A tight waist, fox eyes, puckered lips, bulging breasts, and a high ponytail target the eyes of a mother and daughter. Intended for the gaze of unruly bachelors, truck drivers, and bar frequenters, the high-end German call girl doll grabbed Ruth Handler and her daughter right by their girlish fantasies. Ruth Handler, the co-founder of Mattel, was simply vacationing in Switzerland when she and her daughter were captivated by an array of German Lilli dolls in a window.1 Just a few years later, Ruth bought the rights to this very doll modeled after a sexy promiscuous woman from a comic strip.2 Thus, Barbie was born. Borrowing from Lilli’s dainty yet busty physique, Barbie seemed to be her less taboo sister. The question then arises: how has Barbie, a doll modeled after a German “goldigging, floozy,”3 become a young girl’s most famous toy, friend, and role model? The answer lies buried deep in American girlhood’s intersection with “doll hood”.4 In dissecting this concept, Barbie’s submersion in criticism and backlash proves to be a complicated topic not just in relation to young girls but for adult women as well. Therefore, we must understand the desires and disappointments born from a capitalistic push for dolls. And, the subversion of gender that Barbie has grown to embody. Ever since Barbie’s debut in the 50s, she has continued to serve as an, arguably, unattainable, aspirational feminine ideal. With this, she has come to define young girls’ interpretation of desired womanhood. As Barbie has responded to different cultural criticisms over the years, she continuously contorts what it means to be the ideal friend, sister, and woman. This paper will specifically focus on the impact of Barbie’s commodification of femininity and her evolution in redefining what it means to be the ideal. I contend that capitalism has become the place of defining gender, particularly femininity. Barbie throughout the years has become the prime example of how young girls and women strive to be the correct and accepted female – a concept propagated through commoditization of the female body. However, Barbie is unfortunately not just a ridiculous feminine ideal but a sad feminine reality: women are forever subjected to a pervasive double bind.5
Generally, most scholars and academics are interested in condemning Mattel’s beyond unrealistic depictions of a female body. Indeed, Barbie does have twisted bodily proportions if she is meant to be a role model for young girls. According to The International Journal of Eating Disorders, “For the average young woman to match the body proportions of a Barbie doll, she would have to add 5 inches to her chest and lose 6 inches in her waist.”6 Barbie would be incapable of walking around and even holding her head up if she were to be brought to life with such measurements. Besides her physique, Barbie was also intended to showcase professional role modeling as well. Yet, one critic denotes that this dilutes any form of valuable role modeling: “But female empowerment is not a commodity that can be bought or sold. Barbie is not a toy that effectively advances gender equality when she is viewed as representative of real girls or women”.7 Supposedly a beacon for feminine hope, actually turns out to be one of the most highly criticized American icons because of the very things that once deemed her revolutionary – her high pony, her small waist, and noticeable bust. Though notable critiques, they fail to assess the root of the problem. That being, Barbie represents the complications of gender performance that consumerism has created.8 In particular, the ever-changing expectations of the woman. Here, Barbie finds herself, just as all women have, double bound and cornered on all fronts. Barbie is either too sexy, not sexy enough when inclusive, or too well rounded to the point of pathetic ‘realism’. Ann Bartow expresses that this is a virgin-slut complex that has controlled Mattel’s marketing and production since the beginning of the Barbie doll.9 Mattel has been constantly trying to keep Barbie sexy yet sexless and possibly promiscuous yet professional.
Starting from where it all began, Mattel’s innovation was to take an intentionally eroticized doll created as a sex doll for men, slightly done down the sexuality, and then market it primarily to young girls, with an array of cute outfits and accessories.10 Ruth intended Barbie to subvert the traditional domestic female archetype that was heavily propagated to young girls throughout the 50s.11 Ruth had noticed her daughter would play with dolls and act out future scenarios with them, so she created a doll that little girls would want to become. Thus, a teenage fashion model was born in 1959. Initially, toy buyers were skeptical about selling the Barbie as she was unlike the baby and toddler dolls that were popular at the time.12 But, within the first year of being released, around 300,000 Barbie dolls were sold; these Barbies were all manufactured in Japan with clothes hand stitched by Japanese workers.13 Toy stores then began to quickly house Barbies. Aired during The Mickey Mouse Club, Barbie’s debut commercial alerted children from all over that she was ready to join society.14 The commercial’s lyrics went as: “Barbie you’re beautiful, you make me feel my Barbie doll is really real. Someday I’m going to be exactly like you, ‘til then I’ll know just what I’ll do, Barbie beautiful Barbie I’ll make believe that I am you. You can tell its Mattel, its swell (repeats)”15
Right out the gate, Mattel alerts young children how the doll should be perceived: adored, desired, and an eternal need – who wouldn’t want to be a beautiful teenage fashion model? Barbie appeared to be beautiful and fun to play with in the commercial. Though her official debut was at the American International Toy Fair in New York City, this was her entrance into media (a form Barbie would eventually find herself dominating).16 Notably, this original Barbie began with an extremely similar model to that of the German risque doll, Lilli.17 But, little girls were entirely unaware of Barbie’s promiscuous past and were unaware of their interest in Barbie’s subliminal sex appeal. Her tiny/busty figure was kept as Ruth Handler believed that it was important for Barbie to have an aspirational adult appearance, however, early market research indicates that some parents were unhappy about the doll’s distinctual chest.18 Yet, that is what distinguished Barbie and made her so popular. Most dolls on the market at the time were baby dolls, which taught young girls how to rock and sway a child, immediately thrusting them into motherhood.19 Barbie gave a girl the ability to dream about their future – a future beyond the home. Most of all, Barbie afforded young girls a new type of agency in which they could wield their femininity in new ways.
