My family are minimalists. So when birthdays and Christmas roll around, we throw a lot of stuff away. We don’t like plastic toys (preferring wooden ones), and we don’t like clutter. So on Evelyn’s last birthday we donated and trashed a whole lot of junk. Among them were fluorescent pink bath wash and lotion, and a tiny, sticky plastic dress up doll which made her cry because she couldn’t get the plastic dress over the plastic arms. She ran that one to the garbage can herself.
And then there was the huge Barbie display package featuring all the accessories of the Barbie Takes Care of Horsey world. “Of course we’ll throw this one away!” I laugh, “or maybe we could burn it!” Evelyn held the box close, protecting her newfound love.
Oh my god, I thought, she likes Barbie. Just like every little girl my daughter is enchanted by the one and only, quintessential American doll – Barbie: the icon of superficiality with her massive wardrobe and convertible Corvette; Barbie: the unattainable, airbrushed ideal; Barbie: a plastic, toxic, collect all four, dull ass toy.
What is it that she sees in this thing?
I don’t know, but I’m going to figure it out so that I can turn this self-image destroying idol into something to admire, not to envy. If I can do that for me, maybe I can save her from the low self-esteem and jealousy Barbie inevitably conjures up.
Barbie will become a model of perfection not to hate but to emulate! Here goes nuthin…
Barbie is a Modern Goddess
Women of the 21st century despise Barbie, they mock her unattainable perfection, they revel in pointing out how unrealistic is her beauty and how “unnatural” is her shape. But is she really as bad as all that or is her image and the accompanied hatred actually a product of our own demented demands on ourselves?
Think about it, icons of beauty have been around for centuries. Barbie herself is not actually a far cry from the Daughters of Zeus. Aphrodite, for example, the golden haired, goddess of love and beauty was openly worshiped for her perfect physique. People love her because her eyes are wide, her hair luscious, her waist delicate, her breasts a nice handful, her legs long and smooth, her smile enchanting – while Barbie is berated for the same.
The Greeks believed that pleasing their gods would bring them protection. Aphrodite was admired and her worship brought good sex and love. Women didn’t expect to be exactly like her – like people seem to think about Barbie and other modern icons – but rather Aphrodite provided an ideal of beauty to admire and to emulate.
An Archetype is Just an Archetype
While Barbie’s story is quite different from Aphrodite’s, the archetype of beauty they represent isn’t. They both depict many aspects of beauty combined in one form – each individual aspect being reasonable, the whole combination of course not. Idols are merely a display case of lovely qualities. They are a guide for imitation. Some may argue that Barbie is too difficult an ideal to attain and that all of her features are beyond reach; that is the atrocity of Barbie. But I beg to differ.
Barbie is Primal Beauty
The jealous women of our time will condemn Barbie as an anorexic. They will say that her shape is a product of starvation and therefore is an unjust model of emulation. But this is preposterous! Her shape is not a result of a lack of food but rather a lack of breads, pastas, and sweets! Barbie is not a model of starvation and deprivation but rather of a commitment to health. Her diet and lifestyle keep her young, thin, and vibrant.
Barbie is a model of dedication to a healthy diet and lifestyle.
- At 12% body fat she sports the perfect primal body composition. To achieve this level of fitness she keeps her carbohydrates low and exercises regularly.
- Her impeccable skin and eager eyes give her an irresistible youthfulness. She can thank a healthy liver for that, although she should thank herself for not bombardeding it with toxins.
- She is tall and free of deformities, suggesting that her mother had superb nutrition during pregnancy.
- While Barbie is commonly characterized as dumb, we truly have no evidence of this. She is carefree, friendly, and enthusiastic about life. Maybe she is simple but is simplicity stupidity?
- She lives by the principle of relaxation and fun. Her ability to take it easy proves her hormones are well balanced.
- She has loads of friends with whom she liberally shares her wealth. Generosity is an sign of good mental health.
- She does not take drugs. Her activities are pure and healthy.
- She is never sick. Anyone who exercises, doesn’t pollute their bodies, and eats clean meats and vegetables will boast the same resistance to disease.
It seems to me that the qualities we all hate in Barbie are precisely the outward signs of her healthy body and mind. It takes discipline and dedication to be like Barbie (sprinkled with a little luck). There is nothing to hate in that! I hope my daughter will not only admire her physique, beauty, and temperament but will also strive to emulate the behaviors that gave it to her!
