This month is Barbie's 50th birthday. Like many women my age, I had a crate of dolls and assorted paraphernalia as a girl, but I can still remember receiving my first Barbie for my birthday in mid-elementary school. I had stalked this doll weekly on trips to the local Clover store with my mother. I remember how beautiful she looked in the box and wanting to touch her clothes through the clear plastic packaging. I visited Barbie in the toy aisle for months and on my birthday remember how happy I was to see the Barbie package-shaped gift sitting on the breakfast table, waiting for me. Of all the dolls I owned as a girl, this one was my favorite and has stayed with me since.
Video 1: Dr. Isis's first Barbie -- Peaches N Cream Barbie
Initially my fascination with Barbie was superficial -- I was mesmerized by the shimmery bodice of her dress, her pierced ears, and heavy eye makeup. I imagined myself, like her, gliding gracefully in a cloud of peach-colored chiffon. I think my parents felt largely indifferent towards my love of this doll and humored me when she accompanied us everywhere. My Barbie became an active participant in many of the role-playing games I engaged in with friends. My childhood best friend was a little boy who lived next door who happened to have Castle Grayskull and the Death Star. My Barbie, in her poofy peach ballgown and metallic pumps, saved Eternia and Alderaan on more than one occasion. My friend humored me. I think it's because we always had better snacks at my house.
But girls like me who had graduated from training bras to real-life underwire were clearly different in a way that made us socially unacceptable and apparently overtly sexual. I hated being different and I grew to hate my beloved Barbie for also being different. I wore big, oversized sweatshirts to hide my figure, but my Barbie seemed to mock me, her womanly figure poured into her evening gown. So one night, after an afternoon of taunting, I punished my Barbie for shamelessly flaunting what Mattel had given her with a flawless smile on her face. I put her peach gown down the garbage disposal (an event that broke the garbage disposal and earned me a grounding) and cut Barbie's hair. I cast my beloved, naked, mutilated Barbie into exile in my toy box and vowed to never play with her again.
Figure 1: Dr. Isis's naked, buzzcut Peaches N Cream Barbie waves after being caught reading On Becoming a Domestic and Laboratory Goddess.
I didn't see Barbie again until high school when I found her at the bottom of the toy box while I was packing things to give to charity. She looked up at me, covered in dust with her buzzcut hair, still smiling from the bottom of the toy box and I felt sorry. I had grown into my female form, but I had judged Barbie harshly for a form she didn't choose. And she smiled through my judgment and sentencing. I've kept her with me since.
Last week I heard a radio story in which the reporter mockingly spoke of Barbie's evolution from a 1950's pinup to "President Barbie," as though the attempt to make Barbie anything more than a fashion doll were futile because she's Barbie, and I realized that part of what I like about my Barbie as an adult is that she's a blank slate -- what Barbie is capable of is defined only by the roles we deem acceptable for her. To look at Barbie and decide that she can't be president only reflects our ability to see beyond her physique. Barbie's a tough woman to love because she makes us question what is acceptable femininity.
I would love to be able to write that I thought attitudes toward developing girls and their dolls had changed, but what made me think about my Barbie today was a link to a story about Dora the Explorer. I like Dora the Explorer. I like her curiosity y amo ver un personaje de dibujos animados que habla español en la televisión. Apparently, 10 years after her creation, Dora is ready to move on to middle school and the artists at Nickelodean have designed a new, more grown up Dora to make the transition. They've released a silhouette:
Figure 2: Middle school Dora. I think her shoes look cute.
Lyn Mikel Brown of Colby College and Sharon Lamb of St Michael's College, authors of Packaging Girlhood ask, "What next? Dora the Cheerleader? Dora the fashionista with stylish purse and stilettos? Dora the Pop Star with Hoppin' Dance Club and 'Juice" Bar?'" On their website they continue:
But we know the truth. If the original Dora grew up, she wouldn't be a fashion icon or a shopaholic. She'd develop her map reading skills and imagine the places she could go. She'd capitalize on those problem solving skills to design new ways to bring fresh water to communities in need around the world. Maybe she'd become a world class runner or follow her love of animals and become a wildlife preservationist or biologist.I don't see why Dora can't grow up to be all of those things while still choosing a skirt and ballet flats. I can still write a differential equation in a pair of Naughty Monkeys. But, 59% of responders to a New York Daily News poll deemed the new Dora too sexual based on her silhouette alone.
This all makes me realize that much of the disdain young women feel towards their developing forms, the self-loathing at being perceived as potentially sexual beings, comes in part from how we treat them. To say that the new Dora or the old Barbie are too sexual because of their narrow waists and widened hips, even when we put them in the role of President, teaches girls that they are defined primarily by their physical form -- that the development of secondary sexual characteristics means their primary identity is sexual. These secondary characteristics are, thus, something to be ashamed of.
So, forgive me for being a tool of the patriarchy, but I'll take Barbie. She might have a disproportionately huge rack, but I still think she has the potential to be anything we want her to be.
And her buzzcut is kind of growing on me.
Education & Careers
Life Science
Comments
I'm much too old to have ever wanted a Barbie. My big yen as a child was for a Sonja Henie doll, complete with ice skates. Henie, for those of you young enough to want a Barbie, was the great Norwegian figure skating champion of the 1920s and 30s. Until I looked her up on Wikipedia a few minutes ago, I didn't know that she'd been severely critcized for including Nazis in her celebrity-go-round, but was aparently forgiven and much honored in Norway. Perhaps in the U.S. that episode wasn't much known, but at my age I'd probably not have heard of it anyway. I got the doll after the war. Before the war I didn't exist. That doll was the great prize of my early life. I don't recall ever wanting or having a 'baby' doll.