Entering the 60s, Barbie began to emerge as the Barbie we all know her as today: a girl with a beautiful dream house and a beautiful dream-boat beau. In order to ‘complete’ Barbie, her man and mansion were introduced. In 1961, the Ken doll was introduced and in 1962, her manor was built. 20 Besides her looks, Mattel set Barbie apart from other dolls on the market by crafting a narrative around her and humanizing her. In this way, Barbie wasn’t just a doll, she was a girlfriend and a homeowner. Additionally, the 60s introduced: Barbie sings, Bubble Cut Barbie, Formal Wear, the first celebrity doll, Ken and Barbie, and Working Barbie. 21 For this time period, Barbie was absolutely revolutionary. She was proving day by day she could be sexy and serious. Barbie’s professions ranged from astronaut to business executive.22 Mattel even introduced Christie, one of the first black dolls. Christie, a dear friend of Barbie’s, came dressed in a fashionable swimsuit and a classic 60s haircut. In support of Equal rights, Mattel sought to comment on their support as they simultaneously urged young girls to support Christie.23 It was clear, Barbie was beginning to elicit a cultural wave – Barbie had the power to influence youth in negative and positive ways. Though, Barbie was molded for controversy. Mattel began to experience a swarm of controversy surrounding their attempt to market African American dolls. Prior to Christie, Francie, another black doll, had actually been introduced. However, many criticized Mattel for creating a black Barbie with entirely white features, thus, Francie was recalled.24 Even though Christie was supposedly produced with black features in mind, it is unclear if she actually created a racially diverse Barbie world.25 Generally, white girls bought Barbie, and Black girls bought Christie.26 And, this black doll was just as beautiful and unrealistic as white Barbie. This seemed to be indicative of an attempt to commodity all forms of femininity, no matter black or white.27 As Mattel’s Barbie empire grew, so did their ability to define and contort womanhood for all girls.
Amid the psychedelic 70s, women’s liberation and the sexual revolution began to further change Barbie. She was given her first groovy camper, a whole new wardrobe, and was now coined ‘Malibu Barbie’.28 Her skirts were now maxi (temporarily ditching the glorious mini), her hair was now long and stick straight, and her facial features became more ‘feminist’.29 According to the official Barbie website:
In 1971, Malibu Barbie debuted with a new face sculpt, including the addition of an open smile with pearly white teeth, and, thanks to the groundswell of the feminist movement and female empowerment, her sparkling blue eyes faced-forward for the first time. Malibu Barbie was the ultimate surfer girl– suntanned with long, straight hair.30
It was becoming evident that Barbie would respond to culture just as much as she would grow to define it. Now that Barbie’s eyes had discarded their submissive undertones, her female assertion was palpable – she was now making eye contact with the world ahead. Additionally, Barbie was no longer being manufactured in Japan; the doll was now being created in Mexico, Taiwan, and Hong Kong. 31 Moreover, the 70s proved to be a tumultuous time for both Mattel and the United States. Though Malibu Barbie appeared calm and relaxed, Americans suffered the very opposite with the continuing war in Vietnam. 32 Coupled with the States’ political and social instability, Mattel underwent internal issues as well. In 1974, Mattel almost went bankrupt and Ruth Handler was eventually expelled from Mattel in 1978 after being found guilty of producing false financial reports/stock prices. 33 This began to explain maybe why Mattel had just come out with such an odd, barely thought-out toy: a doll physically portraying female puberty. ‘Growing up Skipper,’ was a doll, Barbie’s little sister, that showed breasts slowly protruding at the twist of her arm. 34 The public despised this doll; it was quickly discontinued. However, this seemed to be a hypocritical uproar – wasn’t Barbie criticized for being unrealistic? Was this not the most realistic depiction of girlhood introduced thus far? It became clear that the public associated Skipper’s new breasts with sexual appeal.35 Yet, there is nothing inherently sexual about a girl undergoing puberty. This is where Barbie’s battle with double binds began to emerge at the forefront of her attempts to adjust to culture. Of course, some were bothered how Skipper presented how puberty works, as it seemed to offer the narrative that puberty is a process that operates the same for everyone.36 But, that was not the reason the public flinched at this doll. 37 Barbie’s battle in accommodating realism at the expense of her normative, sexual appeal was now apparent. Over the years, as Barbie sought to become more realistic, many critiqued her for losing an appeal that was born in the 50s. In fact, a subliminal sex appeal born from a gag doll. As Barbie furthered from her Lilli roots, she did not face less commentary – just a different kind. But, with new faces at Mattel, Barbie was able to finish the era strong as a Winter Olympic athlete. Her and Ken even made it into America’s Time Capsule – deeming them pivotal cultural icons.38
