![\"Margot](\"https:\/\/us.edu.pl\/wp-content\/uploads\/obrazek-wyrozniajacy\/kadr-z-filmu-Barbie-obrazek-wyrozniajacy-www.png\")
<\/p>\n
Still form the film \u201cBarbie\u201d<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n \n<\/div>\r\n <\/div>\r\n <\/div>[\/vc_column][vc_column width=”2\/3″]\r\n | Weronika Cygan |<\/span><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n As estimated by scientists in the 1990\u2019s, 99 percent of American girls aged three to nine owned at least one Barbie doll.<\/b><\/a>[1]<\/a><\/sup>. In Poland the phenomenon never reached the scale known from the United states, the sight of little girls playing with the blonde plastic beauty was not, however, a rarity in Poland either.<\/b><\/strong><\/p>\n Iconic around the world, the doll has recently received its first live action film, which is due to arrive in Polish cinemas this week. It is, as such, the perfect occasion to think about how big of an impact the toy has had on generations of children and on the idealised view of womanhood.<\/span><\/p>\n \n<\/div>\r\n <\/div>\r\n <\/div>\r\n In Greta Gerwig\u2019s film, Barbie, played by Margot Robbie, takes off her high heeled shoes, and her foot retains the same shape, as if still stuck in the shoe. She is, after all, a doll – stiff, artificial, with an unreal physique. When, in a later scene, the heroine shows the already flat foot to her peers, they react with shock and disgust, because Barbie begins to appear more and more like a real human.<\/span><\/p>\n The film seems to laugh at the artificiality ascribed to Barbie and aims to show a clash of the character with the real world. Set on a distant voyage along with Ken (Ryan Gosling), tries to understand what real life means. The question stands though, whether the doll itself, and what has grown around her since her \u201cbirth\u201d in 1959, can adapt to the present.<\/span><\/p>\n “Barbie is a character who is, at the very same time, fashionable and unfashionable” says Anna Gom\u00f3\u0142a, PhD DLitt, Assoc. Prof. from the Faculty of Humanities. “The defining property of fashion is its transience, whereas Barbie has already passed 64 years. She could be a grandma then, but she is not, she is always a teen. Barbie does not age, she changes her clothes, her hairstyles, cars or household equipment depending on a fleeting fashion, but she herself does not surrender to that fashion” states the researcher.<\/span><\/p>\n \n<\/div>\r\n <\/div>\r\n <\/div>\r\n The entry of the Barbie doll onto the market was a revolution. Ruth Handler – the originator of the toy and the engineer of its success – presented it during the New York toy fair on the 9th of march 1959. During it, she employed an innovative sales and marketing strategy, e.g. showing the guests around by herself and selling them on her product. She knew that the interest and attention of the customer had to be won.<\/span><\/p>\n Barbie herself was not ordinary either. Her image had been worked on by an entire team of Mattel employees. Ruth Handler (born in the USA, a daughter of migrants from Warsaw) was a CEO of a firm she had co-founded with her husband – Elliot Handler. He was the one who came up with the idea of using new materials, and indeed, the process of making the doll was technologically advanced for the time. An excellent engineer and inventor, John Ryan was responsible for the construction of a model, the body of which had moving parts. The doll\u2019s appearance and clothing was controlled by Charlotte Johnson, working in Japan, with the country\u2019s seamstresses.<\/span><\/p>\n When we look at Barbie today, we associate it with something tacky or kitsch, but it is not how it has always been. “It should be approached with the perspective of a history of technology, materials science, industrial design and fashion. At the moment of its inception, it was something innovative, original and well prepared. The creation of a doll whose waist turns properly and has movable limbs required immaculate work. On top of that, it was made of vinyl, unlike its predecessor polystyrene German Bild Lilli. It was also well-dressed, with a carefully prepared set of outfits. Charlotte Johnson was a fashion designer who oversaw the quality of materials used and precision of workmanship”<\/span><\/a>[2]<\/a><\/sup>\u00a0explains prof. Anna Gom\u00f3\u0142a<\/span>.