Related Posts
Bookmark on Delicious- Digg this post
- Recommend on Facebook
- Pin to Pinterest
- Share with Stumblers
-
Print for later
May 16, 2011 at 2:54 pm
I grew up playing with Mattel’s He-Man “Master of the Universe” action figures. Talk about an unattainable body archetype!
May 30, 2011 at 5:06 pm
what a unique post! i love this.
June 1, 2011 at 12:35 pm
2% body fat for women, though? lol. I’m a big old cow at 15% then.
June 1, 2011 at 12:52 pm
Ha ha! Nice catch. You think maybe I meant 12%?
June 2, 2011 at 7:08 pm
Much better. I like my Barbies organ-failure free!
June 3, 2011 at 8:50 am
…and capable of reproducing so our children’s children can play with Barbie too.
June 21, 2011 at 8:01 pm
I’m finishing my first year of an MA in social anthropology and found your post while doing project research. I am pretty curious about your point of view and hope you’ll write back at my email address above. I am a larger latina female, I run regularly, eat well and value nutrition. I’m confused about the message you’re trying to convey. It seems to be based on a white value system, which usually ignores the many ethnic differences in diet, genetic endowments and other major variances that differ from white ideals. Barbie is truly unrealistic to most people and can create self esteem issues among the young. From you posted pictures, I would say that you are pretty, and have the perfect mainstream body type – and I wonder if you would have posted this blog otherwise. I don’t want this to sound like criticism, but you seem like you have a strong opinion and I’d like to hear more. Do you think it’s easier to defend mainstream beauty and thinness when you have it naturally? Or even if you have it with just a little work? And also (as a general socioeconomic question) what do you think about the income level of those who attend a child’s birthday party – maybe they can’t afford the kinds of gifts a parent would rather she/he have. Angel
June 28, 2011 at 2:24 pm
I am not criticizing the above comment as I do find it really interesting, especially this:
Do you think it’s easier to defend mainstream beauty and thinness when you have it naturally?
I think that’s the point of this blog (a healthy eating blog, how to eat healthy/paleo), and even my own. I can’t speak for the author of the blog but I know my current body and overall health did not come about naturally. I used to eat terribly, and only did my healthy, body and mind start to improve when I changed that. I find a lot of my friends tell me it’s come naturally to me. It hasn’t. Eating this way took work and committment.
Next, regarding cultural difference, I get that. Some cultures naturally consume more carbs and grains. But eating paleo is a time before we consumed grains/carbs/beans/legumes. We only started consuming these things about 10,000 years ago with the advent of agriculture. Just thought I’d throw my two cents in.
June 28, 2011 at 3:12 pm
Thanks for the insight Dani. It’s taken me a while to get back to Angel. Summer is a busy time. But that is pretty much what I wanted to say.
Sure it’s easier to defend a mainstream body when you have a mainstream body! But the important thing to realize is that with the Paleo diet, a mainstream body is pretty much attainable for all women.
There are definitely differences among women’s shape. Some are small breasted, some large, some pack more weight on the back, some the tummy, some the arms. But weight is weight and all of us here know what causes the weight. It’s carbs. So if you want a mainstream body, go with the un-mainstream diet and eat plenty of fat and little carbs.
On a cultural note, my boyfriend is Colombian. Last year we spent the summer traveling through Colombia. In Cali, the second largest city and a pretty poor place, the people know NOTHING about health and nutrition. They have no idea that sugar is bad for you. They are all fat. Now, lucky for them their fat is seriously attractive. They have the hugest butts, big breasts, and flat stomachs. They’re amazing looking women. But they’re fat. And that is because they eat soooooo much. They eat tons of bread, sugar, and every other starchy tropical food. Now, head over to Bogota and you’ll see a completely different picture. Same genes, different shape. They are actually thin there for the most part. They walk a lot. It’s not so hot and so they don’t lay around as much.
In Mexico you see a whole lot of pear shaped women. They have love handles, bellies, and flat butts. But again, they are fat. If they would lose the fat, their true shape would show.
I really think that it is a HUGE mistake to call thinness an unattainable ideal. It isn’t by any means. What may be unattainable for most women in our day and age is the strength to avoid the types of foods that make us fat. But if we keep propagating the idea that women that are thin have it easy, and that’s it’s just not a possibility for many of us, we’re selling ourselves short. But this is what we’ve been conditioned to believe. That it’s all in the genes. It absolutely is not! Where we pack on the fat may be in our genes. The fact that we are fat, is in our habits.
August 20, 2011 at 3:15 am
Angel, I’d agree that a whole lot of this is culturally-driven, but it’s a culture of consumerism that looks to me to be at fault.
