JANET STERLING SILVER DESIGN

Barbie: Cultural Icon or Cross Dressing Drag Queen? (*this wasn't the original tite; I can't remember what I called it)

I never asked my mother for a Barbie, and she never gave me one. As an adult, I am astonished at the plethora of issues surrounding her. "She is just a plastic doll," I say; and yet, I wonder if she is something more?

Although there are other fashion dolls on the market, I consciously chose to use Barbie for this essay because she has, within a matter of 37 years, become a cultural icon. Not only does she have a 100 percent recognition rate among American girls aged three to ten, but she has even managed to work her way into our language construct. Using Ferdinand de Sassure's linguistic theory, Barbie (the signified), of the plastic twelve inch body (the signifier), has entered our system of meaning as a sign, whether we like her or not. Her creators at Mattel have always promoted her as a role model for young girls; yet simultaneously, feminists and social critics have argued that she does more harm than good for girls' self-images, as well as inculcating outdated notions of "normal" gender role behavior in young girls. In this essay, I would like to examine both arguments, the symbolic and the literal, specifically focusing on arguments surrounding Barbie's body and her clothing.

If Barbie literally came to life, she would be seven feet, two inches tall, with a chest-waist-hip measurement of 36"-18"-33". Being five feet, one inch tall myself, I would need silicone implants to increase my bustline by 12.5 percent, and liposuction to decrease my waist and hips by 30.7 percent and 8.3 percent, respectively. And then, I would need to find myself a pair of one foot, one inch high, platform shoes. Is Barbie's body to be taken symbolically or literally?

It can be argued that Barbie's unrealistic body measurements imitates that of archetypal images of women as symbols of fertility, which can be seen in art/artifacts since prehistoric times. For example, the Venus of Willendorf from the Paleolithic Period (c. 20,000 - 18,000 B. C.) shows a distorted female figurine that resembles a cluster of balls. The small sculptures, Goddesses from the Palace of Knossos in Crete (c. 1600 B. C.), are also female figurines with large, full breasts and hips, which are accentuated by their tiny waists. Likewise, Barbie can also be seen as an artifact of the mid to late twentieth century, as a symbolic idol of sorts. Theorist Kevin Norton notes:

There is a long historical association between dolls and ideal body proportions. This is reflected in the etymology of the word "doll" which is derived from the Greek eiddon, meaning idol. According to theologian Mircea Eliade, cultures perform rituals (reenactments of myths) to partake in lifecycles greater than their own. In doing so, they bring the sacred into the profane, creating cosmos out of chaos. On a smaller scale, Barbie the doll (or to some people, an idol), can also be seen as a vehicle with which children use as a symbol to bring cosmos to chaos through doll play (bring order and/or structure to their developing concepts of life by reenacting the myths which surround them). Like the exaggerated feminine traits of the fertility dolls, which were thought to possess magical feminine powers, Barbie's body symbolically exudes exaggerated femininity, providing fantasy as well as order/structure to its possessors.

Beyond the symbolic, Barbie's body has literally been demonized as the role model behind anorexia, bulimia, and other psychological disorders relating to irrational body images. In her essay on fashion dolls, Elaine Pedersen stresses that "research is needed to examine the influence of fashion dolls on children's perceptions." Barbie, she writes, does not represent either classical Greek proportions (idealized) or unrealistic (but real) fashion model proportions. Literally taken, Barbie, in other words, is a freak of nature embodied in plastic form.

Do children construct "Barbie," or does Barbie control the children? Pedersen writes:

Conditioning is a means by which children learn; this type of learning is subtle, possibly taking place at the subconscious level, and can occur via observations or imitations....The use of dolls in play may influence the development of one's body image and may result in a child comparing her own body to that of a doll's.

This comparison, however, is appropriated differently by the individual child. Rather than blame Barbie for an unhealthy body image and/or anorexia, I think that Barbie is targeted as a convenient signifier as a unrealistically proportioned cultural icon. Rather than brainwashing children to be just like her, Barbie is used by children (and their parents, who transfer their responsibility factor to Barbie) as an immediately presentable tool/model to express their dissatisfaction with their body images, rather than using other "more realistic" mass media images, like fashion models. For example, psychologist Kelly Brownell theorizes that it is not just Barbie, but the plethora of unrealistic images in mass media which create disillusionment with one's own body. "If healthy, normal weight individuals use such models as standards for comparison," warns Brownell, "discontent is a logical outcome. Despair may be the outcome with people who weigh more."

