Barbie’s new ‘sheroes’ show that empowering young girls should not be seen as child’s play
IWAS wondering what the tipping point for my irritation with so-called “empowerment feminism” would be, and I think it’s this: Mattel, the maker of the Barbie doll, is rolling out a batch of dolls based on real-life historical figures like aviator Amelia Earhart. To mark International Women’s Day.
It has issued a press release explaining its rationale for this. This begins by declaring that “Barbie dolls have long inspired young girls with their beauty and fashion sense”.
“Now,” it continues, “they’re inspiring them with their brains and bravado, too.”
Other characters to be included in the new range are Frida Kahlo, the Mexican artist and activist, and Katherine Johnson, a pioneer in mathematics who featured in the film ‘Hidden Figures’.
Mattel has even coined a new word to describe such famous women – it’s calling them “sheroes” (because heroic women need a cutesy word all their own).
That these women are worth celebrating is a no-brainer. That it’s important to make all children (and not just little girls) aware of them is also inarguable.
That International Women’s Day might remind us to do both those things is also something worth bearing in mind.
But is this something we really want a toy brand to be doing for us?
Let’s consider the evidence on Mattel. It was 1959 when the first Barbie arrived on the market. The official backdrop to her arrival sounds rather heartwarming. American businesswoman Ruth Handler, Barbie's creator, named the doll for her own daughter Barbara, who used to play for hours with her paper dolls, pretending that they were adults. Handler got the idea for a new kind of doll based on an adult body - at the time, all dolls were based on babies or small children - and her idea would take off in spectacular fashion. By 1961, Barbie had a "boyfriend" called Ken (who was faintly questionably named for Handler's son). Initially, the idea was to market the dolls to older children and teenagers as fashion dolls. But over time, the age profile of the average Barbie owner has slipped lower and lower. These days. a three-year-old is infinitely more likely to crave a Barbie than an n-year-old. And what a doll she is. with her larger-than-life eyes, his and hair. and smaller-than-would-seem-structurally-possible waist (if the original Barbie were a woman. she would have been sft gin with an 18-Inch waist, 33-Inch hips and a 36-inch chest). And. oh, the legacy she has left to aspirational young girls. There was a time Mattel produced a 'Babysitter' Barbie. who came in a box with her very own book, a diet book whose main advice on how to lose weight was "don't eat-. Then there was the time that Barbie came with her own bathroom scales (that was 'slumber Party' Barbie, because what else would you do at a slumber party but check your weight?). whose reading was permanently fixed at 110lbs (50kg), or 7 stone 8lbs, which would be dangerously underweight if the 5ft 9in Barbie actually did exist.
There was ‘Teen Talk’ Barbie, who mainly said variations on “I love shopping”, but also controversially observed “Math class is tough”.
There was ‘Totally Tattoo’ Barbie, who classily came with a tattoo of Ken’s name on her lower back.
You can do anything you want, Barbie seems to be telling the new generation of women, but you had better look pretty while you are doing it
There was the time when Barbie had her own book about being a “computer engineer”, except that she kept making mistakes and needing men to fix them for her. The list goes on.
In recent years, post-Sheryl Sandberg’s ‘Lean in’, and facing escalating competition from more street-looking dolls like Bratz, Barbie has been making an effort to raise her game.
Mattel started a new marketing-led rhetoric around the doll as a model for empowerment for young girls.
Thus in 2014 – and, confusingly, shortly after the launch of ‘Sports Illustrated’ Barbie – it released ‘Entrepreneur’ Barbie.
The current Barbie website is awash with phrases like “empowerment”, “role model” and “career”.
The current range includes ‘Vet’ Barbie (clad in a slightly impractical short skirt and carrying a cute puppy), ‘Builder’ Barbie (pink construction helmet), and ‘Doctor’ Barbie (whose white coat usefully reminds her in pink lettering that her name is Barbie).
You can do anything that you want, Barbie seems to be telling the new generation of women, but you had better look pretty while you are doing it.
Mattel proclaims that Barbie is “a global icon inspiring girls everywhere to be anything. From her 180 careers, to her fantasy roles and her countless fashions and accessories – Barbie has always offered girls choices and endless storytelling possibilities”.
TO be fair, the dimensions of the doll have been changed. In 2016, Mattel went as far as to release a full range of Barbie dolls in different sizes: original, petite, tall and curvy.
In 2017, it released its first hijab-wearing Barbie.
It’s all progress, I suppose, but let’s not forget, the core objective here is to flog more dolls.
On the business front, Mattel has been struggling more than its main rival Hasbro – its sales dipped 9pc last year, and by 12pc in the final quarter – and its shares have been under pressure for the past year.
The reinvention of Barbie for the era – such as it is – has to be seen in that context.
The bottom line is this: if you desperately want a Barbie who looks like Frida Kahlo, then you can now pre-order one on Mattel’s website.
It won’t do a whit for the cause of women but, hey, each one sold is another $30 for Mattel.