When I think of Barbie, I think of an impossibly proportioned doll with blue eyes and blonde hair. I had a lot of them as a child, and every one was identical. The only thing differentiating my Barbie from the next five-year-old’s was the way we chose to dress her.
This month, the iconic doll whose brand has seen constant criticism for creating unrealistic expectations for girls received a makeover. As of March 2016, Mattel will be distributing “curvy,” “tall,” and “petite” Barbies for stores to stock their shelves with. Not only will there be more variety in Barbie’s proportions, but she will come with seven new skin tones, 22 new eye colours, and 24 new hairstyles.
Granted, the new Barbies are an improvement from what our generation grew up with, but these new Barbies still represent a reductive view of the diversity in women’s bodies throughout the world.
In a press release, Evelyn Mazzocco, Barbie’s senior vice-president and global general manager stated, “these dolls represent a line that is more reflective of the world girls see around them.”
But why now? Why—after 50 years—has Barbie decided to undergo a change that should have been introduced with the original Barbie, when more than one kind of body type existed and certainly more than seven skin tones?
Unfortunately, Mattel’s interest in the new line was not for providing a Barbie that reflects this age’s movement toward body diversity and self-love. Mattel was motivated to produce a new line in order to increase their profits and attract parents who look for progressive and diverse toys for their kids. According to a recent article published by Buzzfeed, Barbie’s sales dropped 16 per cent in 2014 alone. The question remains: if it weren’t for decreasing sales, would Barbie have ever changed, or would she have remained as disproportionate as she’s been for the last 50 years?
Even if the new line is sincere about creating a more universal view of female bodies, there’s still room to improve. Producing three new body types for Barbie isn’t revolutionary when you can see more than three female body types in any given Tim Hortons line on campus, and it won’t take long for consumers to point out that putting a label like “curvy” on a single Barbie mold isn’t so progressive when curvy bodies take many different forms.
All Mattel is doing is creating different versions of Barbie that fit into the latest labels. Although Barbie is becoming more diverse, she is still sending this message that young girls must fit into the socially constructed categories based on their body shape—and their body shape could have a label attached to it, despite the fact most girls’ bodies represent a mix of several different body types.
This is a good first step for Barbie in trying to redeem herself after 50 years of embodying an impossible figure for young girls, but Barbie and Mattel still have a long way to go. We know one size does not fit all, but neither does reducing the female body to labels of “curvy,” “tall,” or “petite.”
