I've found the discussion about Barbie interestingly conjuring up my
experiences with the doll, and for what it's worth, here are a few
thoughts on the matter. As a girl growing up in the 50s, I had Barbie and
Patty Playpal (a lifesize--for a 6 year-old!--somewhat anatomically
similar to a white child, doll). However, Barbie was a dauntingly
impervious creature: she had this strangely "perfect" torso with
nippleless breasts that wouldn't droop in a million years and a blank
stare framed by "perfect" hair. What I remember most was the smoothness
of her "skin," nary a hint that people could have scars, wrinkles, etc.
Ken was her constant companion and he certainly was a kind of second
fiddle: Barbie got to call the shots, but she was "nothing" without her
accoutrements--boyfriend, house, car, clothes, etc. Despite all that,
however, she was palm sized, able to be manipulated, controlled by me.
So, for me, this discussion of an ecofem Barbie is intriguing: can she be
rehabilitated? Would it be economically possible? Is it indeed
impossible to help little children break out of the mainstream toy menu
and enjoy, perhaps, regionally assembled (read homemade) toys/dolls that
are sustainable as far as materials go and intriguing as far as body
variety, "truthfulness" etc.? I have often thought that part of Barbie's
"problem" was that she seemed to cater to the fetish with youthfulness.
Now, is it possible/probably to make young folks aware of that or are
there some things you simply have to grow into, much like I am still
growing into my own body?
Arlene Plevin