Posted by: stillwaggon | March 10, 2009 8:38 AM
Great post Dr Isis!
I'm currently struggling with helping my 3.5 year old twins learn that it is ok for a Disney Princess to do something other than dance at the ball and get married. Any tips or suggestions for teaching them that Cinderella could be a scientist?
For what its worth, at at my house it was Strawberry Shortcake who battled Darth Vader rather than Barbie.
Posted by: julie r | March 10, 2009 10:06 AM
I'm not sure I have the photo handy but I caught a 4 y.o. PharmKid one day wearing her dance leotard (with tutu and ballet slippers) together with her yellow hardhat banging the hell out of some wooden pegs on her play workbench with a hammer.
Whatever you want to be, my love - it's your choice and I'll support you all the way.
Posted by: Abel Pharmboy | March 10, 2009 10:18 AM
I had a Barbie. Not the first one (I am a couple of years younger than Babs), but before the twist & bend models came out. Back when you bought one Barbie and then added outfits and accessories. About a week after I got it, it lay abandoned in its case while I moved on to more interesting stuff.
My daughter ADORED Barbies. We had at least 100,000 of these dolls lying around in various states of undress. Nothing is more painful underfoot than Barbie and her accessories. At least My Little Pony had rounded edges. I played more with Barbies during her childhood than I did during my own. Yet of the two of us, I am by far the bigger fashionista. Even though she is 21, blonde, and still sporting a dancer bod, she prefers sweats to showing off what she has. She will never be a scientist; her major is public relations. Now, I managed to make it though medical school, residency, fellowship, and the career ladder in academia while retaining my fashion sense and an interest in shoes and makeup (the success of our 10 month old Sephora lies significantly in my hands). Dora can still solve global issues, even with lip gloss and a dress!
Finally, a have a niece who is in elementary school. Barbie was of limited interest to her - Bratz ruled in her generation! I went in to purchase stuff for her (revenge for the 500 piece Barbie kitchen her mother gave my daughter) and was appalled. I finally decided that Barbie, despite her figure and permanent high heel feet, could be a career girl. And you knew she wanted that diamond solitaire from Ken! The Bratz were just whorz. They were never going to be anything except good time girlz. I'm glad they are gone.
Either way, you can't isolate your child from these toys. Whether you or your relatives buy them or they see them on playdates, they will be exposed to mass media. Of course, when my daughter got Dr. Barbie, the infant "patient" doll had been altered. It had a peritoneal dialysis catheter, cause her Barbie was a pediatric nephrologist, just like Mom!
Posted by: Pascale | March 10, 2009 10:22 AM
Julie, I say you buy Cinderella a labcoat.
Posted by: Isis the Scientist | March 10, 2009 10:23 AM
julie r - I hear ya. My daughter was appalled when I suggested the Playmobil girls hijack her brother's Playmobil pirate ship. I got the exasperated two-syllable "Mo-om!"
Speaking of Barbie - my husband and I cringed when our daughter got her first Barbie video. We were expecting the worst. But we kind of like them. The music is nice (the London Symphony or something like that) and the storylines generally show Barbie getting out of a pickle on the strength of her character. There's usually a prince around, but he's sort of a sidekick, not the hero that saves the day.
I must say I'm glad my daughter's past the Dora stage. The Spanish part is cool, but Dora's life is always in a crisis and the story lines are always so bizzare. I wonder what older and wiser Dora will be doing in her ballet flats. I hope she's not still rescuing Mommy Bugga Bugga from the gooey geyser.
Posted by: Female Engineering Professor | March 10, 2009 10:26 AM
And here I thought you were going to talk about the new "Totaly Stylin' Tattoo Barbie" which has many people all lathered up and blathering.
Posted by: Lance B | March 10, 2009 10:40 AM
I've seen the new tatted up Barbie. But, I have a tattoo and I kinda dig her.
Posted by: Isis the Scientist | March 10, 2009 10:47 AM
Amen! Why can't pretty girls be scientists and scientists be pretty? My favorite show on tv is "what not to wear" and I have published in Nature. Contradiction? Methinks not.
The prevailing attitude, though, at my MRU is that fashion (and sometimes even personal hygiene) is frivolous and therefore I must not be serious enough about my work. When people hear heels, they think administrative staff, not scientist.
Personally I'm looking forward to the new Dora, and I hope she still kicks ass while looking pretty.
Posted by: mojo | March 10, 2009 11:00 AM
Nothing works like example. Why not unleash your inner child again and have some fun in Cinderella's Laboratory?
You don't really believe that "fairy godmother" thing, do you? The real story is here.
Posted by: D. C. Sessions | March 10, 2009 12:21 PM
I'd like to put in a word for us skinny, narrow-hipped women and say that the inverse of this is that we aren't sexual. Which is equally bad.
Posted by: Juniper Shoemaker | March 10, 2009 12:44 PM
I wore big, oversized sweatshirts to hide my figure
ummm, like this?
(gracias for the tip on Barbie labcoat, got one on order for the household Barbie fans)
Posted by: DrugMonkey | March 10, 2009 12:48 PM
Note: I haven't read the other comments yet, so sorry if this seems out of place or repetitive.
Hear hear, Dr. Isis! My first Barbie was also Peaches & Cream Barbie - I loved her! Funny enough, I also cut her hair short once I was in grade 5 or 6. Must be something some of us go through. I did it though because I was a late bloomer, and was annoyed that she had that wonderful figure and I was still flat as a board!
