Barbie was one of the important toys for your little girl. She can be whatever you want her to be because of her accessories. To quote the Toy Theory article, “Person, Persona, and personality, Barbie is marketed not simply as a doll, a toy, but as “a role model for girls” (DuCille 259). There is only one problem with Barbie… she’s an adult and could be that she’s making girls feel less pretty. Barbie has everything a successful person would have like a sports car, a boyfriend and
clothes that probably exist in specific time periods. A toy like Barbie has many forms of advertising bestowed upon her over the years. There are just so many to count.
Barbie is an icon all by herself; she has been everything that a girl would never of becoming. From astronaut to a doctor and all before any of us were born. Almost every girl in America had a Barbie doll or two in their lifetime. It wasn’t enough; demand for a black or Asian Barbie doll were in effect. To some people, the black Barbies looked horrible, but they still kept the idea of ethnic and racial dolls to the future.
DuCille had found another more shocking detail about Barbie; Barbie’s physical appearance and all her accessories could make any girl have an eating disorder or a shopping addiction. One last detail DuCille shows us that some of the clothes could be of a sexual nature. DuCille stated that, “Probing deeper, a Freudian interpretation might even uncover both repressed sexual desire and a kind of Paris envy” (DuCille 261). The truth is that Barbie has been around for decades and most of the time she (Barbie) has shown girls that they do anything they want. So the real theory of the Toy Theory is that “Toys are not just fun; they help mold us for the future and beyond”.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z--ntETyNYo&feature=player_detailpage
(You are going to need to highlight it and put it on the top.)
Andrew Rizzo section 80
I have a younger sister who collects Barbie dolls so I am somewhat familiar with it. Mattel the company who makes Barbie makes all kinds of limited edition and collectible Barbies as a marketing ploy. For, example,one collectible Barbie that sold originally for $40. in 1999 is now worth $180. The newest controversy over Barbie and her dubious role modeling is that Mattel has just released a tattoed Barbie with pink hair at the beginning of this month. Reuters reports that parents are up in arms saying that it promotes tattoos. Thomas Walsh 01
ReplyDeleteI agree with your statement “Barbie is an icon all by herself…” and regardless of her color she is one of the biggest marketing tools ever created. Think about it, little girls are programmed from an early age to want the “Barbie lifestyle”. From her clothes and house to the cars and all the accessories that come with her present the perfect package and a life that one should work towards. Over the years she has been able to stay relevant and is still one of the most asked for doll every year.
ReplyDeleteBarbie represents a lifestyle that not very many girls can actually achieve. She has trendy clothes, trendy cars, and a trendy boyfriend. Every barbie, whether black, white, or hispanic, comes from the same mold; she creates an impossible ideal. The sheer amount of accessories to go with Barbie is unreal. This "role model" is there to create want in young, impressionable girls. In order to fit in they need to have the latest, greatest toys and fashion. “Toys are not just fun; they help mold us for the future and beyond” is an absolutely true thesis. If you create a young girl who wants the latest, greatest things she will turn into an adult who wants the latest greatest things. Barbie essentially creates materialistic girls who will turn into materialistic women.
ReplyDeleteI agree that Barbies are molding the future generation of girls and it is important to keep in mind the psychology of why girls are so attracted to this toy. Young girls create scenarios with their Barbies in these constructed and imaginary social conditions with Barbie's friends, or professional scenarios such as working as a vet. BUT I do find a positive aspect of young girls experimenting with these dolls by expanding their imagination into what it is they want to achieve when they are older. Its true, Barbie can seem a bit much in terms of materialism, but the truth of the matter is, for profit and advertising purposes, little girls like to dress up their dolls with accessories. You can't give Barbie a realistic amount of accessories because, truthfully, little girls will get bored quick. They need options as to what their Barbie is going to wear for what imaginary occasion and what sports car will she take to the next social event. On the other hand, Barbie's multiple careers show girls what they are capable of achieving in the future. A young girl could aspire to be an astronaut, a doctor, a musician, or a fashion designer. She can also have hobbies such as horseback riding, surfing, swimming, dancing/ballet, or the occasional social hangout with friends. It is difficult to send a good message to young girls while still making an awesome profit. When I was young I very much loved how pretty my Barbies were. My favorite Barbies were the mermaid ones, but I did not decide that in the future I wanted to be a mermaid. It was mostly just for imagination and playtime. Before further scrutinizing Mattel it should be noted that the company isn't interested in molding our future generation of women. It is mostly interested in staying in business while keeping young girls and adult collectors happy (cha-ching).
