Is Barbie an insult to feminism?
Barbie is one of the most iconic dolls in history, with a life span spreading fifty nine years.
It is evident that she has stood the test of time, attempting to adjust to new cultural climates, however she is constantly at the centre of feminist debate as to whether this attempt is successful. The rise of feminism challenges Barbie, revealing concepts which are outdated, yet critical to maintaining consistency across the brand. As a result, this questions Barbie’s relevance and morality in today’s society, jeopardising the brand’s future.
However, am I underestimating Barbie’s influence? Since the Barbie doll does not come with a narrative, imagination is integral to the brand’s success, elements which are vital to a child’s growth. Furthermore, her recent evolution promotes equal rights and with the help of popular female figures, she has become an empowering figure for young girls across the world.
The body image of Barbie champions external value over internal value, acting as an insult to feminism.
Femininity and body image are very much linked, as slenderness is associated with elegance and attractiveness, regarded as desirable attributes for young women in western cultures. Barbie reflects this motivation for the desired body image, being equipped with a diet book in 1965 stating “Don’t eat!”. Consequently, according to Doctor Zali Yager, girls as young as five report weight concerns, whilst three to five year olds associate larger proportions with more negative characteristics.
It cannot be ignored that the term desirable implies the male gaze, suggesting how Barbie is the “male idealisation of the female human body”, according to Michael Bierut. In fact, during a toy convention in the 1950s, a man exclaimed “Have you seen the doll with the tits?”. Yet, it is interesting how the male gaze has evolved and changed overtime, with Michael Idov commenting on, in an interview with Valeria Lukyanova in 2017, also known as Human Barbie, that “Her beauty, though I hesitate to use the term, is pitched at the exact precipice where the male gaze curdles in on itself”.
This is a significant statement in counteracting the sexual objectification of Barbie, challenging evolution and representing the change of perspective towards women and equality that society is moving towards, especially when published in GQ magazine, an international men’s magazine.
Furthermore, despite Barbie being hailed as a pop-culture icon, her physique is unattainable within the boundaries of the human form. If the traditional Barbie doll was a real woman, she would weigh one hundred and twenty pounds, with her waist being twenty centimetres smaller than a group of anorexic patients, creating unhealthy expectations for young girls.
Yet the brand have recognised its damaging impression, creating anew line of ‘realistic’ looking dolls being sold alongside the original Barbie doll. In other words, it is an attempt to reflect the reality in which we live in.
Senior vice-president and Barbie’s global general manager, Evelyn Mazzocco, claims that “We believe we have a responsibility to girls and parents to reflect a broader view of beauty”. Even body-image activist and model, Ashley Graham, supported Barbie when she created her own doll, adopting a thigh gap, being presented with it at Glamour’s Women of the Year awards 2016 and gaining 141,330 likes on Instagram.
Nevertheless, lawyer and writer Jill Filipovic warns consumers that although we are experiencing a cultural shift, the brand may not have its consumer’s best interests, stating “The company was losing sales; it realises that branding something empowering is a great marketing tool; and it is likely to profit from the fact that four different Barbie bodies means four times the sets of clothing and accessories”.
Furthermore, headlines such as “Barbie finally becomes a real woman” or “realistic self-image” are inappropriate in this context as “realistic” suggests “having or showing a sensible and practical idea of what can be achieved or expected”. The thought of Barbie’s aesthetics being “expected” or “practical” amongst women is, in my opinion, an insult to feminism as from Doctor Yager’s research, as previously stated, this is unattainable and segregating, placing a pressure on women, reflecting that of a patriarchal society.
Although we are moving forward in challenging the stereotype, the ideal of Barbie is still very much present, worsened through social media. In fact, I believe that Barbie plays a huge role in creating and spreading external value, as influential social media figures were within the generation who engaged with the original Barbie doll. It is as if consumers have transitioned Barbie from a doll to a character.
Although the Barbie doll has evolved, it is interesting how we still use the word doll.
Barbie was originally created as a fashion doll, primarily designed to be dressed and reflect fashion trends. This supports Filipovic’s view of Barbie as an “objectified woman” as supposed to the definition of “character” being “the mental and moral qualities distinctive to an individual”.
In May 1987, Prima magazine promoted an advertisement called My First Barbie in the UK. Phrases such as “poseable arms and legs” highlight how each Barbie exists as an operational item instead of adopting “mental and moral qualities”. Indeed, the word “poseable” highlights the robotic way in which Barbie is manoeuvred, exaggerating her unrealistic and unattainable existence. By each doll acquiring the same form and functionality insults the basis of feminism, as the underlying message of objectification lingers, as the brand shies away from embracing diversity.