The subject of your post is one of my issues with being in the sciences: why can't I behave and look like a woman AND be successful at the same time? Obviously it can be done, but it's strange to me that having hips/boobs make dolls sexual and not just a woman. I talked about something similar on my blog back in October, ending with:
...we were talking about presentation styles and how men are a certain way and women are another. In our [research] area, I find women have to basically act like men to get respect. They have to talk like a man, act like a man, and dress like a man. But today we were talking about how we shouldn't have to do that. Which makes sense, until you try it and you end up looking like a woman (whatever that means).
So, the question is, do we as women turn ourselves into men to demand respect, or should we just keep plugging away at being ourselves and hope that it all works out in the end?
I haven't received a good answer yet.
Posted by: MCH | March 10, 2009 12:53 PM
Okay, first of all, I also totally had Peaches & Cream Barbie and somehow remember that commercial even though I would've been 2 when she came out. I used to make her dance around on my Barbie & The Rockers Stage as though she was a rhythmic gymnast. Oddly, I don't think I ever had a Ken doll or even wanted one.
On a more serious note, I completely sympathize with the middle school experience. I absolutely refused to wear a bra until my mother MADE me and also wore big baggy clothes whenever I could get away with it. I think my cursing breasts at the time actually worked, because I'm just about the same bra size I was in 7th grade. Exactly the same, actually.
5th-8th grade were the worst years of my life and you couldn't pay me enough money to relive them.
Posted by: JLK | March 10, 2009 12:57 PM
That's really interesting that you cut Barbie's hair too, but for different reasons, because of the feminine symbol she represented. The authors of the book I described above seem to take offense with Dora's new flowing locks as a symbol of here tarty-ness.
Here's what I find so disturbing about this -- it is women who are vocally attacking the new Dora. Why do we continue, as liberated feminists, to do this to each other?
Posted by: Isis the Scientist | March 10, 2009 1:06 PM
And yes, DrugMonkey. Exactly like that. But lets all note, for the record, that while I was wearing your sweatshirt to hide my chest, I took no shame in displaying my supremely firm ass for the blogosphere.
Posted by: Isis the Scientist | March 10, 2009 1:08 PM
I know that this isn't exactly the point here, but I find it interesting to note the contrast between males and females in our society. Girls who develop early are seen as too feminine/sexual, and those who are curvy in adulthood are primarily pegged into being firstly sexual and secondly, maybe, professional. Manlier men are seen as being both more professional and more sexual, and there is no social penalty placed on boys who hit puberty early. Meanwhile, as Juniper stated, narrow-hipped skinny women as seen as nonsexual professionals, depriving them of complete self-determination in their humanity. This is similar to the case with scrawny men and I guess, although I can't speak from experience, also stocky short men.
Posted by: Toaster | March 10, 2009 1:35 PM
I wish I had some insight on why women blast each other for embracing their femininity.
At my undergrad institution, many students (male and female) tended to dress down as much as possible (goodwill clothes, as opposed to PJs). There were a few girls who dressed to impress and who clearly spent time on themselves to look nice. These women were shunned by the majority of the female students. It was really sad, as the dressy girls were all really nice as well as intelligent. I think there were assumptions that if they spent time on their looks, they didn't spend enough time on their studies, or something like that.
My best guess is that it stems from jealousy, but I really don't know. Even though I'm a jeans and T-shirt kind of gal, I feel inspired by people who take the time to look nice, and it's something I strive for myself.
Posted by: Sara | March 10, 2009 1:38 PM
I actually hated Barbie's as a child, and preferred to tote around a tan pound puppy I named Jerry Lee. My "police dog" would sport a colorful shoe string around his neck and would be dragged for "walks" around the house.
My grandmother told me on one occasion when she asked why I didn't like the dolls, I answered "It's just not that practical and I like puppies." This could also be due to being horribly frightened by the movie Chucky when I was very little. I even would go so far as to hide my Cabbage Patch doll in my closet hamper incase she tried anything (I always put a stuffed bear on top for added protection).
It could also be that I had issues with the attire Barbie wore when "working." While I agree an accomplished woman can completely be fabulous and still have nerves of steel, I somehow didn't believe Barbie in these roles and thought her something of a fraud. It could be that I didn't agree she had to wear low cut blouses and short skirts to be beautiful. Why couldn't barbie wear a wonderful outfit that showed her career and not her cleavage [or a skirt so short if she WAS a vet, she'd give everyone a show anytime she picked up an animal]?
Posted by: Science Bear | March 10, 2009 2:05 PM
This was my preferred heroine when playing.
Posted by: Science Bear | March 10, 2009 2:12 PM
Now that I think about it, She-Ra was scantily clad as well... but she talked to animals and beat down evildoers, so in my little 5 year old mind, it was completely believable.
Posted by: Science Bear | March 10, 2009 2:18 PM
I had that Barbie too, and I think my mother got it and kept it until I was old enough for it. She also glues the shoes on my first Barbie so my brother wouldn't eat them. I was never totally obsessed with my Barbies, but I did have TV-anchor Barbie and Astronaut Barbie. I was forever annoyed at space Barbie because her helmet didn't seal to her top, so clearly the air would get out. I've always been such a nerd.
An interesting essay on Barbie and American culture can be found as a chapter in The Guide to Getting It On (most recent edition). I'm pretty sure that Vet Barbie had a lab coat.
Posted by: JustaTech | March 10, 2009 2:31 PM
I had many, many toys, and that included many Barbies and her friends. However, there was always a huge discrepancy between male and female dolls, so I ended up inventing some type of matriarchal, Amazon-like society to explain the difference. (They didn't kill their sons, but sent them back to their fathers.)
I'm glad to see someone describe the downside of developing early. I always hear complaints about being a "late-bloomer", but it's not so nice the other way around either. I never faced the sexual assumptions in elementary school, but it sucked being the first one to need a bra, deodorant, and to shave my body hair. When an 8-year-old has a mature body and is still trying to wear kid clothes, it doesn't look sexual; it just looks really weird.
