entertainment/article/The-sixth-annual-Altered-Barbie-art-show-3274768.php

http://www.bloomberg.com/features/2015-disney-princess-hasbro/

Martin Kemp, Christ to Coke, 3.

Marlys Pearson and Paul R. Mullin, “Domesticating Barbie: An Archaeology of Barbie Material Culture and Domestic Ideology,” 230.

March 24, 2016

Does the Barbie of the Past Represent the Barbie of Today? by William Kowalik

Thinking about Barbie for most people would conjure up the image of a ridiculously slender and un-proportional fashionable doll that lives in a pink mansion, drives a pink car and can do anything! Barbie as a children’s toy for girls (and boys) could be seen as a heroic inspirational figure that can inspire kids to do whatever they set their minds to. President Barbie? You can be President too! Perhaps Barbie…if she were real would be the most multitalented person, trying her hand at every career imaginable…or simply indecisive. Maybe she just hasn’t found the right one yet. That’s up for you to decide.

Barbie started off as a fashionable, independent career woman. Her relationship with domesticity has fluctuated with the changing tastes of the times over her fifty-seven year life (Pearson and Mullins 229). Although earlier on “Handler turned down a vacuum company’s offer to make a Barbie sized vacuum because Barbie didn’t do what Charlotte Johnson termed ‘rough housework’” (Lord 10). As the tumultuous Sixties pushed forward, the image of Barbie as an independent career woman changed to become more like Barbie the housewife. Ken, her boyfriend/husband/male-counterpart arrived on the scene at this time. M.G. Lord says of the original Barbie, “Barbie taught girls what was expected of women, and women in the fifties would have been a failure without a male consort” (Lord 11). By the late 1960’s Barbie began to return to work outside the home. In 1973, Barbie as a career woman returned, although quite clearly subservient to make coworkers and bosses, as evidenced by “Barbie the Stewardess” and “Ken the Pilot” (Pearson and Mullins 249).

Could one argue that the Barbie “brand” of today is so different today than when she was created? While I’m sure a convincing argument in favor of that could be made, Barbie in 1959 and Barbie in 2016 present a very similar idea, young women can do what they want with their lives and proudly and confidently do so. Putting aside the problematic nature of body image that Barbie has traditionally presented, it seems that she is a good role model, encouraging positive play that stimulates imagination and possibilities. The Barbie website appropriately sums up this vision well: “With more than 150 careers on her resume– from registered nurse to rock star, veterinarian to aerobics instructor, pilot to police officer– Barbie continues to take on aspirational and culturally relevant roles while also serving as a role model and agent of change for girls. She first broke the “plastic ceiling” in the 1960s when, as an astronaut, she went to the moon… four years before Neil Armstrong. In the 1980s she took to the boardroom as “Day to Night” CEO Barbie, just as women began to break into the C-suite. And in the 1990s, she ran for President, before any female candidate ever made it onto the presidential ballot” (“Barbie Careers”). Although the need for pushing this might seem irrelevant today when so many women do work, it is the image of “What’s Cookin? And “Leisure Hours” Barbie that seems irrelevant (Pearson and Mullins 238). Particularly in STEM fields, men still greatly outnumber women. This still leaves the opportunity for Barbie to continue to be a role model. “”Well before 1963, when Betty Friedan defined the ‘problem that has no name,’ a significant number of women were defying the Feminine Mystique and forging a place for themselves in the male-dominated workforce. Barbie was created in the image of these women…Consequently, the doll had revolutionary from the outset by even tacitly acknowledging women’s and power in a wide range of settings” (Pearson and Mullins 256).

Barbie has always been a sign of the times. Her careers, matched outfits, and lifestyle have all been representative of the time in which they were created. “Barbie is a direct reflection of the cultural impulses that formed us” (Lord 17). Barbie today might have an iPhone. A few of the dolls set to be released this spring, show the dolls in Yoga poses, it appears they’re health conscious. Another significant different is the introduction of different sizes: “Original”, “Tall”, “Petite”, and “Curvy”—for the first time making Barbie proportions at least somewhat like real women (“Barbie”). So can you say that the Barbie of the past represents the Barbie of today? Or is the Barbie of today something completely different. I’d say that while yes they have differences, but Barbie is still Barbie. That hasn’t changed. From her first progressive career choices in the 60’s, she’s always led the way for young girls to follow their dreams especially with the current branding “You Can Be Anything”.