However, Eva Wiseman embraces the brand’s consistency, claiming that Barbie is a “blank canvas, with her story changing for every child” implying that Barbie is a character.
This involvement of a “story” overshadows Barbie’s physical limitations, challenging the idea that Barbie is just a doll; as by changing her clothes or cutting her hair, Barbie is adaptable and unique to each child, being anything they want her to be. In other words, although Barbie may originate as a doll, she becomes a character. Even from the way that children engage with Barbie, they literally give her a voice, creating conversations and scenarios, proving how Barbie is more than an “objectified woman”.
Since it is the parents who are purchasing Barbie for their child, it intrigues me as to how the recent rise of feminism has affected the sales of Barbie.
The inspiration behind Barbie is a questionable one, as she was based off of Bild-Lilli, a German doll who pursued wealthy men and wore suggestive clothing, being sold in tobacco shops, bars and adult-themed toy stores.
Yet, although this statement in itself insults feminism, it is necessary to understand that during the 1950s, when Barbie was first created, feminism was a concept that was practically non-existent. Following the aftermath of the Second World War, women were expected to resume their roles as mothers and wives, as the government aimed to re-establish domesticity as women’s primary occupation. Therefore, when Barbie was invented in 1959 by wife and mother, Ruth Handler, surely this had some influence in the way Barbie’s persona was created and has controversially lasted throughout her lifetime?
Therefore, it is understandable why women, such as actress, comedian and writer, Wanda Sykes, do not want their daughters engaging with Barbie, as her invention insults feminism. Sykes asks “What does Barbie do? Really, what does Barbie do?”.
The fact that she repeats the questions twice, adding “Really” at the beginning of the latter, makes it seem as if she is not convinced by Barbie’s interpretive intention. She challenges the patriarchal element behind the brand, comparing Barbie to toys that stimulate problem solving, claiming that “Barbie is nothing but a starter kit for the real housewives, that’s all”. The phrase “that’s all” is significant in highlighting how for ageneration who grew up with Barbie, representing “real housewives”, women and current purchasers of the doll, such as Sykes, are unconvinced by any evolution within the brand as they have retained Barbie’s original image throughout their lives and careers.
As a result Barbie sales have been in sharp decline since 2009, dropping by 20% between 2012 and 2014, as it was only in 2015 when Barbie released its campaign Imagine the Possibilities; a campaign that perhaps came too late.
Imagine the Possibilities attempts to counter feminist critics and empower young girls, fulfilling Handler’s philosophy that “through the doll, the little girl could be anything she wanted to be”.
During the campaign, phrases appear such as “What happens when girls are free to imagine they can
be anything?”. The word “free” is vital in challenging the original Barbie doll, as during the 1950s, she was constricted to her aesthetics. Whereas the word “free” within our modern society, has many connotations with equality and empowerment. Indeed it helps to promote feminism. Furthermore, Barbie demonstrates careers across a wide variety of sectors, from education, to sport and science instead of careers such as nursing, seen in 1961, requiring an element of maternal instinct and nurture.
Yet, it is disappointing at the end of the campaign when the actress asks her class of dolls an intellectual question. Significantly, she only lifts the blonde, white Barbie doll’s hand, answering the question perfectly. This immediately isolates the other Barbie dolls of different skin colour and shape, supporting Jessica Valenti’s statement that “imaginations are limited when girls are given only a narrowly defined idea of what being a woman looks like”. Again, the brand fails in completely moving away from the stereotype.
Consequently, Barbie profusely insults feminism as she does not portray a true and accurate perception of the movement. This questions the longevity of Barbie and whether she will ever be able to overcome the stigma she has associated with feminism.
No matter how hard the brand tries, it is evident that they are unable to resist the stereotype.
I believe that Barbie is an insult to feminism. Her international success is damaging the movement due to her form, function and appearance whilst previous collections and promotions have emphasised outdated ideologies ofthe role that women play in society.
Although the brand have recently evolved in promoting internal value more than external value, it seems as though the the legacy of Barbie is too difficult to shift by both the brand and the purchaser, increasingly damaging her reputation.
In other words, by Barbie not fully engaging with the meaning behind feminism is insulting, as it portrays a false representation of its purpose, especially to future generations, limiting the progression of the movement.
