If you haven't seen this all over yet, you will soon: Barbie has a new body.
Yep, following in the steps of Lammily, the "realistic" fashion doll:
Remember her?
... Mattel is introducing three new body types for Barbie: "Tall", "Petite", and "Curvy".
They're still keeping Barbie's original mutant body, too, though, about which Time had THIS fascinating factoid:
Um. Say WHAT?!
This is apparently old news, but it's the first I've heard of it - so off to Google I went.
I quickly found one of the original Bild Lillis, shown here in her see-through negligee:
Hey look, it's totally Barbie!
Seriously, can you imagine seeing that in Spencer's with the other "adult" gag gifts? It's laughable. I mean, other than the slightly transparent gown, she looks like any other child's doll today. Heck, she looks down right demure.
And yet, at the time, Lilli was considered a cartoonish extreme of female sexuality - something ridiculous to be passed around by drunk guys for a laugh. Today a doll would have to look like Jessica Rabbit to be considered even remotely as suggestive or inappropriate:
If that isn't proof of how much Barbie has molded our perceptions on the female form, then what is?
Now, to be fair, I couldn't find any source other than Time claiming the original Lilli character was a prostitute. She was based on this German comic strip:
... and most sources seem to agree she was just a sassy, gold-digging secretary who liked to take her clothes off. Her dolls were sold in smoke shops and other adult stores. And incredibly, a mother saw the dolls, thought Lilli was perfect for her little girls to play with, and Barbie was born.
The mind, it boggles.
Anyway, that brings me back to the Time article I was reading this morning. I'm ashamed to admit it, but seeing the new "curvy" Barbie next to her original mutant form gave me a knee-jerk, negative reaction:
And judging from 95% of the comments I was able to read before clicking away in disgust, most everyone else thinks she looks "fat," too. Fat. Her.
Ignore the original and look at Curvy Barbie again, though; she's actually thinner than Lammily, who is based on the measurements of an average 19-year-old woman:
Lammily is based on a size 12, so what would you guess Curvy Barbie's real-life size is? Size 8? Maybe 10? And that's what we see as "fat"?
Mattel hasn't released the measurements on their new body options, probably because it would remind us that in real life, original Barbie would have a 16 inch waist.
To put that waist in perspective, here's a real live woman with a 16 inch waist - which she was able to achieve by sleeping in a corset for 3 years:
This is Barbie's waist size.
Here's some more perspective: John just asked me to measure his bicep, and it's exactly 17 inches. So Barbie's waist is one inch smaller around than my husband's arm.
I bring this up because I'm still riding some Hulk Smash rage after reading the comments on Time's article. I'll spare you most of the horror, but here's a tame version of what many are saying:
That's right, this commenter - along with many others - thinks a waist size that's physically impossible to achieve without wearing a corset for 3 years is "an example to kids to stay healthy and trim."
GRRRR.
GRRRR.
Granted, internet commenters as a whole are troll spawn, but let's be honest: our whole society thinks this way, because we've been programmed into seeing a sexually cartoonish gag-gift as the healthy ideal. Even the 6-year-old girls playing with Curvy Barbie are calling her fat.
And you know what?
That's exactly why we need her.
I love you so much right now.
ReplyDeleteI think a reason that the curvy Barbie looks thinner in comparison to Lammily may be due to a different bust/rib cage size. Overall, though, the change makes me really excited. The dolls are gorgeous and I think will be able to show girls that even dolls come in different sizes, just like people.
ReplyDeleteI might actually consider getting my 4 year old this Barbie, if she asked for it. It would go well with her dinosaurs and ponies
ReplyDeleteI had the same thought for my 4yo dino-loving daughter! :)
DeleteI want this barbies so much! Ignore the trolls and go look at the website. They have a bunch of different skin tones and hair. So cool.
ReplyDeleteWhen I was little I was never bothered by Barbies measurements because even as a child I knew she was meant to be a caricature. what bothered me more was that a dark haired, brown eyed one was really hard to find at that time.
I love that they have different ethnicities and styles and the new different body types are just great as far as I'm concerned.
I personally need the curvy one with the blue dress and the tall one with the red afro is just gorgeous even if I'm not too crazy about what she's wearing. I like the one with the shaved head too.
Now if they could just make a petite one with blue hair and brown eyes that looked like me that would just be fabulous.
I wish the didn't giver her blue hair. I also think the lighting on her skirt is weird.
ReplyDeleteShe still looks unrealistically thin to me - especially in the arms and legs, but I guess it is a good thing.
They gave curvy Barbie hair and skin color options too, you don't need to buy her with blue hair :)
DeleteThe blue haired Barbie is just one of several variants.
DeleteLol, I'm virtually the same proportions as that curvy doll. From the extreme hip/waist ratio to the round calves that end suddenly in itty-bitty feet - and blue hair. They made a doll of me.
DeleteHaha, I'm kinda jealous of the blue hair actually. I would love to have my hair that color! I'm glad to hear that there are other options though.
DeleteWhile these new Barbies are more realistic it isn't stopping the fact that they are still lumping girls into categories. Where do I fall? Am I curvy or tall? Petite or original? One will always be better than the other. Why is our society *still* stereotyping and *still* segregating?!?!
ReplyDelete'Cause it's darned near impossible to manufacture every doll individually. You have to go handmade for that sort of detail, and the price is going to be significantly greater. To have four different body types requires four different machines to make it (for each body part that's differently shaped, not just the torso), instead of the one for the American Girls dolls that everyone's willing to pay a small fortune for (at least, I haven't seen large differences between the American Girls dolls). They're also going to have to adjust their patterns for clothing, as Tall Barbie is not going to be able to wear regular Barbie's clothes without showing some... plastic.
DeleteI do have to give Mattel credit for this, though. That's an expensive way to get Barbie back on the shopping lists.
My favorite part of the new Barbie Fashionistas is that they actually keep the fashion part of "fashion doll"; no matter the size, each doll is wearing something genuinely cute and flattering. The clothes options for Lammily always leave me thinking "um is shapeless bag the best option you can come up with for a larger body size? Really?"
ReplyDeleteI'm actually not perturbed at all by Barbie's thin waist; it's basically necessary for a fashion doll to have a tiny waist for clothing to fit in a way that resembles the clothed look of a much larger waisted woman. Doll clothing fabric isn't magically proportionally thinner than our clothes fabric, it's usually the same stuff, meaning that an invisible seam on our clothes is extremely bulky on a doll scale. so, while Barbie's proportions are very exaggerated (legs, anyone?) They're not as terrible once you take the clothing into account. If we were talking about dolls with fixed sculpted "clothes" we'd be in an entirely different ballgame though.
But yes, gross internet troll reactions are gross.
And to anyone who thinks that these are a step in the right direction (also important: more skin tones and actually different face sculpts, not just white Barbie who spent too long in a tanning booth), I highly recommend speaking with your wallet and buying one for a child in your life (or, you know, your own or someone else's inner child), as that will encourage Mattel to do more along these lines... Here's hoping for a round two of Fashionistas with actual articulation....
