Dolls or miniature figures of people or animals have manifested in almost every culture throughout humanity. Dolls are thought to be the first form of manufactured toys, and according to Britannica, were discovered in tombs in Egypt as far back as 2000-3000 BC. Flash forward to the 19th century, and dolls had completely dominated the media. Though small in size, the impact of these miniature figures was anything but that. Dolls, through various ways, have influenced the minds of many young children. In the 1800s, French and English designers began making porcelain “fashion dolls” or dolls who’s outfits were the main focal point, meant to represent trends at the time. These dolls became status symbols and allowed girls to be introduced to elegant society. However, in the early 1900s, manufacturers began shifting into making baby dolls that allowed girls to see themselves as mothers.
The idolization of dolls continued to develop, with these miniature figures acting as role models for young children. Barbie entered the world in 1959, introduced by Ruth Handler as a symbol of post-war prosperity: white, blonde, slender, and poised. She embodied an ideal, mirroring 20th-century American aspirations. Her dream house symbolized a consumerist fantasy, accessible only to those who could afford it. Barbie’s life was a curated display of perfection, reinforcing a Eurocentric standard of beauty and success. Her aspirational world was exclusive, with Barbie firmly at the top. Quickly rising in popularity, 300,000 Barbies were sold that year, according to History.com. According to Barbie Media, “Ruth’s philosophy behind Barbie was that through the doll, a little girl could be anything she wanted to be and that she has choices.” However, Barbie’s feminism came with a caveat: You can achieve anything—as long as you are thin, pretty, and impeccably dressed.
Despite her popularity, Barbie has undergone numerous controversies throughout the years. When first introduced, many viewed the original Barbie as too sexual or feminine. According to History.com, Barbie is modeled after a Bild-Lilli, a German novelty toy marketed towards men. “Lilli was a gold-digging sex symbol created by Reinhard Beuthein. Single and more than ready to mingle, Lilli was drawn with a comically over-the-top body that featured a disproportionately large bust. The character was often portrayed in scanty clothing and gave snappy comebacks to slobbering men.” (History.com) Barbie’s dominance faced a challenge in 2001 when Bratz dolls entered the market. Yasmin, Sasha, Jade, and Cloe disrupted the plastic hierarchy, offering a more inclusive vision of beauty. With their diverse features, bold fashion, and unapologetic attitudes, Bratz appealed to a generation craving individuality. However, instead of overthrowing Barbie’s hierarchy, they created a parallel one rooted in the same consumer-driven framework. While diverse, the Bratz aesthetic was curated, and their individuality was commodified.
To combat criticisms that Barbie was solely a sex symbol, Mattel introduced a best friend for the doll in 1963: Midge Hadley. A year later, Skipper Roberts came into the picture, Barbie’s little sister. Bratz entered the market in a similar fashion, bold and controversial. In 2001, creator Carter Bryant and MGA Entertainment released the Bratz dolls to the public. These dolls were new and exciting for girls as their bold fashion and makeup matched to the cultural phenomenon of the 2000s aesthetic. The Bratz dolls also started their branding using a diverse friend group of four dolls – Cloe, Yasmin, Jade and Sasha. Almost any young girl in America could feel represented by one of the dolls.
The Bratz dolls are known for their bold makeup, short skirts, crop tops and heels. Many parents and psychologists, though, thought that these dolls were too inappropriate and sexual for the young female audience.
“It is of concern when sexualized dolls are marketed to girls. One series of dolls popular with girls as young as age 4 are the Bratz dolls, a multiethnic crew of teenagers who are interested in fashion, music and boys. Bratz girls are marketed in bikinis, sitting in a hot tub, mixing drinks, and standing around. Moreover, Bratz dolls come dressed in sexualized clothing such as miniskirts, fishnet stockings, and feather boas. Although these dolls may present no more sexualization of girls or women than is seen in MTV videos, it is worrisome when dolls designed specifically for 4-to 8-year-olds are associated with an objectified adult sexuality,” expert from the American Psychological Association 2007 Task Force on the Sexualization of Girls.
Along with the clothing choices, the proportions and modeling of Bratz and Barbie dolls have long been criticized. According to the Huffington Post, if the proportions of a Barbie doll were applied to a real woman, she would have an 18 inch waist, 33 inch hips and children’s size three feet. Clearly, Mattel never set out with the intention of making a doll that is anatomically inaccurate, but do these unrealistic proportions leave lasting effects on the children that play with them?
