Hanley Sayavong
Chris Tomlinson
Honors English 1
14 May 2010
Barbie: The Bitch Has Everything?
On eBay, a bidder can purchase a pink license plate frame that says, “I want to be Barbie. The bitch has
everything.” Or does she? A close examination of Barbie may change the minds of those who wish to be
like her.
Mattel’s Barbie doll has enjoyed a long and profitable history. Invented by Ruth Handler, the first Barbie
was marketed in 1959. This simple Barbie, named after Ruth’s daughter, wore only a black and white
swimsuit and sold only for three dollars (“The Pros and Cons”). Today, Barbie is the best selling fashion
doll around the world. Currently she is sold in 140 countries with annual sales of approximately $1.5
billion. Somewhere in the world, a Barbie is sold every half-second (Dittmar, Halliwell, and Ive). Barbie
makes up more than 80 percent of Mattel’s profits (Lawton). In the United States among girls between the
ages three and six own an average of twelve Barbies. Ninety percent of girls aged nine to ten own at least
one Barbie (“The Pros and Cons”). Barbie has not only been a profitable toy but a culture icon for the past
50 years. Although a powerful socioculture agent, the Barbie doll, is good for fantasy play, she
promotes stereotypical gender roles and unhealthy body images in young girls.
Barbie dolls can be an excellent outlet for fantasy play. “Research has shown that fantasy and play are
considered important part of girls’ socialization and development. Also, toys portraying gender and adult
roles, like Barbie, provide girls with a tangible image of social values and social interactions” (Griffin). By
playing with Barbie dolls, girls can imitate adult conversations and situations that are socially appropriate.
The Barbie doll encourages girls to express their creativity and expand their imagination through pretend
play.
“Interestingly, a 2004 study in the journal Adolescence found that as girls approach late childhood and
early adolescence they are less likely to engage in make-believe play with their Barbie dolls and instead
increasingly expose them to ‘torture’ or ‘anger’ play’”(Griffin). “Torture” or “anger” play included painting,
shaving or pulling the dolls apart. Although this is a hostile form of play, researchers view it as a normal
and healthy outlet for expressing aggression and frustration that would otherwise be inappropriate in
public. “Torture and angry play are both common and involved disfiguring Barbie Dolls (torture) and acting
out scenes in which Barbie did something mean to the child and punishing Barbie for it as a way of
releasing emotions (angry)” (Abramson). Though torture and anger play with Barbie dolls appears to be
advantageous, imaginative play with Barbie dolls seems to activate female stereotypes in young girls.
Playing with Barbie dolls promotes stereotypical gender roles. “Significant results would mean that
exposure to Barbie could lower self-perceived ability and makes female stereotypes more salient”
(Abramson). A simple example is the emphasis on Barbie’s massive accessories and her love for
shopping. This alone makes the stereotype of women shopping until they drop prominent. A conspicuous
example of stereotyping was the 1992 teen talking Barbie that uttered the phrase, “Math class is tough”
(“The Pros and Cons”). This doll strengthened the idea that girls were not as smart as boys and did not
have the same mathematical skills. The most notable Barbie that instills stereotypes was the Doctor
Barbie. The packaging specifically called her a baby doctor, not a pediatrician. Her only medical
instruments are a stethoscope and an otoscope, instruments usually used by a nurse. The accessories
were cute babies and lollipops. She wore jeans with pink glitter, which is not professional medical attire
(Abramson). Mattel failed miserably in portraying Barbie as an equal with man in the medical profession.
But the company was successful at sending out the message that Barbie is obsessed with cute things. “It
has been argued that Barbie dolls reflect a highly sexualized image and circumscribe girls’ play by
emphasizing prescribed roles and patterns of interaction. It is feared that by dramatizing stereotypical
feminine roles during play, girls will internalize and later embody such roles” (Kuther and McDonald).
Even as Barbie promotes stereotypical gender roles by diminishing young girls’ perceptions of talent and
capabilities, she also internalizes prioritizing surface beauty.
Barbie’s own physique elevates an unhealthy body image in young girls. Close scrutiny of Barbie’s
anatomy reveals disproportionate body parts when compared to the average, healthy woman. “If Barbie
were full size, her measurements would be 32-17-28, typical of a woman suffering from anorexia. Add to
this anorexic frame her large gravity-defying breasts and you have a body ideal that is virtually impossible
for a healthy, non-surgically altered woman to attain” (“GI Joe vs. Barbie”). According to the article “The
Pros and Cons of Barbie and their Extreme Effect on Society,” if Barbie were a real woman she would
have a waistline 39 percent smaller than the average anorexic patient. Her fat-to-body-weight ratio would
be below 17 percent, which is required for a woman to menstruate. “Researchers generating a computer
model of a woman with Barbie-doll proportions, for example, found that her back would be too weak to
support the weight of her upper body, and her body would be too narrow to contain more than half a liver
and a few centimeters of bowel. A real woman built that way would suffer from chronic diarrhea and
eventually die from malnutrition” (“The Pros and Cons”). From the article “The Pros and Cons of Barbie
and their Effect on Society,” the diagram (That Women Within) illustrates the differences between an
average woman and a life-sized Barbie.