<\/p>\n \n<\/div>\r\n <\/div>\r\n <\/div>[\/vc_column][\/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column width=”1\/3″]\r\n The \u201cBarbie\u201d doll helped spread a false, unreal portrayal of women | photo:. Elena Mishlanova, Unsplash<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n \n<\/div>\r\n <\/div>\r\n <\/div>[\/vc_column][vc_column width=”2\/3″]\r\n Right from its inception, Barbie has caused controversy. It is widely known that her original was the Bild Lilli doll, which Ruth Handler had spotted at one of the Swiss shops she visited during her stay in Europe. The Lilli doll was a \u201cmaterialised\u201d character from a comic created by the artist Reinhard Buthien, which appeared in the \u201cBild\u201d newspaper since 1952. Lilli was absolutely not created with children in mind.<\/span><\/p>\n “It was sold in the tobacconists. It was more an addition to cigars and cognac and less a toy for little girls. It did not enjoy a good reputation. Elliot handler was convinced that the body type proposed for Barbie was inappropriate. His wife, however, was adamant: this was what girls wanted according to her” says the US scientist.<\/span><\/p>\n And indeed, once Barbie saw the light of day, it\u2019s image was in many cases critiqued as too corporeal and shockingly sexualised (in Spain, the doll\u2019s look was protested). The mass production and sale of Barbie was to effect a change: Mattel has transformed the relationship between the child and the toy. As the scientist stresses, from that point onward, little girls no longer had in their care dolls resembling children that had to be cared for, but a character shaping their view of adulthood.<\/span><\/p>\n \n<\/div>\r\n <\/div>\r\n <\/div>\r\n Barbie makes only false promises. It entrenches in teens the belief that \u201cthey can be whoever they want\u201d, not noting how much time and work one has to devote to becoming a specialist in some field<\/span>.<\/p>\n “Barbie chooses different career paths, and each season this can be an entirely different field. She does not have to grapple with the consequences of that choice, whereas we know that in the case of more physically and mentally demanding vocations, this one choice is a choice for the entire life. We do not, unfortunately, learn this from Barbie. It is a vision of a person who can do what she wants and whose decisions do not have any consequences. It does not confront us with the passing of time and the transience of life” explains prof. Anna Gom\u00f3\u0142a.<\/span><\/p>\n Even when Mattel\u2019s slim beauty takes up a physical job, and clambers into a farmer\u2019s or a mechanic\u2019s suit, she still looks spotless. We won\u2019t see her dirty with grease or exhausted after a marathon. Her face is never tired after an hours-long shift. Her paramount duty is to look good, and in that, she represents a standard of beauty that is not even hard to reach, but rather impossible.<\/span><\/p>\n \n<\/div>\r\n <\/div>\r\n <\/div>\r\n Under the pressure of accusations that the iconic doll\u2019s body is too idealised, Mattel released three new models in 2016:tall, curvy and petite. Barbie was to finally promote diversity, and thanks to the curvy version \u2013 she was to have a less idealised figure. When her dimensions were calculated, and applied to an average healthy woman of equally average height, it turned out that the \u201ccurvy\u201d Barbie has 63 cm at the waist and 91 cm at the hip. As can be seen, even the plus size model is entirely unrealistic for a real human<\/span><\/a>[3]<\/a><\/sup>.<\/p>\n Other attempts at inclusivity were not very successful either. In 2019 a doll in a wheelchair was released. Unfortunately the chair did not fit through the doors of the houses designed for previous models, which brought to attention the superficiality of such actions \u2013 the disadvantaged Barbie encountered on her way barriers hard to overcome. Dolls in a wheelchair or with hearing aids appeared in the Fashionistas line, which also incorporates eight eye colours and ten skin tones<\/span>.