so, let's talk about this. because it's not quite true
Barbie was not the only fashion doll on the market (much less the only one to ever exist, a worrying claim from the first Barbie movie trailer). Dolls like Madame Alexander's Cissy, Ideal's Miss Revlon, and Uneeda's Dollikin were all available before Barbie's 1959 release
While Mattel would love for you to believe that Barbie was the first, Cissy- released in 1955 -would like a word.
Ruth Handler might well have SAID that she "noticed the only dolls on the market were babies," but she and her husband ran an existing toy company; Barbie was not Mattel's first project. She 100% would have been aware of the other fashion dolls available. In short: if she said that, she was...almost certainly stretching the truth.
There was indeed pushback against fashion dolls from cultural commentators who thought little girls should only play with baby dolls, to encourage Maternal Instincts(TM)...but that dates at least back to the French fashion dolls of the 1860s-1890s, which were accused of making little girls "worldly" in magazines of the day. It wasn't a new idea developed especially in response to Barbie.
What set Barbie apart from other fashion dolls was twofold:
- She was smaller and cheaper. Cissy retailed for like $13 in just her lingerie, which was quite pricey for a doll at the time (Barbie cost $3 originally), and stood 20" tall. Miss Revlon was similarly large and unwieldy for a child to carry around. As I understand it, Handler noticed her daughter's fondness for movie star paper dolls and sought to create a 3-dimensional version.
- She had an adult face. As you can see above, Cissy may have had breasts, but she was also quite baby-faced. Barbie, with her arched brows and narrow cheeks, looked more like an adult woman in her facial proportions.
Still unusual! Just not unique
But I'm not really here to split hairs about which was the actual first 1950s fashion doll. My main thesis is this: Barbie was NOT originally meant to be empowering.
...or disempowering. Or anything but a fashion doll for which a businesswoman trying to make money felt there was a niche.
Yes, she had a career at the beginning- as a fashion model. Hardly a job many men were trying to keep women out of. The first non-modeling careers she had were ballerina, flight attendant, and registered nurse, female-dominated fields that nobody was challenging women's right to pursue.
(Original Barbie box. If you can't read the text, it says "Barbie(T.M.) Teen Age Fashion Model.")
That's not to say that Handler was completely without deeper thoughts on Barbie's place in the world. She was adamant that, while Barbie might model a bridal gown, she would never actually marry Ken to prevent her from being tied down as a wife and mother. And certainly later in her life, she got onboard with the "girls can do anything!" messaging of later Barbie generations.
But to say that Barbie was intended to be #empowering or make a statement from the beginning is just revisionist history that's bound to leave people disappointed. I mean, what's Twitter OP going to think when they discover that an early Barbie babysitting set came with a little book called "How to Lose Weight" that simply said "Don't eat!" on the back? Handler was still president of the company at the time- how does that fit with this starry-eyed vision of her creating an empowering doll for little girls?
Putting Barbie on a pedestal is going to lead to just as rude an awakening as casting her in the "worthless bimbo doll" role.
