Is Barbie A “Barbie Girl”?
When I was child, I spoke as child, I understood as a child, and I played with toys as a child. The primary toys that I played with were Hot Wheels cars and Pokemon Silver on the Game Boy Color. Being a man, I never played with Barbies, but I sure was fascinated by them. I think that my fascination with Barbie grew from my fascination with miniatures. I liked the idea of running a sort of small world that you could control. The more realistic that world, the better. I did get small opportunities to play “house” with some of the girls at my babysitter’s house, and for that, we often used Barbies. The adult world was so faraway that it seemed like a fantasy. No one told me about the taxes. Since then, I forgot about Barbie, until I heard a certain song. Though Barbie had been a staple for many young girls since 1959, in 1997 the doll also came to be identified with an annoying pop hit that appears on the radio, in dance clubs, and even at frat parties on college campuses.
Barbie Girl in the Barbie World
On first hearing Aqua’s “Barbie Girl”, I thought it to be another bubblegum pop song that belonged in the one hit wonders pile. Granted, I don’t think the song is that bad. It’s just below average, but very catchy. The music video, however, is indispensable to the song. One has to appreciate the bright colors, campy cinematography, and excellent reproduction of the “dollhouse” aesthetic from the sets. The song is very silly, with the obvious sexual innuendos and all, but upon a second listening, something else in the song seemed to click. It was, well, satirizing modern society, particularly on how many men view women.
The song is not so much about Barbie, the doll, but about women being in the place of Barbie, a doll. Throughout the whole song, the lead singer, Lene, advertises herself as if she is a product to be sold, “You can brush my hair, undress me everywhere,” and, “Dress me up, make it tight, I’m your dolly!” These words could easily be brushed aside of any deeper meaning, seeing that on the surface, she’s taking on the doll persona and simply selling herself as such. Yet remember that she is a doll persona. Not an actual doll that you would play with, but a woman acting like one. Further, she adds, “Make me walk, make me talk, do whatever you please / I can act like a star, I can beg on my knees!” I cannot simply conclude that she is meant to be seen solely as a doll, being that these lyrics reveal some human characteristics, particularly sexual favors. She is the representation of female objectification. She not meant to act, but is only acted upon.
The lyrics by the male lead, Rene, who is Ken, enforce male dominance. He clearly sees himself as in control of her, “Kiss me here, touch me there, hanky panky,” and, “Come jump in, bimbo friend, let us do it again.” Oh, and throughout he’s always asking Barbie to go party, which is probably sexual. He’s the alpha male, free to order her around however he wishes, and she’ll be as submissive as, well, a doll. He lays bare these ugly desires in all their simplicity. For women, the song is an instruction manual, telling them exactly what many future partners may want them to do.
Of course, Lene and Rene do not fall into these categories perfectly. Not if you see the music video. Lene looks more like grunge fan than a Barbie wannabe, and Ken is, well, bald. Lene’s “Barbie” persona is also fairly independent, or perhaps, a bit ditzy. She constantly ignores Ken’s cries for partying, much to his annoyance. Clearly, they’re not a perfect couple, just as fake as the plastic world that they inhabit. To further stress this point, people who look a lot more like Barbie and Ken (though this “Ken” resembles Steve from Blues Clues) show up to give visual contrast. Perhaps the song is also a commentary on our obsessions with materialism and our glorification of partying lifestyles on Girls Gone Wild, or the lesser known, Guys Gone Wild. All wrapped under the guise of another disposable pop song. Not bad, Aqua, not bad.
Mattel, though, wasn’t very pleased. Mattel, the company that owns Barbie, sued MCA Records for the song, according to the BBC. They said that the song, which involved no actual Barbies by the way, infringed on copyright and sullied the image of the doll. The judge, Alex Kozinski, said that the song was protected by the First Amendment of free speech. He noted that this was because the song was a social commentary and parody. Kozinski said that, “With Barbie, Mattel created not just a toy, but a cultural icon. With fame often comes unwanted attention.” He added that throughout history, “Barbie has been labeled an ideal woman and a bimbo.” Understanding, it seems, the absurdity of the lawsuit, he said, “Both parties are advised to chill.” What this smart judge understood was that “Barbie” within the context of the song, was not about Mattel’s toy, but simply used “Barbie” as a metaphor for the female image. Why Barbie? It’s because she’s, in Kozinski’s own words, “a cultural icon.”