The body image that Barbie promotes has a direct influence on young girls.
According to the National Eating Disorders Association, three social factors contribute to eating disorders:
1. Cultural pressures that glorify ‘thinness’ and place value on obtaining the ‘perfect body’
2. Narrow definitions of beauty that include only women and men of specific body weights and shapes
3. Cultural norms that value people on the basis of physical appearance and not inner qualities and
strengths
Barbie falls under all three of these factors. A prime example was the 1965 Slumber Party Barbie. She
came with a book titled “How to Lose Weight” which advised, “Don’t eat.” She also came with bathroom
scales that read 110 pounds, which would be at least 35 pounds underweight for a woman five feet, nine
inches tall (“The Pros and Cons”). It is undeniable that this Barbie pushes thinness and the “perfect body.”
Research done in 2006 that appeared in the American Psychological Association journal, reported that
young girls exposed to Barbie had heightened body dissatisfaction. The researchers recorded responses
of young girls that were exposed to the Barbie doll and the Emme doll, which is a doll with realistic body
proportions and known for her size 16 figure. The research concluded:
This demonstrates that it is not body-related information conveyed by dolls per se that has a direct impact
on young girls’ body image, but by Barbie dolls specifically, which represent a distortedly thin body ideal.
These ultrathin images not only lowered young girls’ body esteem but also decreased their satisfaction
with their actual body size, making them desire a thinner body. This detrimental effect was evident
already for girls from age 5 ½ to age 6 ½ but was more pronounced among 6 ½- to 7 ½- year-olds
(Dittmar, Halliwell, and Ive, 290).
This research clearly indicates a close connection between young girls who play with Barbie dolls and the
lasting effect it has on these girls’ bodies. The graph below, from the article “The Pros and Cons of Barbie
and their Extreme Effects on Society,” illustrates body size dissatisfaction after being exposed to Barbie
and Emme as conducted in the above-mentioned research.
Dittmar, Halliwell and Ive’s findings suggest “Barbie dolls’ ultrathin body proportions provide an
aspirational role model for every young girl that causes body dissatisfaction” (290).
Lowered body image and wanting a thinner body can cause serious effects such as disordered eating.
According to the author, SarenDipity, of TeenInk:
It’s estimated that 8 million people in the United States has an eating disorder, and only 10-15% of them
are male. Which leaves the 85-90% of them to be female. And 80% of those females are under the age of
20. Many admitting that they started worrying about their weight when they were between the age of 4
and six years old. This is around the age that a girl usually gets her first Barbie doll and many of the girls
who have or had an eating disorder admitted that Barbie played a huge role on their influences in
behavior and looks. And that they were led to believe that the only way to be happy and have a wonderful
life is to be just like Barbie, with the super skinny look.
Child therapist, a licensed clinical social worker, Vicki Zaitz reinforces the same idea.
“Mass-production of the pink, plastic princess, she believes, sends girls the message that only one body
type is acceptable. 'Barbie reinforces the idea that all bodies look the same, that there is one perfect way
to look. . . And if you don't look that way, there's something wrong with you’ ” (Berenstain). It appears that
young girls who play with Barbie experience negative influences upon how they view their bodies, which
can cause them to resort to unhealthy habits.
Ironically, the granddaughter of Ruth Handler was not immune to the Barbie effect. She, too, suffered
from body dissatisfaction. In her book The Body Burden Living in the Shadow of Barbie, Stacey Handler
reflects:
Barbie has always been like a flawless sister to me. . . Well, it is difficult to compete with something that
perfect. Barbie could do no wrong. For me, on the other hand, the inadequacies were endless. I always
needed to lose weight, I hated school, I didn't have normal good health, I would never finish what I started
and most of all, I was this huge mass of imperfection compared to my flawless sister, Barbie (51).
Stacey’s lifetime has been spent trying to match the “Barbie expectations.” After years of suffering a low
body image and going on drastic diets, she has now learned to accept her body and love herself. If she
can break free from the Barbie effect, it is possible for anyone.
Young girls may have limited benefits from Barbie, such as fantasy play; but Barbie’s
encouragement of stereotypical gender roles and an unattainable body image have a larger
negative impact. Obviously, being Barbie is not everything. Mattel’s mantra is, "She’s a doll, people…”
True! But young girls are very impressionable and need guidance. And with any toy, parents need to take
on that responsibility, especially where the Barbie doll is concerned. Or you can do what one parent has
done. “By not giving my daughter the Barbies, I was giving her a gift far greater in value. I was giving her
the ability to be appreciated for her inner being, and not for her outer trappings. I was giving her a sense
of self-esteem and independence. I was giving her dignity and self-control” (Jessel).