However, It wasn’t until the 80s that Mattel would make a more thoughtful, significant attempt to include diversity into the Barbie world. As mentioned earlier, Mattel had introduced a few ‘diverse’ dolls, yet they were all friends of Barbie – not the Barbie. So, in 1980, Mattel released the first black and hispanic dolls named Barbie.39 The official African American Barbie and Ken duo was formally introduced with Afro Hairstyles and fashionable attire via commercial.40 This decade also housed Barbies that sought to destroy the feminine double bind that dragged behind Mattel’s infamous creation.41 The 80s were characterized by the workplace evolution that proclaimed “girls can have it all,” as stated on the official Mattel website.42 In turn, CEO Barbie was released in 1985 – paired with a pink power suit, Barbie worked by day and partied by night.43 Barbie also embarked on her first fashion partnership with Oscar de la Renta, further establishing femininity could intertwine with business and respected work experience.44 Barbie was not a fashion model or a professional business woman; she was all wrapped into one. Following that, Barbie launched the “We Girls Can Do Anything,” campaign. This series of ads detailed songs encouraging girls to reach their full potential and follow their dreams. 45 This 80s campaign was the precursor to the Barbie franchise’s media expansion. Up until the late 80s, Barbie was marketed via commercials and intrigued girls through her fun accessories and culturally relevant outfits. Later, as toys began to decline in light of interactive media, Mattel began to release movies, TV shows, songs, and video games to save their plastic girl. However, it wasn’t until the late 90s and early 2000s that the Barbie media franchise really began to flourish.46
However, It wasn’t until the 80s that Mattel would make a more thoughtful, significant attempt to include diversity into the Barbie world. As mentioned earlier, Mattel had introduced a few ‘diverse’ dolls, yet they were all friends of Barbie – not the Barbie. So, in 1980, Mattel released the first black and hispanic dolls named Barbie.39 The official African American Barbie and Ken duo was formally introduced with Afro Hairstyles and fashionable attire via commercial.40 This decade also housed Barbies that sought to destroy the feminine double bind that dragged behind Mattel’s infamous creation.41 The 80s were characterized by the workplace evolution that proclaimed “girls can have it all,” as stated on the official Mattel website.42 In turn, CEO Barbie was released in 1985 – paired with a pink power suit, Barbie worked by day and partied by night.43 Barbie also embarked on her first fashion partnership with Oscar de la Renta, further establishing femininity could intertwine with business and respected work experience.44 Barbie was not a fashion model or a professional business woman; she was all wrapped into one. Following that, Barbie launched the “We Girls Can Do Anything,” campaign. This series of ads detailed songs encouraging girls to reach their full potential and follow their dreams. 45 This 80s campaign was the precursor to the Barbie franchise’s media expansion. Up until the late 80s, Barbie was marketed via commercials and intrigued girls through her fun accessories and culturally relevant outfits. Later, as toys began to decline in light of interactive media, Mattel began to release movies, TV shows, songs, and video games to save their plastic girl. However, it wasn’t until the late 90s and early 2000s that the Barbie media franchise really began to flourish.46
Right before Barbie went extremely digital, Mattel sought to produce dolls that conveyed the spirit of the time. As the third wave of feminism began to integrate women into male dominated fields, while embracing indie subcultures, marketing tactics responded.47 Thus, 90s Barbies were born. Mattel proudly introduced the “Barbie Runs For President,” campaign. And in 1992, the first presidential Barbie was released to the public.48 Being a leader of the free world, Mattel felt Barbie was conquering her criticism – she really could do everything. Indeed, Barbie was becoming the feminine commodification of the American dream. Right after Barbie dipped her toes in politics, she proved she could still be silly and frivolous. Mattel didn’t want Barbie to be too serious. The best selling Barbie to date, Totally Hair Barbie holds a record for the world’s longest successful toy sale (1992 – 1995).49 With over 10 million Barbie dolls sold worldwide, this was huge for Mattel. According to a New York Times article from 1992, these Barbies greatly saved Mattel from the toy recession:
“The Barbie doll in all her variations will breach the $1 billion sales mark this year, in no small measure because of the popularity of Totally Hair Barbie, the nation’s fifth-best-selling toy. Mattel Inc., which was preoccupied with financial problems in the early 1980’s, has more than doubled sales of its perennial favorite since 1987, when Barbie sales were $430 million.” 50
It’s important to note that this specific Barbie has no clear role modeling or anything extremely revolutionary. In fact, the best selling Barbies were all fashionista/princess dolls. 51 This seems to reveal that many little girls are drawn to aesthetics rather than explicit role models. Also, now that young children were spending more time on the computer, Mattel made a great effort for Barbie to dominate the media. In this effort, Mattel continued to tackle commodifying the feminine experience the best they could. In this way, Disney emerged a large culture competitor.52 Mattel and Disney both sought to appease the parents buying the dolls while luring the children in with beautifying aesthetics. Specifically, once she first entered the princess culture a few years after the Disney princess line, Barbie intended to challenge the preconceived princess notion:
“The marketing language of both Disney and Barbie’s manufacturer, Mattel, encouraged this perception: Disney was the traditionalist, Barbie the new wave, in what seemed one more expression of the culture wars. Barbie’s variations on the princess theme made her seem more independent and modern than her Disney counterparts. In fourteen computer-generated, feature-length films released since 2001—Mattel’s answer to Disney’s long-established lock on animated princesses—Barbie refuses to marry a prince, chooses career over marriage (at least in the short term), and prefers studying science to attending balls.”53
Mattel made it appear as though Disney was from an old era, an outdated one. Whereas, Barbie conveyed versions of princesses born for the new age. The 2000s arrived and so did the dominating era of Barbie media. This not only enabled Mattel to outshine Disney’s long history of princess films, but it also created a new profitable region for Mattel. Now, this media marketing strategy meant Mattel could sell dolls specific to the films and shows.54 DVDs, merchandise, props, and makeup could now all be sold and branded so that young girls emerged as those very modern princesses. This media-princess strategy worked so well that U.S. Barbie sales “increased by two percent in 2006, saving Mattel’s bottom line at a time when its worldwide share of the toy market was declining.”55 However, this did not exempt Barbie from the patriarchal criticism that has followed her around since 1959. Barbie continued, and still does, to be associated with contradicting messages. Just as women struggle to accommodate different cultural norms in hopes of being accepted, Barbie bears the same affliction. As Barbie sought to distinguish herself from other media franchises and dolls, she was never able to strip herself of binding criticism and a reputation enslaved to appeasing the patriarchy. According to two researchers in women’s studies, “of all popular culture surrounding girls, there is a sense that playing with Barbies is a shameful act that has to be hidden, or perhaps shared only with sympathetic people.”56 Mattel’s attempt to appease and balance the feminine double bind is representative of the real one: femininity will always be critiqued on either end.57 Now, it appears that one spectrum of femininity, playing with less progressive dolls, is an incorrect method of being a girl. Therefore, insinuating there is a correct way to do such. Perhaps, it is more detrimental to girlhood to flinch at alternative expressive forms (playing with ‘girly’ Barbies). However, commodifying norms and expectations is how Barbie was a successful and a failure. This lends itself similar to how women market and distinguish themselves on the daily, subconsciously hoping to represent an idealized version of womanhood.58 And, now that Barbie was becoming more real through her media appearances, this only further opened her to the controversy women undergo. Saying or doing the ‘wrong’ thing was now a new area for her to be critiqued – making her more of a woman than ever before. Her once beloved 2000s movies have since experienced critiques citing her as anti semitic, and racist; critics have noted the Barbie: Swan Lake film derives from anti semitic undertones.59 Whether these concerns are far reaching or not, it seems to be quite apparent that Barbie is generally perceived to always be doing something wrong. It appears as though no matter her progressive strides, she is far too stupid or ‘behind the times’ to even understand the innate inadequacy of her attempts.