Posted by: catgirl | March 10, 2009 3:44 PM
Peaches and Cream Barbie was totally my favorite Barbie growing up. God I loved that peach-colored abomination of a dress she wore.
The funny thing is, I don't think the Dora silhouette looks at all sexual. I mean, I guess it's kind of a short skirt, but other than that... you don't really see hips, ass, or tits in the silhouette... It seems to me like people are simply pouring on their own preconceived notions that teenage girls are inherently sexual objects.
Once we see the actual doll, we may be able to judge whether or not she's been "sexualized" as so many parents seem to fear, but the reaction of so many people to this relatively generic and innocuous silhouette is pretty telling.
Posted by: ScienceMama | March 10, 2009 3:50 PM
...
*snort* Check out the head size on that gurl. Even given a little foreshadowing or whatever it is called. Or big hair. That gurl is a brainiac..!!
...tom...
.
Posted by: ...tom... | March 10, 2009 4:10 PM
Intriguing post, Dr. Isis. I agree that being a scientist and being feminine (and sexy) are not mutually exclusive, even though our culture seems to think that they are.
However, wondering what you thought about this: I was once advised by a FSP that when presenting at meetings, etc. one should not wear a skirt/dress. (I'm a t-shirt and jeans girl so it's not like I wore dresses all the time (ever); this was just 'general advice.') The idea is that it is hard enough for the men in the audience - driven by testosterone as they are - to see you as a Scientist and not "Just a Woman," and it is best if you don't go out of your way to remind them that you are a woman (or to distract them from your sexy science by showing some sexy calves). And since men are the majority of the audience at most scientific meetings, you are best off with a charming but non-revealing pantsuit. What do you think, Dr. Isis?? I'm curioso to hear your opinion.
Posted by: postdoc | March 10, 2009 5:07 PM
Isis, I think you are misrepresenting Brown and Lamb's critique of the Dora makeover. They are not lambasting femininity or complaining about women's expression of their sexuality or demanding that we all clad ourselves in baggy sweatshirts to prove our feminist cred. They are, however, criticizing - and rightly so - the sexualization of images of young girlhood in order to sell products. Brown and Lamb are not saying that women cannot be scientists AND pretty. They are saying it is not a good thing to sell our young girls pinkified princess tween tarts in place of what was a strong, active, non-sexualized role model for young girls.
There's a big difference between claiming the right to inhabit your own body and go after your own dreams at the same time, versus approving of watering down a strong role model, giving her a kitchen and a princess personae and a stylized look that cannot be understood outside the culture in which things like the Bratz dolls exist and where stores like Victoria's Secret market products to pre-teen girls.
It's just not as simple as saying "I claim my womanhood so it's great if Barbie has big boobs and Dora gets a skirt." Barbie and Dora are signifiers in an existing culture that is already prepped to read them in a certain way, and in which they will inevitably reinforce the existing negative perceptions of stereotypical girl- and womanhood.
Posted by: Zuska | March 10, 2009 5:08 PM
This post brings tears to my eyes. Phenomenal. Zuska brings up a good point though and I would be very interested to see this dialog continued.
You rock.
Posted by: Lola | March 10, 2009 5:51 PM
Zuska, first, I love you.
That said, I very much appreciate the arguments made by Brown and Lamb and, in the context you present them, I agree. I dislike the message sent to young girls that feminine is pink and frilly (even though sometimes I like pink and frilly), or that their toys and role-playing must be centered in domestic-type activities. Perhaps this is why my Barbie spent her time fighting the forces of evil. But the problem isn't in Barbie's shape, but in the stereotypical sexual roles we assign to her, even when she's been dressed as a doctor or businesswoman or politician.
I do not disagree that we have to be careful in the message we send to young girls with their toys. That said, they really have passed judgment on Dora based solely on the silhouette of her figure. Brown and Lamb like the original Dora's shorts and haircut, but the original Dora is kindergarten age. Nickelodeon knows their their market is reaching middle school age and are smart enough to know that if they want to stay relevant they need a character that appeals to that age group. Middle school girls don't look like the original Dora. I think it is premature for them to assume, based solely on her shape, that the new Dora won't be as tenacious as the old Dora just because she carries lip gloss in her backpack instead of that weird little monkey.
Posted by: Isis the Scientist | March 10, 2009 6:15 PM
Girls come in all shapes and sizes, and also experience themselves as female differently. Some are into pink and ruffles, some aren't. I think it's a good point that busty and smart shouldn't be contradictory and I'm sorry that there is that separation--it shouldn't be. At the same time, femininity shouldn't just be equated with busts &/or ruffles &/or high heels and pointy toes. all those things are fine. But so are running shoes and backpacks and jeans. And I think that Dora as a middle-schooler who doesn't into ruffles is another thing to add to the mix. I just think Dora should get a bf in time, and that Barbie should get her phd, and that there should be a sense that girls & women, however they experience & express their physical and sexual self, are also free to experience and express a full range intellectually.
Posted by: Lilian Nattel | March 10, 2009 7:28 PM
Again,I think you are ignoring part of their argument.
They are decrying an evolutionary process that is turning Dora from what she was into...something else...that maps onto an already marketed notion of sexualized tween-hood.
And for what?
That's a tad more sophisticated of a critique than just objecting to a silhouette.
As for the image itself, they are critiquing the image put forth for Dora in a context where the salient aspects of that image already have meanings given to them by our pervasive marketing culture. It's like looking at a cover of Cosmo and saying "But what's wrong? Women do have boobs, and I like beautiful clothes!" You can't assume the image put forth exists all on its own, outside of relationship to the culture and images that have come before it and the meanings attached to them.