Lord, M. G. Forever Barbie: The Unauthorized Biography of a Real Doll. New York: William Morrow, (2004) Print.

Peason, Marlys, and Paul Mullins. “Domesticating Barbie: An Archaeology of Barbie Material Culture and Domestic Ideology.” International Journal of Historical Archaeology 3.4 (1999): 225-59. Print.

March 19, 2015

Philadelphia and Material Culture by Ben Barsh

After having our discussion in class about material culture and Barbie’s role in it, I found myself thinking about not so much what Barbie represents (maybe due to my lack of personal connection), but material culture as a whole and how it applies to me personally. A couple of my classmates and myself discussed some of the things we collect when talking about this. I shared that I collect records. While this is true, I failed to fully recognize that I collect something more obvious and apparent.

After our class discussion I happened upon an interview with former tattooer/artist/musician Dan Higgs. In this interview Higgs states “For one of the least material possessions, it seems like tattooing is getting more materialistic.” I thought about my own role in this. I started getting tattooed at the very young age of 14. By 16 I had a handful, and before I graduated high school I was well into the double digits.

Tattoos, and “collecting” them, is something that’s non-material, but in a sense, completely material. You cant hold them, store them, or preserve them. On the contrary, they actually only guaranteed to get worse with time. They also cost money to apply, but have no value in money or actual use, unlike almost any other collection in the world.

Material culture is something that’s driven by self definition and what the things you collect do and say about you. In that sense, tattoos are completely material. They’re something born out of vanity, in its basic form. They mark an experience, or say something about you. Whether it be that you fit in here, don’t fit in there, believe in this, or alteration for the sake of alteration. Unless they are forcibly applied against will, tattoos are something that define those who wear it.

The first time I ever got referred to as a collector of tattoos was by my friend Ronnie Dell’aquilla. After getting tattooed as a young teen for the reasons tattoos would appeal to a young teen (I’m cool, I’m different, I’m tough, Girls will like it, etc…) I started pursuing tattooing with more specific definitions and boundaries. I primarily sought old timers, people who have been tattooing since before it became more mainstream. Especially those from the east coast.

Ronnie is a straight forward old Italian guy from Brooklyn, his words aren’t minced and offending people doesn’t bother him. While he was tattooing me, he took a break to talk to his wife in Pennsylvania. I remember clearly him saying “Yeah hon, I’ll leave Queens in about an hour, I’m tattooing this kid from Philly, nice kid, collector of tattoos” I was confused about what he meant at first. I thought I was just some guy getting a tattoo. I then realized, in a sense, I wasn’t. I was somebody pursuing something specific, pursuing multiple variants of it, and pursuing it with some intention of status. And that’s what drive’s material culture.

Attached image is Ronnie. He usually wears his sunglasses indoors.

March 12, 2015

New Age Barbie- Identity Found in “Flaws” by Brittany N Cozzens

This past week we have heard a lot from our peers about their experiences and thoughts on one of the world’s most popular toys, Barbie. Through the different readings we have learned that Barbie’s introduction to the world forever changed the way that women identify themselves and their material goods.

In Forever Barbie, by M.G. Lord, we learn that Barbie, released in 1959, was meant to be revolutionary. She was supposed to show young girls and women how to be independent and become their own woman, and invent yourself in whatever way you choose (Lord 9). However, what we have learned through discussions and through other readings such as Pearson and Mullins “Domesticating Barbie: An Archaeology of Barbie Material Culture and Domestic Ideology” is that Barbie’s identity is found more so in the things she possess and what she wears rather that what she does. By having one of the worlds most popular toys promoting a message of material culture to kids of today, we are showing them that identity formation is solely found in perfectionism- by looking perfect and having all the right things.

However, we all know that no matter how hard we try being perfect is not possible. New age Barbie, Lammily has set out to challenge Barbie and show that identity is found in flaws and embracing who you really are.

