Rethinking Barbie (the doll) and her positive impact

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Am I the only one here who thinks people on this thread have gotten weirdly tribal about Barbie? There's a major mass-marketing push for this film, yes... but if it fails to inspire us to embrace Barbie, we're out of the circle of trust?

One of the few things I worry about more than unrealistic body standards for women is groupthink. I really hate groupthink. Why do so many of you NEED us to change our minds about Barbie. Because the movie and its marketing tell us we should?

It's the social media era, PP. People tend to become unnecessarily tribal and aggressive on the internet.

No need to change your views. I loathe Barbie, the toy, but fully intend to enjoy Barbie, the movie.

Well thanks. The sociological question is interesting and I wish we could have a good-faith chat about it without the weird aggression toward posters who disagree.

I might eventually stream the movie if DH and I can't agree on anything else, but this won't be a theater film for me.

I saw the movie last night and I think it’s only enjoyable watching it as a group in a theater. People are wearing pink, some are really dressing up. It’s fun to laugh together.

I bet the movie will seem dumb streamed at home.

The sets and costumes on the big screen were amazing!

Some of us don’t need to be at home to figure this out.

[Anonymous]

I dont know. To OP’s original point, Barbies always felt… free. Yes, they were silly and top-heavy and pink, but basically the life they were selling was: you could do whatever the f—- you wanted. Perfectly accessorized to boot!

Ironically as an exhausted WOH Mom of 2, this sounds aspirational not regressive!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I dont know. To OP’s original point, Barbies always felt… free. Yes, they were silly and top-heavy and pink, but basically the life they were selling was: you could do whatever the f—- you wanted. Perfectly accessorized to boot!

Ironically as an exhausted WOH Mom of 2, this sounds aspirational not regressive!

Agreed!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The only Barbie toy I remember enjoying playing with was this:

It’s weird af to play with a disembodied head, but it helped me channel my desire to style hair or apply makeup into Barbie instead of focusing on my own looks.

I had that doll head in primary school! It was a lot of fun. I wasn't allowed to wear make up until freshman year of high school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why do we feel good about Ken being an after thought.

Because Barbie’s life didn’t revolve around him. She had an awesome life that he could join, but she was autonomous. She already had a career, the nice house with a pool, and a convertible on her own. Ken was there for fun trips to the beach, but it was Barbie’s world.

Okay but why is that important.

Why should anybody being a 2nd thought be a good thing?

You’re being willfully obtuse. Barbie was a toy that broke the “housewife/mother-in-training” mold for girls and taught them to think about what they wanted to do with their lives outside the home. Ken wasn’t a second thought because Barbie was mean to him or he was “less than;” he was a second thought because you could play Barbie without him. He was an accessory.

I think women think taking the worst part of misogyny and reversing it is empowering and I think it’s wrong.

Why not say Grace was an afterthought or accessory or a second thought?

Or Midge or Nikki…?

I don’t know who they are, but if the people you’ve named are Barbie’s friends, then yes, they’re accessories and supporting characters as well. It’s a Barbie-centered universe.

So why is Ken being paid the same as Barbie, if Ken is an “accessory “?

This thread is about the toy. The movie is it’s own phenomenon.

Because men that are an “accessory “ are still worth the same as women who are the “main feature”.

Good job falling for this marketing stunt hook, line, and sinker.

I hope the PR person who thought this BS up gets a raise.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I dont know. To OP’s original point, Barbies always felt… free. Yes, they were silly and top-heavy and pink, but basically the life they were selling was: you could do whatever the f—- you wanted. Perfectly accessorized to boot!

Ironically as an exhausted WOH Mom of 2, this sounds aspirational not regressive!

It’s a plastic legally blonde. I hope the movie is as good.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I dont know. To OP’s original point, Barbies always felt… free. Yes, they were silly and top-heavy and pink, but basically the life they were selling was: you could do whatever the f—- you wanted. Perfectly accessorized to boot!

Ironically as an exhausted WOH Mom of 2, this sounds aspirational not regressive!

+1 - this encapsulates how I feel about Barbie, but I hadn’t articulated it.

Gen-Xer who had Barbies and was a loud mouth feminist from an early age, even while wearing long pink dresses, now with a career in a male-dominated industry. No body image issues growing up, because my mom almost NEVER talked about dieting and size.