Posted by: Zuska | March 10, 2009 9:00 PM
As a small child, I dealt with Barbies the same way I dealt with baby dolls, paper dolls, and many other toys (including some that completely lacked human features, like crayons and pick-up-sticks.)
I pretended they were all adults over forty years of age, and amused myself by making them argue ceaselessly with one another.
Posted by: Julie Stahlhut | March 10, 2009 9:17 PM
To Julie R re: Cinderella as scientist
My parents used to change parts of fairy tales when reading me bedtime stories, so e.g. the prince fell in love with Cinderella because she was smart and funny and kind, not because she was the most beautiful girl in the kingdom. I don't remember how old I was when I figured out that that wasn't what was written in the books, but regardless, I think their version really shaped my perception of what the ideal girl/woman should be like and what I wanted to be like. If I ever have kids, I'm totally going to do the same.
Posted by: Jessica | March 10, 2009 9:28 PM
Just to reassure the world, we did TRY to get our daughter to play with gender neutral toys. We bought everything including Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (hot toy of the day), teddy bears, dolls, and toy trucks. Her take on the trucks was to use pick ups for cooking, stirring imaginary food in the back, and the others were wrapped in blankets and tucked in for naps. When we gave her a toy kitchen and dolls with cradle for holidays that year we were accused of promoing stereotypes. She actually chose the type of play; it just looked less wierd with toy pans and dolls than with the trucks!
Our son's politically correct daycare center tried to get him to hold or feed the babydolls at playtime. He just threw them at the nearest target. At home, we gave up a bit quicker cause he had already discovered "ball" by then and we had lived through our daughter.
Posted by: Pascale | March 10, 2009 9:48 PM
Nothing is more painful underfoot than Barbie and her accessories.
You obviously don't have a child who plays with Lego.
I had Barbies, but they were mostly a ruse for getting Barbie (and Barbie-sized non-Barbie) horses, and/or indulging my penchant for designing outfits for Barbie from fabric scraps. I really didn't care so much about Barbie qua Barbie.
When I was about three years old, my parents took me to my dad's work Christmas party, where all the boys got...some damn thing that wasn't a doll, and all the girls got dolls. I ripped off the paper from the package and exclaimed to the room at large, "Oh yuck, a doll! Just what I never wanted!" I am not a doll kind of person and never have been. I was the kind of little girl who collected die-cast cement trucks and airplanes.
Further, as someone who's always been quite a lot of a gender outlaw, I resent the hell out of the claim that female persons should "embrace their femininity." I'd really like it if the concepts of both "femininity" and "masculinity" went away. I might be happy if we had six genders instead of two, as neither of the two we seem to be stuck with fit me very well at all...
Posted by: Interrobang | March 10, 2009 9:49 PM
Oh Isis, well said! I've heard the Dora criticism and am amazed how quickly the media has been to judge a silhouette before we learn more about what Dora's up to.
Further, of course girls can be stylish and brainy! A number of sciblings sure know how to wear their naughty monkeys thanks to a certain Goddess among us ;)
I'd love to see the message that smart=attractive be more visible to teens everywhere.
Posted by: Sheril R. Kirshenbaum | March 10, 2009 10:11 PM
I too had Peaches n Cream Barbie, along with a whole mess of other ones. My mom still has many of them and my nieces and nephews play with them like crazy when they visit. The Peaches n Cream dress is in the best condition with the snap still attached. On reflection, I probably liked it best because it was easy to put on and you could put your hand underneath to make the doll seem like a puppet. My very favorite dress had similar construction but was bright pink with glow-in-the-dark stars. Neat.
I think Barbie is the sort of thing whose effect is determined by the matrix in which a child views it. In other words, there are so many influences acting in concert that Barbie can be used the same way as a He-Man or establish body image, depending on the child and her environment.
Posted by: ecogeofemme | March 10, 2009 10:35 PM
Yeah, so this silhouette wouldn't be an issue were it one of a soccer player, I suspect. Dora, as is, is adventurous, and probably loves bugs -- not the girly-girl stereotype of a short skirt and long flowing hair that the silhouette suggests.
You can't assume the image put forth exists all on its own, outside of relationship to the culture and images that have come before it and the meanings attached to them.It seems, tho, there are meanings attached to any form a person feels most comfortably reflects aspects of their personality. What do we think about non-girly girls and their cleat-totin' image? Driven and studious maybe? Sexual? Hardly.
So my question is - where does maturity come from, sexual or otherwise, and is it invalid if it comes from a place already defined by society as 'girly?' I think not.
That said, I love this phrase:
pinkified princess tween tartsbeautiful!
Posted by: gnuma | March 10, 2009 11:28 PM
I had that exact same Barbie, except I never wanted her. She had her uses. I gave her a mohawk and dressed her in aluminum foil so she could be the alien hottie that my Captain Kirk doll would hook up with on his space adventures.
Looking back, I should have dressed her up in the good Captain's clothing, put him in tin foil, and let her make him the conquest. But that wasn't how my mind worked back then.
Posted by: nontrad undergrad | March 10, 2009 11:31 PM
Barbies are sold as one-trick-ponies. Nurse barbie, teacher barbie, singer barbie. Women are portrayed as one-dimensional in their career interests, much like the smart, pretty, preppy, or athletic categories have certain 'looks' to them, like glasses and school uniform for smart or cheerleader outfit and ponytail for pretty.
Dora shouldn't have just one silhouette or one trick like Barbie. Dora the explorer (and every doll) should have a multitude of aspects, like real women. I wear blouses and skirts and feel all girly some days, others are tshirt/jeans days, but either way, I'm a scientist and writer and basketball player all wrapped up in one body. I don't need or want another body with a different hairdo to be a teacher. And another body and a buzz cut to be an Army captain. With Barbie, there's a connection made between women body types/images with occupation/hobby that needs to die.