That is why I love Asian ball joint dolls (bjd), they are fully articulated and have a ton of customization. Admittedly they aren't really a toy for children, they are more for adults who like dolls.
Deletethank you Ana for pointing out the real world fabric problem with doll clothes. you are exactly correct that the waist was made small to accommodate the fabrics. barbies came out when the hourglass figure was still the ideal shape. who knew that just 4 years later twiggy would be the ideal.
Deleteyes Ana! You are totally right, the point of these dolls is that everyone can be glamorous regardless of body type. It has always bothered me that they always make "realistic" dolls dumpy.
DeleteI think curvy Barbie looks fat compared to Lamily, because the latter is wearing clothes that fit (even if it's just a nice bikini) vs too-tight ones that show off her poochy tummy. And also look really stupid to me, no matter what shape body might be inside them. YMMV. Widely.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, the dad of one of my daughter's friends was really shocked when his son came running up to him saying, "Dadddy, Daddy, we have to get a Barbie." The look on his face!
The yard ape had been playing Mummify Barbie with her dolls and making shoe-box sarcophogi.
So we're probably not the target market for this product anyway.
I agree, the new Barbie *does* bring to mind the word fat, but simply because they didn't dress her in flattering clothing, and *still* she has an unnatural torso. I'm 4'11" and can't really be called anything more flattering than "chubby", and even *my* torso looks like it's longer than hers... (relatively... You know.)
DeleteIDK if I agree with this post! You should know that the person who made Lammily is actually a pretty-sexist dude, last name of Lamm. He literally said, "Barbie is unappealing to me, a straight adult man, so I'm going to remake the doll to be what I think is appealing in women and name it after myself, but girl-ified." It's kind of a huge kerfuffle in the doll-collecting community, because he's SUCH a jerkoff! It's basically like "Body Shaming: The Doll." Or maybe "Egomania: the doll!" He's gone on to harass critics of the doll in comments sections (who the frick does that after the age of 14!!! Myspace is over, dude!!), and is just overall a total creep with a half-assed, poorly constructed concept of a doll. There's also a much longer history of plus-sized and body-positive dolls than Lammily, and all of them were much better made and founded by women!
ReplyDeleteAlthough I agree with the idea that Barbie could and should embrace more body diversity, the fact remains that as a whole, the company is far more progressive than a lot of toy companies. (Hasbro's "who needs Rey toys?" debacle much?) Making a plus size doll seems like a foregone conclusion, but the fact that they not only have the plus size dolls AND a strong blend of racial diversity is a huge point in their favor. Barbie has a history of providing empowering toys for kids, and even though they could do MORE to be progressive, I feel like comparing the entire company's storied history to one creepy dude's fakeass attempt at a "plus sized" white doll, which ended up looking pretty unappealing and cheap once it went to production, is a little unfair. (Seriously, check out some of the produced Lammily dolls, they have fashion that is ... ick, so cheap and unappealing, it's kind of painful to look at. The "fashion packs" are made of unhemmed fleece!!!)
After the all-out failboat that was Lammily ("She's progressive!! But not really cuz it's actually run by a creepy straight dude projecting his misogyny onto toys!!"), it's really refreshing to see a "big name" company not only coming out with plus size dolls, but making them extremely fashion-forward, and in multiple ethnicities to boot, as well as releasing bonus fashion sets for them and petite/tall dolls to accompany them. I hope we see more of them, and I hope this isn't a one-off for Mattel!
Agreed, the advertising for Lammily is... super gross, as is Lamm himself. The lack of racial and body diversity within the Lammily line is really problematic, especially as the doll is advertised over and over and over and over as being "normal" or "what a real woman looks like". So, women of color and women shorter/taller or rounder/skinnier than Lammily aren't real? It's really just "well, REAL women have CURVES (but not too many curves that's gross)" but in doll form. And, for that matter, Lammily is... not exactly a plus-sized doll herself, at least in the body sculpt. She does look significantly more plus-sized depending on what she's wearing though (see my other comment about why fashion doll waist size is generally disproportionately small...)
DeleteI'm curious, can you link me to an article/interview where Lamm says, "Barbie is unappealing to me, a straight adult man, so I'm going to remake the doll to be what I think is appealing in women and name it after myself, but girl-ified." Also, I'm interested to see the harassment of critics in comment sections. I've just never seen these myself.
DeletePonyguru paraphrased, but I think that the interview they're referring to is found at http://www.elle.com/culture/movies-tv/news/a15321/lammily-real-barbie-nickolay-lamm/
DeleteQ: It's sort of surprising that you're a male and you're making this product. You don't have daughters, either. What's the genesis?
A:I was reading something on the Internet, and I remember a commenter that kind of read my mind. I think it was on Huff Post. On some story, he posted a comment that said something like 'To the male, to me, Barbie…she kind of looks alien-like.' And that's what sparked it. I agree. If Barbie were a real woman, she'd be intimidating and cold, and what I like about real women is that they're warm and friendly. I just wanted to create an image that would reflect that.
Groooosssss.
Ana found the interview I was thinking of!! Thank you Ana! And yes, I was snarkily paraphrasing him, LOL! He lacks the self-awareness to call himself a straight adult man who names children's dolls after himself. ;)
DeleteI found a discussion of Lammily's "marketing campaign", which is ... tasteless. The whole article got deleted, apparently, but it pointed out how inappropriate it is to base an entire ad campaign (this commercial: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tK5lRSD3Br4 ) around what are, essentially, adult problems. The ad portrays Lammily, a "real woman", feeling put-off by thin models (portrayed by Barbie) on TV and in fashion shows, and feeling insecure at the beach in her suit. In the end she "overcomes" her body shame, but the majority of the clip is focused on her shame for her body.
Now ... what part of this sounds like fun, childhood playtime to you? "Oh boy, now I can reenact my body dysmorphia in doll form"? Barbie succeeds because she tells a story - she's an astronaut, or a vet, or she rides a horse! Lammily's story is, apparently, "I'm depressed about my body because I'm heavy." What?????? What child would WANT that?
The thing is, Lammily wasn't made with children in mind, as Barbie is; Lammily is, for the most part, an adult-minded doll made to prove a point. A gross point, about how "real women have curves, and are white, or something." She is intended to appeal to adults who dislike Barbie, but she's poorly made, thinner than her renders showed, and all of her fashion is ... hideous. Or very age-inappropriate. (See: http://littleghostpony.tumblr.com/post/122649942558/gottacatchemsome-okay-so-the-lammily-tv) The fashions also cost $25 per set. YIKES! You could get TWO Barbies for that cost, and they would have better-made fashion than Lammily.
However, for those who want a chuckle, doll collectors started sporking the commercial, such as setting it to Nicki Minaj's "Anaconda": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CNZN82JGvx0
... or rewriting it entirely to mock its ridiculousness: https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=2&v=koVR9Cncwpg
I can't find a link for it, but I do know a friend who was personally harassed by Nickolay Lamm for speaking up about the problems with the Lammily doll, and it was quite inappropriate. For a man who wants to make dolls of and for women, he sure seems to have a problem with "real women" speaking their minds! :I Meanwhile, there's a large group of female designers working at Mattel, which is probably why Barbie doesn't look perpetually constipated like Lammily does.
