The February
8th issue of Time Magazine has a noteworthy person of interest as
its cover story: Barbie.
In fact, the
question is posed, right on the magazine’s cover, “Now can we stop talking
about my body?”
I don’t
know, Barbie (Mattel), can we?
As someone
who, as a little girl, was an avid Barbie doll enthusiast, this is of intense
interest to me. And, as some who has had disordered eating and image issues in my
life, I’m especially concerned.
So,
curiosity won out; I bought the magazine and read the article.
And, before we
go any further, let me complain about the magazine itself, all sixty-four
pages, $5.99 per issue worth of it. I
have nothing against the article itself, written my Eliana Dockterman. My issue
relates to the flimsiness of the “magazine.” It seems more like a lightweight,
glorified pamphlet.
Nevertheless,
the featured article addresses Mattel’s recent announcement of how they were
expanding- and changing- the look of the famous Barbie doll. The “goal” was to
be more inclusive, offering a wider variety of different doll sculpts, skin
tones, ethnicities and, most heavily publicized, body types.
Hence, the
unveiling of Barbie in “tall,” “petite” and “curvy,” as well Mattel’s
continuation of its “original” version.
The company,
apparently sensitive to its decreasing sales of the doll, as well as to the
negative image association connected her thin female aesthetic, has promoted
this dramatic change, touting its goal to be female friendly, promoting
positive identification models for any and every girl and woman out there.
But, before we go any further, let’s briefly look at past
measurements.
For, once upon a time, here’s
the breakdown of Barbie’s figure, versus that of a “real woman’s” body:
Height:
Real Woman: 5’ 4”; Barbie: 6’ 0”
Weight:
Real woman: 145 lbs.; Barbie: 101 lbs.
Dress size:
Real woman: 11 -14; Barbie:
4
Bust:
Real woman: 36 - 37”; Barbie:
39”
Waist:
Real woman: 29 - 31”; Barbie:
19”
Hips:
Real woman: 40 - 42”; Barbie:
33”
(Health magazine, September 1997; and
NEDIC, a Canadian eating disorders advocacy group)
ANRED Statistics. “How Many People
have Eating Disorders?”
Used with permission.
To its
credit, in 1997, Mattel did widen the doll’s waist. So, maybe it went from an
oppressive nineteen inch reading to a slightly less oppressive measurement of
twenty-two inches?
Yes, over
the years, Mattel has made an inroad here or there. But, mostly, the doll has
had the same unrealistic, potentially disorder-triggering physique since her
debut in 1959.
And, as great as the “body positive” reasoning Mattel gives for
these recent varied body types, as much as that lip service sounds good, let’s
really look at the bottom line: money.
According to
Time’s article, here’s some cold, hard, bottom line truth:
“The Disney Princess doll business
that Mattel lost in 2015 was worth about $500 million per year.”
“Barbie’s sales dropped from 2012 to
2014 as competition heated up.”
Before
Mattel congratulates itself and we all believe in their pro-healthy female
stance, let’s give these changes some time to see some real rubber (or Barbie
plastic) and how it meets the road.
Where will
this enthusiasm be at Christmas 2016?
Where will sales
be of any particular doll, especially concerning the “curvy”/a/k/a, possibly
designated “fat” Barbie?
Will any
particular doll be “short-boxed,” driving a consumer obsession for store fights
like the toys “Tickle Me Elmo” and “Cabbage Patch Dolls” from years earlier?
Will a
weak-selling doll quietly, oh so
quietly, be phased out, disappear from shelves and never be heard from
again?
Will everything be scrapped and “Original
Barbie,” once again, be the only thing offered to consumers, simply because our
fickle image obsessions show Mattel we only want a narrow definition of beauty,
one which is thin, blue-eyed and blonde?
Time, life
and our culture will tell.
Until that
point, if you want to plunk your six bucks for a scanty magazine, by all means,
feel free to do so.
But, Barbie
as a body-positive role model? Well, I’m a skeptic.
Copyright © 2016 by Sheryle Cruse
No comments:
Post a Comment