However, it is vital to understand why Barbie took a new ‘princess’ approach to the brand. The princess rebranding was a symptom of being out-sexified by Mattel. As Barbie sought to abide by feminine new ‘rules,’ she finally experienced the very harshness people
accused her of: female comparison. One of the most talked-about moments in Barbie’s efforts to define the ideal, was actually when she experienced sexual competition with Bratz dolls in the early 2000s.60 It began as a legal battle and ended in a cultural statement pertaining to gender, sex, and plastic perfection. Bratz dolls were intended to be “pick your own skin color” dolls with “ethnically vague names – and of course, a love for fashion. 61 Inevitably, Bratz was sued as a former Mattel employee created them and sold them off to a competitor. This became relevant as the Barbie/Bratz feud unveiled the interests between fashion and porn, originals and copies, and toys for girls and rights for women.62 Eventually, the chief judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals announced that there are only so many ways in which a fashion doll becomes desirable, granting Bratz their existence:
“Little girls buy fashion dolls with idealized proportions which means slightly larger heads, eyes and lips; slightly smaller noses and waists; and slightly longer limbs than those that appear routinely in nature,” Kozinski wrote, giving “slightly” a meaning I never knew it had. But only so much exaggeration is possible, he went on. “Make the head too large or the waist too small and the doll becomes freakish.” I’d explain how it is that anyone could look at either a Barbie or a Bratz doll and not find it freakish, except that such an explanation is beyond me.” 63
Thus, Barbie’s rebranding had to merge into a new, more timeless direction. Bratz chased Barbie all the way to Swan Lake, Fairytopia, the Diamond Castle, and an array of other magical places.64 Barbie was finally out-sexied, and Mattel had to forever change their attempts to keep their star girl alive.
Within the last few years, Barbie has undergone massive changes. In order to accommodate new, more accepting beauty standards and culture shifts, Barbie has abided by these advancements. In 2014, Barbie launched her @Barbiestyle Instagram account as a modern teenage fashion model needs a social media platform. Following, she became a vlogger in 2015 so she could talk about anything from clothes, depression, health, food, meditation, and “how girls have a habit of apologizing when they don’t have anything to be sorry about”.65 Her youtube and Instagram still remain active today with lots of fans. Also, in 2015, Mattel launched their “Sheros,” campaign where dolls were modeled after women who broke boundaries.66 But it wasn’t until 2016 that Barbie tackled her largest critique, her body. She made the cover of TIME magazine (see below) as her new body types were introduced to the public.67 Barbie was now available in curvy, petite, and tall. However, Barbie sales continue to fall despite this introduction – once an ideal as been set for centuries, there lies difficulty in convincing the consumer the company ‘mean’ it. Explained in Harriger’s, “You can buy a child a curvy Barbie doll, but you can’t make her like it: Young girls’ beliefs about Barbie dolls with diverse shapes and sizes,” the study explains that there were generally negative attitude towards these new dolls as “the simple availability of body-diverse dolls may not be a powerful enough intervention to overcome harmful weight attitudes.”68 Yet, Barbie continued to absolve herself of the past role modeling she used to convey. The #MoreRoleModels campaign in 2018 followed this large alteration as the Inspiring Women doll line was launched.69 Since this summer, Barbie has become an official A-list celebrity in her first live action film: Barbie. Interestingly enough, the film’s premise centers around Barbie being expelled from Barbieland for being a less-than-perfect doll; so, she sets off to the real world to find happiness.70 Though portrayed by an actress who perfectly fits the beauty ideal, the film’s message centers around the history of Barbie and her relationship with the ideal.
Barbie’s history and evolution are a testament to the complexities of gender performance that are intertwined with consumerism and capitalism. The commodification of femininity has created an ideal that is both unattainable and highly criticized. Barbie, as a representation of this ideal, has been the subject of much debate and backlash. While criticisms of Barbie’s unrealistic bodily proportions and diluted role modeling are important, they fail to address the system Barbie was born into. She did not create it. Namely, the pervasive double bind that women face in attempting to navigate societal expectations of femininity. Barbie embodies this double bind, constantly being pulled in different directions by conflicting expectations of sexuality, professionalism, and realism. Understanding Barbie’s history and evolution is relevant as it sheds light on the ways in which gender expectations are constructed and perpetuated through consumerism and capitalism. By critically examining the complexities of Barbie’s representation, we can gain a deeper understanding of the challenges that women face in attempting to embody the idealized feminine. Indeed, Barbie is a testament to what it means to be a woman – just not in the way people think. Barbie contributes to the socialization of children by conveying the idea that a woman’s attractiveness is crucial, but excessive sexiness can result in negative judgments. Barbie exemplifies that women can pursue various careers, but the appropriate attire and accessories are essential for success. Over the years, Barbie has had more than 150 careers; she has proved she has done it all and made it look sexy. Except, Barbie has never been a mother. Which ties her back all the way to the 50s and an era that worshiped the female double bind. So the question is posed: was Barbie never a mother because her purpose was to combat babydolls or because motherhood is the most unsexy profession of them all? Perhaps, Mattel has eschewed motherhood, because it does not mix with dream houses, pink convertibles, or form fitting fashions.71 Maybe, Barbie couldn’t even make one of the most innate female functions sexy – here, lies what commodified womanhood has created.