It is estimated that "two percent of girls in the United States become anorexic at some point in their lives...15 percent will become bulimic, and 70 percent view themselves as fat." While it is unfair to blame Barbie for this disorder, Mattel, on the other hand, can be accused of promoting anorexic beliefs with the "Slumber Party Barbie" of 1965:

Barbie's...outfit featured a bathroom scale permanently set at 110. Mattel also gave her bedtime reading -- a book called How to Lose Weight that offered this advice: "Don't eat." Ken, by contrast, was not urged to starve. His pajamas came with a sweet roll and a glass of milk.

Whether Mattel was aware that women make up 90 percent of anorexics, or if they were simply being gender biased, is unclear. As Lord notes, "[Barbie] was the ideal of postwar feminine beauty when Mattel, Inc. introduced her in 1959." As such, her "unrealistic" image can be compared to other "unrealistic" female icons of the fifties, such as Donna Reed on The Donna Reed Show (September 24, 1958 - September 3, 1966) and Barbara Billingsley as June Cleaver on Leave it to Beaver (October 4, 1957 - September 12, 1963). Through their domestic subservience, these women served not only as role models for other women but as ideal models of the balance of power within a family unit in a male dominated society. Darrell Hamamoto writes:

By virtue of her vital, but non-economic (but nonetheless productive) role in the family, the sitcom housewife/mother was in most cases granted compensatory symbolic dominance in exchange for the lack of power wielded by women in the larger social arena.

In television, these women exhibited what Joan Riviere refers to as "Womanliness as a Masquerade": "Womenliness...could be assumed and worn as a mask, both to hide the possession of masculinity and to avert the reprisals expected if she was found to possess it." Like drag queens, who "are often assumed to be mimicking the members of the other gender or trying to be like them," Mrs. Reed and Mrs. Cleaver, through their role playing and costuming, are mimicking (exaggerating) the traits opposite to what they really are. In the same way, is Barbie also masquerading her womanliness? Or could it even be hypothesized that Barbie is really a drag queen? With her exaggerated femininity and flair for the glamorous, her gender, like her genitalia (or lack thereof), is ambiguous. This takes us to the impact of her clothing, on issues of gender and class.

In their Essay, "Understanding Dress and Popular Culture," Patricia Cunningham and Susan Voso Lab use fashion as a means through which we express our cultural values:

Clothing helps to substantiate the manner in which we order our world of cultural categories such as class, status, gender and age, and express cultural principles such as the values, beliefs and ideas which we hold regarding our world.

While clothing serves a utilitarian purpose to protect the wearer from the elements, or as the bible suggests, to cover our modesty, its sophisticated development shows how clothing, whether through dress codes, sumptuary laws, uniforms, or personal choice, can express gender, rank, class, occupation, ethnic background or nationality, and group identification. Cunningham suggests that clothing, like language, can be read and understood as signs. As such, structuralism suggests that we do not desire outside of language; therefore, could it be hypothesized that just as language constructs us through its complex system of relations between signs, can clothing construct our desires?

Barbie seems to think so (if she thinks at all). While a basic Barbie doll is relatively inexpensive ($6.99), it is her wardrobe and accessories that Mattel can count on for future sales. Like the pop star Madonna, Barbie who has had the same face and body since 1972, constructs new identities for herself through her clothing and packaging, both of which are manipulated and heavily advertised. It is the variety of products surrounding Barbie (doll fashions and accessories, Barbie-themed licensed clothing, etc.) which accounts for the majority of Mattel's "$1.5 billion in worldwide sales."

Susan Dickey, in her study of Barbie fashions, notes that the appeal of Barbie's clothing is its affordability of brand name, haute couture clothing:

In real life, people can purchase fashionable sportswear in discount stores, but fanciful costumes are beyond the purse of most Americans whose lifestyles offer no occasions to wear stunning evening dresses.

Although an Escada Barbie Doll now costs $159 at FAO Schwarz, Dickey sites an Oscar de la Renta gown at $10 in 1986. "Consistently, the fashions have offered a great deal of play value for the money," writes Dickey.