Let’s shift the conversation a bit further into a discussion about Barbie herself. What is it about her that attracts so much affection and derision? Is the doll truly representative of the unrealistic beauty standards that are unduly placed on women? Most importantly of all, will Barbie and Ken ever get married?
Barbie And Feminism: A Love Story
According to the doll’s official website, Barbie was created by Ruth Handler in 1959, who had previously founded Mattel Creations with her husband 14 years earlier. Ruth often watched her daughter Barbara play with paper dolls while pretending to be older teens, college students, or adults. At the time, most dolls were of babies, none of adolescents. Ruth has since said of the popular doll that, “My whole philosophy of Barbie, was that through the doll, the little girl could be anything she wanted to be. Barbie always represented the fact that a woman has choices.” What the official website leaves out is that Barbie was inspired by the German fashion doll Bild Lilli. Lilli was originally a cartoon character created by Reinhard Beuthien in 1952, and in 1955, she was made into a doll to be sold in smoke shops. Ruth found Lilli while shopping in Europe in 1956. Lilli pretty much embodied the type of doll that Ruth wanted to create for her daughter. Not long after Barbie’s release in 1959, Mattel bought the rights to Lilli in 1964 and production stopped. Apparently, Mattel feared competition, that or a plagiarism lawsuit.
Since then, Barbie has gone on to be one of the most popular and recognizable dolls in world history. The New York Times reports that Barbie had sold more than 1 billion dolls in 150 countries. Her legacy has been debated by feminists and the public at large. Some point to her revolutionary achievements for praise, while others point to her super-thin, idealized image for criticism.
For instance, Eva Wiseman in The Guardian, has said that, “If you care about the things I do, like girls and body image, then you can’t escape her, her huge tanned eyes illustrating magazine pieces, her dismembered torso on the cover of a hundred post-feminist theses. There is a rise and fall in reports on proportions creating unrealistic body standards, her whiteness, her role against the fight in the pink aisle, against gendered toys, a tide always lapping at the beach.” Wiseman recounted a meeting with Lori, an executive from Mattel, where she was told that Barbie was an unapologetic celebration of femininity. Wiseman noted, “Yes, yes, but at the end of the visit all the girls get to do is model.” By the end of her article, Wiseman ultimately sees debating Barbie as a bit of a distraction, “Barbie is too easy a target for feminist upset. A 50’s doll with declining sales, seemingly kept alive by the arguments of educated mothers, she is as much of threat as her Dreamhouse was a home.”
This sexualized aspect of Barbie only got further into hot water when she appeared on the Swimsuit Edition of Sports Illustrated in 2014, with the hashtag, “UNAPOLOGETIC”. To be honest, I don’t really care about sports magazines, or why a “swimsuit edition” is even necessary to sports reporting. If Sports Illustrated were fair, they’d have men in swimsuits alongside the women. Anyways, putting Barbie on the magazine is probably the strangest thing to occur in mainstream erotica since Marge Simpson stripped down for Playboy, or Aki Ross slipped into a bikini for Maxim. You’d be forgiven for masturbating to a cartoon character (just don’t make a habit out of it), but there’s something almost unholy about using a fashion doll for little girls as titillation for adult men. Was Kate Upton not available that month?
Michelle Hays, a professor of the Visual Arts in Texas, also noted the problems of this alliance in her article, “Betrayed By Barbie.” First, Hays highlighted Barbie’s accomplishments, “Barbie has had over 130 careers to challenge the stereotypes. She’s been a doctor, astronaut, teacher, presidential candidate, CEO, athlete and military officer to name a few.” Then Hays makes a point that, sure enough, reflects the song “Barbie Girl”, “The visual message being communicated could have huge negative connotations. Barbie isn’t a real person. A woman is substituted for a doll. Dolls are toys.Toys to be played with. Get the picture? This is a brand collision for Barbie.”
