Society needs to get over its doll obsession
By: Tara Nykyforiak
Nickolay Lamm’s recent re-design of Mattel’s Barbie may help the doll better reflect the average American female body, but this action fails to support its cause. Yes, Lamm attempted to illustrate Barbie’s unrealistic looks, and the pressures young girls face to live up to society’s standard of “beauty.” However, Lamm and his supporters only further convey the stereotype that females are superficial, insecure, and emotionally unstable.
By drawing attention to Barbie in this way, the assumption made is that girls cannot think for themselves, and can’t help believing they are going to be measured against Barbie’s standards. Moreover, Lamm demeans females by drawing attention to their looks in the most plastic of ways — in the form of a doll.
Obsessing over how Barbie looks paints women as superficial, which does nothing to address the pressures they actually face in the “real world,” such as relationships, careers, and personal finances. Barbie may have Ken, an outstanding resume, and what appears to be a six-figure salary, but the majority real women could never dream of commanding this mode of living. We’re much too busy balancing school and shitty part-time jobs to be concerned with her 13.5 cm bust, and 12.5 cm hips.
Society has come a long way, with females now able to experience a higher level of freedom than they ever did in the past. This means that more women than ever before feel empowered to lead the kind of life they want for themselves. This also means focusing on personal interests and passions and not on whether they personally align with Barbie’s hip-to-waist ratio.
By re-designing a doll in an attempt to help subvert negative body image, the message being sent is that all females lack confidence, and are driven by the desire to look a certain way. This completely ignores the progress we’ve made in terms of society’s political, educational, and professional sectors, and supports the false stereotype that a woman cannot possess positive self-image on her merits alone.
When I held Barbie as a girl, I never once compared myself to her, and my feelings toward her were never a reflection of my supposed insecurities. The reason I would rip off her head and mash her feet and hands with a hammer is not because I was projecting my poor self-confidence onto her. It was simply a fun way to spend a rainy day, and my way of protesting sub-par birthday gifts.
Because really, I would much rather have been playing with Lego and constructing my pillow fortress. Barbie girl, my ass
Fighting stereotypes one change at a time
By: Estefania Duran
Nickolay Lamm’s idea of creating a more realistic look for Barbie has nothing to do with the assumption that girls are incapable of thinking for themselves. Quite the opposite: his idea to create a Barbie based on the average American woman was solely to portray exactly how wrong Mattel has been all these years.
The famous “Barbie Syndrome” — the desire to look like and have the lifestyle of a Barbie doll — is most often associated with pre-teenagers and adolescents. With the equivalent of an 18-inch waist, Barbie is the representation of a body image that is both unhealthy and unattainable, and Lamm’s work draws precise attention to this problem. Moreover, after 54 years on the market, it looks like Barbie is here to stay, so why not challenge her image to become a more realistic portrayal of women?
In an interview with The Huffington Post, Lamm explains, “If there’s even a small chance of Barbie in its present form negatively influencing girls, and if Barbie looks good as an average-sized woman in America, what’s stopping Mattel from making one?” He is absolutely right — it is true that not every woman will be influenced by the doll’s famous looks; however, if there is even a possibility that the doll is reinforcing negative stereotypes about how a woman should look, action is not only necessary, but critical.
In addition, because society has come a long way in the past 50 years, we need to speak up against a doll representing a dissenting depiction of women, and begin to question the harmful effects it has. Regardless of whether it is the stereotype of a Barbie or any other form of gender-stereotype,negative body image is a problem affecting teenagers all over the world. Therefore, instead of expecting young girls to be immune to constant social pressures of the “ideal” body, we should do whatever we can to prevent them from having a plastic self-image.
Furthermore, dolls and toys that reinforce gender stereotypes go much farther than a Barbie doll; toys such as the G.I. Joe doll can have the same effect. Having a doll with an unrealistic looking body that possesses tough weapons and military-like looks, can have similar negative effects on boys. Gender and image expectations affect both women and men, and the Barbie doll is just one example among a plethora of toys that further perpetuate harmful clichés.
Toys that strengthen unrealistic gender expectations are the enemy here. An artist trying to represent a more realistic version of Barbie is not assuming women to be weak, it is assuming stereotypes to be wrong, and if proving that Barbie looks better with average measurements is his way of taking a stand in this long battle, we should join him in his fight to help change the world one stereotype at a time.
I agree with Estefania – I think that we need to accept that, whether we like it or not, Barbie is still a very important part of many young girls’ lives. Whatever we can do to make her reflect the way that women actually look – and not the completely unrealistic standard to which they’re too often held by society – we should do. I do have my reservations about Mattel assigning the job of creating a more inclusive Barbie to a male designer (it would be much more subversive to give the job of accurately representing women to a woman), but I do believe that Lamm’s design is a crucial step in the positive direction.