My elementary school fantasy was being single, with a cool job, living alone in my loft apartment in Manhattan - this was all well before Sex and the City, and the only thing I think I had seen in NYC was the Statue of Liberty, so likely it was inspired by some Barbie and Big (the Tom Hanks movie) mash-up!

[Anonymous]

no impact, just a plastic molded toy among millions of other types of toys. yawn.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I dont know. To OP’s original point, Barbies always felt… free. Yes, they were silly and top-heavy and pink, but basically the life they were selling was: you could do whatever the f—- you wanted. Perfectly accessorized to boot!

Ironically as an exhausted WOH Mom of 2, this sounds aspirational not regressive!

I had both a Barbie and a corncob as dolls, and got to say, the corncob was even more freeing. Barbie was still a conventional woman, while the corncob could be anything at all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why do we feel good about Ken being an after thought.

Because Barbie’s life didn’t revolve around him. She had an awesome life that he could join, but she was autonomous. She already had a career, the nice house with a pool, and a convertible on her own. Ken was there for fun trips to the beach, but it was Barbie’s world.

My Barbies were always naked and having sex with each other. Now I wonder if they would have been more inhibited if I had owned a Ken.

Okay but why is that important.

Why should anybody being a 2nd thought be a good thing?

You’re being willfully obtuse. Barbie was a toy that broke the “housewife/mother-in-training” mold for girls and taught them to think about what they wanted to do with their lives outside the home. Ken wasn’t a second thought because Barbie was mean to him or he was “less than;” he was a second thought because you could play Barbie without him. He was an accessory.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why do we feel good about Ken being an after thought.

Because Barbie’s life didn’t revolve around him. She had an awesome life that he could join, but she was autonomous. She already had a career, the nice house with a pool, and a convertible on her own. Ken was there for fun trips to the beach, but it was Barbie’s world.

My Barbies were always naked and having sex with each other. Now I wonder if they would have been more inhibited if I had owned a Ken.

Okay but why is that important.

Why should anybody being a 2nd thought be a good thing?

You’re being willfully obtuse. Barbie was a toy that broke the “housewife/mother-in-training” mold for girls and taught them to think about what they wanted to do with their lives outside the home. Ken wasn’t a second thought because Barbie was mean to him or he was “less than;” he was a second thought because you could play Barbie without him. He was an accessory.

My Barbies were always naked and having sex with each other. Now I wonder if they would have been more inhibited if I had owned a Ken.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The jobs were for the moms buying the dolls.

Every little girl made up her own story in her mind as she pretend played with the dolls and her accessories.

I hated Barbie because my family couldn’t afford to buy any of the accessories. It really felt like, unlike with other, simpler dolls, if you didn’t have the accessories, you were really missing out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:While the last generation or so revolted against Barbie, I think they fixated on the wrong things and completely missed the critically important positive impact the Barbie doll made on girls. Hear me out.

Barbie was launched at a time when the only dolls available were baby dolls. Generations of girls were limited to dolls and related toys that fostered gendered stereotypes of playing house and preparing for a life of motherhood and housework.

Barbie wasn’t a wife or mother. Barbie was living her best life as a presumably wealthy single lady! Her boyfriend was an afterthought, and he didn’t have a career, house, or car.

Barbie on the other hand was a doctor, lawyer, president, etc. She was everything because she could be anything.

And she never married or had kids. She didn’t need to.

That’s the impact she made at a time when the only other dolls and toys for girls were baby dolls with diapers, bottles, kitchens, etc.

Barbie shifted the narrative.

“Math class is tough.”

— Barbie.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teen_Talk_Barbie

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The jobs were for the moms buying the dolls.

Every little girl made up her own story in her mind as she pretend played with the dolls and her accessories.

I hated Barbie because my family couldn’t afford to buy any of the accessories. It really felt like, unlike with other, simpler dolls, if you didn’t have the accessories, you were really missing out.

+1!! I didn’t have accessories either, and I was always embarrassed to have friends over because of it. Somehow it was harder to play Barbies without any accessories.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The jobs were for the moms buying the dolls.

Every little girl made up her own story in her mind as she pretend played with the dolls and her accessories.

I hated Barbie because my family couldn’t afford to buy any of the accessories. It really felt like, unlike with other, simpler dolls, if you didn’t have the accessories, you were really missing out.

+1!! I didn’t have accessories either, and I was always embarrassed to have friends over because of it. Somehow it was harder to play Barbies without any accessories.

It was definitely a status symbol to brag about having the house and car.

Always separating.