On January 28, Mattel announced a new line of Barbies coming to stores this spring. The Fashionistas Line consists of dolls featuring four body types, seven skin tones, 22 eye colors, and 24 hairstyles (including a variety of hair textures) and are currently available online for pre-order at the Mattel Shop. This change follows years of people calling out Barbie for her unrealistic proportions, and quite frankly it's about time that it's taken place. It's time that children are exposed to more inclusive ideas of what it means to be beautiful. Representation in the media is essential to children at a developing age, as it helps them to better accept and appreciate both themselves and the diversity present in their community from childhood onward. However, while I may think new Barbie's undercut is pretty cool (OK, really cool), I think that Mattel may be getting a little more credit that they deserve for their actions. There are actually quite a few problems that I have with Barbie's latest makeover, including:

The Ad Campaign

Okay, so here you have a company claiming that it's promoting diversity, body positivity, and inclusive definitions of beauty. However, when I look at the ad for the Fashionistas line, I see a group of females who are all wearing skirts, the majority of whom are also wearing pink. What I get from this image is not an idea of an inclusive definition of beauty not an idea of diversity. What I get from this image is "Hey kids, you can look different physically but when it comes to dressing you better all still be in accordance with traditional gender roles!" There is nothing wrong with wearing skirts or liking pink, but there is something wrong with society telling you that you have to like these things because of the gender you identify with. So this whole campaign is, in my opinion, not off to a great start.

The Old Barbie

As in she's still in the picture. Actually, she's being sold as the "original" body type along the three new body types (petite, curvy, and tall). After all of the criticism that Mattel has gotten for the unrealistic beauty standard that Barbie creates and the affect that has on children, they are still selling the exact. Same. Doll. Sure, she's not the only doll available, but if the company was truly worried about the effects of its products rather than just pleasing everyone to make a sale, wouldn't they have replaced the "original" Barbie completely? In addition to this, labeling the other dolls as variations of the suppose norm while the old Barbie body type dons the title of "original" seems as though the other dolls are curvy, tall, and petite in comparison to the original Barbie. Though Mattel did not officially release how they got the proportions for the new dolls, when they are marketed in this way it is hard to not continue to view the original Barbie body type as the norm, something that is both dangerous because of her unrealistic image and in opposition with the body-positive message that the Fashionistas line was supposedly created to promote.

The Labels

Speaking of body-positivity, I am in no way opposed to Barbie being available in different body types--but do we really need to label them? Real bodies are not confined to four distinct categories, and if Mattel is trying to make a more realistic representation of women then they shouldn't be confining them to categories, either. If a child wants a doll that looks a certain way, they can see what the doll looks like through the packaging. We don't need to be teaching kids to label and limit others because of anything, let alone their body types. Also, I can't be the only one who thinks that "curvy" Barbie looks more like an "average size" Barbie. Long story short: Mattel, ditch the labels please.

The Response

Probably the most upsetting part about the release of Barbie Fashionistas is the fact that people are giving them so much praise for it. Why is Mattel getting a gold star for a long-awaited attempt to promote diversity and body positivity? This should be the norm. Where are the advertisements of boys playing with Barbie, helping to diminish labels such as "girl toys" and "boy toys"? Where is Ken's more realistic makeover? Where are the dolls that represent children who fall outside of the traditional gender roles imposed on them? Where are the dolls representing the children with disabilities? I'm not saying that Barbie's makeover (that admittedly may not have been executed all that well) isn't a step in the right direction. However, as a society we cannot be so easily satisfied. A step in the right direction is great, but it's not enough to get us to our end goal.