Samantha Schoech, who like Hays is a feminist who adores Barbie, was also hurt by the decision to put Barbie on the cover. In an article for the New York Times, she recalled arguing that Barbie’s highly unrealistic image had little to do with society’s poor standards of beauty. Schoech said, “I’ve always thought Barbie was a tool for imagination and creative play that could awaken the storyteller in a young girl. Unlike those Disney princesses, she doesn’t come with a script. There are no rules to follow with Barbie, and so she can do whatever and be whatever you want. My childhood Barbie was a single lawyer sleeping in a serving dish and living in an elaborately engineered mansion I made from double album covers.” By the end of her piece, Schoech laments, “Barbie posing for SI only confirms what her detractors think of her: that she’s shallow and phony and overly sexualized. It’s a bit of a letdown for those Barbie admirers like me, who see her as so much more than just a pretty face.”
Charlotte Alter, like Schoech and Hays, admires Barbie as well, but goes farther to defend her from feminist critics. In TIME, she notes the decline of Barbie’s popularity with young girls, who now favor the buxom dolls of Bratz and Monster High, who Alter says, “dress up like prostitutes and have the dimensions of lollipops.” She notes that Barbie, in comparison to these other dolls, actually looks like an adult woman. “Barbie might be too thin for people’s taste, but she doesn’t look like a baby hooker.” Alter lists some of Barbie’s famous achievements, such as studying astrophysics, performing surgeries, or singing with the Rockette’s. Yet, like Wiseman, accepts the problematic aspects of Barbie’s body image, but with an interesting caveat,
“There is research to show that Barbie’s inhuman dimensions do affect girls’ body image, but it seems simplistic to blame Barbie alone for something as complicated as the way girls think about their weight. For one thing, other research shows that young girls’ body image is more influenced by their mothers’ attitudes than anything else. So anyone who thinks banning Barbie dolls is going to suddenly result in healthy self-esteem is seriously delusional.”
Alter also says that the great irony of the Barbie debate is that we spend more time talking about her looks, than we do discussing her careers. Alter considers that since there will always be a number of girls who always want to play with dolls, we may as well promote Barbie’s occupational stretches, as opposed to her waist measurement: “She represents beauty and materialism, sure, but she also represents mutability, imagination, and professional possibilities.”
Now, let me just say that body image is a serious issue, especially for girls. The pressure that many women in America feel to aspire to ideals of beauty promoted by television, film, music videos, comic books, video games, pornography, and even their own magazines, is heavy. Think about how much focus is put on dieting, weight loss, and looking young in regards to women. There’s plenty of evidence to show the harm in this.
Talking to the Sydney Morning Herald, Dr. Aric Sigman, who helped write a paper on this topic for The Biologist, says that seeing underweight women accepted as “normal” by society at large, can be harmful for young girls. When the researchers for his study told women that they looked like the image of a bigger one, a part of the brain associated with unhappiness, the medial prefrontal cortex, would react. The American Psychological Association has also done a task force report on the sexualization of girls in the United States. Their findings, I think, are rather disturbing,
“In study after study, findings have indicated that women more often than men are portrayed in a sexual manner (e.g., dressed in revealing clothing, with bodily postures or facial expressions that imply sexual readiness) and are objectified (e.g., used as a decorative object, or as body parts rather than a whole person). In addition, a narrow (and unrealistic) standard of physical beauty is heavily emphasized. These are the models of femininity presented for young girls to study and emulate.”
While it’s easy to criticize the media, the report didn’t let the rest of us off the hook, either,
“Societal messages that contribute to the sexualization of girls come not only from media and merchandise but also through girls’ interpersonal relationships (e.g., with parents, teachers, and peers; Brown & Gilligan, 1992). Parents may contribute to sexualization in a number of ways. For example, parents may convey the message that maintaining an attractive physical appearance is the most important goal for girls. Some may allow or encourage plastic surgery to help girls meet that goal. Research shows that teachers sometimes encourage girls to play at being sexualized adult women (Martin, 1988) or hold beliefs that girls of color are “hypersexual” and thus unlikely to achieve academic success (Rolón-Dow, 2004). Both male and female peers have been found to contribute to the sexualization of girls — girls by policing each other to ensure conformance with standards of thinness and sexiness (Eder, 1995; Nichter, 2000) and boys by sexually objectifying and harassing girls. Finally, at the extreme end, parents, teachers and peers, as well as others (e.g., other family members, coaches, or strangers) sometimes sexually abuse, assault, prostitute or traffic girls, a most destructive form of sexualization.”