1 Lord, M. G. (1995). Forever Barbie: The Unauthorized Biography of a Real Doll. Avon. pp. 25–28. ISBN 0-8027-7694-9.
2 Ibid.
3 Ibid.
4 Singh, Halle. “Method-Ological Mapping of Girlhood Studies The Academic Landscapes of Girlhood.” Girlhood Studies, vol. 14, no. 3, 2021, pp. 1–17
5 “You Don’t Own Me: How Mattel V. MGA Entertainment Exposed Barbie’s Dark Side, by Orly Lobel.” Times Higher Education, no. 2340, 2018.
6 “For the average young woman to match the body proportions of a Barbie doll.” Natural Health, vol. 30, no. 1, Jan.-Feb. 2000, p. 30. Gale OneFile: Contemporary Women’s Issues
7 Ann Bartow, Barbie in Bondage: What Orly Lobel’s Book “You Don’t Own Me: How Mattel v. MGA Entertainment Exposed Barbie’s Dark Side” Tells Us About the Commoditization of the Female Body, 29 FORDHAM INTELL. PROP. MEDIA & ENT. L.J. 435 (2019).
8 Butler, Judith, 1956-. Undoing Gender. New York :Routledge, 2004.
9 Ann Bartow, Barbie in Bondage: What Orly Lobel’s Book “You Don’t Own Me: How Mattel v. MGA Entertainment Exposed Barbie’s Dark Side” Tells Us About the Commoditization of the Female Body, 29 FORDHAM INTELL. PROP. MEDIA & ENT. L.J. 435 (2019).
10 BARBIE AND RUTH: THE STORY OF THE WORLD’S MOST FAMOUS DOLL AND THE WOMAN WHO CREATED HER 9–10 (2009).
11 Ibid.
12 Ibid.
13 Holland, Brynn. Barbie Through the Ages. HISTORY. Accessed May 4, 2023
14 “Mattel, Inc. History”. International Directory of Company Histories. Vol.61. St. James Press (2000).
15 Bishai, Cristina. Living Barbie: 50th Anniversary. Los Angeles, California, 2009.
16 Ibid.
17 Meet Lilli, the High-end German Call Girl Who Became America’s Iconic Barbie Doll, MESSY NESSY
18 “Mattel, Inc. History”. International Directory of Company Histories. Vol.61. St. James Press (2000).
19 Economist 21 Dec 2002, Vol. 365 Issue 8304, pp 20-22.
20 Barbiemedia.com. 2016. Barbie. [online]
21 Ibid.
22 Ibid.
23 “Mattel, Inc. History”. International Directory of Company Histories. Vol.61. St. James Press (2000).
24 Holland, Brynn. Barbie Through the Ages. HISTORY. Accessed May 4, 2023
25 Barbiemedia.com. 2016. Barbie. [online]
26 Ann Bartow, Barbie in Bondage: What Orly Lobel’s Book “You Don’t Own Me: How Mattel v. MGA Entertainment Exposed Barbie’s Dark Side” Tells Us About the Commoditization of the Female Body, 29 FORDHAM INTELL. PROP. MEDIA & ENT. L.J. 435 (2019).
27 Billig, M., 1999. Commodity Fetishism and Repression: Reflections on Marx, Freud and the Psychology of Consumer Capitalism. Theory & Psychology, 9(3), pp.313-329.
28 Barbiemedia.com. 2016. Barbie. [online]
29 Ibid.
30 Ibid.
31 “Vintage Barbie Dolls: Guide to Prices, History and Styles.” Invaluable, 11 July 2021.
32 Barbie in the Seventies and Eighties, http://xroads.virginia.edu/~CLASS/barbie/barb4.html.
33 Ibid.
34 Ibid.
35 Ann Bartow, Barbie in Bondage: What Orly Lobel’s Book “You Don’t Own Me: How Mattel v. MGA Entertainment Exposed Barbie’s Dark Side” Tells Us About the Commoditization of the Female Body, 29 FORDHAM INTELL. PROP. MEDIA & ENT. L.J. 435 (2019).
36 Ibid.
37 Ibid.
38 Barbie in the Seventies and Eighties, http://xroads.virginia.edu/~CLASS/barbie/barb4.html.
39 Barbiemedia.com. 2016. Barbie. [online]
40 Ibid.
41Ann Bartow, Barbie in Bondage: What Orly Lobel’s Book “You Don’t Own Me: How Mattel v. MGA Entertainment Exposed Barbie’s Dark Side” Tells Us About the Commoditization of the Female Body, 29 FORDHAM INTELL. PROP. MEDIA & ENT. L.J. 435 (2019).
42 Barbiemedia.com. 2016. Barbie. [online]
43 Ibid.
44 Ibid.
45 Ibid.
46 “Barbie shows signs of life as Mattel plots comeback”. Detroit Free Press.