I'm sorry, but I don't think I agree with your interpretation of Lamm's statement or the ad campaign (which I've seen before) - "If Barbie were a real woman, she'd be intimidating and cold, and what I like about real women is that they're warm and friendly." I just don't see how being warm and friendly is creepy. It's not insulting, it's not sexual. At least *I* don't read it as sexual.
DeleteAs for the commercial - I didn't not find it gross. I thought it was cute and uplifting. Here is a girl that doesn't fit in in some way being constantly told by the media and everyone around her that she is not worthy of notice. At first she feels ashamed, but then she finds worth in herself and ultimately ends up making friends with the other dolls on the beach in a game of volleyball. They all play together - none better or worse than the others.
For the cost of the outfits they sell - 1) The clothes are made by workers being treated fairly, which does make it a bit more expensive. 2) Lammily Co. uplifts and champions the DIY movement, are supportive of their fan base. And you dislike her fashion. Ok. That's fair, you have your preferences, but I like them.
Here's the creepy part: "[...]and what I like about real women is [...]"
DeleteWho cares what a DUDE thinks about women, in a GIRL'S toy line?
Why does a straight, white man get to decide what HE likes about women, and thus what young women get to play with? What about women who are cold, or unfeeling, or angry? Or, perish the thought, thin? Are these not "real" women in Lamm's mind? Do they not deserve representation if they don't personally appeal to him? Why does an adult man get to decide what's "real" enough for little girls to play with?
Why does a straight white man get to decide what are, and are not women's struggles, and create a doll wholly devoted to making money off of that struggle? Why is a man capitalizing on women's body issues in media to make a profit?
I'm a little worried as to how you think "Lammily Co. [...] are supportive of their fan base," when I've seen at least one example of their CEO/founder harassing women who state their dislike of his questionably made doll in comments sections.
My daughter (6) has a Lammily doll. She asked for "a doll that looks like a grown up, but a real grown up. Not Barbie, she looks weird." The Lammily doll is just exactly what she wanted. I didn't get it for me, I got it because it was one of the only options for a realistic picture of what someone's body could look like.
DeleteWhen we got the doll I was actually kind of impressed by how average they succeeded in making her. She is brown haired, brown eyed, and in person her skin is olive or darker. She is not lily-white.
The part I like is hearing my daughter talk about her doll, she named Kira. She sees her doll as beautiful and just right, and that has been the common reaction of her friends as well.
It is a shame if the creator is acting like a putz. I am glad he did what he did and got the ball rolling. I am a staunch feminist, and I deeply believe that we need men in it with us. Is a doll, or a line of dolls the magic solution to culturally entrenched misogyny? Nope, of course not. But every little bit moves us one more step in the right direction.
I agree, we do need a curvy Barbie, but as someone who is overweight, looking at the clothes they've put on her, it's ones that are meant to make her look larger than she is - pellum top that makes her waist look bigger, and a denim skirt with a line down the middle scream to me that they want her to look as large as possible, whilst keeping her as slim as they can. That could just be me, so I'd be interested in what other people think of what she's wearing!
ReplyDeleteAgreed. I feel like the only reason she looks 'fat' is the peplum waist top!
DeleteI agree - the clothes on curvy Barbie are hideous. I'm overweight and would NEVER wear anything like that - way to pack on more pounds than I have, and trust me - NO ONE wants to see THAT!
DeleteI agree, we do need a curvy Barbie, but as someone who is overweight, looking at the clothes they've put on her, it's ones that are meant to make her look larger than she is - pellum top that makes her waist look bigger, and a denim skirt with a line down the middle scream to me that they want her to look as large as possible, whilst keeping her as slim as they can. That could just be me, so I'd be interested in what other people think of what she's wearing!
ReplyDelete*sarcasmmodeon* Ha, great! Now I can blame my parents for me being overweight now because they never allowed me to have a Barbie doll when I was a kid. If they only had known that they would refuse me the chance of learning a healthy and trim lifestyle! *sarcasmmodeoff*
ReplyDeleteI'm just wondering how many food and health related issues the original commenter must have. She can't have a healthy relationship with her own body. Poor her!
I agree with the comments about the clothing, but I also think it has a lot to do with proportions. The wrists, hands, ankles and feet on the new curvy barbies are so small in proportion with the rest of their bodies that it makes the rest of them look larger than they are.
ReplyDeleteI absolutely love the new Barbies. I may go out and buy a curvy Barbie for me since she has my exact body type. And the variety in skin tone and facial features is wonderful.
ReplyDeleteNot sure if others have mentioned this, but the curvy Barbie looks fat because of her OUTFIT. Who designed that thing?! The skirt, by curving inward again, just emphasizes her hips (a sure-fire way to look fat, especially in plastic.) (and makes a bubble-like appearance, never flattering). And the corset top... why does it jut out at the end? That little flair only makes her look even wider at the hips than she really is. It's little, but this is also a little plastic doll, so it has the appearance of adding on another inch or two. That kind of top better suits real people, or a thinner (/more uniform in waist!) doll.
ReplyDeleteIt's like the doll makers WANTED her to look fat...
But seriously, if she was dressed differently, she wouldn't look bad. A cute A-line dress, regular jeans and a blouse, a pantsuit, really anything but a pencil (or whatever it is, I couldn't find a skirt that's bottom comes in again!) skirt and belted top (belt, seriously?).
The doll itself, if nude or in swimwear, would look fine. Well, if not placed next to a Barbie! Size is all about perspective- unfortunately- and anything next to that abomination of a doll looks fat. Heck, a size 0 would look fat next to her! So ya, designers were screwing her over... oh so surprise.
Some of the Curvy Fashionistas' outfits do seem to be in some cases chosen to (in my mind, attractively) accentuate their waist-to-hip ratio (the blue-haired one with the denim pencil skirt and peplum blouse springs to mind), but to be honest... they're actually in line with what I wear as a woman with a similar body shape. I'm not ashamed of my curves, and I don't want to hide them!
DeleteNot to mention, there's actually a ton of variety in what the 7 Curvy Fashionistas are wearing: http://www.bustle.com/articles/138271-barbie-is-getting-a-major-body-positive-makeover-for-2016-photos - not all of it is as hip-accentuating as the blue-haired one's outfit is, but certainly none of it falls under "oh god hide her with a sack", that IMO most of Lammily's clothes fall into (http://lammily.com/product/brazil-fashion/, http://lammily.com/product/spain-fashion/ ). The new Barbies' various clothes options reflect the diversity in fashionable clothing choices made by real-life curvy women.
I think the outfits I have seen for curvy barbie look just like what they're selling at Forever 21+. I wouldn't wear them because I don't have a waist now but at my smallest (size 17) I would have rocked every one.
