Maggie Leatherman
College Composition and Research
Summary Response Essay
October 18, 2016
The Barbie Phenomenon
Barbie made her debut at the International Toy Fair in 1959. Since then, the doll has been on the shelf for more than half a century. The designers of the toy decided the doll needed a makeover. In “A Barbie for Every Body” by Eliana Dockterman, author for Time magazine, Dockterman explains the positive and negative effects of the new Barbie body style; Dockterman incorrectly argues the doll losing status as an iconic toy and declaring the Barbie as an example of women in society; however, Dockterman accurately explains that the doll represents feminism.
Barbie is not the iconic doll anymore. The “Barbie” image has drastically changed. Dockterman explains, “The doll can be tall, curvy, and petite all while having the same name, Barbie” (Dockterman par. 1). Mattel, the corporation that produces Barbie, decided the most infamous body needed a change. With new skin tones, hair color, and body types, the new line was not successful in its first sales. As a result, sales plunged below 20 percent in just two years. In addition, with the public obsession about the new Barbie on the shelf, creators even received death threats. Even though sales plummeted, the creators decided to stand with the new Barbie design celebrating individual body types. Dockterman clarified, “Kim Kardashian West, Beyonce, and Katy Perry promote body acceptance with their curvy bodies and chic hairstyles” (Dockterman par. 6). The creators decided the new Barbie should model these women since the doll has an influence on what young girls look at as the ideal body. The new doll is a feminist triumph. Barbie is no longer a one-size fits all; there are now different styles of clothes for each type of new doll. When the new Barbies were tested with six-year-olds, the children made fun of them at first. One child was embarrassed that some of the dolls were curvier than the others. However, when parents were asked about the Barbies, they praised them for not being the ideal girl. The parents agreed no girl is going to be perfect, and the new Barbie styles are teaching young girls they can be themselves. Furthermore, the Barbie is no longer a stereotype, and the creators of the children’s toy are going to keep promoting feminism through their new line.
Jess Weiner, a branding expert and consultant for Mattel, incorrectly argued the Barbie doll has lost icon status. Weiner stated, “Barbie has all this baggage... Her status as an empowered woman has been lost” (qtd. in Dockterman par. 15). Nonetheless, Weiner’s argument does not capture the lifestyle of the new Barbie; her image is now relatable to all girls. The doll is no longer a model of the ideal woman body. Barbie is still the doll little girls wish to become because she is a strong independent woman, no matter what she looks like. Children do not have to focus on the perfect body anymore. Barbie is still an icon but with more of the “girl next door” look
.
M.G. Lord, a Barbie biographer, declared the toy doll was created to show an example to women what was wanted of them in the world; this statement is ludicrous. Lord stated, “Barbie was designed to teach women what -for better or worse- is expected of them in society” (qtd. in Dockterman par. 3). Barbie was created to model the ideal lifestyle, however, that is not what Barbie models anymore. Barbie is now teaching children it is okay to dress, act, and be how they want. The perfect woman does not exist; diversity and the doll demonstrate that. The toy may have the perfect lifestyle, but this doll should not be teaching young girls that they have to grow up and be a stay at home woman without a job. Girls can be anything they set their minds to; a Barbie should not teach girls what is expected of them in society.
Richard Dickson, president and COO of Mattel, correctly explains that Barbie represents feminism. Dickson argued, “Our brand represents female empowerment… It’s about choices. Barbie had careers at a time when women were restricted to being just housewives. Ironically, our critics are the very people who should embrace us” (qtd. in Dockterman par. 11). Barbie is and always will be looked upon as an icon. The new Barbie should not be receiving negativity. Barbie is catching up with the powerful and beautiful women in today's society and adapting to modern times. In the real world, the definition of “beautiful” has changed; the doll is catching up by adapting to the modern term of a beautiful woman.
In conclusion, Barbie has been a success on the shelf since first appearing in 1959. In “A Barbie for Every Body,” Eliana Dockterman explained the positive and negative effects of the new Barbie look. From incorrectly arguing the doll losing icon status and declaring the Barbie as an example for women in society, Dockterman correctly addresses that Barbie represents feminism. Barbie will remain a successful toy even with her newly designed appearance.
