Image Source

This is working towards objective 1.

BBC Article: “How does ‘Curvy Barbie’ compare with an average woman?:

I came across this article whilst researching the sizing and scaling of Barbie dolls in relation to a previous post discussing a Barbie store in Tokyo, Japan.

“Mattel has been praised for the release of three new types of Barbie – curvy, petite and tall. They’ve now gone on sale in the UK but how close do the dolls come to representing the average young woman?”

In addition to the Petite, Tall and Curvy Barbie’s which Mattel have released this year (2016), there have also been the release of the “latest Fashionistas line” which represents a wide range of different skin tones and ethnicities helping to be more inclusive of the consumer. Examples of these can be shown below. These have been taken from the Barbie website.

Source

“Mattel says it doesn’t have a scale that would give Barbie’s full-size dimensions. But there is “playscale” – a ratio of 1:6 that governs the size of many toys. If you accept that as a ratio for Barbie then you can multiply all her dimensions by six to find the real-world size.

Like the first ever Barbie, Curvy Barbie is 11in (27.9cm) tall. Multiply by six and you find Barbie would be 5ft 6in. That’s taller than the average UK woman at 5ft 3inand slightly more than the average US woman at just under 5ft 4in.

Real-life Barbie has often been credited as being 5ft 9in, but this may come from measuring the doll in its typical high-heeled shoes before scaling up. To simply take Barbie as 5ft 9in would produce a ratio of 6.35 and different measurements.”

It has been said that “if original Barbie were a real woman she would have a size 2 waist (54cm) and size 2 hips (78cm)” which would make her fit into children clothes, and not even that of a UK Petite Size 4 – equivalent to the US Size 0.

In response to this, studies have been carried out to find out where ‘Curvy Barbie’ would sit in relation to the average dress size. The BBC reported on this, stating that Curvy Barbie equates to “UK size 6/8 waist (63cm or 24.8in) and size 8 hips (91.2cm or 35.9in)” which in comparison to the average 16-24 year old woman is evidently slimmer in regards to size. The average 16-24 year old woman in the UK is 5ft 5in or 164.5cm, and is said to have a waist of 31.3in or 79.5cm which is a UK Size 14. This is according to the 2012 Health Survey of England.

Furthermore, in regards to the Tall and Petite the dimensions at a ratio of 1:6 would mean that “Tall Barbie would be 5ft 11in (180cm) tall, with a size 4 waist (56.4cm) and size 2 hips (78cm). Petite Barbie would be 4ft 11in (158.7cm) tall with a size 2 waist (52.8cm) and size 0 hips (72cm).

However, were Mattel required to accurately reflect the average British and American woman across all ages, the dolls would be overweight or obese.”

This last quote regarding how the average British or American woman as a doll would be reflected as overweight, or even obese, highlights that perhaps as a business this wouldn’t be a viable, commercial product to sell as Barbie dolls are now seen as aspirational characters for children, promoting fancy clothing and good careers reflected by their attire building a picture which a child can mould and shape as their own in their minds. However, with Mattel again claiming that “she [Barbie] is not meant to reflect a real woman’s body … the purpose of introducing three new bodies into the range is variety and differentiation. When you look at the dolls collectively you can see the range in relationship between the dolls. ”

Psychologist Helga Dittmar, from Sussex University, reinforces my point made above, stating, “to say ‘Barbie isn’t supposed to be realistic’ is side-stepping the issue. If there is evidence that the doll does harm, if intended or not, then that is extremely worrisome” reinforcing the ignorance of the manufacture companies and their design ethics as a brand, furthermore pushing mental health effects which can still come into play by these unrealistic standards which are not set as standards, but as society and cultural has changed, has become an ‘ideal standard’ to strive towards.

Furthermore, “Dittmar conducted research in 2006, which found that children aged between five-and-a-half and seven-and-a-half years old, were less satisfied with their own body shape after reading a book featuring pictures of the original Barbie. Those who read the same story without the images were not affected. The girls said they wanted a thinner body shape than they had. They had lower body-esteems after seeing pictures of Barbie. If we show an effect with a single exposure study it stands to reason that the impact increases as time moves on” which again highlights the issues around self-perception, body image and the impact of female representations.

Lenore Wright also added after conducting research at the University of Texas that, “[There has been] an increase in body consciousness, and it’s possible this is being projected on to the doll. Mattel focus groups found many of the young girls called the Curvy Barbie ‘fat'” and notes that the product line up has been heavily criticised by ‘Feminist Scholars’ for stating that “women are defined by their bodies”. I do agree in the sense that women are viewed in certain ways according to their ‘looks’, but do believe that we should be allowed to be who we are, and not feel forced or obliged to change how we look because the media or a plastic doll tells us too.