The convention of giving plastic and very gendered gifts to children is not driven by logic. (I’d much rather my child received time and attention than junk, but no one is “brave” enough to do that so I’m enforcing a no gifts rule.) The desire to conform to that standard is forstered by advertising messages and norming.
Cultural habits of heavy grain eating (not necessarily heavy carb though) are often also about this aspirational consumerism, because white flour and white sugar came with white people who gained and held (through various unsavoury means, don’t get me wrong!) desirable social status. Over time it is forgotten that these “traditions” came from deprivation of even older modes of being.
Living primally is NOT about norming, which is the underlying bias behind some of the replies you’ve received – and also, as Peggy says, the source of the cognitive dissonance on her part that gave rise to this post.
I appreciate Peggy’s suggestion that Barbie, as did Aphrodite before her, represents a collection of perfect traits that does not occur in nature, sort of the plastic answer to Aristotle’s “horseness”. I’ll suggest that the only reason we somehow THINK that standard should be attained is the media pressure through Photoshopped representations of barely post-pubescent females made out to look fertile. I recognise that the models, photographers, photoshoppers and publishers work under those same illusions while they reinforce them in others. I also recognise that, after delivering a fattening diet and making a fattening lifestyle vogue, it’s a bit rich that a very white industry makes thinness the ideal for others to follow.
Best of luck with your MA!
August 20, 2011 at 3:19 pm
(I want to put an asterisk next to the phrase “perfect traits” to denote how culturallyloaded it is.)
August 21, 2011 at 5:35 pm
My boyfriend showed me a picture of a naked girl the other day because of something funny the ad was promoting, anyway, the girl looked pubescent, amazingly tan, shiny, smooth as plastic. She was so perfect I really couldn’t believe my eyes, and also could help but to be attracted to her. The techniques used by the photographers and picture editors of barely teenage girls are an assault on even the most beautiful of real women. There is no such thing a perfect body. There is an imperfection present in every thing nature produces. Modern technology has transcended that in a time period where a fattening diet and lifestyle are reality. It is weird and it is sad.
June 30, 2011 at 4:47 pm
Hi Dani and Peggy, First – it looks like I have offended both of you, which was not my intention. My post isn’t about diet choice. I was searching for more of a social-value response. It truly is a perplexing social issue that the Barbie standard exists. Barbie is not attainable for most women. Diets will not give most girls a Barbie body and why do we care as women? Fom my research carbs like grains, rice etc, are the only affordable staples in the majority of cultures (even white), yet countries like Japan, China – have lower obesity levels. I assume you’re talking about health, in which case that matters but if it’s only about body shape then this is a very esoteric community. I would like to note that eating carbs doesn’t make a person overweight – eating poorly makes a person overweight. good luck and best, and thanks for your time. Angel
July 1, 2011 at 6:54 am
Again, I can only respond for myself but I am not at all offended. I really value debate and your opinion. I know I’m coming from a health perspective, and not so much social value. It’s not that as a woman I care about dieting-I don’t. This is why I named my blog “Dani Doesn’t Diet.” It is not that I encourage and expect women to diet, I encourage women (and dudes!) to eat and live a healthy lifestyle. Not the Barbie body exactly, but an in shape and thin body is attainable for women. I agree with Peggy saying we are selling ourselves short if we believe otherwise. I do not have a Barbie body. I have smaller boobs, and my ass is bigger (I am thankful for this). But I am a thin woman. And yes, grains are cheaper. But they are not healthy. We should strive to buy meats, fats and vegetables that are good for us and in return our environment. The production of grains is actually destroying topsoil all over the world, and in return, our earth. Countries like Japan and China do not have lower levels of obesity because they eat carbs, that’s a whole other can of worms that I won’t open. And I have to disagree with you. Eating carbs is synonymous with eating poorly. Eating them will make a person overweight. As someone who is in school for nutrition and studied this topic extensively, I will tell you that you are wrong. Again, I am not offended and this is not meant to come off as harsh. But what background do you have in health? This is not only about body shape. Not for me, and I also do not take that away from Peggy’s blog. This is a lifestyle, and I guarantee that even you would be healthier, feel better and look better (again, not that it’s about looking better, that’s just a perk) if you gave up grains and returned to our ancestor’s way of eating. I appreciate your response and encourage another!
July 1, 2011 at 7:09 pm
“We should strive to buy meats, fats and vegetables that are good for us and in return our environment. ”
Reading this made my mouth water. All good stuff! I can’t think of a reason to not eat it.