Lammily was created in 2014 by designer Nickolay Lamm who wanted to create a doll that was realistic for the size of an average 19 year old- she has a more realistic waistline, feet are flat unlike Barbie which are solely meant to wear heels, and she even has sticker that can be purchased that include tattoos, cellulite, stretch marks, acne, and scars.

This doll shows young girls that being you doesn’t mean being perfect. Flaws are part of life and make up who we are.

While Lord may argue that Barbie was a break through for women because she could “invent herself with a costume change” (9), Lammily shows that having the right outfit isn’t what makes you who you are. Material culture perpetuated through Barbie over the years has sent the wrong message to young girls about identity formation. It’s not about what you have it’s about owning your so called “flaws” and embracing them as who you actually are.

I hope that Lammily takes off for future generations, or maybe that Barbie could me modeled more like her. To say that a child’s toy doesn’t have an impact on identity formation or gender roles is a lie. Whether young kids realize it or not, these toys are forming the foundation for future beliefs. Having a realistic looking doll that isn’t consumed with looking perfect and having everything could help in helping women attain their independence at a young age as Barbie was supposed to do when she came out in 1959.

http://designtaxi.com/news/370809/A-Barbie-Like-Doll-With-Realistic-Body-Proportions-Complete-With-Cellulite/?interstital_shown=1

March 12, 2015

Fifteen Candles by Alisha Rivera

In our group discussions on Wednesday, a lot of us discussed that Maureen Schwarz’s article “The Marketing of Euro-American Desires” opened our eyes. I hadn’t realized how the ethnic Barbies, like the Native American Barbie, were packaged. In our discussion, Deja explained this best. She said that we weren’t so much concerned with how ethnic groups are being represented because we were just glad to see that there are other groups being represented. Which makes sense. We become so excited to see ourselves represented, but it isn’t until someone points it out that we realize something is wrong. One major issue Schwarz points out is the descriptions on the back of the Native American Barbie boxes. These descriptions only show up on ethnic Barbie boxes and they try, but fail, to teach kids about a certain type of even, tradition, or custom. She explains that most of the descriptions on the back of the boxes were representations of “generic Indian identit[ies]” and traditions (Schwarz 302).

One that caught my eye was the 1994 Teresa Quinceañera doll. On the back of the box, it “describes” what a Quinceañera is:

“Quinceañera ‘A Day to Remember Forever!’ On her 15th birthday her family gives her a big party in the evening with many presents. The birthday girl chooses a beautiful pink gown, carries a bouquet and has attendants too. During the festivities, her father proudly presents her to all the guests. With a specular cake and lots of music and dancing, it’s a wonderful celebration that every girl looks forward to and never forgets.”

The description of a Quinceañera devalues what is probably one of the most significant moments in the life of a young Latina. What is the difference, then, between a Quinceañera and a Sweet Sixteen? According to the box, there is no difference. But the Quinceañera is not only a birthday party; it’s also a religious observance.

A Quinceañera is a coming of age party where the birthday girl gets a male escort and a “court” of ladies and gentlemen. There are also two major parts: the church service and the actual party. The Quinceañera starts off with a church service in which the birthday girl receives a bible to help her walk as a young woman of God, a tiara because she is a “princess of God”, and scepter as a symbol of her receiving her “duties as a woman”. With a quick word and a prayer, the church ceremony is over.

At the party, the birthday girl goes through various other traditions. First, the father of the birthday girl will remove her low shoes and replace them with her “first high heels” as a young woman. Then they will have their first father/daughter dance. Dolls are also very important. During the party, the birthday girl will give her younger sister or a close (young) female relative her “last doll”. It symbolizes her leaving her childhood behind.

Almost all of this is missing in, not only the description on Teresa’s box, but also Teresa herself. She has almost none of these representations of a young girl turning into a young woman. M.G. Lord said that, “Toys have always said a lot about the culture that produce them” (Lord 16). From the look of it, our culture isn’t too concerned about getting things right.