Author and Brown professor As Ann du Cille wrote in Toy Theory: Black Barbie and the Deep Play of Difference, “Toys and games play crucial roles in helping children to determine what is valuable in and around them. As elements of the rites and rituals of childhood, dolls, games, storybooks, fairy-tales, and comics assist children in the process of becoming, in the task of defining themselves in relation to the world around them”. (p. 17).
Physiologists have also tackled the question of how Barbie and similar doll’s proportions affect young girls body image through studies, which have produced various results. One study conducted by Doeschka Anschutz and Rutger Engels through the Dutch Radboud University looked into how the proportions of a doll would affect the eating habits of young girls. The study included three groups: one received the original Barbie doll to play with, one received a doll that was made to reflect average female body types and the last group was a control and received no doll. The study found that girls who played with the average-proportioned doll ate 39.75 percent more than the girls who played with the thin barbie (while being controlled for BMI). Interestingly however, the girls who received the thin Barbie ate as much as the control group. Anschutz and Engels gave two hypotheses as to why the girls who played with the average doll ate more than the control group. One idea was that the girls wanted to emulate the larger body, so they tried to eat more to gain weight. The other hypothesis was that the girls felt more confident than even the control group and comfortable enough to eat more than they usually would. Before the study was conducted, the girls were surveyed on how they viewed themselves. It was found that 15.4 percent of the girls wanted a larger body size, 35.9 percent were satisfied with their body size, and 48.7 percent wanted a thinner body size. Additionally, girls with higher BMIs were more likely to desire a thinner body.
Another study done by the American Psychological Association looked into how Barbies affect body image of girls 5-8. They found that starting at around age 6, or 5 in some cases, young girls start to desire to be thinner. This want of a thinner figure only grows as the girls grow older, until 7 and a half. The girls were asked to look at photos of Barbies and neutral images then rate how they view themselves again. The girls consistently rated their physical appearance worse after viewing Barbies.
However, when viewing Emme dolls, a brand that focuses on realistic proportions and size inclusivity, there was no difference in how the girls viewed themselves. This concludes that girls can play with dolls of adult women, but the proportions of those dolls have an effect on how girls view themselves.
Barbie’s feminism, while promoting individual achievement, remains tied to aesthetics. Bratz’s multicultural Lorem ipsum appeal challenges this narrative, offering representation and self-expression. Yet, their rebellion often feels like a marketing strategy rather than genuine critique. Both brands reflect a larger truth: feminism, when filtered through consumerism, prioritizes visibility and accessibility over radical change.
Social media has amplified their influence. Barbie’s renaissance, marked by luxury collaborations and Greta Gerwig’s blockbuster film, repositions her as a modern feminist symbol. The film critiques gender roles and societal expectations, reflecting on Barbie’s legacy. However, it cannot escape the irony of a feminist critique packaged as a billion-dollar franchise. Meanwhile, Bratz have become Gen Z icons, their Y2K aesthetic embraced by influencers. Yet their resurgence raises questions about whether rebellion can exist within a consumer framework.
Interestingly however, the oldest girls 7 and a half to 8 and a half seemed unaffected by viewing photos of Barbie dolls, as their body dissatisfaction remained the same before and after. However, after they viewed the Emme doll, they increasingly desired more extreme thinness when grown up than before they viewed the photo. It would be foolish to pretend that dolls are the only way that young girls are exposed to unrealistic beauty standards and the sexualization of women. Unfortunately, those exist in every aspect of American society. However, it is important to question what we expose young girls to and how, and maybe some simple adjustments of old proportions could help raise the confidence of women everywhere.
If Barbie and Bratz are queens of the plastic world, it’s time to question the world itself. They sit on plastic thrones, ruling generationsof playrooms and pop culture. Their reigns, despite differences, depend on beauty as power and consumption as identity. They offer empowerment only within a paradigm prioritizing aesthetics over substance. True feminism and rebellion require breaking free from this framework—rejecting the notion that beauty is the ultimate goal or that empowerment can be bought.
Barbie and Bratz may never escape their plastic prisons, but we can. Their contradictions and flaws offer lessons. By celebrating moments of empowerment while critiquing the systems they uphold, we can envision a new hierarchy—one valuing humanity over perfection, substance over style, and liberation over consumption.
Life in plastic is not just a fantasy––it’s a mirror. What we see in that mirror is up to us.
Written by: Abby Baughman