<\/p>\n Prof. Anna Gom\u00f3\u0142a gives another example of Mattel\u2019s dolls line, which were supposed to represent known and recognisable characters, whereas even they were shown to have unnatural proportions<\/span>.<\/p>\n “Ella Fitzgerald was a person of rather full shapes, but she was represented in a way which made it hard to discern who it was supposed to represent. Frida Kahlo meanwhile is a person so unique that recognising her is easier, but even the previous barbies hadn\u2019t had such slim hands” recalls the culture expert<\/span>.<\/p>\n \n<\/div>\r\n <\/div>\r\n <\/div>\r\n Will the newest \u201cBarbie\u201d film tackle the stereotype of a beautiful but hollow and artificial woman? | Still from the \u201cBarbie\u201d film trailer<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n \n<\/div>\r\n <\/div>\r\n <\/div>\r\n Ruth Handler managed to create a toy almost entirely hijacking a young person. Pedagogues call attention to the fact that in the case of products aimed at young children, their educational effect is always to be considered, even if their creators do not aim for them to have such an application. Meanwhile Barbie has shaped generations of girls, imprinting on them an idealised image of womanhood, supposedly adult but still infantile.<\/span><\/p>\n “Barbie prepares for constant, narcissistic exposure of oneself. For always being viewed from one\u2019s best side. It is not a character who does something without being watched. Barbie is supposed to be watched, engaged in her world of eternal teenagehood. What has emanating barbie-ism led to? Seeing a role model in something which cannot (and, moreover, should not) be one” points out Prof. Anna Gom\u00f3\u0142a<\/span>.<\/p>\n According to the researcher, Mattel\u2019s product skewed the view of childhood in some way, and deprived children of a feeling of agency. Barbie, after all, was never an object of care, but only adoration. Girls who play with her are not to \u201crear\u201d children-dolls into adulthood, but follow a young adult woman.<\/span><\/p>\n Will the newest \u201cBarbie\u201d film tackle the stereotype of a beautiful but hollow and artificial woman? Several decades of the doll\u2019s existence shows that it is powerfully entrenched and it will be hard to root out. Maybe Barbie is simply irreformable, as the form in which it exists is so powerful that children cannot defend from it<\/span>.<\/p>\n \n<\/div>\r\n <\/div>\r\n <\/div>[vc_separator]\r\n <\/a>[1]<\/a> Greenwald J., “Barbie Boots Up” in: \u201eTime\u201d 1996, vol. 148, nr 22.<\/p>\n <\/a>[2]<\/a> Gerber R., “Barbie and Ruth”, translated by Laskowska A., Bia\u0142ystok 2017.<\/p>\n <\/a>[3]<\/a> Bates C., “How does \u2018Curvy Barbie\u2019 compare with an average woman?” in: “BBC News Magazine”: http:\/\/www.bbc.co.uk\/news\/magazine-35670446?ns_mchannel=email&ns_source=inxmail_newsletter&ns_campaign=news_magazine_030316<\/a> [access: 20.07.2023].<\/p>\n \n<\/div>\r\n <\/div>\r\n <\/div>[\/vc_column][\/vc_row]<\/p>\n <\/p>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" [vc_row][vc_column width=”1\/3″][\/vc_column][vc_column width=”2\/3″][\/vc_column][\/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column width=”1\/3″][\/vc_column][vc_column width=”2\/3″][vc_separator][\/vc_column][\/vc_row] […]<\/p>\n64 year old teen<\/b><\/strong><\/span><\/h3>\n
Barbie and her entourage<\/b><\/strong><\/span><\/h3>\n
![\"Lalka](\"https:\/\/us.edu.pl\/wp-content\/uploads\/fotografie\/elena-mishlanova-735yzlLr0ls-unsplash-www.jpg\")
<\/p>\nFrom the tobacconists\u2019 to the salons<\/b><\/strong><\/span><\/h3>\n
False promises<\/b><\/strong><\/span><\/h3>\n
Half-hearted inclusivity<\/b><\/strong><\/span><\/h3>\n
![\"Margot](\"https:\/\/us.edu.pl\/wp-content\/uploads\/fotografie\/kadr-z-trailera-filmu-Barbie-www.png\")
<\/p>\nEmanating barbie-ism<\/b><\/strong><\/span><\/h3>\n
Endnotes<\/b><\/strong><\/span><\/h3>\n