On the other hand, Don Richard Cox, in his article, "Barbie and Her Playmates," accuses Barbie of inculcating conspicuous consumption in girls, as well as teaching them to ignore social responsibilities and live in a "dream world." Barbie, he writes, was created in order to sell her endless supply of clothing; then in order to take advantage of her popularity, Mattel made her a "dream house," with all the furnishings (not included with the house, of course). After that market was saturated (a house can only hold so many pieces of furniture), Barbie's leisure activities expanded to include swimming pools, Lamborghinis, in-line skates, horses, "Super Talking Phone Answering Machines," and so on. Barbie is also currently going "high tech," with the introduction of her "Barbie Fashion Designer CD-ROM" which is IBM compatible.

This new Barbie accessory is the apotheosis of Barbie ideology: the importance of appearance through clothing. As noted by Wolff, Barbie "is the world's biggest purchaser of dress fabric, buying about 20 million metres every year." Although she cannot generate ideas by herself, her clothing has helped her pursue an education (as evidenced through Graduate Barbie[1963]), as well as several high paying careers. Journalist Isabel Wolf defends Barbie's lifestyle: "Barbie is no shallow socialite; she is a Serious Working Woman, which is how she pays for her expensive lifestyle."

In her book cataloguing Barbie's clothing, Laura Jacobs lists Barbie's 47 careers from 1957 until 1993. While some of these "careers" seem plausible for a teenaged girl, for example, as a Fashion Model Barbie(1959) or Music Video Star Barbie(1991), other occupations seem to border on the ridiculous, such as Surgeon Barbie(1973) or Marine Corps Sergeant Barbie(1992). While her defenders (mainly Mattel and her collectors) say that her impressive resume proves Barbie to be a liberated woman who can become anything she desires (a good role model for impressionable young girls), others argue that Barbie merely mocks the professional world. In other words, she is an impostor who exaggerates a persona (in this case, a profession) externally, in order to cover up her real identity (as a jobless teen). Whether she is an astronaut(1986) in a "glittery pink spacesuit with silver bodice front, gathered sleeves, and silver belt," or a business executive in her "signature pink double-breasted suit with white lapels and coordinating (pink) accessories," Barbie's performances, like that of drag queens, are overtly gendered feminine and serves an entertainment purpose.

Although drag queens are not necessarily gay, the performance is reminiscent of gay camp, where humor blurs gender identities, gender roles, and gender attributions. In an article in The Advocate, journalist R.L. Pela writes about Barbie's gay male following. Claiming that all men who collect Barbie are gay, Pela quotes Marl Davidson, a Barbie dealer, describing Barbie as "She is everything a gay man wants in a woman. She's beautiful, and she'll let you change her outfit without an argument." Of the 11,000 readers of Barbie's Bazaar, a magazine for Barbie collectors, it is estimated that "about 10 percent of her readers are men, as are a third of the magazine's staff of writers."

Why are toys so heavily gendered? In an article relating gender to the toy industry, Kate Fitzgerald writes, "Mostly, the biggest industry successes were designed with a specific gender in mind, such as Mattel's Barbie and Hasbro's G.I. Joe action figures." It is interesting to note the difference between "action figures" and "fashion dolls." Cox notes this difference:

The action figures for boys, however, although they represent a direct result of male role in play situation...the male action figures do not require an adjustment in the masculine play role.

In other words, like the real world, boys' toys represent a limitless array of potential, while Barbie dolls teach young girls that they are ultimately limited like Barbie, a plastic, twelve inch body. She may break from this mold, but only through clothing and appearance.

Who is to blame for this phenomenon? Donna Gibbs, a media relations manager for Mattel is quoted by Fitzgerald:

Year after year, we observe children playing and we see that girls like dolls, they like the color pink and they like Barbie. We market directly to their play patterns.
While Mattel claims that they are slaves to children's desires, it cannot be denied that they have helped to generate this desire through decades of gender marketing. For example, when I ventured into Toys-R-Us, I couldn't help but to notice the pink and purple glare emanating from one of the aisles. Every box was labeled, "For girls," even though there is nothing wrong/unlawful with boys playing with Barbies if they so desired.