What strikes our 'fancies' changes daily but also over time that can't be limited to certain age groupings (tween, teen, adult), so one doll per activity or category really limits how girls can identify with them. With Barbie, hourly or daily, girls have to pick an activity or category from their toybox of available Barbie options for their age. This sucks for Barbie and would make Dora the "explorer" pre-defined too, but toymakers love selling one-trick dolls to keep sales fresh and new.
I think there should be one Dora doll (oh noes, poor poor toymakers!) and a gazillion possibilities of outfits, careers, and interests sold in bulk packs. A pack would include all kinds of clothes and "gear", like a basketball uniform, nurse uniform, jeans, tshirts, chef hat, sneakers, microscope, basketball, cookie sheet, hair clips, high heels. This will let each girl choose her adventure for the day (and let's hope those lab coats above have "Dora, PhD" embroidery available). There's only one of each of us women and we pick our adventures. The image of Dora would be forever changing. That's the whole spirit of Dora - there's no better doll than her to run with this explorer theme.
Posted by: jc | March 11, 2009 1:07 AM
All of my daughter's Barbies had to be brides and the Kens had to be grooms. I felt signs of dismay watching the weddings since I had been a powerful early 1970s women's libber. I wondered if this was my daughter's only destiny. Wrong. At 22 y.o. she is much into science with no wedding in sight. I will send Dr. Isis a photo I took of the weddings.
Posted by: la mama | March 11, 2009 10:59 AM
Julie R - read The Paper Bag Princess. Princess is kick-ass, dumps superficial prince, stays true to herself. Also watch the Free to be you and me version of Atalanta with Marlo Thomas and Alan Alda (swoon). I can't find it on youtube at the moment, but the text is here.
Nickelodeon knows their their market is reaching middle school age and are smart enough to know that if they want to stay relevant they need a character that appeals to that age group.
But that's what I don't understand. It's not like preschool girls are a non-renewable resource. There are some that are reaching middle-school age, but a lot more that are reaching preschool age. Why go after an already saturated tween market full of Bratz and Barbies, using the exact same selling points, when they had the preschool market almost entirely to themselves? Really, can you think of any other kick-ass problem-solving young girl main character? What's frustrating isn't just the fact that her body is now that of a cutesy tween, but that the only reason they've given is to have her focus on makeup and outfits and being pretty. If they were going to age her, why not make her a Nancy Drew? There is nothing in promo information about her that emphasizes, or even states, that she's still helping people and solving problems and you know, using her brain at all for anything other than fashion. That's what makes me mad. She's no longer being billed as an explorer.
Posted by: Carlie | March 11, 2009 12:40 PM
Oops, closing bold tag fail. Sorry about that. It was supposed to just be on the "only".
Posted by: Carlie | March 11, 2009 12:52 PM
But Zuska and Carlie, I totally get the ire over tarting up girl's toys, but the only thing we have from Dora is a silhouette and a rumor that she'll have lip gloss. Have you specifically seen it mentioned that she'll stop exploring?
Posted by: Isis the Scientist | March 11, 2009 1:54 PM
Ah, but then there is the other aspect of the Barbie: they make great guns. My aunt was vehemently anti-gun, so my cousin was never allowed to have toy guns. His older sister (the tomboy) was allowed to have Barbies, so my cousin discovered that he could piss off all his female relatives by stealing a Barbie (sister) and then using it to shoot his mom. (You take off all the clothes, end the legs to 90 degrees, then hold the body. The proportions are pretty good.)
Posted by: JustaTech | March 11, 2009 1:59 PM
Reminds me of the Teen Talk barbie that stated that "Math class is tough!"
The doll got a lot of flak, and was criticised by many groups. One of the math professors (who I will always look up to) was phoned for commentary by one of the local papers, and when asked, "what do you think of Barbie saying that 'Math class is tough'," simply answered, "it is tough!" Of course, one doesn't want to discourage girls from taking up math, but you'd be lying if you made a doll that quipped "math is easy!"
My eldest daughter (6-y.o.) has a few Barbies, and sometimes plays with them. She also has a pet snake (we thaw the mice together and she feeds it), and we're bringing 20 owl pellets into her school to teach the other kids about owl digestion, and to dissect the pellets for fun (good use of my volunteer day!). Each child will get to take a skeleton home! We go on plenty of nature walks (on which she may well flounce along in a pink skirt and rainbow tights), and she was very excited about the Tetropod Zoology post about how to have your own body farm to clean the flesh off of dead animals.
There's nothing wrong with pretty dresses and dolls, nor is there any reason that a bright young girl (or woman) can't like frilly skirts and Barbie and still be fascinated with biology or engineering. Dr. Isis is a fine example, and so is Barbie, in her bizarre plastic way - she's been a doctor, a vet, a race car driver, and nobody can complain that she's had to sacrifice her femininity for it.
Posted by: Epinephrine | March 11, 2009 4:00 PM
Isis: what, exactly, about Dora was in need of a makeover to begin with? As another commenter above pointed out, there was no other real competition in the market she dominated, and what's to be left for the preschool kids now? It's not like, as the commenter said, there aren't any more preschool kids now. So my question is: why the rush to give Dora a skirt and lip gloss and twirly hair and girlify her? Why take away everything that made her UNIQUE among girl role models?