March 12, 2015

Barbie: Whitewashing and the Commodification of Native People by Jessie Tomchick

As a Women’s Studies Major, I found the article on the Native American Barbie to be rather interesting in terms of discussing the mainstream economy’s commodification of women of color and other minority groups. In the article written by Maureen Schwartz, she discusses how Mattel’s Barbie Doll line in many cases wrongly mocks, falsifies, and appropriates minority culture for economic benefit.

The article discussed various “Native” Barbies or “Ethnic” Barbies that have been released over the years and how poorly they personify the people that they are supposed to represent. In the 1980s and 1990s a number of toy companies began to facilitate the manufacturing of ethnic dolls which include the release of the first Barbie with “African Style hair” and Teresa, a Latina friend of Barbie’s (Schwartz 296-97).

Specifically though, Schwartz focused on the Native American Barbies that have been released over the years beginning with the 1981 release of “Eskimo Barbie” (Schwartz 297) and a number of other Native American Barbie releases beginning in 1991 (Schwartz 297). Aside from the fact that using the term “Eskimo” is offensive in itself, Mattel also continued to objectify Native American culture through the way they chose to dress the Native dolls and the backstories and backdrops they chose to go with them. Rather than using the Barbie line as a way to afford minority children representation of people from their own racial and ethnic groups, they have objectified the people and the culture they share.

While this is obviously a major area of concern for Schwartz, she is not alone with criticizing Mattel and its selfish means of cashing in on minority culture. Dr. Lisa Wade brings to the table discussion from a professor named Ann Ducille who greatly critiques Mattel’s wayward thinking. Wade discuses how the physical image of Barbie is still held to the European standard of Caucasian beauty. While Schwartz also mentions the generic body type for most Barbies (Schwartz 299), Wade brings to light that any Barbies representing women of color are made from the same body molds of the traditional Barbie figures, furthering the ideal of European beauty.

Wade also takes concern with the stereotypical ethnic portrayal of many ethnic Barbies including the Jamaican Barbie whose box boasts:

“How-you-du (Hello) from the land of Jamaica, a tropical paradise known for its exotic fruit, sugar cane, breath-taking beaches, and reggae beat! …most Jamaicans have ancestors from Africa, so even though our official language is English, we speak patois, a kind of ‘Jamaica Talk,’ filled with English and African words. For example, when I’m filled with boonoonoonoos, I’m filled with much happiness!” (Wade).

In another article by Wade, mention of Mattel’s complete lack of racial sensitivity (and quite possibly common sense) regarding the release of an “Oreo Fun Barbie”; although to some it may seem completely innocent, the use of the word “Oreo” coupled with a dark-skinned doll is irreprehensible. The term “Oreo” when in reference to a woman of color refers to a woman who is black on the outside but white on the inside. The release of this doll Wade argues, shows two things: “(1) white privilege and the ease with which white people can be ignorant of non-white cultures and (2) a lack of diversity on the Mattel team” (Wade).

In conclusion Mattel’s attempt to create representation of women of color for their main target audience of young white and heteronormative children has failed the people and cultures that it has tried to represent.

Works Cited

Schwarz, Maureen. “Native American Barbie: The Marketing of Euro-American Desires.” JSTOR. January 1, 2005. Accessed March 12, 2015. http://www.jstor.org/stable/40643901.

Wade, Lisa. “Ann Ducille on “Ethnic Barbies”” The Society Pages. October 27, 2008. Accessed March 12, 2015. http://thesocietypages.org/socimages/2008/10/27/ann-ducille-on-ethnic-barbies/.

Wade, Lisa. “White Privilege and the Trouble with Homogeneity: The Black Oreo Barbie.” The Society Pages. June 10, 2009. Accessed March 12, 2015. http://thesocietypages.org/socimages/2009/06/10/white-privilege-and-the-trouble-with-homogeneity-the-black-oreo-barbie/.