DeleteWhere is tall and curvy? Try buying clothes for THAT. Oh, and pregnancy clothes? Forget it. (No, I have no issues. ;) )
ReplyDeleteAnd short and curvy? Curvy that doesn't have thread-thin arms? I know that some time ago a company tried out a pregnant Barbie-like doll, with a tummy and baby that snapped on and off. Needless to say, not well-received. Anyway, I had one of the first barbies and played her nearly to death as she was meant to be played with: putting colthes on and off. That's it, that's what she's for, let's just accept that and move on.
DeleteI have been horrified with reader comments on online articles about this subject as well! It makes my blood boil and head explode to read (mostly males, but some females as well) saying "PC has gone too far" and "so now little girls will think it's OK to be fat". Just, just...WHAT!? The saddest part is that, like you say, people really believe that because of the decades of body propaganda we've been seeing in dolls, on TV, in the media. And if you dare to voice any of this you're quickly labeled a "liberal PC femi-nazi". Nope. I'm just a normal woman who thought it was cool that there were more Barbies for the collectors to snag! (I know a collector who is losing her mind with excitement right now!) It has also impressed on me how even though the internet has succeeded in bringing thousands of like-minded people who would've otherwise never met together, sometimes it's not such a good thing.
ReplyDeleteMay I also add that, as a woman who has dealt with serious body image problems and disordered eating in my past, I absolutely used to compare myself to Barbie and found myself seriously lacking. At five years old. Five. Years. Old. As a kindergartener I was already beating myself up for not having a tiny waist and I hated that my thighs wiggled when I walked, and Barbie's were solid. That is some messed up stuff. I don't blame Barbie, but she didn't help matters. Having a more body types can't hurt things, that's for sure. And if people are that butt-hurt over different-sized Barbies, may I suggest, um, not buying them?
I'd like to see a profile shot of ANY of the new body types. They're trying to use this to combat the falling sales of Barbie; but who has taken over that market? Would that be the "Bratz" type dolls, or the "Monster High" dolls? Much as I would prefer the variety and options of the "new body options" I'm not holding my breath that they're going to change ANYthing.
ReplyDeleteP.S. I once received a catalog that had, among other more interesting things-- 3d sculptures of Anime characters. "Lilli" is TAME (heck, Jessica RABBIT is too) compared to some of Those; and they all seemed to have "removable Clothing". :-P ew.
Well, Monster High is another Mattel product, so they're not really competing with Barbie - and Monster High and Barbie capture different sections of the fashion doll market; Barbie is for "realistic" (aka not a fantasy setting) dolls and styles, Monster High is definitely based in a fantasy setting and this is reflected in the doll sculpts, styling, etc. Monster High has also done some nice and different things with diversity that are super important; e.g. Ghoulia canonically has child-onset OCD.
DeleteThere is one important thing that you missed, and that is why Barbie came to be.
ReplyDeleteBasically, Barbie's designer had one of the Lilli dolls. His daughter kept playing with it, and having fun. That was when it hit him: all the dolls of the time were 'baby' dolls. Something to look after and take care of. The Lilli doll, being very clearly an adult doll, could have her own life, her own adventures, even her own job.
So while it was a small step, it was a significant one, letting little girls roleplay as something other than 'mommy' for a change.
Oh, and as for why they haven't changed the design until now: backwards compatability. With such a massive amount of accessories and outfits, they wanted to make sure that the kids could still play with the older stuff.
DeleteOr, you know, 'if she gets fat, her clothes won't fit'... :P
Very important points. And Mattel has come really far since the days of "math is hard, let's go shopping!" Barbie. They've put a huge focus on Barbie's various careers, many/most of which are not stereotypical "women's" jobs. My favorite example is from the Barbie "Vlog": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dN9BQpHdNEA
DeleteHER daughter.
DeleteThey've changed the design since I was young I think. I'm sure mine was more trianglular through the torso in the 80s
DeleteThank you for posting about this!!! I saw this whole thing this morning and couldn't believe "curvy" looked so normal!!! Bloody hell, thanks for the insult Mattel for tell us that normal is "curvey"!!!
ReplyDeleteI was sad to see my body type wasn't covered by the new dolls...but I guess Mrs. Potato Head has that market cornered.
ReplyDeleteYou just made me snort laugh. I truly needed that! Thank you!
DeleteMe too. Thanks. LOL.
DeleteThanks for the post, this is great. Wanted to let you know that your "share on facebook" functionality is moderately broken. FB won't display anything but the first image option (Lady Vadore, so I'm not complaining, but not terribly topical) and the preview text is "Please be respectful when commenting;...". Not complaining, just commenting in case you didn't already know.
ReplyDeleteI did an experiment with my 5 year old, what she thought of the Lammily dolls compared to Barbies and she always picked the Barbie. Which gave me a sad, although I'm not sure exactly why. My cynical brain thinks Mattel is doing this just to be able to merch 4 sizes of Barbie accessories (since, of course, they clothes aren't compatible), not to promote more realistic body types.
ReplyDeleteI have been holding off on getting my daughter any Barbies since I am so conflicted about the dolls. Not only are the measurements whack, but they always have such short skirts and so much makeup. And don't get me started on the Bratz dolls. I've okayed a few of the princess dolls, and I am glad that Hasbro is taking the torch on them now. Their versions look like they will be much truer to the movies rather than looking like Barbies in princess costumes.
But why does tall barbie has lower heels than everyone else? Us tall chicks have just as much right to wear heels as the next girl... short-guy syndrome be damned :)
ReplyDeleteI love everything about what you had to say! You are amazing Jen and you have such compassion. I think Curvy Barbie is beautiful. As a larger woman myself, the people that say those comments online usually tend to be the ones that seek to ridicule and mock people that are larger. I am proud of Mattel for making a change and seeing that people come in all sorts of sizes and are beautiful just the way they are.
ReplyDeleteHoly waist, Batman, MY CALF IS 16"! I'm looking at my legs like, "how....whyyyy??"
ReplyDeleteI thought the same thing for the curvy doll when I first saw the articles - she looked fat. But then I realized that it's because they had her next to the original doll and anything is going to look fat next to her. When you look at a picture of just the curvy doll she looks healthy - not plus size but not super skinny, somewhere in the normal range. I totally agree with you, having the original doll as an ideal is so ridiculously unrealistic, girls (and grown women for that matter) need healthy images to aspire to that are attractive for the real world.
ReplyDeleteInteresting stuff! I've not bought Barbie stuff for my daughter; she gets Monster High and Equestria Girls, which are at least meant to look unnatural. I have just got her a range of Lottie dolls though, which are adorable, after seeing one in space (couldn't resist), and it has a telescope! :-D A bit "pastelly" though, but decent idea I reckon. https://twitter.com/astro_timpeake/status/691222730214105088
ReplyDeleteThe Lilli comics look like a lot of the comics in men's magazines at the time. My (admittedly amateur) translations of the captions are as follows:
ReplyDeleteComic 1: Thank God that winter gives at least one chance for men to see me in only a swimsuit.
Comic 2: I'm not really interested in the sport, but this new Wimbeldon tennis fashion gives one an entirely new perspective.
So, pretty dang lecherous and dated.
