Crazy as this might sound, 10 years ago I honestly thought Barbie was tottering on her tiptoes, ready for a well-earned retirement. A few years earlier, my book, Living Dolls: The Return of Sexism, had energetically questioned why people not only assumed it was natural that girls would love dolls, but also why they expected girls to turn themselves into pretty objects in turn.
My questions coincided with growing unease in society with how the apparently innocuous doll contributed to harsh stereotypes for girls. Barbie made girls less ambitious, psychologists said, or more prone to eating disorders. Sales began to slide; “Barbie slump,” the headlines had it in 2016, or “Barbie out of fashion.”
However, just as people started to think it was time for Barbie to be consigned to landfill, the manufacturer, Mattel, gave her a fresh look — or rather, any number of fresh looks. In response to fading enthusiasm for the doll, with her cookie-cutter skinny blonde looks, people have had a run of new Barbies. Black Barbies with natural hair, Barbies in wheelchairs, with hearing aids and vitiligo, and all sorts of role model Barbies from Jane Goodall Barbie to Clara Amfo Barbie. And, with all the glamour that Margot Robbie, Issa Rae and Greta Gerwig can bring to the beach party, Barbie rises yet again. This time, people are told, she is empowering. This time, people are told, she is actually funny. This time, even if you hate Barbie, people would love Barbie.
Illustration: Mountain People
So the release of the film Barbie has cued a slew of commentators explaining why feminists should learn to stop worrying and love the doll. To an extent, I agree. I never banned the pink plastic ones from my children’s toybox. In fact, Barbies seemed to wander into my daughter’s bedroom of their own accord as gifts and hand me downs from friends and family. As research shows, playing with dolls can stimulate empathy and imagination, and I enjoyed listening to my daughter and her friends chattering away as they took the plastic people on crazy adventures.
So I do not want to overstate the pernicious influence of Barbie herself. I get that she is just a doll, and most women can take or leave her, play with her or bin her, and might even be inspired by her. Just as it is not Instagram alone that fuels narcissism, or the Kardashians alone who enforce unrealistic body expectations, no single brand, model or social media platform should be the target for feminists’ concerns about why inequality and sexism are so damn hard to shift.
However, in her own little way, Barbie tells us something about the bigger impasse in which we women still find ourselves. The plethora of new, aspirational Barbies, who combine cool jobs with gleaming smiles and shiny hair, serve to remind us just how hard it still is even for successful and experienced women to be valued if they do not also show doll-like qualities — prettiness, neat wardrobe, perfect shape, youthful faces. In a world in which women are told they can be anything, too often they still must be dolls as well.
The 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. The new film has already led to a vast wave of lucrative marketing opportunities for Mattel.
“This summer, as well as dressing in Barbie apparel from Gap, Primark or Forever 21, wearing her shoes from Aldo or inline skates from Skatehut and sporting her makeup (NYX Cosmetics and others), you can also relax on a Barbie x Funboy pool float while enjoying Pinkberry’s Barbie-branded frozen yoghurt play on your pink Xbox and then brush your teeth using ‘the pinkest oral beauty collection ever,’” ran a Guardian article.
Because Mattel executives feel they need to speak the language of feminism to sell more effectively to women, they do so energetically. They have reimagined Barbie as “the original girl empowerment brand,” and have created something called the Barbie Dream Gap project to “level the playing field for girls globally by giving them the resources, inspiration and support they need to believe that they can do or be anything.” In practice, it means that a minuscule proportion of Mattel’s profits — last year, US$250,000 out of US$394 million, or less than 0.1 percent — is now put into projects that support girls’ ambitions, such as school workshops or “mentorship conferences.”
This kind of initiative is hardly unique to Mattel. Throughout the business world, executives have learned to speak about aspiration and role models and to remind young women to work on their own confidence and ambition but while the focus is so firmly on this “dream gap,” all around the world women are still falling into the reality gap.
What is in that gap? Not low aspirations, but low pay, lack of childcare, drudgery, inequality. To tackle those issues, feminists would need to be able to challenge the excesses and entrenched hierarchies of capitalism rather than embrace them. Mattel’s dedication to using feminist language to sell more and more plastic flotsam to women seems to me to be a poor return on our former dreams of thoroughgoing social change. I am not the only one who feels this shift in feminism towards individualism and consumerism as a loss. Living Dolls has just been reissued, and I have been struck by some conversations I have had with younger readers, who are telling me forcefully that not only do they recognize the problems I mapped out 13 years ago, but they feel that things have only gotten worse for women and girls. If people still believe girls deserve a freer and more equal world, they need to stop looking to dolls to lead the way forward.
George Santayana wrote: “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” This article will help readers avoid repeating mistakes by examining four examples from the civil war between the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) forces and the Republic of China (ROC) forces that involved two city sieges and two island invasions. The city sieges compared are Changchun (May to October 1948) and Beiping (November 1948 to January 1949, renamed Beijing after its capture), and attempts to invade Kinmen (October 1949) and Hainan (April 1950). Comparing and contrasting these examples, we can learn how Taiwan may prevent a war with
A recent trio of opinion articles in this newspaper reflects the growing anxiety surrounding Washington’s reported request for Taiwan to shift up to 50 percent of its semiconductor production abroad — a process likely to take 10 years, even under the most serious and coordinated effort. Simon H. Tang (湯先鈍) issued a sharp warning (“US trade threatens silicon shield,” Oct. 4, page 8), calling the move a threat to Taiwan’s “silicon shield,” which he argues deters aggression by making Taiwan indispensable. On the same day, Hsiao Hsi-huei (蕭錫惠) (“Responding to US semiconductor policy shift,” Oct. 4, page 8) focused on
Taiwan is rapidly accelerating toward becoming a “super-aged society” — moving at one of the fastest rates globally — with the proportion of elderly people in the population sharply rising. While the demographic shift of “fewer births than deaths” is no longer an anomaly, the nation’s legal framework and social customs appear stuck in the last century. Without adjustments, incidents like last month’s viral kicking incident on the Taipei MRT involving a 73-year-old woman would continue to proliferate, sowing seeds of generational distrust and conflict. The Senior Citizens Welfare Act (老人福利法), originally enacted in 1980 and revised multiple times, positions older
Taiwan’s business-friendly environment and science parks designed to foster technology industries are the key elements of the nation’s winning chip formula, inspiring the US and other countries to try to replicate it. Representatives from US business groups — such as the Greater Phoenix Economic Council, and the Arizona-Taiwan Trade and Investment Office — in July visited the Hsinchu Science Park (新竹科學園區), home to Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co’s (TSMC) headquarters and its first fab. They showed great interest in creating similar science parks, with aims to build an extensive semiconductor chain suitable for the US, with chip designing, packaging and manufacturing. The
RSS