ReplyDeleteMelissa Tampan 01
The statement saying "almost every girl in America had a Barbie doll or two in their lifetime" is probably accurate in a way; similarly, young boys are equally attached to such dolls and figures. As a kid, I owned dozens of bobble head dolls and action-figures. These toys serve as a physical representation of the person or mythic figure that they are portraying. As the blog says, these toys allow for kids to yearn to act a certain a certain way. Such dolls allowed for me as a young boy to expand my imagination and in a way made me idolize the ball player even more. Barbie was one of the largest toys to be advertised and sold in American history. However, toys advertised to children as a whole have always been a key factor in shaping the childhood of adolescent boys and girls.
ReplyDeleteDhrupal B Patel
Section 01
I've read about Barbie promoting an unhealthy body type for girls. Her body proportions could only be found on someone who fit the criteria for anorexia. Apparently Mattel changed Barbie's dimensions a decade back but her proportions are still unrealistic. Something really funny I read was that Mattel came out with Teen Talk Barbie in the early 90s that said some phrases like, "Will I ever have enough clothes?" If that doesn't encourage materialism in young girls I don't know what will. Honestly as a kid I had a couple Barbies but they weren't really my thing. I was way more into playing with Pound Puppies, My Little Pony, and any other animal-like toy. I didn't really enjoy dressing and creating scenarios for this "ideal woman" who could be an astronaut one day and a Nascar driver the next. Maybe that's a character defect on my part, I don't know. However, I still got the message that I could grow up to be anything I wanted. On the flip side I'm still pretty vain and materialistic, so maybe that isn't a side effect of being a Barbie fan.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the quote, “Toys aren’t only for fun, they help mold us...” Aside from Barbie for the girls there were GI Joes for boys. In my opinion these toys absolutely help to mold what a child will think or dream of. Almost every girl that has played with Barbie has wished they could shrink down to Barbie size and drive her pink convertible car or have her dream house, ride the pony, and fit in the clothes. Boys that played with GI Joes wanted to be tough and strong, fight bad guys, or be a marine, the hero. These toys helped to create an image of what is acceptable and expected of them. Barbie triggered the need in girls for material things like shopping, clothes and ken dolls, while GI Joes supported the image of being heroic, almost iconic, and tough. These two alike, but very different toys supported converse messages in my opinion. Why is it that girls are targeted in such a delicate, materialistic, and beauty driven way? While boy’s toys, like the GI Joe are mostly centered on being powerful, strong, and action packed?
ReplyDeleteEach of these toys are still as popular today as they were years ago, and continues to evoke these gender biases among the children that play with them. It creates this image of what girls should be like compared to boys and instills a deep, powerful pre- determined representation of gender norms in children from young age.
I could definitely agree with the idea that toys can mold us for the future. As young children we are so impressionable, as we see G.I Joe’s and Barbie dolls we get a sensation that we want to be just like them. Children do not seem to realize the harsh realities of wanting to grow up and be like Barbie and Ken. These toys set unrealistic looks, when a child wants to be as skinny and busty as Barbie that sets herself up to be self-conscience about her eating habits and her physical body attributes. The same idea could go for a male child wanting to be big and buff as G.I Joe or a Hulk Hogan figurine. Toys are gender based, imitating the social roles that boys and girls should depict. Overall, the impression toys could make on children is unsettling, it gives children the wants and needs to look like their toys.
ReplyDeleteAly Palumbo: Section 80