July 2, 2011 at 4:45 pm
Fantastic dialogue! I wondered if I should reply or not because it’s out of my research area. But I really wish someone could give me a response to the social impact question that this blog is about – which is re: the Barbie image. If anyone can speak to this – that’s going to be really amazing conversation. Dani you sound like you have a health background, and I would be so curious about your opinion about this harvard public health info http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/what-should-you-eat/health-gains-from-whole-grains/
I am not here saying right or wrong about diet, because there will always be debate. I was hoping for comment from you all – very strong minded women — about the defense of the Barbie body type. Over and out, unless I get some really interesting and insightful info back! Angel
July 2, 2011 at 5:41 pm
Angel,
I was thinking the same thing! I’m thrilled we’re talking about this – all different types of women from different backgrounds.
I definitely didn’t want to seem offended or offensive. I think Dani and I just chimed in with the same health perspective at the same time so it looked a little bit like an attack. Sorry about that, Angel.
Anyway, I definitely do think that thinness is attainable for women of any culture but thinness definitely doesn’t mean Barbie. And so, no, the Barbie ideal is not attainable by all women. So should we pull all the Barbies off the shelves and stop the press for all the magazines? Well, I wish we could and so does just about every woman out there. No matter how close to perfect our bodies are, we still have flaws.
We are quite obsessed with looking 18 and flawless. We don’t want spider veins and cellulite or blemishes of any kind. We don’t want too much fat in any of the wrong places. Barbie and magazine images of women, of course, have none of these – so neither should we, right? I believe this pressure is unfortunate for all of us, no matter how thin or thick we are.
Even though I have the “Barbie body type” I am not perfect! And you can believe me when I tell you that I am keenly aware of each and every aspect which is wrong with me.
The whole reason I wrote this article is because I often find myself nitpicking about my imperfections and hating the ubiquitous perfect model. One of the reasons I hate Barbie is because I am envious of that perfection which very few women actually possess even though the media makes it look like it’s nearly the whole female population.
But I think this envy is horrible! In writing this article I was trying to find a way inside of myself to accept the way things are today. As women, that is all we can do. Accept it. Unless women take over the marketing industry it will not change, and even then it will probably remain because so many women are themselves brainwashed. And anyway, sex sells. How well would they sell if spider veins were painted on every barbie, her butt speckled with cellulite, a pimple here or there on her face, makeup smeared and not flawless, a little pooch on her belly? It would be super cool to see, I think, but it’s probably not going to happen.
We should accept that and deal with it as a part of our reality. There really isn’t much else we can do.
So, the article was a bit of a joke, a bit of an attempt to justify a trend that we cannot escape (at least not in our lifetimes), and a bit of a realization that superb health, which is attainable from the Paleo diet, can save our children from many of the imperfections about which we worry ourselves.
There is really so much more I could say on this subject but I am going to sign off and just leave you with a couple additional thoughts that are floating through my mind. One is that I think women care much more about perfection than do men. Two is that in many ways the lack of some of those flaws I mentioned is a sign of balanced hormones, fertility, robustness, and general health and so it makes sense that we would desire it. And three is that we like pretty perfect things. We like pretty sunsets and perfectly soft things and all kinds of perfection. It’s almost like our instinct for that made us take it a little too far. But maybe that’s just human.
August 19, 2011 at 4:20 pm
you forgot to mention that she’s probably a promiscuous slut. Being a promiscuous slut is in every way primal too isn’t it? Don’t tell me paleolithic females didn’t mate with a large selection of strong, virile, genetically fit men to increase their personal and offspring’s genetic pool and therefore chance of survival.
August 19, 2011 at 8:15 pm
Oh that one had me rolling! Thanks for the comic relief tonight. Indeed, if Barbie truly represents the primal woman then the primal woman must have been a slut. I’m embarrassed I didn’t I think of that myself!
I’ve been reading about this lately actually – what primal relationships were like, what types of sexual relations men and women had. The theories are interesting. Once I gather a bigger arsenal of references I’ll write about it.
August 20, 2011 at 3:14 pm
Only when she’s ovulating
August 19, 2011 at 9:12 pm
“But this is what we’ve been conditioned to believe. That it’s all in the genes. It absolutely is not! Where we pack on the fat may be in our genes. The fact that we are fat, is in our habits.”
I’m so glad you reposted this tonight! My grandparents were big people, so are my parents, and most of my aunts and uncles. I’m bigger as well and am in the process of giving up grains. I’ve done it once before for a month and felt awesome but got discouraged because I didn’t lose much weight. I’m nursing and know hormones might mess with things, but it’s still disheartening. And in the back of my mind is that my family is big and it’s just in my genes. Today was hard. I’m on day 3 of no grains or sugar or fruit and the cravings were horrible even though I haven’t been eating that bad. But bad enough. This will help me stay strong.