College Composition and Research
Summary Response Essay
October 18, 2016
The Barbie Phenomenon
Barbie made her debut at the International Toy Fair in 1959. Since then, the doll has been on the shelf for more than half a century. The designers of the toy decided the doll needed a makeover. In “A Barbie for Every Body” by Eliana Dockterman, author for Time magazine, Dockterman explains the positive and negative effects of the new Barbie body style; Dockterman incorrectly argues the doll losing status as an iconic toy and declaring the Barbie as an example of women in society; however, Dockterman accurately explains that the doll represents feminism.
Barbie is not the iconic doll anymore. The “Barbie” image has drastically changed. Dockterman explains, “The doll can be tall, curvy, and petite all while having the same name, Barbie” (Dockterman par. 1). Mattel, the corporation that produces Barbie, decided the most infamous body needed a change. With new skin tones, hair color, and body types, the new line was not successful in its first sales. As a result, sales plunged below 20 percent in just two years. In addition, with the public obsession about the new Barbie on the shelf, creators even received death threats. Even though sales plummeted, the creators decided to stand with the new Barbie design celebrating individual body types. Dockterman clarified, “Kim Kardashian West, Beyonce, and Katy Perry promote body acceptance with their curvy bodies and chic hairstyles” (Dockterman par. 6). The creators decided the new Barbie should model these women since the doll has an influence on what young girls look at as the ideal body. The new doll is a feminist triumph. Barbie is no longer a one-size fits all; there are now different styles of clothes for each type of new doll. When the new Barbies were tested with six-year-olds, the children made fun of them at first. One child was embarrassed that some of the dolls were curvier than the others. However, when parents were asked about the Barbies, they praised them for not being the ideal girl. The parents agreed no girl is going to be perfect, and the new Barbie styles are teaching young girls they can be themselves. Furthermore, the Barbie is no longer a stereotype, and the creators of the children’s toy are going to keep promoting feminism through their new line.
Jess Weiner, a branding expert and consultant for Mattel, incorrectly argued the Barbie doll has lost icon status. Weiner stated, “Barbie has all this baggage... Her status as an empowered woman has been lost” (qtd. in Dockterman par. 15). Nonetheless, Weiner’s argument does not capture the lifestyle of the new Barbie; her image is now relatable to all girls. The doll is no longer a model of the ideal woman body. Barbie is still the doll little girls wish to become because she is a strong independent woman, no matter what she looks like. Children do not have to focus on the perfect body anymore. Barbie is still an icon but with more of the “girl next door” look
.
M.G. Lord, a Barbie biographer, declared the toy doll was created to show an example to women what was wanted of them in the world; this statement is ludicrous. Lord stated, “Barbie was designed to teach women what -for better or worse- is expected of them in society” (qtd. in Dockterman par. 3). Barbie was created to model the ideal lifestyle, however, that is not what Barbie models anymore. Barbie is now teaching children it is okay to dress, act, and be how they want. The perfect woman does not exist; diversity and the doll demonstrate that. The toy may have the perfect lifestyle, but this doll should not be teaching young girls that they have to grow up and be a stay at home woman without a job. Girls can be anything they set their minds to; a Barbie should not teach girls what is expected of them in society.
Richard Dickson, president and COO of Mattel, correctly explains that Barbie represents feminism. Dickson argued, “Our brand represents female empowerment… It’s about choices. Barbie had careers at a time when women were restricted to being just housewives. Ironically, our critics are the very people who should embrace us” (qtd. in Dockterman par. 11). Barbie is and always will be looked upon as an icon. The new Barbie should not be receiving negativity. Barbie is catching up with the powerful and beautiful women in today's society and adapting to modern times. In the real world, the definition of “beautiful” has changed; the doll is catching up by adapting to the modern term of a beautiful woman.
In conclusion, Barbie has been a success on the shelf since first appearing in 1959. In “A Barbie for Every Body,” Eliana Dockterman explained the positive and negative effects of the new Barbie look. From incorrectly arguing the doll losing icon status and declaring the Barbie as an example for women in society, Dockterman correctly addresses that Barbie represents feminism. Barbie will remain a successful toy even with her newly designed appearance.
Works Cited
Dockterman, Eliana. “A Barbie For Every Body.” Time , 8 Feb. 2016, pp. 46–51. Opposing Viewpoints in Context [Gale].
Dockterman, Eliana. “A Barbie For Every Body.” Time , 8 Feb. 2016, pp. 46–51. Opposing Viewpoints in Context [Gale].