I have to admit that I was skeptical of your headline, but seeing the Lilli doll in person kind of shows that the first Barbie was much less of a 'borrow' and more like 'stealing entirely'. My aunt had a Barbie that looked exactly like that.
The Disney princess fashion dolls aren't much better.
GO LAMMILY
DeleteI think the problem with the curvy Barbie is they got the shape "wrong". I mean, yes, some women have that shape, and it's fine, but if you're going to go for a more "normal" looking shape of someone who isn't anorexicly thin, the waist needs to be a little thicker. I had the same reaction to her as you, and thinking it through I think that's why. The hips aren't too wide for the shoulders, but the waist is thinner than is likely for the hips. Too wordy and rambly, but there you go...
ReplyDeleteI'm glad Barbies now come in other sizes. I've heard the argument that if young girls are getting their self esteem from a doll then there are bigger issues. I can see this point. But maybe changing a popular doll is a first step in how we see beauty. We need more diversity in models. I'm a short curvy girl and I'd love seeing my size represented more in the fashion world. And I would have loved playing with a short curvy Barbie as well as original, tall, etc.
ReplyDeleteSo where are the petite curvy and the tall curvy options? (I'm kind of kidding).
ReplyDeleteThe thing with the curvy doll, and maybe it's her clothes as others have suggested, is that she looks bottom-heavy. Her ankles are also precipitously thin and her feet are tiny; I assume that's so the shoes fit every doll, but it does make her look like she's got a generous derriere.
I'd have personally widened her shoulders a bit to bring her more into proportion. It's not a condemnation of women who are bottom-heavy (heaven knows I qualify) but we are predisposed to find symmetry aesthetically pleasing and in the end, most girls want a pretty doll.
My initial thought when I saw the new Barbies was that none of their clothes would be swappable. My daughter likes to mix up their outfits to create her own styles. I just wish they wouldn't make all of Barbie's clothes so skin tight that it's hard for little girls to get them on. My daughter has never wanted to have a body like Barbie's. I haven't had much of a problem with her proportions. I don't really see dolls in general as being exact representations of women. I find that very few of them have realistic body proportions. What I most have a problem with is Barbie's clothing. It is too tight, with short skirts, crop tops, etc. I don't think my daughter sees Barbie as a realistic person, but I also don't want her to think it's ok to dress like Barbie.
ReplyDeleteAll of a sudden I really want a Lammily.
ReplyDeleteSo many comments...not enough time to scan through so, sorry if it's been said already: I think it's the outfit they've chosen for her. She looks pregnant to me. High-wasted skirt and frilly top? Come on, who wears that? Okay, sorry, maybe people do...Put her in non-high-wasted jeans (this is how fashion forward I am...I don't know what they're called, mid-rise?) and a slim top and you have a better sense of her size. But that's just me...
ReplyDeleteI love, love, love the new curvy doll. And it kills me that people think that is "fat".
ReplyDeleteWhat I would love more than anything would be if they made a customized Barbie. If you could go on their website, pick your body type, face type, hair and skin color, foot type, and outfit, and have that made for me.
I also think these new shapes are important, not just because little girls all deserve a doll that looks like them, but because they need to see that there are OTHER types of people, and it's okay to be friends with them all!
It really shows how much what's considered "sexy" in a woman has changed for the worse, and by worse I mean unattainable. Even with the extreme hourglass shapes back in the '50s, the standard attractive body for a woman is far more of outlier now. And it *does* end up with girls and people who are attracted to women looking around and seeing most people (including themselves) as substandard, being unable to see attractiveness that has not been culturally prescribed. It alienates people from each other and that's horrible.
ReplyDeleteI have a bit of an aversion to social theory, but I have to say that I can't see any explanation for it other than it being a push back against women for them committing the crime of gaining more rights and independence.
Whether whether that's down to misogyny or "just" an attempt to keep us insecure so that we'll spend more money trying to feel better, you decide.
This is about the sex worker part of the post rather than the dolls per se; children's dolls and sexiness is a whole other subject!
Hsving a wide range of looks being presented as sexy and desirable and desired is desperately needed. Until then, having a wider range of body types being presented, in the form of these dolls, simply as being pleasing to look at is a good thing.
My first reaction to curvy Barbie was "eeee, she's so cute I love her!"
ReplyDeleteI loooooved Barbies growing up and had tons. I don't think I ever directly considered the body image ramifications, but I do remember being annoyed at her teeny claw-hands and feet. I would have loved to have all the different body types, skin and hair types, etc to play with. So cool.
I wholeheartedly agree with the introduction of body-positive dolls--I do want to say in defense of Ruth Handler that, while she *is* responsible for introducing a physically impossible stereotype as an iconic girls' toy, she is also responsible for introducing a doll with *breasts* to a young public. We are quick to vilify her, but I believe a lot of good comes out of girls playing with Barbie or other dolls and understanding that their body with change and, yes, they will have breasts one day as well...and that's OKAY. That said, a lot more good would definitely have come out of Handler introducing that doll with realistic proportions, but 1959 was not a kind year for women, and thank God for the progress we've made since. Let's remember that demand drives production, and hopefully they'll eventually "phase out" the ridiculously proportioned doll as parents buy fewer of them.
ReplyDeleteMy issues with the new changes stem from the fact that now Barbie clothes will not be fully interchangeable between dolls:
ReplyDelete1. It's already expensive to buy new Barbie outfits, at least for those of us on a tight toy budget. Now they will only fit select models? Not thrilled about that at all! :-/
2. Kids get frustrated over things that don't work they way they "should". I can already envision the freak-outs my daughter will have when Barbie's clothes won't fit Barbie, because an outift was meant for a skinnier version! While that may "open doors for conversation", at her present age (4), what she wants is toys that work the way she expects them to. Barbie clothes should fit Barbie.
3. Kids shouldn't have to deal with body issues. It's a shame so many do, but for the many kids who play with current Barbie without developing self-esteem issues over it (it certainly never affected me negatively--she's a doll, and looks ridiculous enough that it never crossed my mind that I "should" look like her), might this introduce them? For a doll to affect self-esteem in the way Barbie is claimed to, a child has to already have negative influences speaking those lies to them. I'm not sure how much a doll is going to help with those, and for every kid it DOES help, I wonder how many others are going to start seeing the world as fitting into these "skinny" and "fat" categories that they hadn't really noticed before.
I think it's a good idea in theory, and I love the diversity apart from size that's been offered. Even being light-haired, light-skinned, and blue-eyed myself, as a kid I always preferred the darker-haired buddies of Barbie (Whitney, the auburn-haired younger version, was far and away my favorite!). I just cringe at how I'm now "expected" to handle my daughter playing with Barbies. I don't want her to be frustrated that she can't put original clothes on a curvy Barbie, and I can't afford to buy endless options for every doll; I also don't want her to see me avoiding buying her "fat" Barbie, for very legitimate monetary reasons, and thinking there's something wrong with "bigger". These are conversations she's not ready to have.