47 Yarrow, Allison. “How the 90s Hurt Gender Equality Progress.” Time.
48 Holland, Brynn. Barbie Through the Ages. HISTORY.
49Adelson, Andrea. “Doubled Sales; with That Hair, Barbie Is Looking like a Billion.” The New York Times, 26 Nov. 1992.
50Adelson, Andrea. “Doubled Sales; with That Hair, Barbie Is Looking like a Billion.” The New York Times, 26 Nov. 1992.
51 “Business Gallery : Most Popular Toys of All Time.” Shortpedia.
52 Orr, Lisa. “‘Difference That Is Actually Sameness Mass-Reproduced’: Barbie Joins the Princess Convergence.” Jeunesse, young people, texts, cultures 1, no. 1 (2009): 9–30.
53 Ibid.
54 “Barbie’s Midlife Crisis.” Brand Strategy 14 May 2004: 20+. LexisNexis.
55 Gogoi, Pallavi. “Mattel’s Barbie Trouble.” Business Week Online 18 July 2006: 7. Academic Search Premier. Web. 15 Mar. 2009.
56 “‘Just a Doll’? ‘Liberating’ Accounts of Barbie-Play.” The Review of Education/Pedagogy/Cultural Studies22.2 (2001): 175-90. Print.
57 Ann Bartow, Barbie in Bondage: What Orly Lobel’s Book “You Don’t Own Me: How Mattel v. MGA Entertainment Exposed Barbie’s Dark Side” Tells Us About the Commoditization of the Female Body, 29 FORDHAM INTELL. PROP. MEDIA & ENT. L.J. 435 (2019).
58 Veblen, Thorstein. Conspicuous Consumption, 2009.
59Vintage barbie dolls: Guide to prices, history and styles. (2021, July 11)
60Lepore, J. (2018, January 15). When Barbie went to war with Bratz.
61 Ibid.
62 Ibid.
63 ibid
64Crombar, Brandon. “All Barbie Movies.” Featured Animation,.
65 Barbiemedia.com. 2016. Barbie. [online]
66 Ibid.
67 Ibid.
68 Harriger, Jennifer A., et al. “You Can Buy a Child a Curvy Barbie Doll, but You Can’t Make Her Like It: Young Girls’ Beliefs About Barbie Dolls with Diverse Shapes and Sizes.” Body Image, vol. 30, 2019, pp. 107–13,
69 Barbiemedia.com. 2016. Barbie. [online]
70Rubin, Rebecca. “Greta Gerwig, Margot Robbie and Ryan Gosling Bring Plastic, Fantastic ‘Barbie’ to CinemaCon.” Variety, 25
71 Ann Bartow, Barbie in Bondage: What Orly Lobel’s Book “You Don’t Own Me: How Mattel v. MGA Entertainment Exposed Barbie’s Dark Side” Tells Us About the Commoditization of the Female Body, 29 FORDHAM INTELL. PROP. MEDIA & ENT. L.J. 435 (2019).
Bibliography
Adelson, Andrea. “Doubled Sales; with That Hair, Barbie Is Looking like a Billion.” The New York Times, 26 Nov. 1992,
www.nytimes.com/1992/11/26/business/doubled-sales-with-that-hair-barbie-is-looking-li ke-a-billion.html.
Ann Bartow, Barbie in Bondage: What Orly Lobel’s Book “You Don’t Own Me: How Mattel v. MGA Entertainment Exposed Barbie’s Dark Side” Tells Us About the Commoditization of the Female Body, 29 FORDHAM INTELL. PROP. MEDIA & ENT. L.J. 435 (2019).
“Barbie.” Barbie, http://www.barbiemedia.com/about-barbie/history.html. Accessed 9 May 2023. “Barbie’s Midlife Crisis.” Brand Strategy 14 May 2004: 20+. LexisNexis. Web. 6 May 2023. “Barbie shows signs of life as Mattel plots comeback”. Detroit Free Press. 8 May 2023 “Barbie Timeline.” Barbie, www.barbiemedia.com/timeline.html. Accessed 5 May 2023. Barbie in the Seventies and Eighties, http://xroads.virginia.edu/~CLASS/barbie/barb4.html.
Billig, M., 1999. Commodity Fetishism and Repression: Reflections on Marx, Freud and the Psychology of Consumer Capitalism. Theory & Psychology, 9(3), pp.313-329.
Bishai, Cristina. Living Barbie: 50th Anniversary. Los Angeles, California, 2009.
“Business Gallery : Most Popular Toys of All Time.” Shortpedia,
www.shortpedia.com/en-in/gallery/business/7-best-selling-barbies-of-all-time-160637653 5. Accessed 9 May 2023.
Crombar, Brandon. “All Barbie Movies.” Featured Animation, 14 Apr. 2023, featuredanimation.com/barbie-movies/.