What is Barbie? I have made several observations about Barbie: she is made of plastic. Her head is hollow. She has no nipples or genitalia. Her feet are perpetually in high heel position. Her fingers are all melted together, although her thumbs are free, possibly symbolizing the difference between humans and animals. She cannot change her makeup. She cannot make any facial expression except to smile. Once she loses her hair, it'll never grow back. While writing this essay, I noticed that Barbie, who patiently sat with me at my desk, has a very cone-shaped torso. Although her critics point their finger at her "abnormally large" breasts, I couldn't help but notice that her breasts were really not that large compared to her chest, which is how cup sizes are determined for bras. If her breast measurement was 36 inches (13.5 cm), her chest measurement (12.5 cm) would be 33 inches, making her a "C" cup. Although her breasts have symbolically caused a stir, literally, I think her breasts are probably the most "normal" body part of Barbie.

Ultimately, Barbie is simply a sign; by herself, she is nothing, she means nothing. As individuals, we project our ideas, feelings, and issues onto Barbie, hoping that by eliminating her, we can then eliminate our problems. Although I can only hypothesize Barbie's effect on children because I never had one myself, perhaps through this essay, I can attempt to relive my missing All-American Barbie childhood.

Works Cited

Benezra, Karen. "Toys Unfair." Brandweek 36 (13 Feb. 1995): 20-24.

Brownell, Kelly D. "Distorting Reality for Children." International Journal of Eating Disorders 18 (Nov. 1995): 295-298.

Cox, Don Richard. "Barbie and Her Playmates." Journal of Popular Culture 11: 303-307.

Cunningham, Patricia and Susan Voso Lab. "Understanding Dress and Popular Culture." Dress and Popular Culture. Ed. Patricia Cunningham and Susan Voso Lab. Bowling Green: Bowling Green State University Popular Press, 1991, 5-17.

Dickey, Susan J. "'We Girls Can Do Anything--Right Barbie!': A Survey of Barbie Doll Fashions. Dress and Popular Culture. Ed. Patricia Cunningham and Susan Voso Lab. Bowling Green: Bowling Green State University Popular Press, 1991, 19-30.

Ducille, Ann. "Dyes and Dolls: Multicultural Barbie and the Merchandising of Difference." Differences: A Journal of Feminist Cultural Studies 6 (Spring 1994): 46-68.

Eliade, Mircea. The Myth of the Eternal Return: or, Cosmos and History. Trans. Willard R. Trask. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1965.

Fitzgerald, Kate. "Toyland's Elusive Goal--Win Over Both Sexes." Advertising Age 64 (8 Feb. 1993): s2, s18.

Gardner, Louise. Gardner's Art Through the Ages. 7th ed. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Inc., 1980.

Hamamoto, Darrell Y. Nervous Laughter: Television Situation Comedy and Liberal Democratic Ideology. New York: Praeger, 1989.

Jacobs, Laura. Barbie: What a Doll! New York: Abbeville Press, 1994.

Kessler, Suzanne, and Wendy McKenna. Gender: An Enthomethodological Approach. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1978.

Lord, M. G. Forever Barbie. New York: William Morrow & Company, Inc., 1994.

Norton, Kevin I, Timothy S. Olds, Scott Olive, and Stephen Dank. "Ken and Barbie at Life Size." Sex Roles: A Journal of Research 34 (Feb 1996): 287-294.

Pedersen, E.L. and N.L. Markee. "Fashion Dolls: Representations of Ideals of Beauty." Perceptual and Motor Skills 73: 93-94.

Pela, R.L. "Malibu White House." Advocate: The National Gay and Lesbian Newmagazine 621 (26 Jan. 1993): 48-49.

Riviere, Joan. "Womanliness as a Masquerade." Formations of Fantasy. Ed. Victor Burgin, James Donald and Cora Kaplan. New York: Routledge, 1989. 35-44.

Silverstein, B., L. Perdue, B. Peterson, and E. Kelly. "The Role of the Mass Media in Promoting a Thin Standard of Bodily Attractiveness for Women." Sex Roles 14: 519- 532.

Wolff, Isabel. "A Woman for Our Times." Spectator 270 (13 Mar. 1993): 24.

