I find this idea to be fascinating. I think I agree with what Elizabeth Chin is saying by describing that it is society, not Barbie, that is causing these problems. Thinking back to my childhood, I don’t particularly recall the desire to imitate the looks of Barbie. Barbie phased out of my life as I grew up and it seemed like possibly her qualities also phased out as time went on. The subject of Barbie being an unrealistic figure was introduced to me and I did have a hard time letting that go once I learned about it, however, the author of this article does have a good point in saying that it might not be Barbie that is causing this problem. I can also see the intentions in trying to produce dolls that look more realistic, I know they also have the Barbie-type doll that has tattoos or skin imperfections, however for some reason I also do not know how successful they are. Body image is of course a controversial subject and it must be hard to trace it back to one source. With things like Barbie existing, ho wonder people are uncomfortable and want to accuse Barbie of being as much a part of this issue as “society”.
Barbie has always been infamous for representing the unattainable physical goals placed on girls and women alike. Many dolls have come and go in hopes to combat Barbie’s success, yet none have remained as iconic as Barbie herself. The latest, however, has taken a different approach from the others. The photo in the top left is Lamilly, created by Nickolay Lamm to represent the real, average proportions of a 19-year-old girl. In the article “Why Lamilly Won’t Last”, author Elizabeth Chin expresses her prediction that, much like the others, this doll will not stand a chance against the one and only Barbie.
Her first reason for this belief is that it has already been done with 1991’s Barbie alternative, the “Happy To Be Me” doll. This doll, extremely similar to Lamilly, was a massive failure and very unpopular with the children…
View original post 150 more words