Barbie's New Body Type(s)

Time Magazine's Barbie Cover

I'm not 100% sure how I feel about this yet. I have always maintained that Barbie is a canvas that reflects both society's values and its shortcomings. So part of this feels like Mattel is admitting fault where there was none. But then I would have loved the different heights, weights, etc. when I was a child. My characters could have been a little more real and varied and that would have been wonderful.

But I have never been one to focus on Barbie's body type and never felt it was an important topic to debate. To me, she was always perfect just as she was because she allowed me to do so many wonderful and imaginative things as a child. I brought my own strengths to her world and she showed me possibilities. I know that not all of my friends had the same experience and I can't help but think that these new dolls would have changed that for them. They might have been able to have the same relationship that I did and to continue to love her as much as I do, even now as an adult.

 I agree with that article that the conversation about her body type clouded the positive messages she was trying to get through. Barbie has never been a cause, she is merely a symptom of the larger issues. And maybe changing her body type(s) will facilitate a move away from this hyper awareness. That it will allow us to focus on her possibilities instead of reducing her to just a figure. And maybe this will radiate out into society and we'll see an entire generation of children who focus more on a person's character.

Barbie

A friend of my sister's posted a link on Facebook today that really got my ire up.  She posted about how the Barbie Doll's measurements were unrealistic and included this photo.

First of all, let me say that the Barbie Doll measurements are in no way meant to be an indication of what a real life, full size, woman's measurement should be.  It's the nature of working with scale models.  When scaling something down, ratios have to be adjusted so that the miniature looks more realistic.  You can see from the photo that trying to take the miniature's ratios and apply them to a full size model creates a ridiculous image.  If you were to compare this full size model to an actual pre-1997 Barbie doll, you wouldn't think they were proportioned the same at all.  (I say pre-1997 Barbie Doll because she was changed in 1997 to give her fuller hips, a thicker waist, and a smaller bust.  The measurements quoted in this post were the ratios used on the pre-1997 Barbie Doll.)

Second, the post goes on to say that "Slumber Party Barbie was introduced in 1965 and came with a bathroom scale permanently set at 110 pounds with a book entitled 'How to Lose Weight' with directions inside stating, simply: 'Don’t eat.'"  People commented about how that fact takes everything that Mattel says to defend Barbie Doll and throws it out the window.  I would like to point out that this particular fact happened in 1965 and that no current Barbie Doll or any Barbie Doll introduced in the last twenty years has attempted to recreate that "dieting" tip.  (It could very easily say, "don't OVER eat," in a current incarnation, however.)   Any defense that Mattel has put up about Barbie Doll and creating unrealistic expectations has happened more recently than its 1965 Slumber Party Barbie.  Am I saying that I agree with the "dieting tip" presented in the 1965 set? No.  Do I think it's terrible that a children's toy ever had that on it?  Yes.  Do I think we can use that as evidence for why Barbie Doll is a poor toy choice for current boys and girls? Absolutely not.  Every brand is allowed to grow and change with the times, even Cookie Monster now tells kids that cookies are a sometimes food. 

In 1992, Mattel created a doll that would say 4 of 270 phrases.  One of those phrases was "math class is tough."  The American Association of University Women took offense at this and demanded it be removed from one of the possible phrases.  (FYI - this phrase is often misquoted as "Math is hard.")  Did she say she couldn't do math, or that girls in general couldn't or shouldn't do math?  I could understand demanding the removal of those phrases.  But, let me tell you, I'm studying for the GMAT right now and the part that's the toughest for me is the Quantitative, a.k.a Math.  We all have challenges we face and, yes, they are tough.  It's important to acknowledge when something is difficult and then challenge ourselves to improve.  Not every girl, or every person for matter, is inherently good at Math, or Languages, or Sports, or Cooking, or Artistry, or Computer Programming.  But you know who has done all of these things and more, successfully?  Barbie Doll.

Yes, in 1965, she was given bad dieting advice and shared it with her girlfriends.  Who hasn't?  When we focus on this one aspect of Barbie Doll, we forget all the other things she's done to inspire and empower girls.  A key phrase I remember from Barbie Doll commercials in the 80's was, "We girls can do anything."  She was the President of the United States, an Ambassador for World Peace, and a UNICEF Summit Diplomat.  She's had humble beginnings as a McDonald's Cashier, then worked her way from a Secretary to a Business Executive.  She may have found Math to be tough, but she was still able to be a Pilot, an Astronaut (twice), and a Computer Engineer.  She's been a Firefighter, a Police Officer, a Life Guard, a Military Service Member of four United States Branches of Service, and a Canadian Mountie. Barbie Doll is a blank slate onto which we project our hopes, our dreams, and our fears.  She is a reflection of our culture through the last 50+ years.  The things we don't like about the Barbie Doll are the things we don't like about ourselves, as individuals and as a culture.

Xpose Fitness

At work today, my co-worker gave me a coupon for her "gym."  I had mentioned that I needed to find one since my boyfriend is moving out of his apartment and into his first house so I'll lose access to his community fitness center.  My co-worker said that she had gone to this great place back in the day and was just starting up again and she thought I would really enjoy it.  When I looked at the coupon, I realized it was for a place called Xpose Fitness.

The whole point behind the Fitness Center is to tone your body through Pole and Exotic Dancing routines.  It mixes Pilate's, yoga, and other traditional routines with these routines for a total body workout.  My co-worker said that she had a new respect for the women that could pole dance as it requires one to lift one's own body weight.  I can barely do a chin-up let alone any fancy dancing on a pole, so I can understand her sentiment on this.  However, I just don't think it's for me.

I am not that confident in my own body to parade around in a class doing suggestive dance moves.  It could definitely help with my flexibility and could help create a certain sense of confidence, but I just don't think I'd be comfortable doing that.  Though, I'd be lying if I said that there wasn't a small part of me that was intrigued by the idea.

I am also curious as to what a feminist would think of it.  Not say that I am not a feminist and don't feel women should be equal, etc., but I don't know that I would label myself as a feminist.  Part of me wonders if this type of fitness routine plays into the whole Angel in the Kitchen, Devil in the Bedroom Stereotype.  And the other part of me thinks that this is a way to reclaim something that exploits women for their own sort of benefit.  But then again, is it playing into that whole set of "Hollywood" criteria that women have to be really fit and a little bit slutty to be seen as sexy?