Home | About Us | Testimonials | Ads & Press | FAQs | Return & Exchange Policy | Contact | Privacy Policy
Copyright © Janet Sterling Silver Design, 2001. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

				Barbie: Cultural Icon or Cross Dressing Drag Queen? (*this wasn't the original tite; I can't remember what I called it) I never asked my mother for a Barbie, and she never gave me one. As an adult, I am astonished at the plethora of issues surrounding her. "She is just a plastic doll," I say; and yet, I wonder if she is something more? Although there are other fashion dolls on the market, I consciously chose to use Barbie for this essay because she has, within a matter of 37 years, become a cultural icon. Not only does she have a 100 percent recognition rate among American girls aged three to ten, but she has even managed to work her way into our language construct. Using Ferdinand de Sassure's linguistic theory, Barbie (the signified), of the plastic twelve inch body (the signifier), has entered our system of meaning as a sign, whether we like her or not. Her creators at Mattel have always promoted her as a role model for young girls; yet simultaneously, feminists and social critics have argued that she does more harm than good for girls' self-images, as well as inculcating outdated notions of "normal" gender role behavior in young girls. In this essay, I would like to examine both arguments, the symbolic and the literal, specifically focusing on arguments surrounding Barbie's body and her clothing. If Barbie literally came to life, she would be seven feet, two inches tall, with a chest-waist-hip measurement of 36"-18"-33". Being five feet, one inch tall myself, I would need silicone implants to increase my bustline by 12.5 percent, and liposuction to decrease my waist and hips by 30.7 percent and 8.3 percent, respectively. And then, I would need to find myself a pair of one foot, one inch high, platform shoes. Is Barbie's body to be taken symbolically or literally? It can be argued that Barbie's unrealistic body measurements imitates that of archetypal images of women as symbols of fertility, which can be seen in art/artifacts since prehistoric times. For example, the Venus of Willendorf from the Paleolithic Period (c. 20,000 - 18,000 B. C.) shows a distorted female figurine that resembles a cluster of balls. The small sculptures, Goddesses from the Palace of Knossos in Crete (c. 1600 B. C.), are also female figurines with large, full breasts and hips, which are accentuated by their tiny waists. Likewise, Barbie can also be seen as an artifact of the mid to late twentieth century, as a symbolic idol of sorts. Theorist Kevin Norton notes: There is a long historical association between dolls and ideal body proportions. This is reflected in the etymology of the word "doll" which is derived from the Greek eiddon, meaning idol. According to theologian Mircea Eliade, cultures perform rituals (reenactments of myths) to partake in lifecycles greater than their own. In doing so, they bring the sacred into the profane, creating cosmos out of chaos. On a smaller scale, Barbie the doll (or to some people, an idol), can also be seen as a vehicle with which children use as a symbol to bring cosmos to chaos through doll play (bring order and/or structure to their developing concepts of life by reenacting the myths which surround them). Like the exaggerated feminine traits of the fertility dolls, which were thought to possess magical feminine powers, Barbie's body symbolically exudes exaggerated femininity, providing fantasy as well as order/structure to its possessors. Beyond the symbolic, Barbie's body has literally been demonized as the role model behind anorexia, bulimia, and other psychological disorders relating to irrational body images. In her essay on fashion dolls, Elaine Pedersen stresses that "research is needed to examine the influence of fashion dolls on children's perceptions." Barbie, she writes, does not represent either classical Greek proportions (idealized) or unrealistic (but real) fashion model proportions. Literally taken, Barbie, in other words, is a freak of nature embodied in plastic form. Do children construct "Barbie," or does Barbie control the children? Pedersen writes: Conditioning is a means by which children learn; this type of learning is subtle, possibly taking place at the subconscious level, and can occur via observations or imitations....The use of dolls in play may influence the development of one's body image and may result in a child comparing her own body to that of a doll's. This comparison, however, is appropriated differently by the individual child. Rather than blame Barbie for an unhealthy body image and/or anorexia, I think that Barbie is targeted as a convenient signifier as a unrealistically