I want my daughter to be able to play with Barbies without ever hearing the words "it's too small" or "she's too big". I want her to see differences as beautiful and not a complication or frustration. I want to say "She looks beautiful!" when my daughter dresses her in whatever mismatched outfit she wants, rather than seeing tears that it won't fit. I want toys to be toys, and I want to celebrate my daughter's creativity and imagination as what makes Barbie beautiful.
I hope I'm wrong, since the change is coming whether I like it or not. I hope that it the new Barbies indeed become a positive influence on struggling girls, and that my fears about it creating issues is completely unfounded. I'm a worrier by nature, and I worry about the day my daughter stops seeing herself as beautiful--I want to fight that off as much as I am able! But the reality is that I'm personally only going to be buying my daughter the dolls that our current clothes fit, and clothes that fit our current dolls, because I don't have the money to surround her with Barbies in every shape and size in the hope that that will reassure her size doesn't matter. :-/
There's a demotivational poster that snarkily says "did you ever think that the only purpose in your life is to serve as a warning to others." I hate how real that feels to me, but even that horrid point is better than no point at all, so here's my story. As long as I have memories, I have thought of myself as fat. I remember coming up on my 7th birthday, an adult female that I trusted told me that if I was fat when I turned 7 I would always be fat, because the fat cells would be "active". She loved me and was trying to help by encouraging me to lose weight, but when I turned 7 and hadn't lost the weight, it altered the way I saw myself. I was always shy, always grateful when any boy looked my way, always inferior to my friends. By the time I was in high school, I had convinced myself that it didn't matter what I ate or how much I exercised, because nothing made a difference - I couldn't lose weight. There is a freedom in believing nothing you do matters - it's miserable and hopeless, and most of all, it's a lie. But as the years passed with this "it doesn't matter, I'm already fat" mentality, I became more lethargic, began to opt for processed and fast foods rather than spending the energy to cook, and gained more and more weight. Now, in my mid-thirties, I am morbidly obese. 5'4" and 380 lbs. But here's the twist - looking back at photos of myself as a child and as a teenager, I realized that I was not a fat child. I wasn't even chubby. I was a spindly- legged little girl with a round face. When I was 14, I was 5"4" and weighed 110 lbs. At that point in my life, I thought I was a cow. Looking at my classmates provides some clues - they drank pickle juice and bragged about being able to wear toddler sized clothes - looking back, the pretty, popular girls were visibly anorexic, with bones showing through their skin in school pictures. That was the standard that convinced me I was fat. I wanted to look like them - EVERYONE wanted to look like them. In retrospect, I looked healthy. I can't reconcile the girl I see in those photos with the way I felt at the time. But I can reconcile the person I see in the mirror today with those feelings. I became my own self-fulfilling prophecy. I have no happy ending here - I'm trying to change, trying to reconcile the disconnect between how I perceive myself and reality. I can move. I'm not immobile yet. I have to tell myself this constantly. I guess this is just to say, it matters what we say to girls. It matters what we tell them is normal, what is ideal, what is desirable. It matters that body-shaming doesn't result in getting a fatties off the couch, which is what these troglodytes seem to think they're accomplishing. It has, however, taken a perfectly healthy little girl and turned her into one.
ReplyDeleteIt's astounding the lies we believe. But you can do this. Thank you for sharing.
DeleteI thought curvy Barbie looked awesome. I'd pick her over the other dolls. I love her hair and outfit. Yet think of the marketing - now clothes for the "curvy" doll will only fit the "curvy" doll - same with all the rest. Now you have to buy more clothes for Barbie b/c she can't share any outfits with her friends unless all her friends are the same doll...
ReplyDeleteBad for the consumers' wallets, but great for the corporation (i.e. Mattel, of course) making money.
DeleteI too love Curvy Barbie, as I said below. I would have thought she was awesome as a kid, not because I'd end up looking like her (who knew I'd end up anything other than thin as a rail?), but mostly because her hair is blue (my favorite color). Oh, and I like her sense of style as well - trendy but edgy.
I think your own comment section is revealing plenty on its own. This is a huge reflection of the major challenges that any toy company is going to have representing a wide range of people. I'm reading comments above mine talking about her not being curvy enough, not having the right hair with being curvy, being curvy but not tall, her clothes not fitting right, etc. The truth is there a million variations of people out there in the world and it is an impossible standard to create a million different "Barbies" that fit every single person perfectly. I am 100% for the change in Barbie to accommodate more than just one "unrealistic" look but can we please be realistic in our expectations of toys? This is an excellent start towards a larger inclusion but the people in this world are never going to be 100% happy with what is being given. I was really excited to see this change but I'm disappointed in how unsatisfied people still are. No wonder children continue to be unsatisfied too. A better message would be to show children that toys are wonderful ways to express themselves but they are not the sole definition of reality. That's what their parents, extended family, friends, trusted adults, mentors, role models are for.
ReplyDeleteJen, do you mean that you initially felt a negative reaction BECAUSE she looks fat? (Maybe you don't want to spell it out like that, and I wouldn't blame you at all.) I don't think she looks fat, and her clothes seem like something a fashion blogger with her shape would wear. I'm wondering how much of this negative reaction is because we've been conditioned to think bigger bodies are bad, and how much is the actual execution of the doll.
ReplyDeleteAlso I want to say thanks to Flynn Leek, good point about how an adult doll originally came to be a toy.
I don't think she looks fat either. She's definitely larger than original Barbie, but not fat. I'm an 18/20 and I wear stuff like that all the time. I'm actually wearing a pencil skirt right now. I'd also totally rock that blue hair if I could get away with it. I like the way I dress and I get a lot of compliments on my clothing and "style" so I guess I'm doing something right and I'm definitely fatter than that Barbie.
DeleteHoly crap. I have a friend with a tiny 9-year-old. She is a small kid, short, very slender. Her mom is making her a skirt and this child's waist is 20" around. That Barbie's would be smaller makes the mind boggle.
ReplyDeleteThe thing I hate most about the curvy Barbie? Her arms are still tiny, so she looks kind of freakish with the skinny, mal-proportioned ars.
I never once compared myself to Barbie, and believe me, I had a lot of them!
ReplyDeleteThey are merely a toy for the imagination. If girls start comparing themselves to a doll, perhaps its the parenting, or the school yard. I believe that mind set is learned. How would they know the little girl is too skinny if no one told her? How would she know if the neighbor was too fat, if no one told her?
If you let a child use their imagination, no one is too skinny, no one is too fat, and anyone can be a mermaid.
That, unfortunately, just isn't true in every case. I have a wonderful mom and dad who never fussed about weight, mine or theirs. They are loving and encouraging and had realistic expectations of me. I don't recall any outside influences encouraging unrealistic expectations, and yet at a very early age I compared my self to Barbie, among other things. Some of us are hard-wired to think nothing we do or are is quite good enough. Even at an early age. Barbie (among other things)certainly didn't trigger my futile quest for perfection, but it did, to an extent, fuel it. Can you imagine a five year old worried that her thighs "wiggled" when she walked? Yeah...So maybe a few bigger-sized dolls wouldn't have been a bad idea. Maybe it wouldn't have mattered. I don't know. I've worked past a lot of it, but I think diverse Barbies are a great idea. Plus it is a brilliant marketing strategy for Mattel.
