Barbie’s For Boys – Why not?
I still remember my childhood fondly. I spent years playing with my assorted dolls and accessories. Creating imaginary worlds of glamor and adventure. My dolls were an outlet, as for most girls, the opportunity to penetrate the social realm with the proverbial security blanket. A 12-inch piece of perfectly proportioned blonde hair. Groups of girls gathered with their representations of themselves. These dolls provided the opportunity to socialize and play in a group setting.
I never thought much of boys. Until I had a child who asked for a doll the other day. I had always thought that the boys took care of their trucks and action figures, etc. Being the progressive thinker that I am and knowing as an educator that all children play with dolls as a means of dramatic expression, I said “yes.” My husband reluctantly agreed to her demands, but only when the verbiage changed to “action figure.”
Armed with his approval, I searched the Internet for “dolls for children.” To my chagrin, there were practically no dolls and most articles discussed fear of doll play as a sign of homosexuality. I tried several different phrases, including “action figures,” “Ken dolls,” and sports heroes. I even tried to “articulate dolls” in the hope that the damn computer would understand that I wanted a Barbie doll but that it was male. My search led me to collectibles, movie icons, and figurines that cost over $ 50.
What happened to the dolls yesterday? It was a couple of dollars and the kids had them by the dozen. Instead of leaving with a toy, I discovered a new prejudice: the anti-man. This, of course, is ironic as I am a feminist and applauded the Barbies line that allowed her to “be anything” and “do anything”. But in our quest to show our girls strength and beauty and give them loads of confidence, have we canceled out our male counterpart? This is clear from the limited selection of “baby dolls”. The representation of the man ranges from the feminized “boy toy” that Ken has become to the physique on steroids.
Sexual overtones abound from Ken’s dress to his lack of occupation. Today’s Ken doll comes outfitted with little more than a surfboard and flip flops. He drives a pink car and I’m kidding you, not one of the lines on the doll is called “Hottie” Ken. Do I need to say more? How ironic that we feminists who were up in arms at the unrealistic portrayal of the Barbie figure should allow our male counterpart to be perceived as an effeminate bum whose only aspirations are fashion and the beach. A 15-year-old nephew of mine said nonchalantly that Ken is just one of Barbie’s accessories. How clever of that teenager to admit that, to all appearances, Ken was given the same consideration as one of Barbie’s bags or shoes.
At the other extreme are the grotesquely muscular “action figures”, which are more like figurines and look like aliens or monsters. They are icons of movie heroes or rescue heroes etc. and none of them look in the least like a man I know. This is not to say that thousands of children delight in his mock fights and his dramatic play between good and evil. But my son is only 4 years old and does not relate to representations on the movie screen. He nods in appreciation at the mention of Batman and the like, but he’s not interested in that kind of game … not yet.
Where are the toys of yesteryear? I clearly remember cowboys with brown horses (not purple glitter My Little Pony), Indians, astronauts, and The Lone Ranger. Why can’t Ken come with a basketball or a briefcase, climb mountains, or ride a bike? Being a construction worker, a stockbroker, or a chef, or driving something other than pink?
In short: Have we gone so far in the other direction that we have forgotten the male perspective?
If I’m wrong, find me the site or the store where I can buy a male physique doing / dressing and acting like a normal boy so that I can buy my son his doll. Meanwhile, I keep looking …