proportioned cultural icon. Rather than brainwashing children to be just like her, Barbie is used by children (and their parents, who transfer their responsibility factor to Barbie) as an immediately presentable tool/model to express their dissatisfaction with their body images, rather than using other "more realistic" mass media images, like fashion models. For example, psychologist Kelly Brownell theorizes that it is not just Barbie, but the plethora of unrealistic images in mass media which create disillusionment with one's own body. "If healthy, normal weight individuals use such models as standards for comparison," warns Brownell, "discontent is a logical outcome. Despair may be the outcome with people who weigh more." It is estimated that "two percent of girls in the United States become anorexic at some point in their lives...15 percent will become bulimic, and 70 percent view themselves as fat." While it is unfair to blame Barbie for this disorder, Mattel, on the other hand, can be accused of promoting anorexic beliefs with the "Slumber Party Barbie" of 1965: Barbie's...outfit featured a bathroom scale permanently set at 110. Mattel also gave her bedtime reading -- a book called How to Lose Weight that offered this advice: "Don't eat." Ken, by contrast, was not urged to starve. His pajamas came with a sweet roll and a glass of milk. Whether Mattel was aware that women make up 90 percent of anorexics, or if they were simply being gender biased, is unclear. As Lord notes, "[Barbie] was the ideal of postwar feminine beauty when Mattel, Inc. introduced her in 1959." As such, her "unrealistic" image can be compared to other "unrealistic" female icons of the fifties, such as Donna Reed on The Donna Reed Show (September 24, 1958 - September 3, 1966) and Barbara Billingsley as June Cleaver on Leave it to Beaver (October 4, 1957 - September 12, 1963). Through their domestic subservience, these women served not only as role models for other women but as ideal models of the balance of power within a family unit in a male dominated society. Darrell Hamamoto writes: By virtue of her vital, but non-economic (but nonetheless productive) role in the family, the sitcom housewife/mother was in most cases granted compensatory symbolic dominance in exchange for the lack of power wielded by women in the larger social arena. In television, these women exhibited what Joan Riviere refers to as "Womanliness as a Masquerade": "Womenliness...could be assumed and worn as a mask, both to hide the possession of masculinity and to avert the reprisals expected if she was found to possess it." Like drag queens, who "are often assumed to be mimicking the members of the other gender or trying to be like them," Mrs. Reed and Mrs. Cleaver, through their role playing and costuming, are mimicking (exaggerating) the traits opposite to what they really are. In the same way, is Barbie also masquerading her womanliness? Or could it even be hypothesized that Barbie is really a drag queen? With her exaggerated femininity and flair for the glamorous, her gender, like her genitalia (or lack thereof), is ambiguous. This takes us to the impact of her clothing, on issues of gender and class. In their Essay, "Understanding Dress and Popular Culture," Patricia Cunningham and Susan Voso Lab use fashion as a means through which we express our cultural values: Clothing helps to substantiate the manner in which we order our world of cultural categories such as class, status, gender and age, and express cultural principles such as the values, beliefs and ideas which we hold regarding our world. While clothing serves a utilitarian purpose to protect the wearer from the elements, or as the bible suggests, to cover our modesty, its sophisticated development shows how clothing, whether through dress codes, sumptuary laws, uniforms, or personal choice, can express gender, rank, class, occupation, ethnic background or nationality, and group identification. Cunningham suggests that clothing, like language, can be read and understood as signs. As such, structuralism suggests that we do not desire outside of language; therefore, could it be hypothesized that just as language constructs us through its complex system of relations between signs, can clothing construct our desires? Barbie seems to think so (if she thinks at all). While a basic Barbie doll is relatively inexpensive ($6.99), it is her wardrobe and accessories that Mattel can count on for future sales. Like the pop star Madonna, Barbie who has had the same face and body since 1972, constructs new identities for herself through her clothing and packaging, both of which are manipulated and heavily advertised. It is the variety of products surrounding Barbie (doll fashions and accessories, Barbie-themed licensed clothing, etc.) which