Blonde hair, blue eyes, big smile, little waist — we all know the classic appearance of America’s reigning, albeit plastic, girl next door.
For as long as Barbie has been around, there have been criticisms levied against her tiny figure and light-toned features for ostracizing any girl that doesn’t fit her narrow aesthetic mold.
Mattel Inc., the multi-billion corporation behind America’s favorite doll, finally took a leap of faith and announced Barbie dolls with 3 new body shapes, 7 skin colors, and a plethora of hair colors and textures to make figures more relatable to consumers.
Yes, the gesture is commendable and will undoubtedly provide thousands of girls across the world the chance to find a doll just like them on the aisles of their go-to toy store, but is there really that much weight to #TheDollEvolves?
Senior Director of Product Design for Mattel, Robert Best, called the redesign “radical” in a promotional video that kickstarted the campaign.
In no way do I want to negate the positive impact of curvy body figures, kinky hair textures, and varied heights on young consumers. But on the other side of the coin, I definitely don’t want the general population thinking a capitalist move is “radical” in nature or effective in addressing the larger issues of how the media frames body image and standard beauty.
I understand the way he’s trying to frame the new dolls, and I’m sure the company does have pride in the move, but the only thing that keeps coming to the forefront of my mind is the crazy amount of profit Mattel is sure to be seeing in the wake of the launch.
Independent designers like Natural Hair Dolls have been making black Barbie-style dolls with various skin tones and hairstyles for years, but haven’t seen mainstream success. This isn’t necessarily because there isn’t a desire for ethnically diverse dolls, but more so because conglomerates like Mattel have such a monopoly on the field.
And with all the funding and influence Mattel has, it still took them 57 years from the original Barbie’s 1959 unveiling to make these changes. It’s not as if 2016 is the first time consumers have cried out for more diversity in dolls, or toys in general. It’s not as if Barbie hasn’t been decried over and over for unrealistic body proportions and embodying Eurocentric beauty standards.
It might just be that this is the most opportune time for the company to cash in on the demand for something a bit more real.
I hope Mattel sees success with the reboot. I hope parents buy the dolls off the shelves to give to their children and teach them that, with all of the body types existing in the world, beauty is inherent regardless of nonarbitrary traits. I hope that every purchase is taken with a grain of salt, though, and that there is a general understanding that these dolls still aren’t an accurate representation of real, living women.
It may be better, but as long as we’re living in a Barbie world, we need to remember the world that exists outside of her playhouse.