In addition, the next point raised in the article reminded me of the idea of the Male Gaze, coined in 1975 by Feminist Laura Mulvey, and how “all four of the Barbies have a waist measurement that is close to 70% of their hip measurement. Studies have suggested that men find women more attractive when they have a 0.7 waist to hip ratio, whatever their weight” which again proves that Mattel are aware of what is seen as desirable, subconsciously allowing the child end-user to create, imagine and play with this ‘ideal’ figure, enabling them to grow up with this picture in mind.

I find the release of these ‘new dolls’ an attempt from Mattel to correct going forward some of the damage which they will of undoubtedly caused in the past in relation to self-perception, confidence and mental health for example. However, still being extremely unrealistic even if they now do feature different skin tones, the dolls in my opinion, and through fact and research based evidence still represent women in the wrong way and allows for this to become seen as the norm.

Sources:
Bates, C. (2016). How does ‘Curvy Barbie’ compare with an average woman?. Available: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-35670446. Last accessed 9th November 2016.
Mattel. (2016). Fashion Dolls. Available: http://shop.mattel.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/en-us/ms/barbie-fashion-dolls?langId=-1&storeId=10151&krypto=4By64SKM8zN8RdjF8T7mlRjX5H1krXxniy3vt5aUy3WlKN%2BlryvFyaChGm6dY0E9vpKICD7N8yODe9iLQsJoFrU6. Last accessed 9th November 2016.
Moody, A. (2013). Adult anthropometric measures, overweight and obesity. Available: http://www.hscic.gov.uk/catalogue/PUB13218/HSE2012-Ch10-Adult-BMI.pdf. Last accessed 9th November 2016.

This is working towards objective 1 and 3.

In additional preparation prior to beginning to plan my Japan itinerary, I have compiled a list of additional topics which have arisen this week due to starting my initial research which within, I realised there was more to be considered and planned than I had realised. Below shows this list, with topics ticked off as I have researched them. Also shown below is a guidebook on Tokyo I have purchased to used whilst travelling for Phrases and City/Subway Maps in particular.

This is working towards objective 1.

Whilst researching into Harajuku within Tokyo, a district whereby individuality is promoted through a range of cool tech-led cafe’s, vintage stores and classic Harajuku-dress opposed to encouraging a standardisation of dress through international chain stores for in other districts such as Shibuya, for example, I found it strange to find that there was a Barbie Flagship store situated in the centre of Harajuku. I found this interesting due to being a district where being different, unique and having your own identity are praised, whereby Barbie is the epitome of female standardisation and evident in the role of creating an ‘ideal female figure’. On the contrary however, it can also be said that being in an area of Tokyo where ‘kawaii’, meaning ‘cute’ is a prominent trademark per say, it seems perfect sense to place a store of branded, ‘cute’ and Western products in such area.

Upon further research of imagery, it became apparent that the store sells more than toy dolls, it sells clothes, accessories, cosmetics and jewellery along with a long list of other branded merchandise. Falling in-line with consumerism as touched on in my previous project “what’s my name again?!”, this shows how a brand can obtain so much power over their audience and use it to their advantage for further advertising and sales, without regarding any impact on the end-user and their mental health, wellbeing and self-perceptions. Furthermore, the imagery below showcases this alongside life-size, to scale Barbie doll mannequins, showcasing how in real life, if a Barbie doll was an actual living human being, would actually be “5’9″ tall, have a 39″ bust, an 18″ waist, 33″ hips and a size 3 shoe. She likely would not menstruate… she’d have to walk on all fours due to her proportions”. Furthermore, it is reported that “Barbie would weigh 110 pounds and have a BMI of 16.24” making this unrealistic, unattainable nor practical, and also therefore proving how these mannequins give the wrong impression to consumers alongside advertising and promotional materials which promote Barbie as the ideal woman. A BMI of below 17, is also considered in general terms as “anorexic” causing cause for concern in regards to eating disorders and the way the ideal as promoted by Barbie, is actually anorexic and therefore an unhealthy representation of an ‘ideal woman’.

However, the VP of Design for Mattel (Barbie) argues the point that Barbie Dolls were not designed to represent realistic women – “Barbie’s body was never designed to be realistic. She was designed for girls to easily dress and undress. And she’s had many bodies over the years, ones that are poseable, ones that are cut for princess cuts, ones that are more realistic” – maintaining dignity that the dolls are for play, however when children are young, what they see is often what they grow up to know, as previously noted in regards to Jaques and Lacan’s theory on the Mirror Stage. Children are not aware of functionality, they are aware of the aesthetically pleasing design. However, this again questions the social responsibility issues of such corporate companies, whom in my opinion shouldn’t release such products for sale whereby they can be damaging to oneself or ones mental health – especially children, posting an unrealistic figure as their main character of imagination and recreation at a young age.

I really wanted to visit this store on my trip to Tokyo, Japan in order to carry out further research, look at the product packaging, copywriting and take more photographs, whilst seeing what sort of consumer shops there. However upon researching the specific location, found out that this store was shut down permanently in 2015. I have not been able to find a reason why.

Source

Source

Source

Source

Source

Source