When the first Barbie entered the market in 1959 as a fashion model, she was blonde, blue-eyed, with wildly unrealistic body proportions [6]. However, over the years, Barbie has evolved to reflect changing societal values. In the 1960s, Barbie was given a variety of careers, including doctor, astronaut, and firefighter (famously travelling to space nearly ten years before women in America were allowed to have credit cards without their husband's permission in 1974). While this fact is obviously jarring when thinking about women's rights, it also leaves out the fact that real women had gone to space before the release of the Miss Astronaut Doll [7].

This could be seen as a progressive move, as it shows girls could aspire to have any career they wanted. It also could be seen as a smart business model that centres around creating the customer’s need to keep buying dolls, outfits, accessories and additional gadgets, one new career Barbie after the other.

With the first African-American & Latina Barbie being released in 1980 it would still take more than four decades of receiving backlash over Barbie’s body type, until after two years of declining sales in 2016 MATTEL created a more “diverse” range of body types and skin colours in an effort to revamp the customers interest. While the company hailed this as progress, diverse body types effectively meant there would now be a petite Barbie (52.8cm/72cm), a tall Barbie (56.4cm waist/78cm hips), and a “curvy” Barbie (63cm waist/91cm hips), measurements still wildly unattainable for the majority of people [8].

While this was seen as a further step towards progress, in a news article by BBC at the time of the new doll’s release MATTEL also tried to discredit and deflect criticisms of the image the doll was portraying by claiming that as a toy, Barbie “is not meant to reflect a real woman's body.” This cheap attempt at evading the controversy was of course rightfully called out by critics such as Sussex University psychologist Helga Dittmar, who called the company out for “side-stepping the issue” and rightfully pointing out, that “if there is evidence that the doll does harm, if intended or not, then that is extremely worrisome." [9]

Indeed, studies have shown that playing with Barbie dolls can not only lead to thin-ideal internalisation and body dissatisfaction in girls as young as five years old, but, contrary to MATTEL's brand image of helping girls aspire to any career in the world, a study published in the journal Sex Roles showed that even when playing with Doctor Barbie instead of the standard one “girls who played with Mrs. Potato Head thought they could achieve more careers than girls who played with Barbie.” [11]

MATTEL’s prowess in terms of consumerism is also evident in the new Barbie movie’s marketing. As part of the movie’s near record-breaking marketing budget of $150 million, the
company introduced dolls in Robbie’s, Simu Liu’s, and America Ferrera’s Likeness (and of course, you need to buy a new Barbie to get all the outfits…) with Robbie’s Barbie immediately reaching the number one spot on Amazon the day of its release [12], the Barbie Movie could not be a bigger commercial and marketing success for MATTEL than it already is [13]. After revenue had dropped in 2022, the company’s stock prices soared by 21% this year in anticipation of the movie [14]. With over 15 brand deals and more than 30 collaborations with companies ranging from AirBnb to Ulta Beauty and Tangle Teezer - drinks, hair styling products, shoes, makeup, clothing, toothbrushes, underwear, jewellery, and even roller skates [15] - everybody wants a piece of this year's billion-dollar pink money cake [16].

When renowned director Greta Gerwig joined MATTEL’s Barbie movie project - coming from critically acclaimed woman-focused and empowering movies “Lady Bird” and “Little Women” - expectations for a contemporary and critical take on the character immediately arose. Yet, Gerwig's film falls short of changing or at the very least challenging MATTEL’s lacklustre engagement with the problematic origins of its most successful doll, resolving to cheap gags and superficial criticisms of patriarchal society instead.

While the movie at its height features a rousing and empowering speech about the difficulties and challenges of being a modern, independent woman by America Ferrera’s character Gloria (which ultimately proves to be the key to stopping the Ken’s Patriarchy), even that part does not really provide any profound or new insights on the real-world oppression and extremely harmful stereotyping of women, that MATTEL has happily engaged with, reproduced and profited from for decades.

Even if on social media it was hailed for being some people's new bible [17], thousands claiming online they were sobbing/crying [18], when watching and posters of it are already bestsellers on Etsy, for many people these words were rather moderate takes and simple lines. One of the reasons for the movie falling short in this aspect for myself, was the fact that both Gerwig, Robbie & the cast had talked about the script and movie being profound, emotional and feminist, with Simu Liu’s agent even describing it as “one of the best scripts he [had] ever read [19]”. For me personally, these high expectations were definitely not met by pointing to and dramatically recounting some of the difficulties women face today and implying they want a medal and a thank you for pushing through.

After watching and reading interviews from cast, crew and MATTEL executives themselves, one is left with the impression that the movie is trying to have its cake and eat it too, calling not just its central message, but also its integrity and sincerity into question: While MATTEL executives have called BARBIE (2023) “not a feminist movie” [20], moviegoers, executive producer Margot Robbie, director Greta Gerwig and most of the cast have very much described it as such. The problem with the non-committal and largely just superficially empowering messaging of the movie is best summarised by The Guardian’s Natasha Walter who rightfully pointed out that: “​​[...] [T]he reinvention of Barbie shows us all too clearly how the language of women’s empowerment has been taken up on a massive scale not as a means to revolution, but as a tool to unlock further consumerism.” [21]

MATTEL’s and Gerwig’s use of feminist ideas, empowering messaging and radical language to generate sales and consumption overshadows more profound, actual change and support of women’s rights. In this regard, it serves as an excellent example of the all too familiar play of capitalism repackaging its critique and selling it back to us.

Polyester clothing, for instance, can shed up to 700,000 microplastic fibres during a single wash. In total, just the washing of clothes releases 500,000 tons of microfibres into the ocean each year, an amount that would be equal to 50 billion plastic bottles. The fibres, which can take up to 200 years to decompose, pollute the ocean and eventually end up in our food chain. One-third of primary microplastics released into the environment originate from the washing of synthetic textiles.

Cotton is a more natural and biodegradable fabric, but often involves the use of heavy pesticides. Plus, conventional cotton cultivation is extremely water-intensive. The high demand for cotton has led to particularly unsustainable farming practices and labour exploitation.

Viscose, the popular plant-based silk replacement, is often believed to be a sustainable alternative to cotton or polyester. While viscose could be produced sustainably, high demand leads to harmful production practices: Wood pulp is treated with aggressive chemicals to obtain viscose yarn - a highly polluting process. Handling the chemicals leads to birth defects, skin conditions and cancer; its waste contaminates nearby water and farmland. Handling the chemicals leads to birth defects, skin conditions, cancer and all sorts of health deterioration; the chemical waste contaminates nearby water and farmland.

Beyond the environmental damage caused by production, most (87 per cent) newly bought clothes are burnt, end up in landfills or are piled up in the desert (but more on that in another blog post, later).