March 12, 2015

Computer Engineer vs. Feminist Hacker Barbie by Elizabeth A Yazvac

Barbie’s professional resume certainly seems impressive – over 100 full-time careers since her creation in 1959, in addition to spending considerable amounts of time in her Dream House, cruising around in her Glam Convertible, and swimming under the sea as a mermaid. To celebrate her 125th career in 2010, Mattel offered Barbie fans a chance to vote on what career they wanted to see Barbie have next! The choices were “architect, computer engineer, environmentalist, news anchor or surgeon,” and computer engineer came out on top (Gaudin).

Here, Mattel was offered a unique opportunity to show Barbie in a STEM (science, technology, engineering, and math) career, a field that offers very few women role models. But, Computer Engineer Barbie wasn’t exactly a fan-favorite. And it wasn’t because she was too nerdy to sell (despite her pink glasses, the one telltale sign of an intellectual). In fact, it was just the opposite.

Computer Engineer (CE) Barbie was portrayed a designer who didn’t do much coding for her video game (a game which consisted of robot puppies who danced…), and ultimately needed the help (and masculinitiy) of Steven and Brian to fix a virus she inadvertently loaded onto her computer. Womp, womp.

Alongside the CE Barbie doll was a book, in which the above story occurs, called Barbie: I Can Be A Computer Engineer. It didn’t take long after the release of CE Barbie for the backlash to begin. And the blessed people of The Internet took it upon themselves to “fix” CE Barbie. Thus, The Greatest Barbie To Exist That Doesn’t Really Exist was born – Feminist Hacker Barbie.

NPR credits Kathleen Tuite, an independent consultant in the computer science field, with the creation of the Feminist Hacker Barbie meme. “She says a friend posted a call to action on Facebook seeking women programmers to help crowdsource a hack to make new text for the book,” NPR writes. In the Feminist Hacker Barbie cartoons, the text from the original book is replaced with jargon-filled quotes coming from Barbie, often in response to the ineptitude of her male counterparts.

Mattel has since discontinued the original book.

But how could Mattel have gotten it so wrong? Why didn’t someone proofread the book and think, maybe Barbie should just do the coding herself? Sure, working with Steve and Brian shows that it’s awesome to work in a team, but did they have to both be men? And did they have to clean up Barbie’s silly virus mess for her?

CE Barbie speaks to the fact that no matter how impressive her resume is, at the end of her day, her careers are second place to her outfits. Barbie is a doll. Her personality is defined by the clothes that she is wearing; otherwise, she lacks purpose. Her plastic body could be the plastic body of anyone if the clothes on it weren’t made of binary code print fabric.

An article from ComputerWorld says that “Mattel designers worked with the Society of Women Engineers and the National Academy of Engineering…” (Gaudin). Yes!, I thought reading the article, talking to women who are experts in their field to create an authentic computer engineer! But the quote goes on to say that Mattel contacted these women “… to develop the wardrobe and accessories for Computer Engineer Barbie, the company noted.” So close!

This further proves the point that Barbie is defined by her things. She exists doing only what her outfits and accessories allow her to do. In the same way that featuring Native American Barbie in only traditoinal ceremonial outfits renders her as an acessory to her own culture and not a participant in it, so, too, are other Barbies confined to the restirctions of their outfiits.

The Pearson and Mulligan article about Barbie material culture provides more evidence to support this point. The article cites 1179 outfits, 43 playsets, 16 vehicles, and countless friends and family members accessory dolls from 1959 – 1976, and since 1976 Barbie’s accessory and outfit collection only continues to grow (Pearson and Mulligan 228). Pearson and Mulligan discuss how the release of domestic accesories for Barbie (pots, pans, brooms) equates to her role as a domestic. So, if her household accessories make her a good housekeeper, why does her Computer Engineer outfit not make her a goodcomputer engineer?

CE Barbie had a promising start. There was a chance to make her a great computer coder, a fabulous dresser, and a hard-working team member, but Mattel fell short. The sad end of the Barbie: I Can Be A Computer Engineer book feels like a problematic ending of a problematic doll. Yeah, she wasn’t that good at coding, so, in the end, she just quit.