accounts for the majority of Mattel's "$1.5 billion in worldwide sales." Susan Dickey, in her study of Barbie fashions, notes that the appeal of Barbie's clothing is its affordability of brand name, haute couture clothing: In real life, people can purchase fashionable sportswear in discount stores, but fanciful costumes are beyond the purse of most Americans whose lifestyles offer no occasions to wear stunning evening dresses. Although an Escada Barbie Doll now costs $159 at FAO Schwarz, Dickey sites an Oscar de la Renta gown at $10 in 1986. "Consistently, the fashions have offered a great deal of play value for the money," writes Dickey. On the other hand, Don Richard Cox, in his article, "Barbie and Her Playmates," accuses Barbie of inculcating conspicuous consumption in girls, as well as teaching them to ignore social responsibilities and live in a "dream world." Barbie, he writes, was created in order to sell her endless supply of clothing; then in order to take advantage of her popularity, Mattel made her a "dream house," with all the furnishings (not included with the house, of course). After that market was saturated (a house can only hold so many pieces of furniture), Barbie's leisure activities expanded to include swimming pools, Lamborghinis, in-line skates, horses, "Super Talking Phone Answering Machines," and so on. Barbie is also currently going "high tech," with the introduction of her "Barbie Fashion Designer CD-ROM" which is IBM compatible. This new Barbie accessory is the apotheosis of Barbie ideology: the importance of appearance through clothing. As noted by Wolff, Barbie "is the world's biggest purchaser of dress fabric, buying about 20 million metres every year." Although she cannot generate ideas by herself, her clothing has helped her pursue an education (as evidenced through Graduate Barbie[1963]), as well as several high paying careers. Journalist Isabel Wolf defends Barbie's lifestyle: "Barbie is no shallow socialite; she is a Serious Working Woman, which is how she pays for her expensive lifestyle." In her book cataloguing Barbie's clothing, Laura Jacobs lists Barbie's 47 careers from 1957 until 1993. While some of these "careers" seem plausible for a teenaged girl, for example, as a Fashion Model Barbie(1959) or Music Video Star Barbie(1991), other occupations seem to border on the ridiculous, such as Surgeon Barbie(1973) or Marine Corps Sergeant Barbie(1992). While her defenders (mainly Mattel and her collectors) say that her impressive resume proves Barbie to be a liberated woman who can become anything she desires (a good role model for impressionable young girls), others argue that Barbie merely mocks the professional world. In other words, she is an impostor who exaggerates a persona (in this case, a profession) externally, in order to cover up her real identity (as a jobless teen). Whether she is an astronaut(1986) in a "glittery pink spacesuit with silver bodice front, gathered sleeves, and silver belt," or a business executive in her "signature pink double-breasted suit with white lapels and coordinating (pink) accessories," Barbie's performances, like that of drag queens, are overtly gendered feminine and serves an entertainment purpose. Although drag queens are not necessarily gay, the performance is reminiscent of gay camp, where humor blurs gender identities, gender roles, and gender attributions. In an article in The Advocate, journalist R.L. Pela writes about Barbie's gay male following. Claiming that all men who collect Barbie are gay, Pela quotes Marl Davidson, a Barbie dealer, describing Barbie as "She is everything a gay man wants in a woman. She's beautiful, and she'll let you change her outfit without an argument." Of the 11,000 readers of Barbie's Bazaar, a magazine for Barbie collectors, it is estimated that "about 10 percent of her readers are men, as are a third of the magazine's staff of writers." Why are toys so heavily gendered? In an article relating gender to the toy industry, Kate Fitzgerald writes, "Mostly, the biggest industry successes were designed with a specific gender in mind, such as Mattel's Barbie and Hasbro's G.I. Joe action figures." It is interesting to note the difference between "action figures" and "fashion dolls." Cox notes this difference: The action figures for boys, however, although they represent a direct result of male role in play situation...the male action figures do not require an adjustment in the masculine play role. In other words, like the real world, boys' toys represent a limitless array of potential, while Barbie dolls teach young girls that they are ultimately limited like Barbie, a plastic, twelve inch body. She may break from this mold, but only through clothing and appearance. Who is to blame for this phenomenon? Donna Gibbs, a media