DeleteHere's the thing, too, though: Barbie may also be proportioned in order to dress her in her original fashions. Here's a great look at it from a friend of mine who is currently working on her fashion/historic clothing PhD: https://thedaringdomestic.wordpress.com/2014/03/18/barbie-and-the-new-look/
ReplyDeleteWow, I had no idea about barbie's origins! And she named her weird creation after her DAUGHTER?! Thank you for sharing this hilariously awful factoid with the world! I must agree I also had an immediate negative opinion of the curvy Barbie, but I think it had nothing to do with her being "fat" and everything to do with that bizarre, ugly outfit. That skirt makes the doll's arms look weird and twiggy and her belly look distorted and strange in a badly-hidden-pregnancy kinda way. Granted, I never liked Barbie even when I was a kid. I remember being given Marine Biologist Barbie as a gift once. The doll came with a plastic whale and I remember looking in confusion at the doll, setting it aside, and having a very fun Christmas indeed playing with Shamu.
ReplyDeleteI feel like the problem with the different Barbie body types, is the fact that "regular" Barbie is going to continue to be sold. So, if a child has a choice between "normal Barbie" and "curvy Barbie" it seems that to choose a more appropriate body-type is actually going to be yet ANOTHER isolating factor for young children. What child wants to feel singled out because they own "petite Barbie" while all their friends own "normal Barbie"?
ReplyDeleteMy first thought upon seeing the Curvy Barbie yesterday was, "She looks like me!" I also appreciate the fact that the majority of the wardrobe presented isn't ball gowns and bathing suits. These dolls have clothes an actual woman could and would wear. They also appear to be gainfully employed. I was searching for a minority barbie doll for my mixed-race niece a few months ago and couldn't find one. My sister said it was okay that I couldn't find a black barbie as long as I found one that had a job. I think these new dolls would be great for any child. These new designs present a healthy, normal woman's figure. Many are still on the very skinny side in my opinion. And none of them will make a child want to be lazy or fat. Just as the old "traditional" Barbie dolls didn't make a child want to have an abnormal torso, permanently pointed feet and a neck that can't support a head.
ReplyDeleteIt's my understanding that Barbie has the sixteen inch weight because the seams on her clothes gave her a more normal waist when she was fully clothed. Seriously, the original 1959 doll's dresses had pleats and gathers that resulted in a lot of extra bulk around her waist.
ReplyDeleteI don't like the curvy Barbie, but I think it's because her outfit is seriously ugly.
Barbie's shape has been changing through the years. My daughter's early 200s dolls were too skinny to wear the clothes from my 1970s era dolls.
What I'd hate about the new dolls if I had a daughter in that age range is that now you're going to have to have different size clothes for different size dolls. Growing up, I had a couple of dolls that weren't Barbies and they were the outcasts because nothing fit them.
If you buy Lammily, you needn't worry about her being an outcast, as the company offers clothing made specifically for her. Doll clothing makers and designs offer both patterns and ready-made clothing for Lammily on Etsy as well.
DeleteAdditionally, making your own clothes for your dolls - which I did a few times as a kid - can teach valuable skills (sewing, crocheting, knitting, etc.) and offer a creative outlet for children, which can easily turn into a hobby or even career as an adult.
My issue with the curvy barbie is her body looks disproportionate. She's got hips and chest, but her arms and legs still look twig thin. And the belt around her "waist" looks like it's up at her diaphragm.
ReplyDeleteBut yay for progress in giving little girls realistic body models?
That seems about right for plus size. I have a Lane Bryant skater dress that belts around my ribs, not my waist.
DeleteThat seems about right for plus size. I have a Lane Bryant skater dress that belts around my ribs, not my waist.
Delete*applause*
ReplyDeleteI've never seen a Lammily doll IRL, but I like the way it looks and I also like the looks of the new Barbies. TBH I never cared for dolls. I liked plushies, action figures, and animals, like LPS.
Jen, I love you and I love your passion. And I know how fair-minded you are, so here's the other side of this. Barbie ,from the very beginning, designed to look good in clothes. But her clothes, tiny and perfect as they were, had to have seams and waistbands and other construction details that were bulky and made the dolls look blocky and thick-waisted unless the body was designed with unrealistic features like super-narrow waists and elongated necks and legs. If you look at a Barbie dressed in one of her cute outfit she doesn't look as bizarre as she does naked. The naked doll was never, never intended to be the standard of beauty for females. I'm 55 years old and loved playing with my Barbies more than anything. I wanted to be grown up and go on dates and wear her fabulous clothes, but never once did I think to myself that I wanted to look like her. My own daughter loved her Barbies, too, and has told me positively that she imagined herself being a doctor, astronaut, and even the President because that's what Barbie was, but she never pictured herself looking like an actual Barbie doll. I absolutely believe that there's a stupidly unrealistic expectation in our society for women to be thin and perfect but I just as strongly believe that Madison Avenue, Hollywood, and women themselves have to accept far more of the blame for this than any toy.
ReplyDeleteI had never even heard of these new Barbies before, and my first impression is that I really like Curvy Barbie above and beyond all of the others. Quite a bit. As soon as Lammily launched (I had seen the mock-up for her a few years before she went into production), I signed up for emails from the site, as I found her look enticing from the start. Plus, she could actually be a human, which is lovely, and she makes for a fantastic doll ambassador to little girls everywhere. I do hope that the company will expand and put some of its resources into creating a range of diverse dolls with options for different hair and skin colors (sort of like the American Girl dolls).
ReplyDeleteI both astonished and appalled that the large majority of people are finding Curvy Barbie fat. I find that quite disgusting and wonder if this negative feedback is mainly women or men or both. According to some recent statistics, about one third of the US population is considered obese (using, of course, the traditional BMI chart measurements); additionally, Britain is not too far behind. That clearly leaves two thirds in the "normal" to thin range. But how many of that remainder actually look like regular Barbie? How is the old Barbie a good representation - in any way, shape, or form (literally and figuratively) - of a standardization of the human female body? Did Barbie become popular because she was filling some sort of need or niche in our society? Is she the representation of how men would like women to look or how women actually want to look when no external motivating factors are present?
Lilli was somewhere between sexpositive and a gold digger but in the 1950s, that was a rather progressive attitude to have, calling her a prostitute is (with all respect to sexworkers) really just slutshaming a fictive figure that went from newspaper cartoon to fashion doll and really had already all the attributes they ripped off for Barbie after seening Lilli in a shop in Germany.
ReplyDeletethe english wiki is much shorter than the german one but really, couldn't they do some research?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bild_Lilli_doll
One of the things I do find fascinating about Barbie's history is that she was the first 3D version of the fashion paper dolls at the time. Also at the time she was unique that the dolls toys available for little girls were all baby dolls, given to girls so they could play at being mothers. (Teddy bears had a huge backlash because people of the day argued that if a girl played with a toy animal she wouldn't be able to be a proper mother when the time came.) So for the first time girls had a doll that was an adult woman who wasn't a mommy. She wore pretty clothes, and had jobs! They were encouraged to see themselves as Barbie, as an independent woman, instead of seeing her as a practice baby for their eventual fate.