Friedan, Betty. “The Sexual Sell.” The Feminine Mystique, W. W. Norton & Company, New York, 2013.
“For the average young woman to match the body proportions of a Barbie doll.” Natural Health, vol. 30, no. 1, Jan.-Feb. 2000, p. 30. Gale OneFile: Contemporary Women’s Issues, link.gale.com/apps/doc/A449317214/CWI?u=usocal_main&sid=bookmark-CWI&xid=5c f91549. Accessed 3 May 2023.
“Gender Performativity.” Judith Butler, 2002, pp. 58–87,
https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203118641-11.
Gerber, Robin. Barbie and Ruth: The Story of the World’s Most Famous Doll and the Woman Who Created Her. Harper, 2010.
Gogoi, Pallavi. “Mattel’s Barbie Trouble.” Business Week Online 18 July 2006: 7. Academic Search Premier. Web. 15 Mar. 2009.
Harriger, Jennifer A., et al. “You Can Buy a Child a Curvy Barbie Doll, but You Can’t Make Her Like It: Young Girls’ Beliefs About Barbie Dolls with Diverse Shapes and Sizes.” Body Image, vol. 30, 2019, pp. 107–13, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bodyim.2019.06.005.
Holland, Brynn. Barbie Through the Ages. HISTORY. Accessed May 5, 2023
“‘Just a Doll’? ‘Liberating’ Accounts of Barbie-Play.” The Review of
Education/Pedagogy/Cultural Studies22.2 (2001): 175-90. Print.
Lepore, J. (2018, January 15). When Barbie went to war with Bratz. Retrieved May 6, 2023, from
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2018/01/22/when-barbie-went-to-war-with-bratz
“Life in – Plastic; Barbie.” The Economist, vol. 365, no. 8304, Dec 21, 2002, pp. 22. ProQuest, https://www.proquest.com/magazines/life-plastic-barbie/docview/224039005/se-2.
Lobel, Orly. You Don’t Own Me: How Mattel v. MGA Entertainment Exposed Barbie`s Dark Side. Norton & Company, Incorporated, W.W., 2017.
Lord, M. G. (1995). Forever Barbie: The Unauthorized Biography of a Real Doll. Avon. pp. 25–28. ISBN 0-8027-7694-9.
“Mattel, Inc. History”. International Directory of Company Histories. Vol.61. St. James Press (2000).
MessyNessy. “Meet Lilli, the High-End German Call Girl Who Became Barbie.” Messy Nessy Chic, 19 Dec. 2022,
www.messynessychic.com/2016/01/29/meet-lilli-the-high-end-german-call-girl-who-beca me-americas-iconic-barbie-doll/.
Orr, Lisa. “‘Difference That Is Actually Sameness Mass-Reproduced’: Barbie Joins the Princess Convergence.” Jeunesse, young people, texts, cultures 1, no. 1 (2009): 9–30.
Rubin, Rebecca. “Greta Gerwig, Margot Robbie and Ryan Gosling Bring Plastic, Fantastic ‘Barbie’ to CinemaCon.” Variety, 25 Apr. 2023,
variety.com/2023/film/news/greta-gerwig-and-margot-robbie-barbie-cinemacon-1235586 958/.
Singh, Halle. “Method-Ological Mapping of Girlhood Studies The Academic Landscapes of Girlhood.” Girlhood Studies, vol. 14, no. 3, 2021, pp. 1–17,
https://doi.org/10.3167/ghs.2021.140302.
Smith, Robert, et al. “Beyond the Dolls House?: Barbie Entrepreneur Dolls and the Commodification, Fetishisation and Consumption of Idealised, Gendered Entrepreneurial Identity.” Qualitative Market Research, vol. 22, no. 5, 2019, pp. 745–65,
https://doi.org/10.1108/QMR-01-2017-0035.
“Totally Hair Barbie.” Barbie Wiki,
barbie.fandom.com/wiki/Totally_Hair_Barbie#:~:text=The%20doll%27s%20extra%2Dlo ng%20hair,barbie%20doll%20in%20Mattel%27s%20history. Accessed 5 May 2023.
Veblen, Thorstein. Conspicuous Consumption, 2009,
https://doi.org/10.1093/owc/9780199552580.003.0005.
“Vintage Barbie Dolls: Guide to Prices, History and Styles.” Invaluable, 11 July 2021, www.invaluable.com/blog/vintage-barbie-dolls/#:~:text=Barbies%20were%20made%20i n%20Japan,%2C%20Hong%20Kong%2C%20or%20Taiwan. Yarrow, Allison. “How the 90s Hurt Gender Equality Progress.” Time, Time, 13 June 2018, https://time.com/5310256/90s-gender-equality-progress/#.
Leave a Reply