The focus of CE Barbie was her outfit, and her career was her accesory. This is not the message Mattel should be sending to the girls who play with her, but it’s the message that will Mattel will always send. Because a Barbie in plain jeans and a tshirt wouldn’t sell. And if it did, we wouldn’t be sure what to do with her, anyway.

http://www.npr.org/2014/11/22/365968465/after-backlash-computer-engineer-barbie-gets-new-set-of-skills

http://www.computerworld.com/article/2520978/it-careers/look-who-s-a-nerd–barbie-becomes-computer-engineer.html

https://computer-engineer-barbie.herokuapp.com/

http://www.wired.com/2014/11/feminist-hacker-barbie-just-little-girls-need/

http://www.buzzfeed.com/rachelzarrell/sexist-barbie-book-is-sexist

March 12, 2015

The Downward Fall of Barbie by Angie Indik

Toy popularity tends to by cyclical. Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtle action figures and accessories were a phenomenon in the early 1990s. As a former Toys R Us employee (Yes, I worked there that long ago!) I recall it was hard to keep them in stock. Every young boy seemed to want one. Yet, as with all trends, the TMNT craze eventually died out and Toys R Us stopped selling these products. Since 2009, however, the Turtles had a resurgence and the line sold $475 million worldwide in toys between 2009-2013 (Szalai). Furbies were another huge hit in the 1990s, albeit late 90s, where interest eventually died out and then reemerged some years later. There are probably dozens of other examples of popular toys booming, disappearing and then coming back with a vengeance. There is one line of products, however, that never seemed to falter in the 1990s and that was Barbie.

The Barbie dolls and accessories sold consistently well throughout the decade. In fact, her popularity grew as time went on. The Barbie line was once displayed in one aisle and suddenly these toys took up close to three aisles worth. It consumed half of what was considered the girls section. In order to make room for the fashion icon, the section displaying toy vacuums, brooms and ovens shrunk. The baby doll area was condensed. It might have appeared to be a victory for feminism as toys associated with housework dwindled. As the Barbie section grew at Toys R Us, perhaps it was a reflection of the modern, independent woman. After all, Barbie was not subjected just to home life. She had endless possibilities. She was a doctor, a pilot, an equestrian and the list goes on. Barbie was in demand and there was no stopping her. That is, until recently.

It has been reported that Mattel’s Barbie sales have dropped consistently in the last three years (Kell). One can blame the popularity of Disney’s Frozen toys for causing Barbie’s downward slope. Maybe it was the allure of American Girl dolls that affected Barbie sales as well. I personally do not believe either is true. I simply think people have fallen out of love with Barbie. Judging from my facebook newsfeed, many people are tired of unachievable body standards for women. I find posts complaining about photoshopped images in fashion magazines or touting how wonderful the tree change girls are. (See http://treechangedolls.tumblr.com/ if you are unfamiliar.) There is this demand that people want realistic images of females whether it is in a magazine or as a doll. So, the idea that a girl can grow up and be a doctor or a pilot is a realistic one. The notion that a girl will become an adult with a sixteen inch waist, not so much. While it looked like the popularity of Barbie in the 1990s was never-ending, it appears even the queen of toys has a shelf life too. Maybe she will have a resurgence just like TMNT or Furby, but I have a feeling she will need a makeover for that. Only time will tell.

Work Cited

Gray, Emma. Photo. “Barbie Body Would Be Pretty Odd Looking in Real Life.” Huffington Post. 13 Apr. 2013. 12 Mar. 2015. <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/10/barbie-body-real-life-infographic_n_3057690.html>

Kell, John. “Mattel’s Barbie Sales Down for a Third Consecutive Year.” Forbes. 30 Jan. 2015. 12 Mar. 2015. < http://fortune.com/2015/01/30/mattels-barbie-sales-drop-third-year/>

Szalai Georg.”London Expo: Nickelodeon Touts $474 Million in Retail Sales for Relaunched Turtles Franchise.” The Hollywood Reporter. 18 Oct. 2013. 12 Mar. 2015. <http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/london-expo-nickelodeon-touts-475-649396>

Vieira, Anthony. Photo. “TMNT Character Design Details: Traditional Turtles and Comical Shredder?”4 Jan. 2014. 12 Mar. 2015. <http://screenrant.com/tmnt-movie-reboot-character-design-details/>