ReplyDeleteIt is important to see things in the context of their time to properly keep them evolving and updating. What was surprisingly progressive for the time needs to keep changing to stay progressive.
Someone already pointed out that the freakishness of Barbie's tiny waist made sense when you were working with a 1/12th scale figure and 1/1 scale cloth. The gathers and seams couldn't be made smaller, but the inside of the doll could. For example, you can look up Tonner dolls (There's some especially gorgeous Gone with the Wind and Disney Tonner dolls) and they're all on bodies with teenie tiny wasp waists and strange unnatural proportions to accommodate all that fabric! I expect that Barbie's more elaborate fashion lines will keep the same inhuman look, since those aren't designed to be undressed, but for dolls that are designed to change outfits and to have outfits that aren't ballgowns it makes sense to make the bodies to fit the function.
I have never met a woman in real life who played with Barbies as a child and thought, 'gosh, I have to look like this toy when I grow up or I'm clearly ugly.' The women in my house didn't look like Barbie, because Barbie is a TOY, and I understood the difference between toys and reality. If a girl is shamed into thinking that Barbie is what a normal adult woman looks like, then the people in her family are the problem, not a toy.
ReplyDeleteMy daughter has no interest in Barbies, so I'm the only Barbie fan in the house. I loved playing pretend with my Barbies because they could have glamours, fancy lives. They went to fancy parties, they swam, sometimes they worked in formal wear. I had some seriously ugly 70s homemade clothes. As an adult all my Barbies are still in the packaging in my mini Barbie museum.
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately the new curvy doll looks frumpy and dumpy, most likely due to styling. She doesn't look fun to play with, she looks like she comes with a mini van with a soccer sticker on the back. My ten-year-old self would not want to play with her. My 40 year old collector self doesn't want to buy her. If my friends and I were playing soccer mom Barbie, she'd still probably be dressed in a fancy gown because that's something you don't do in everyday life.
For the guy perspective, I give you He-man toys from the 80's when I was growing up: http://vignette2.wikia.nocookie.net/heman/images/8/8e/Toys-slider.jpg/revision/latest/scale-to-width-down/670?cb=20150316163934
ReplyDeleteI'm pretty sure that's an unobtainable body type also. I also feel ashamed that I never grew a turtle shell and acquired ninja abilities to emulate my other toys.I DID however maintain a near perfect troll doll body for several of my formative years, except mom made me get haircuts.
Bwa-ha-ha. I don't worry that the yardape is going to get unrealistic body shape ideas from her lego mini-figs, either!
DeleteI hope the folks that like the new Barbies get to enjoy them without being hassled by the wrongfun puritans: "Stop! You're enjoying a toy fashion doll in a politically harmful way."
I hope the same thing is true for those gals (and guys) who liked playing glamorous dress-up pretend games with the super-skinny coup-de-crayon Barbies. Not my cuppa, sure, but who died and made me the moral arbitar of what little kids ought to enjoy?
Please please take down the chart comparing the "average female" body measurements to Barbie's. It's highly inaccurate (20" head my a**), and it is sourced from a website that promotes wrong and harmful ideas about eating disorders. (Eating disorders are no more caused by Barbie than autism is by "refrigerator mothers"). Inaccurate and harmful! Please take it down.
ReplyDeleteI've really never understood how so many people or kids think that a doll or cartoon is something to look up to as a role model.
ReplyDeleteI had tons of Barbies as a kid, and loved the Disney movies, but I never once in my life thought "Oh Barbie is so skinny I have to be just like her!" or "Ariel gives up something super important to try to get a guy and Ariel is awesome, that means I must do it to!".
I'm not sure if I'm different or if kids were just raised differently 25 years ago, but it really kind of drives me crazy that people get so up in arms over how toys look because somehow a kid might think they are supposed to look the same as a plastic doll. THAT is what truly boggles my mind.
Now, getting up in arms that a female character in a live action film (Rey from Star Wars) doesn't have the same merchandise representation as male characters is totally justifiable to me (same thing as so many toys in Sci-Fi/Fantasy genres being marketed more towards boys).
Admittedly, I have not read all 92 comments, but my first thought is that curvy Barbie just needs better styling. That is the wrong outfit for her shape. I'm a curvy girl myself, and I'd never leave the house in that outfit, it practically screams "THIGHS!" I would like the blue hair, though. And I'd consider trading my soul for her ankles. My cankles can not compare. LOL
ReplyDeleteThank you for all the commenters pointing out the issue of a scale model doll with full-thickness fabrics. I'd honestly never though of that. I never got into Barbies as a kid, so I still hold a vaguely condescending feeling toward them. I only ever saw the dolls and didn't realize all the variety of stuff they came with (astronaut Barbie etc). I've now done a 180 on this and would be delighted to buy these new barbies for future only moderately-hypothetical spawn. I agree with other commenters about hopefully they'll continue the trend of more diverse fashionistas. Some of Barbie's weird proportions make way more sense to me now! TIL :) Thanks, Jen & Epbot community!
ReplyDeleteThis discussion is getting so far off the rails that I find it more amusing than informational. My sister and I had some of the first Barbies to come out, and we played with them incessantly. Our dolls didn't have sex or careers or chase boys; they pretty much just changged clothes. Neither of us grew up to be a clotheshorse. Sometimes we popped off Barbie's head to make it easier to pull on a top or dress. Boy, that surely would have made it easier to dress a squirming youngster, but it never occurred to me to give it a try. We styled Barbie's hair into elaborate do's and held them in place with straight pins stuck into her scalp. Nope, no holes in my girls' heads, either. My point is, I never thought Barbie was real, I never aspired to look like or be like her, and to this day I don't really like changing clothes all that much. Let's just let go, let kids play, and quit worrying about all this ridiculous stuff.
ReplyDeleteIn one of my women's history classes, we learned that while Barbie was based on a sex toy, it was because the woman who created her was looking for a doll that was older than the usual baby dolls and would help a girl feel a little more comfortable when they began "the change" and started to develop breasts, because that was not a thing to be spoken about back then and she herself had been a little traumatized by that event. She saw Lilli in a store window and went with that model.
ReplyDeleteI'm not trying to support Barbie's unrealistic size or anything, I just find that to be an interesting story that gets a little lost through the modern lens. Of course I don't know the source of that information, but there are some good books about the history of Barbie out there, if anyone wants to verify :-)
I think the hourglass figure of the curvy one makes her look fatter than she is, even though the waist is smaller. She's not fat, she's "curvy" with more of a hourglass shape than stick-figure Barbie.
ReplyDeletePersonally I identify most with "Fat" Barbie, I am pear shaped, have a very tiny waist and ample bottom. I have smallish breasts and fat arms (but that IS lack of exercise), so I look more like fat Barbie than any other. I am only a few pounds above my ideal but I can still turn a head. I like curvy Barbie.
ReplyDelete