relations manager for Mattel is quoted by Fitzgerald: Year after year, we observe children playing and we see that girls like dolls, they like the color pink and they like Barbie. We market directly to their play patterns. While Mattel claims that they are slaves to children's desires, it cannot be denied that they have helped to generate this desire through decades of gender marketing. For example, when I ventured into Toys-R-Us, I couldn't help but to notice the pink and purple glare emanating from one of the aisles. Every box was labeled, "For girls," even though there is nothing wrong/unlawful with boys playing with Barbies if they so desired. What is Barbie? I have made several observations about Barbie: she is made of plastic. Her head is hollow. She has no nipples or genitalia. Her feet are perpetually in high heel position. Her fingers are all melted together, although her thumbs are free, possibly symbolizing the difference between humans and animals. She cannot change her makeup. She cannot make any facial expression except to smile. Once she loses her hair, it'll never grow back. While writing this essay, I noticed that Barbie, who patiently sat with me at my desk, has a very cone-shaped torso. Although her critics point their finger at her "abnormally large" breasts, I couldn't help but notice that her breasts were really not that large compared to her chest, which is how cup sizes are determined for bras. If her breast measurement was 36 inches (13.5 cm), her chest measurement (12.5 cm) would be 33 inches, making her a "C" cup. Although her breasts have symbolically caused a stir, literally, I think her breasts are probably the most "normal" body part of Barbie. Ultimately, Barbie is simply a sign; by herself, she is nothing, she means nothing. As individuals, we project our ideas, feelings, and issues onto Barbie, hoping that by eliminating her, we can then eliminate our problems. Although I can only hypothesize Barbie's effect on children because I never had one myself, perhaps through this essay, I can attempt to relive my missing All-American Barbie childhood. Works Cited Benezra, Karen. "Toys Unfair." Brandweek 36 (13 Feb. 1995): 20-24. Brownell, Kelly D. "Distorting Reality for Children." International Journal of Eating Disorders 18 (Nov. 1995): 295-298. Cox, Don Richard. "Barbie and Her Playmates." Journal of Popular Culture 11: 303-307. Cunningham, Patricia and Susan Voso Lab. "Understanding Dress and Popular Culture." Dress and Popular Culture. Ed. Patricia Cunningham and Susan Voso Lab. Bowling Green: Bowling Green State University Popular Press, 1991, 5-17. Dickey, Susan J. "'We Girls Can Do Anything--Right Barbie!': A Survey of Barbie Doll Fashions. Dress and Popular Culture. Ed. Patricia Cunningham and Susan Voso Lab. Bowling Green: Bowling Green State University Popular Press, 1991, 19-30. Ducille, Ann. "Dyes and Dolls: Multicultural Barbie and the Merchandising of Difference." Differences: A Journal of Feminist Cultural Studies 6 (Spring 1994): 46-68. Eliade, Mircea. The Myth of the Eternal Return: or, Cosmos and History. Trans. Willard R. Trask. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1965. Fitzgerald, Kate. "Toyland's Elusive Goal--Win Over Both Sexes." Advertising Age 64 (8 Feb. 1993): s2, s18. Gardner, Louise. Gardner's Art Through the Ages. 7th ed. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Inc., 1980. Hamamoto, Darrell Y. Nervous Laughter: Television Situation Comedy and Liberal Democratic Ideology. New York: Praeger, 1989. Jacobs, Laura. Barbie: What a Doll! New York: Abbeville Press, 1994. Kessler, Suzanne, and Wendy McKenna. Gender: An Enthomethodological Approach. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1978. Lord, M. G. Forever Barbie. New York: William Morrow & Company, Inc., 1994. Norton, Kevin I, Timothy S. Olds, Scott Olive, and Stephen Dank. "Ken and Barbie at Life Size." Sex Roles: A Journal of Research 34 (Feb 1996): 287-294. Pedersen, E.L. and N.L. Markee. "Fashion Dolls: Representations of Ideals of Beauty." Perceptual and Motor Skills 73: 93-94. Pela, R.L. "Malibu White House." Advocate: The National Gay and Lesbian Newmagazine 621 (26 Jan. 1993): 48-49. Riviere, Joan. "Womanliness as a Masquerade." Formations of Fantasy. Ed. Victor Burgin, James Donald and Cora Kaplan. New York: Routledge, 1989. 35-44. Silverstein, B., L. Perdue, B. Peterson, and E. Kelly. "The Role of the Mass Media in Promoting a Thin Standard of Bodily Attractiveness for Women." Sex Roles 14: 519- 532. Wolff, Isabel. "A Woman for Our Times." Spectator 270 (13 Mar. 1993): 24.
Home \| About Us \| Testimonials \| Ads & Press \| FAQs \| Return & Exchange Policy \| Contact \| Privacy Policy Copyright © Janet Sterling Silver Design, 2001. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.