Sheril, you said:
Me too. But why is it that calls for more visibility of "smart=attractive" seem often to focus on a limited definition of attractive equivalent to male fantasies of stereotypical female sexual attractiveness? When people say smart=attractive do they mean being smart is attractive, or do they mean "you can wear high heels and makeup and skimpy clothes and dress like a male fantasy and pose for a pinup calendar and STILL be smart! Brains don't have to interfere with you being a sex object for men!"
I realize this is close to heresy on this shoe-worshippin' blog. But really, I don't see the "freedom" to dress like a male fantasy as a positive thing, or as a step towards making the equation smart=attractive more widely understood.
Posted by: Zuska | March 11, 2009 4:16 PM
Oh Zuska, you're on the verge of an open letter my dear friend.
This idea of dressing as the male fantasy infuriates me. I recently had a particularly misogynist run-in, where a colleague said some particularly asshattish things to me, and you know what I found myself asking? "Was it something I did?" So, despite all my feminist meanderings, I still find myself falling prey to the "I got harassed and it must be my fault" trap. It makes me want to stomp my feet. I cannot, cannot, cannot handle this rhetoric by which the choices we make cause us to be victims (thereby saying that it is our fault that we are victims)
How about we finally get to a place where we accept that girls can express themselves however they see fit without worrying that they will be perceived as a male fuck fantasy.
Also, postdoc, I don't know how I feel about your professor's advice. I appreciate where she is cooming from, but I also like skirts and plan to wear one tomorrow when I give a talk. A highly successful mentor of mine recently told me after I snarked at someone who asked a question in a seminar, "You've got some hot data. You can be as sassy as you want to be. Just don't be sassy with no substance."
That opens a whole 'nother can of questions, doesn't it?
Posted by: Isis the Scientist | March 11, 2009 5:32 PM
Ultimately, I think many of us want to get to a place where a doll can send the message "smart = attractive"... but I'd bet we have some very different ideas of how to get there.
Dr. Isis, I've been avoiding responding because this post did not sit right with me at first. I will say, it has been useful for me to sit back and reflect on how different your perspective is. It honestly never once (not ONCE!) occurred to me that somebody could feel like they don't fit in because they look too much like Barbie.
We can probably all sympathize with the feeling of not fitting in (and most of us are familiar with the potential for cruelty in middle school girls), but given the anatomical improbability of Barbie (in my mind, inextricably linked to the whole notion of "so top-heavy she would have to walk on all fours if she were real"), I don't know that your perspective is the most common.
In any event, I can see why you want to destroy this "brains and beauty are mutually exclusive" nonsense. And this Dora could be a part of that. I can really see that. But I was raised with very strict ideals for what the goals in one's life should be. "Goodness" (ethical behavior) was most important, followed closely by "cleverness" (the eventual goal to combine them, for "wisdom", I suppose). Way, way, way down at the end somewhere (after "a good spinning crescent kick") was prettiness. The media generally does not support this particular order of priorities for young women, and I see this Dora as potentially a step backward, in that sense.
Posted by: becca | March 11, 2009 6:28 PM
From this article
The Nickelodeon/Mattel release says specifically "The brand captures girls’ existing love of Dora and marries it with the fashion doll play and online experiences older girls enjoy."
That to me says that the only reason for the makeover is to add to "fashion doll" play. They also say “It is very exciting to see such a popular brand expanding upon its key fan base, while at the same time incorporating cutting-edge fashion doll play with a fun online experience.”
"Cutting-edge"??? Dressing up dolls is cutting edge?
"“The doll really taps into a tween’s love of fashion and empowers girls to influence and change the ‘lives’ of Dora and her friends,” explains Ms. Sirard. “The instant gratification that girls receive as they change Dora online and watch as the doll magically transforms right before their eyes is groundbreaking in today’s toy market."
Another quote. I'll admit, they do mention that there will still be adventures, but what bothers me is that it's so heavily tilted towards the fashion push. The image they're pushing is no longer cool explorer girl who sometimes likes to dress up, it's teen fashion expert who sometimes likes to have adventures. It's just depressing to me to see fashion become the main focus of yet another girl toy, like there weren't enough already.
Posted by: Carlie | March 11, 2009 8:30 PM
Did anyone else notice Tinkerbell was one hot engineer in the latest Tinkerbell movie? My daughter rolled her eyes and let out a "Mo-om" that observation too.
Posted by: Female Engineering Professor | March 11, 2009 11:36 PM
Carlie, I don't know that I read it that way. They talk about the reasons the girls love the old Dora. I truly hope that the new Dora doesn't become simply a fashion doll, but you say that new Dora will still have adventures. So, I still have to stomp my feet because I reaslly dislike the characterization of a person or the development of a toy based on a single perceived identity.
Yesterday I attended some meetings in the morning at the really cool place I'm visiting. I wore a dress and heels and makeup. Was a dressing as a male fantasy? But, in the afternoon I went out with some folks and we climbed a mountain. I guarantee you, as I was beating a lot of those dudes to the top, I was much more of a fantasy.
Posted by: Isis the Scientist | March 12, 2009 10:05 AM
Open letter away, if you must Isis. I'll answer back. You seem to be completely ignoring or misreading what I am saying and I cannot see how you have failed to read the explicitness of the quotes Carlie provided.
I'll try again. If smart=attractive - then what is attractive? Is there only one version? And must it include high heels, makeup, and fashion play? In other words, traditional stereotypical femininity? There are many young women who don't fit that mold and/or aren't interested in fitting it. Are they to be deemed unattractive? Is it being smart that makes one an attractive human being, or does smart=attractive really just mean "hey ladies, don't worry, if you are smart you can still look like a hot babe!" The latter is a much more limited and limiting definition.