The consequences of this rampant sexualization, they found, were far-reaching. They found that many young women self-objectify themselves, which detracts from one’s ability to focus, which lead to an impaired ability to reason logically or compute mathematics. Sexualization was also linked with the three most common mental health problems of females: eating disorders, low self-esteem, and depression. Girls affected also had trouble with sexual health (such as using less condoms) and pigeonholed themselves into sexist stereotypes. These impacts also made it difficult for men, high off of these narrow ideals of beauty, to find a suitable partner.
These problems are also reflected in the rigid gender lines for toys, of which, Barbie plays a major part. You have the “boy’s toys” like action figures, model cars, and building blocks. Then there are the “girl’s toys” like dolls, baking ovens, and makeup kits. Let’s be honest here “girl’s toys” are kind of bland compared to “boy’s toys.” G.I Joe is more interesting than Barbie. This is borne out by evidence from researchers in Spain, who examined 595 toy advertisements aired during the Christmas seasons of 2009, 2010, and 2011. A quick summary of their findings, were published in the journal Comunicar,
“In most of the publicity, cars and action heroes were associated with males, together with competitive values, individualism, power and strength. However, the female role was linked to beauty and motherhood as seen in adverts for dolls and accessories.”
Now, this divide in our toys between males and females is not entirely without precedent, in fact, there may be evolutionary imperatives behind it. Discovery News reported that when scientists gave chimps sticks to play with, “Males of all ages were more likely to use the sticks as weapons, while females were more inclined to treat sticks as dolls,” and furthermore, “when young vervet monkeys were presented with toy cars, balls, cooking pots and dolls, the females mostly went for the pots and dolls while the males gravitated toward the cars and balls.” Now, while humans didn’t evolve from chimps or monkeys, we both share a common ancestor, so studying them can tell us a lot about ourselves. It’s not unreasonable to conclude that we have evolved to share their gendered toy preferences.
Now these studies, to me, help re-affirm the idea that Barbies will always have an audience with young girls, but simply because there’s a possible biological predilection to dolls, doesn’t necessarily mean that girls need to play with them. Nor does it mean that boys always need to play with G.I. Joe’s. I agree with Emma Watson when she said that gender needed to be seen more on a spectrum. Boys and girls should feel free to play with whatever they want. I also don’t think Barbie is the main problem when it comes body image and women. When Mark Wilson of Co. Design pressed Kim Culmone, Barbie’s lead designer in the issue of her size, she answered, “Barbie’s body was never designed to be realistic. She was designed for girls to easily dress and undress.”
So Barbie’s thinness is more an issue of convenience than actual expectations. For that matter, most toys aren’t realistic, the Mortal Kombat action figures I used to play around with had impossibly beefcake muscles. Yet most boys aren’t intimidated by them, because they often aren’t expected to live up that ideal,. This is echoed by a statement that Mattel spokeswoman Chidoni said to The Huffington Post, “I’m less worried about Barbie than I am the culture that produces Barbie.”
Barbie As Art?
Have we yet appreciated the elegance of a Madame Alexander, or the earthy embrace of a Cabbage Patch Kid? Yes, these are dolls, but they have become a part of our cultural consciousness in America. Are they not, in a way, artistic? Consider the kachina dolls of the Hopi tribe, or the ichimatsu dolls of Japan. Not only are they visual representations of those unique cultures, but there is an undeniable aesthetic bent to them. The matryoshka dolls of Russia, that come in endless varieties, have become one of the first images that pops into mind when thinking of the frigid nation. Sure, on the surface, Barbie may seem superficial, but she is also a work of art.
Barbie is no “Venus de Milo” or “Mona Lisa,” but she doesn’t have to be. She’s the Britney Spears to our Stevie Wonder. She’s the Twilight to our Catcher In The Rye. She’s The Notebook to our Casablanca. In other words, Barbie is the kitsch of modern pop. A stylized doll that represents the dreams of women in various cultural periods. Barbie’s relevance has also found its way into the Toy Story films giving it a new-found life in the visual arts. There are even Museum Doll Collection Barbies inspired by Da Vinci, Klimt, and Van Gogh. Certainly, Barbie herself, often indistinguishable from the dolls she competes with, has a place in our aesthetic, cultural narrative. One of the lyrics in “Barbie Girl”, after all, is, “Imagination, life is your creation!” Is that not the essence of art itself?
Okay, okay, I admit it! Aki Ross was pretty hot in Maxim.
Originally published at http://sansuthecat.blogspot.com on November 9, 2014.
