Death to Barbie (And G.I. Joe While They're At It)

Nowhere is the silliness of modern feminism more on display than their attacks on Mattel’s Barbie dolls.  In fact, one can say they are waging a macroagression against a piece of plastic.  Actually, it is not only a war against Barbie, but their silence regarding Ken is deafening suggesting some hatred of men- real or plastic- overall and in general.  The proof?  Why is there no outrage over Ken’s hair…or lack of hair.  That’s right– when Ken was first introduced, his hair was plastic.  Was this some hidden message of a stealth feminist agenda on the part of Mattel against males?

Since her introduction, Barbie has gone under some remarkable makeovers.  The most dramatic was the movable waist.  True, it was an inhuman waist to begin with, but now at least it could move.  People have also noted Barbie’s eyes.  Originally, they were cast to the side giving her a demure look.  Now, the new Barbie’s eyes stare straight ahead almost daring you to say something negative about her.

Of course, the feminist movement argues that Barbie gives young girls an incorrect perception of the “perfect female form.”  For anyone who has taken an anthropology course or has read Desmond Adams’ The Naked Ape, one realizes that, on an evolutionary basis, a more rounded, fatter female is the ideal form, especially for mating and childbearing.  Which makes me wonder why feminists are so against Barbie.  Why would they insist on a more realistic Barbie if her realism makes her look like the ideal childbearing woman?  Aren’t children an inconvenience to the feminist cause?

A study from Oregon State University proves the feminist point.  They once determined that young girls who played with Barbie dolls “weakened” a girl’s career ambition.  How they determined this is undetermined.  Did they survey various careers and then delve back into their sordid Barbie past?  Or did they survey young girls still playing with Barbie- those in the 4-10 age group- and then ask them what they wanted to be when they grew up because everyone knows a 10-year-old has career ambitions?  The saddest part is that Oregon State University actually conducted this study and most likely received a hefty grant from someone to do so.

There was also that case when talking Barbie was first introduced and one of her comments was “Math is hard.”  That simply reinforced the notion that women/girls are bad in math.  Now granted, that is somewhat sexist, especially on the individual level.  However, on the broader level, it is a fact that females perform lower on standardized math tests.  Boys/males, however, score lower on language arts portions of standardized tests, yet one does not hear masculinists crying cultural foul.

Speaking of silly research, someone once determined that if Barbie were real, her measurements would be 38-24-35.  No offense, but with those measurements she would constantly tip over…forward.  Someone else came along and determined that if she were 5’8, then her body measurements would be a more realistic 34-26-34.  It seems that feminist exaggeration knows no bounds.  Perhaps, Mattel to appease the feminist crowd should introduce the ugly feminist Barbie using Amanda Marcotte as a model.

But, when you think about it, Barbie is the penultimate feminist.  Just think of all the occupations she has worked.  And she has that really cool pink car that she rides around in.  You never see Ken in the driver’s seat, do you?  She’s single and has no kids…but she is a great babysitter and pet owner.  She’s so good in the latter that she is even a veterinarian.

Not to be outdone by the feminists, the raceturbators (that’s my word for those self-appointed social justice warriors who get off on racial strife and even create it when it’s not there) have rushed in and noted her “whiteness.”   Getting back to Barbie, though, it sort of makes sense.  After all, she is the prototypical Aryan goddess- tall, statuesque, blond-haired and blue eyes, like something out of a Wagner opera.  And where did the name come from?

It can’t be short for Barbara.  That name was the 11th most popular name for girls in 1959, the year of Barbie’s birth.  I know- I researched it without a grant (thank you, Google).  Could it be a stealth homage to Klaus Barbie, the notorious “Butcher of Lyon” and infamous Nazi war criminal?  The coincidences are too much and it is starting to make sense.

If Barbie reinforces female stereotypes, then G.I. Joe is her male counterpart reinforcing male stereotypes.  Joe is clearly masculine and being in the armed forces is reserved only for masculine men…and Bradley Manning.  We don’t hear too much protesting against Joe (except from the peaceniks) even though he often sports weapons of destruction and drives that cool Jeep.  Perhaps, feminists have a problem with Mattel and not Hasbro.

If this all seems facetious, you get the point.  In these days of strange politics, one would think feminists would have something more serious to rant about.  Instead, they’ve turned their attention to and directed their venom at a piece of plastic wrapped in the guise of cultural reinforcement of gender stereotypes.  Let’s just end the charade and make Barbie transgender.  This way she can use any bathroom of her choosing.

Wait a minute…hold on.  Barbie (and Joe) lack the necessary plumbing to determine which bathroom to use.  Instead of being the bane of feminists, it appears that Barbie was ahead of her time and for that, they- the feminists- should be ashamed of themselves.