Is Barbie actually toxic to young girls?
If you listen to certain lawmakers in West Virginia, the answer is yes.
A bill, proposed by Democrat Jeff Eldridge, sought to ban the sale of the iconic doll in 2009 because Barbie “places too much importance on physical beauty instead of emotional and intellectual development.”
But Eldridge is far from alone in his opposition. Many say Barbie fosters an unhealthy self image in girls, some go as far as to accusing her of being anti-feminist.
Does this sound fair to you?
Before I answer your question, I want to take you back in time first.
It’s now the 1930s, and you’re witnessing an argument between a young woman and her parents after her high school graduation.
This young woman wants to attend college and have a career, her parents want her to marry young and become a homemaker.
The young woman wins the argument.
In the future, this young woman will become Ruth Handler, who would go on to create Barbie.
While Handler would eventually marry, she didn’t let this change her entrepreneurial goals, and she would eventually co-found the legendary toy corporation Mattel with her husband.
As Mattel grew into a thriving business, Handler realized that the only dolls available for girls to play with came in baby forms. Sensing an untapped market, she began to search for the proper model for her new doll. She would eventually find it in a German collector’s doll modeled after a curvy, sassy, and outspoken comic strip character. The image of this doll would inspire Barbie, and revolutionize the toy industry forever.
In many ways, Barbie was born from empowerment.
But that doesn’t answer the question of Barbie’s infamous proportions.
While Barbie’s physical proportions are unrealistic, she was designed to look like a cartoon, not a real woman. To compare her to reality would simply be silly. Giving Barbie an extreme hourglass figure is just another way of giving her exaggerated physical characteristics, along with her long flowing hair of unrealistic length and large eyes, to create a caricature of femininity.
Moreover, to imply that Barbie is the sole body type role model for young girls blatantly ignores the reality girls live in every day. Girls are exposed to a bombardment of television shows and magazines that idealize the waif-like bodies of runway models. And the truth is that Barbie’s bust size alone would exclude her from that circle. (Perhaps having some form of body fat somewhere on the body is better than none at all?)
The fact remains that the biggest role model for any young girl is her mother, and it is more likely that girls learn to pick apart their bodies because they hear their mothers doing so from an early age. Women have been picking themselves apart for centuries longer than Barbie has been around, to lay such blame on her is unfair.
However, our friend Delegate Eldridge isn’t worried about body image; he’s worried about girls worrying too much about being pretty to concern themselves with intelligence.
My question for Mr. Eldridge is, how exactly did he come to the conclusion that Barbie is stupid?
To say Barbie is accomplished would be an understatement.
With more than 126 careers under her fashionable belt and counting, she has been everything from a doctor and a presidential candidate, to a marine biologist, or a veterinarian. Barbie was an astronaut four years before man walked on the moon. Implying Barbie is too busy being pretty to bother with her education is grossly ignorant.
Moreover, by making that statement, Eldridge has insulted women everywhere. Is there a rule that says you must be pretty or smart, but you can’t be both?
At the end of the day, Barbie is a children’s toy, and most kids don’t put complex thought and emotion into picking their playthings. I’m tired of people picking on her. The controversy over Barbie is just well-meaning adults hyper-analyzing something simple, innocent and fun, and looking at it though a complicated and jaded lens.
Opinions expressed in editorial and opinion articles are the views of individual NIC students. These views do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the Sentinel, North Idaho College, or any other organizations or groups there-in. North Idaho College is not responsible for the accuracy of statements or opinions shared.