I needed to hear this tonight. Thank you.
(And I have a baby girl and can’t stand Barbie. This will help me accept the doll more when my little girl gets one one day. LOL)
August 21, 2011 at 5:27 pm
Thank god for serendipity! You can do it Kristi. I don’t know anyone who didn’t struggle with giving up grains in the beginning. It is hard. I came to realize that eating any grains at all just keeps the vicious cycle of cravings going. In the end I just had to quit all together and not even go there, ever, not even for a cheat. Grains are completely and totally off limits to me. While I have never been one to gain much weight – I am so active, busy, and just forget to eat too often – whenever I have eaten grains I have always gained extra pounds. Not everyone has this issue with grains but for those of us who do, just quit.
August 20, 2011 at 2:26 pm
When it comes to toys, I’ll discourage my daughters from playing with Barbie dolls and Barbie-like dolls, and their accessories. I do think Barbie imparts a message about beauty standards that are unattainable by the vast majority of the earth’s population, no matter what you eat. It’s not about her weight, it’s about the harmful and/or unnecessary things that women do to themselves in order to attempt to achieve that ideal. If only it were as easy sticking to fats and proteins. I hope my daughters don’t feel like they need to be tall, blonde, big breasted, and surrounded by shiny and glittery material goods in order to be and feel beautiful.
Having said that, my girls do have plenty of dolls. Hawaiian hula dancer dolls, hand knitted dolls, and a baby doll. They also have trucks, and trains, and a tea set, crayons, books, and what have you. But I think the best toys of all are outside. Rocks, sticks, dirt, trees. Playgrounds and splash pads and pools and lakes and creeks and rivers. That’s where I want my girls to learn the meaning of true beauty.
Hmmmm. Maybe if they had a MovNat Barbie…
August 20, 2011 at 3:12 pm
August 21, 2011 at 5:49 pm
Sarah,
“I hope my daughters don’t feel like they need to be tall, blonde, big breasted, and surrounded by shiny and glittery material goods in order to be and feel beautiful.”
I hope my daughter doesn’t either but in this society, you never know.
My mom didn’t raise me to be that kind of girl. I didn’t have barbies. I had cloth dolls and played outside with 3 brothers. I didn’t have much glittery, shiny stuff. I played with rocks, sticks, dirt, trees, etc (as I encourage my daughter to do).
I turned into such a tomboy that I felt inferior to pretty, girly girls. I couldn’t really change because I am just so tomboy but I felt majorly pressured to have feet that weren’t all dirty and scratched up, to have hair that was more than just long and straight. Being so not-girly really got to me all my life. Finally, I just decided that I would go along with it to some degree. I’m not a super glitter girl now. I won’t have anything to do with fake nails, pedicures, curled hair, and all the crap you have to upkeep all the time, but I do make an attempt be somewhat pretty. My sister was exactly the same in this regard. We were tomboys at heart pressured by the media to be girly.
The point is that this mentality WILL infiltrate you girl’s minds on some level and I believe that the more us girls fight it the more it will bother us that we are so disjoint from the modern feminine ideology.
April 15, 2012 at 6:00 pm
I really have nothing to add except that I not only enjoyed your post, but I truly enjoyed reading the replies/debate below it. Thanks for the perspectives!
September 28, 2012 at 6:58 pm
I kind of understand what you are trying to say here but I encourage you to make a doll for girls (I would buy it) that looked more like you. YOU are all the things you said Barbie was. She is not.
If Barbie were an actual women, she would be 5’9″ tall, have a 39″ bust, an 18″ waist, 33″ hips and a size 3 shoe.
• Barbie calls this a “full figure” and likes her weight at 110 lbs.
• At 5’9″ tall and weighing 110 lbs, Barbie would have a BMI of 16.24 and fit the weight criteria for anorexia. She likely would not menstruate.
• If Barbie was a real woman, she’d have to walk on all fours due to her proportions.
• Slumber Party Barbie was introduced in 1965 and came with a bathroom scale permanently set at 110 lbs with a book entitled “How to Lose Weight” with directions inside stating simply “Don’t eat.”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/galia-slayen/the-scary-reality-of-a-re_b_845239.html
February 5, 2013 at 2:18 pm
I think that diet book is just the cliffs notes version of all the diet books currently for sale