I doubt very much that when you dress up for work in high heels and a skirt, that you are dressing like a male fuck-fantasy. I'm sure you look completely professional. But if you dress like a male fuck-fantasy in the work place, don't be surprised if that's how people react to you. What's being sold to a lot of young girls in this country is the idea that you should, indeed, dress like a male fuck-fantasy, ALL THE TIME, and you should do this because it will make you feel so empowerful. You should focus on fashion, clothes, shoes, makeup, appearance, because that will make you feel in charge of yourself and empowerful.
Tapping into tweens' "love of fashion" as a way to "empower" them to change Dora's life (how? for what?), for "instant gratification" - this is what we want for our young girls? This is what they need to prepare them to be self-reliant independent adults who will know how to value themselves highly and be extremely selective in mate choice, and to follow their dreams?
I know you love shoes, Isis, and I don't necessarily see anything wrong with that. But stop being so defensive about your love of shoes for 5 minutes, and really take a look at what the owners/marketers of Dora's image are trying to sell tween girls, and what they are taking away from preschool girls.
I have plans to write something more extensive on this on my blog, but I also have to leave in a day to go spend a week with my mom, so I don't know when that will happen. Thanks for letting me join the dialogue here on your blog.
Posted by: Zuska | March 12, 2009 11:56 AM
Telling women they should wear pantsuits so men at sci conferences don't see them solely as Chicks is akin to making women wear burqas or wigs or anything else to "protect" men from the Woman's Inherently Evil Tempting Charms.
If men can't see a female as anything but a sex object first, then maybe THEY are the ones who need social adjustment, not the women.
Posted by: nana | March 12, 2009 12:25 PM
...
JustaTech said...
Ha..!! I thought I was the only one ever forced to resort to exploiting Barbie in such a degrading manner..!!
It sure did beat the 'pointy stick' gun.
...tom...
.
Posted by: ...tom... | March 12, 2009 1:02 PM
Oh jesus christ on a biscuit. Did I say women have to wear pantsuits? Did you read what I wrote? Srsly?
Posted by: Zuska | March 12, 2009 2:04 PM
Zuska, I am paying attention and I am listening. In fact, I understand this very well:
But all we have of Dora is a silhouette. We have no cause to believe that she is dreessed like a fuck-fantasy. Then again, there is something that bothers me about this discussion of the fuck-fantasy:
Posted by: Isis the Scientist | March 12, 2009 5:09 PM
My pantsuit related comment was a response to comment #26, not to your post.
Posted by: nana | March 12, 2009 6:25 PM
No, it's not true that all we have of Dora is a silhouette. We have the quotes Carlie provided, which make quite explicit the intent of Dora's makeover.
And no, what I said isn't the same as "she deserved it because that's how she dressed". In the workplace, there are professional standards. You dress one way to go to the bar, another way for the workplace. If you dress like you're going to hang out at the bars when you are really going to the workplace, and then people react to you like you are hanging out in the bars, it may not be your fault that people are unable to control themselves and continue to behave professionally despite your poor sartorial choices, but you should not be all too surprised that they do behave so, given that you live and work in a sexist culture wherein women are generally seen as sex objects no matter how the hell they dress, let alone when they actually dress like a sex object. That is not at all the same thing as saying "she deserved it".
No woman deserves to be treated like a sex object. And you can dress as professionally as you possibly can, and you might still find your students writing stupid shit on your course evaluations like "her bra distracted me and I couldn't learn anything". (this was an actual case I read about somewhere) But if you want to elicit professional respect from your colleagues and students, you can increase your chances of doing so if you dress professionally rather than if you dress like a sex object. I don't really see why this is a controversial thing to say.
Posted by: Zuska | March 12, 2009 7:31 PM
And by dressing professionally, I mean a wide range of possibilities for self expression - from a friend of mine who wears only tailored suits, panty hose, and heels, to another who generally wears flats and flowing pants and tops or long skirts/layered tops (she favors Coldwater Creek and Chicos a lot), to another friend who wears only men's dress shoes, jeans or khakis, button down blouses and tailored jackets (but not girly looking jackets). Each woman's mode of dress is very reflective of her personality, and each one of them looks great in what she wears. And these aren't exhaustive of the list of possibilities of non-sex object, but self-expressive, professional modes of dress.
Posted by: Zuska | March 12, 2009 7:37 PM
I'm shocked no one brought up the doll that IS giving Barbie a run for her money these days (and the line which I despise)--Bratz dolls. They are the most popular doll of most younger girls I know. They are overly made-up, trampy girls who's only ambition seems to be to become famous and dress cute.
I agree with one of the comments above that Barbie is a kind of "one trick pony" but at least she has ONE trick to offer, unlike Bratz (whose name even repulses me). I think they are part of the reason teen girls think it's a good idea to send nude pics of themselves to boys in their class (another phenomenon I don't understand).
Posted by: Science Bear | March 13, 2009 12:55 PM
They obviously did not do test marketing for the Bratz doll in Minnesota or Wisconsin.
Posted by: Name Withheld | March 13, 2009 5:22 PM
I have no idea what that means.
Posted by: Isis the Scientist | March 13, 2009 5:37 PM
I'm guessing that "Bratz" is pronounced the same way (or almost the same way) as "Brats"
... as in "Brats on the Weber."
One does not usually come out with a new product where the name of the product is totally in use, especially in this way. There will be YouTube videos showing Bratz dolls being cooked up along side the walleye fillets and sirloin strips, kebabs and so on. Garrison Keillor will joke about this. Such things probably already exist. I'm not really keeping track.
Posted by: Name Withheld | March 13, 2009 6:31 PM
no, not brats as in bratwurst but brats as in bratty, spoiled, naughty children. Not sure if you understood this but were trying to make a joke, or if you were actually confused.
Posted by: Jessica | March 14, 2009 3:50 PM