Barbie: Every girl?

By Anna Mae Green, Guest writer

Barbie claims to be “every girl.” Rather, the toy company Mattel claims Barbie is every girl; “from urban teen to fantasy queen, she’s every girl!” Realistically, is Barbie any girl? In America and worldwide, Barbie is a phenomenon, representing American culture and catering to millions of children. Barbie represents an impossible attainability and subliminally preaches perfection to the world’s youth. Mattel created Barbie in a perfect light, with a perfect life, becoming a catalyst for the demoralization of the worlds girls in their strive for the impossible. Barbie’s dimensions are physically impossible to attain; “she has excessively long legs… her feet are eternally on point, she also has large breasts, long hair” (Gamber). However, now more than ever, girls and women of all ages are regularly getting plastic surgery, dying their hair a certain shade of blonde, and even becoming anorexic and bulimic, knowingly or not becoming more and more like Barbie. Barbie is not every girl, but a representation of the perfect girl, the girl we are supposed to strive to be like.

Like most companies today, Mattel has created a virtual world that Barbie lives in. Girls can interactively play with Barbie and model their Barbie world after the one online. The Barbie website has a link for parents that leads to webeliveingirls.com, a website more about the strength and power of girls than the strength and power of Barbie. Obviously fashioned for the over-protective mother who may see through Barbie, the website is geniusly designed to focus on the children who may be purchasing a Barbie doll rather than Barbie herself. In this important move, Mattel is able to show that Barbie can and will lead to strong, independent girls and young women. As life has confirmed, however, Barbie leads us down a treacherous path of trying to prove ourselves to the world and to each other through beauty and all things pink, not, on the contrary to a life of happiness and strength. The website features girls of all ages and nationalities, unlike the doll itself who is either white or white with black skin (i.e. all white features but clearly simply dyed differently). Some children, at least one child, altered her African American Barbie to become more versed in African American heritage; “the doll’s hair has had treatments applied to it, treatments that would be found in the African American community” (Gamber).
Barbie, fashioned as a white middle class teenager, was deemed to be a role model for young girls growing up in America; she was “an icon of what it means to be an American” (Gamber). As time progressed, Barbie spanned her arms worldwide to become a more versed and cultured Barbie. Incidentally, Barbie sent a negative message to countries worldwide, adding to the American influence across the globe. Later, Barbie adapted to the diversity of the world and altered Barbie for different national identities; “they are not using the same copyrighted face…they have marked her features differently” (Gamber). Barbie now has a different persona for every country she is sold in; however “at the core, Barbie is still this white, western ideal” (Gamber).
My mother and Barbie are the same age; both were born in 1959. My mother remembers growing up with Barbie; she received one in a red bathing suit as a gift from a neighbor when she was about 6 or 7. She recalls however, that Barbie was a representation of the 1950s idealism and representation of women, but as the women’s movement of the 1960s and 1970s took over Barbie’s popularity waned. With women’s liberation, Mattel combated the movement by modernizing Barbie by marketing her in a police or doctor uniform instead of the typical bathing suit or dress originally included with the doll. Despite this attempt at modernization, Barbie remained a sexual and provocative figure. The new packaging and outfits included with Barbie was a farce; Barbie’s eyes were still bating with perverse motion, surrounded by intense eye makeup. Her breasts were still the center-point of an outfit and her feet were even now modeled forever on point, only able to wear high heels. As if placing Barbie as a police officer or as a presidential candidate undid the negative stereotyping associated with the doll, the marketing scheme worked. Barbie’s popularity was growing more now than ever before. However, there has been a recent resurgence of the original stipulates of the doll, almost reversing the women’s movement all together. Barbie remains an icon of the 1950s; her modernization plot was a clear ruse.
In the last few weeks and months, a court case has developed between Mattel and MGA, maker of Bratz dolls. Bratz dolls, slightly shorter than Barbie dolls, portray urban teenagers with slightly more attitude than girly-girl Barbie. Bratz’s popularity since their creation in 2001 has exponentially risen, outselling Barbie in the United Kingdom as well as in other parts of the world. Bratz dolls don’t pretend to be sophisticated and friendly like Barbie, but instead illustrate a rude demeanor with obvious sexual intentions. Mattel, feeling that the idea of Bratz was stolen from Barbie, is suing MGA, proving that the true intentions of Barbie are blatantly sexual ones.
Barbie preaches independence and intelligence but is the opposite. Mattel has given specific press conferences as to the marital or dating status of Barbie: at one minute she’s with Ken, at the next she’s not, then they’re together again. The relationship between Ken and Barbie presents a purely heterogeneous one. They live their perfect lives together, sending the message to young girls, the average consumer that to be happy is to be blonde, disproportionately slim, beautiful, and in a relationship with an equally beautiful man. Although put back on the dating market by Mattel, Barbie couldn’t be alone; what message would that send to young girls!?! Can one be happy without being romantically involved? The answer, made clear by Mattel is no; therefore resulting in Barbie reentering her relationship with Ken. Although intimating and insinuating sexual intentions, sex amongst Barbie and Barbie’s friends is unheard of; her permanently tattooed underwear would prevent this from happening anyway. Therefore, Mattel advocates a message of abstinence but has deep sexual intentions for Barbie and her lovers.
We live in a world today of conflicting ideas and interests, raging wars, a weak dollar and a deteriorating environment. Barbie lives in a different world. Her world is perfect, just like she is, emphasizing consumer culture and lavish lifestyles. If most of the world’s girls cannot even afford a Barbie doll themselves, how could they relate to a girl, albeit Barbie, who drives several cars at once, has hundreds of different outfits, and infinite accessories for every activity? Barbie is not every girl; she is not even one girl.
As time progresses, perhaps Barbie will become a thing of the past, she’ll be stuffed in boxes in basements and garages beside beanie babies and yo-yos, a passing fad that was popular once. Barbie’s fall may be due to competing products or ideas, or may be because her idealism is simply old fashioned and will finally become obsolete. Instead of representing what girls should be, Barbie might become an image of what girls should not be. Until mothers and daughters decide to make that change themselves, however, Mattel will continue to be successful. Barbie would not be successful were it not for the average consumer buying her at a rate of once every three seconds (Gamber). To be beautiful and rich is something to be treasured in this country so young girls will continue to gravitate towards such a role model until change by mothers and daughters is brought about.