The “Curvy” Barbie

    Starting March 1st, a new array of Barbies will become available in stores across the U.S. Yes, I’m serious. Now as a child, I only “played” with Barbies long enough to dismember them or chop their hair off. However, as I was sipping my delicious 8 O’clock coffee this morning I heard something on the TV that caught my attention. Mattel, the maker of Barbie, announced that there will soon be 33 new Barbies available to our children. The 3 new body styles come in 7 different skin tones, with new hair styles and colors, and get this, the ability to wear flat shoes! Yay!!! The body types available will be: tall, petite, and curvy. 

    My issue with these new Barbies lies with the “curvy” model. My problem? She’s not really curvy. They’ve basically given her a more realistic ass and slightly thicker legs. But, she is not what I would define as “curvy”. She just doesn’t resemble the “original” Barbie. Let’s not forget, if “original” Barbie were a real person she would be 5’9″, 110 lbs., with a 39″ bust line, 18″ waist, and 33″ hips. This equates to a BMI (body mass index) of 16.24, which would make her an anorexic with a tit job. That is what we had our children play with. Toys shouldn’t matter so long as they’re not harmful; but raising your children with dolls that make anorexia “the new pretty”, is harmful. 

    This curvy Barbie is supposed to fix all of that. I suspect her emergence is due, in part, to the company’s 43% drop in stock price since 2013. This drop in price was absolutely effected by all the bad press Anorexia Barbie got. So out comes “tall” Barbie, “petite” barbie, and “curvy” Barbie.  My issue with this curvy Barbie is that again, she isn’t all that curvy; she’s just not completely malnourished. Just barely fixing your past mistake (a too thin Barbie based off the German doll “Lilli”) is not enough. Next to that, it appears she has a thick ass, not a thick body. Her arms are barely bigger than the original 70’s model Barbie and her ankles and wrists are still as slender as ever. So are we supporting all body types? Or are we supporting “thickness” so long as it’s in our hindquarters? 

    Just food for thought. To me, while it’s a step in the right direction and that’s commendable; it’s more of a toe dip into the pond than a jump off the diving board. You can do better, Mattel Inc. 

    Just for comparison:

“Original” Barbie


“Curvy” Barbie


    Yes, there’s a difference. But I don’t believe making her look as if she eats regularly is enough. Why not make one that’s actually curvy everywhere?
by Ashley Hebner

© All Rights Reserved 2016


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s