Hey, Doll!

Every year, in the run up to the day that declares me older, I wonder if I shall finally be given a prettily dressed Barbie as a present. Hasn't happened so far, but I live in hope. And have done so for the last 15 years at least.

Which is not to say I have never had a Barbie. I was given two of them, 1980s versions (Men out there, just in case you didn't know, Barbie is a brand, a legend, that is just like those cars, bikes, what have you that you covet and keep a strict eye on year after year). Long after I had outgrown the stage of playing with dolls, I'd still spend the odd Sunday afternoon lovingly washing their various outfits and going over my collection, taking a break from reading copiously. One afternoon I nearly washed out the strawberry print on this very pretty summer gown and spent the next hour feeling very sad.

As she turns 50 this year, being celebrated with a £ 20 m six-storey departmental-store of pink and crystal fabulousness, questions that go deeper than Barbie's smooth plastic skin are being asked.

One could almost write it off as new age falderal — the aggressive, vehement often acerbic tirade of this doll being the most anti-feminist icon to have ever been seen on the planet, how it is encouraging millions of little girls and women alike to aspire for an impossible figure, doing themselves much harm in the process and how we'd all benefit if it were completely obliterated.

My first reaction to this was 'Balderash!'. Except of course, one can no longer ignore such talk. Simply everything becomes subject to debate as being feminist or anti-feminist, progressive or regressive. Which is why one can almost write such talk off, almost. But not quite.

So before I jump into the discussion, let me first proclaim: It's just a DOLL. A plaything. Why is there a need to turn it into an object of such serious attitude? Sure it's very girlish, in the mien of ideas of the feminine in a patriarchal society: pink, curvaceous, charming, pretty ... but it's still a harmless object that is the source of much fun, joy and fond memories.

Having said that, I wouldn't dream of thinking Barbie as being anti-feminist or regressive or harmful to the female populace. One of the arguments for her was that since she has been just about every sort of woman one can imagine, an astronaut, doctor, veternarian, olympic participant, etc., "Barbie lets the imagination run free ... Barbie is also a brilliant role model." There are those who will say '"Career", of course, is another name for "outfit",' — Both very valid points. Although, I don't think there are many women out there (or even little girls) who decided they wanted to be in such and such profession because they saw Barbie like that. Besides, it would be really confusing considering how many careers she has changed and how fast. So, sure, she's more of a clothes prop. What's so wrong with that then? Being feminist hasn't stopped women from buying outrageously expensive, beautiful clothes, has it? Or wanting to look good?

Logically, the two have no connection. Unless you get into that argument about how all the models are stick thin and they're inspiring a generation of eating-disorder ridden women who are perpetually unaccepting of their natural selves. That still might hold some water. But to declare that a plastic plaything gives rise to the same effect is a bit much. Other real women inspiring inferiority complexes, insecurities and doubts, I can fathom. But an inanimate object? If you're letting something like that be the source of your unhappiness, or thinking it could cause such issues, then maybe you need to have your head examined. That attitude is akin to thinking donning a cape will make you a super-hero. Really. There is something inherently wrong in thinking a real-life individual equal to a fictitious character, or comparing the two. Which is what Barbie is, in the end — fictitious. And if you're going to put forth the argument of why she can't be sown in more realistic light, then let me point you towards those creations known as Russian Dolls. They're still too pretty, wait. A rag-doll then.

Barbie is certainly a feminist, however. Simple because she is every woman. Put aside her role as pilot, rockstar, cyclist, etc., aside. She is every woman out there. She has been an Indian woman in her various avtars, an Irish princess, a Maori princess ... representing 45 nationalities in total. She has successfully united women over the world in her unique way, by just being female. And isn't that feminism in its basic form?

Also, consider the fact that Barbie is not limited to the presence of a man. There is Ken, sure. But Ken is more of 'Oh yeah, Barbie's Ken' figure than being the figure of authority who defines her existence. The expression is 'Barbie and Ken', not, not 'Ken and Barbie'. Anti-feminist? Really?

And as Moira Redmond wrote, "Here are some things I defy you to imagine Barbie doing: housework; sucking up to men; cowering; being bullied or intimidated; being sexually harassed." Okay other than the housework bit, (which I don't think as being anti-feminist, it's just the victim of gender stereotyping, IMHO), if you can actually visualise the rest, something is wrong with you.

Lastly, she was created by a woman. In some measure, that makes her more believable than a similar creation dreamed up by a man wh has only the faintest idea of such a thing. And just how plausible is it that Ruth Handler sat there thinking 'Hmmm... let's see... what can I do to outrage millions of women in the decades to come? I know! Let's make this beautiful doll they will hate for being beautiful!'. Less pretty dolls would have been very popular, pity a majority of the world seems to think Barbie is better. 'sides, I'm not sure any mother out there who loved her daughter would want to put out a doll she named after her little girl if it wasn't the prettiest around. That's what it began as, really.

She's pretty. She's popular. She's rich. And the only point of her, is to have her.