Charles Hostovsky wrote:
>Of course, no one has discussed the seminal piece of work on the subject
>- the Simpson's episode where Lisa bought the new talking "Malibu
>Stacey" doll that made sexist comments.... she enlisted the help of the
>original drunken Stacey (a.k.a. Kathleen Turner), and together they
>created the Lisa Lionheart doll, champion of women's rights!
>Unfortunately no one bought it when Malibu Stacey came out with a new
>hat!
I don't mean to be pedantic, but I did mention this episode on Friday. I
didn't remember the names of the dolls though, so thanks for that.
It seems to me that this thread has split into two groups: those who believe
Barbie can/should be appropriated to an ecofeminist agenda, and can be
produced sustainably & equitably; and those who don't.
Personally, I think Barbie should be appropriated -- she already and always
is appropriated by the (mostly) girls who own Barbies, made to enact their
fantasies, wear their clothes, hairstyles and even tattoos. Barbies were
very important to my sister (she's 22 and still keeps them in a box in her
bedroom cupboard), who never totally bought the Barbie ideology. Kids don't
just play with the dolls, they also play with the meaning of the doll: the
feminity that the doll represents. But the dolls can still have nasty
side-effects, when women try to conform to the shape of the doll, or her
insatiable appetite for consumer fashion items.
I would love to see a ecofeminist Barbie doll created. Do you think Mattel
would respond (as the manufacturers of Malibu Stacey sort of did on the
Simpsons) by launching their own "green" Barbie, to sink the new one?
Another example of the mainstream appropriating its own resistance, but at
the same time, opening up new subject positions?
Cheers,
Glenn Phillips
