Barbie™ is apparently Satan. Who knew?

Okay, I have to say something. I don’t want JDAB to become one of those blogs that wages an ongoing “war” on some other blog in some arch-enemy, good vs. evil thing, but I have to speak out on something in particular. Especially since he struck first blood on me a few days ago, so I’m just gettin’ him back.

Anyway, I know… this guy we’ll call “Tom”… who has a daughter whom he loves (and who loves him back) very much. In a recent post he was lamenting over putting together one of the many available Barbie™ luxury suites for Christmas for his daughter. We’ll call her “Rose”. I would have been fine with it if “Tom” would have just left it as an essay of that good ol’ parenting woe of “some assembly required” and how it requires intake of alcohol, which, of course, makes things that much worse. Trust me- I was up till after midnight Christmas morning because of those same three words.

But no, “Tom” went “there”. If I may quote from his blog:

First, it’s the unhealthy body image that the dolls promote. Now Mattel apparently is trying to further condition little girls to prepare for a life of servitude: “What a great kitchen! Because that’s all you’re good for: cooking and squeezing out bellyfruit!”

I get so friggin’ tired of hearing about the “evil Barbie™ empire” and the “unhealthy body image” that the dolls allegedly promote. It is a DOLL, folks. You want to talk about unhealthy body images, or even just unhealthy images period, for little young impressionable girls? Let’s talk about all the total fuck-ups in the entertainment industry alone that are paraded in front of us on a regular basis. How about Lindsay the Coke Whore Lohan? How about Paris the Just Plain Whore Hilton? Then there are the white-trash Spears whores sisters and the Anorexia Olsen twins. So these “real” women are better images to promote in one’s daughter than a Barbie™ doll? I’m sorry, I fail to see that logic. Bottom line, it’s my opinion that a child’s role model, male or female, should be his or her own parents. Not some celebrity, not some athlete (don’t even get me started on them), not some 16-inch piece of plastic, not even an unrealistically “wholesome” character on a television show. Parents should be the ones who mold their child into what they want them to be, and not expect someone else to do it for them. But then, I guess THAT would involve taking responsibility, wouldn’t it? For the record, I am not directing that at “Tom” specifically in the least. He and his wife done a great job with both their kids. It’s directed at the thought process in general. Kids are extremely impressionable, and I know that. THAT’S why I say it is so important for the parents to very diligently work at being the role models for their kids and not passing that job off on someone else. ANYONE else.

Secondly, regarding the body image specifically, that whole thing is stupid. As I said, it’s a frickin’ DOLL. And even if there IS something to that, why is Barbie™ the only one to blame? Skeletal, ribs-’n-hip-bones, 73-lb women are projected to us daily and are, for some insane reason, considered what is “beautiful” and/or what women {should} long to look like. Putting the blame solely on Barbie™ for that is a little like placing all the blame for steroids in baseball on Barry Bonds*. Well, all right, it’s actually nothing like that- Barry Bonds* should take 98% of the blame for that. Bad example (and shameless yet intentional dig on Barry Bonds*).

The point is that that’s not just Barbie™’s fault, and second, that the argument itself is ridiculous. Again, it’s up to the parents to let their daughters know that real women don’t look like Barbie™ or like most of the women they see on TV, thank God, and don’t have to to be beautiful or attractive. And how come there was never any outcry over the “unhealthy body image” (or at least unrealistic body image) that the He-Man action figures of the 80s possessed, for example? Or how at first, the Luke Skywalker action figures looked like an “average” guy, but now they’re all buff and shit. Nobody’s ever gone ballistic over that. To me, that lack of “outrage” suggests that people believe little boys are far more secure than little girls are. Go ahead, you angry commenters, unleash THAT argument– I triple-DOG-dare ya. But that’s just it: it’s a stupid argument. Barbie™ is nothing more than a conduit, and hence an easy target for femiNazis. (SIDE NOTE: the use of that term in no way infers that JDAB supports Rush Limbaugh; I just like the term because many are.)

As for the whole life of servitude thing, first of all, if that’s how a little girl wants her Barbie™ to be, then that is how she will play with her. If she wants her Barbie™ to be a pilot (and maybe even consequently wants to be a pilot herself), she will play with her as a pilot. If she wants her Barbie™ to be PotUS (and consequently wants to be PotUS herself), that’s how she will play with her. If she wants her Barbie™ to be strung-out gutter trash (hopefully, just to play…), that is how she’ll play with her. Secondly, and far more importantly, I hope “Tom” doesn’t consider someone that stays home to take care of the home and/or kids (housewife, Mr. Mom, domestic engineer, unemployed deadbeat, whatever you choose to call him or her) to be living a “life of servitude”. I know a few stay-home moms (and at least one stay-home DAD) that would take some very, VERY serious issue with that thinking.

Bottom line, I think people read WAY too much into Barbie™’s role in the grand scheme of life. Mattel is not some evil empire looking to make mongo-hootered but otherwise wafer-thin domestic slaves of little girls everywhere. It’s JUST A DOLL, people. Lighten up. Talk about looking for ways to be offended!