Careful What You Wish: The Archived Activities of an Obsessive Compulsive On The Mend: From Dreamhouse to Milhouse

BARBIE GAINS

(THEN LOSES-OUT TO 'SIMPSONS' SNARK)

THE SIMPSONS (Season 5)

Milhouse Van Houten: You PROMISED me a JOB, Dad! I was going to buy a 'Fat Barbie'!

Kirk Van Houtem: It's 'Curvy Barbie' ---and that would mean you'd have to buy ALL NEW CLOTHES. - dialogue exchange from Season 28 of THE SIMPSONS

It was lazy writing and, frankly, an easy joke to cast, given the almost absurd ubiquity of the target and its highly-touted societal implications. In what was no doubt a sobering indication of modern animation's protracted production process, The Simpsons last Sunday took aim at one of the most daring launches in the landscape of toy manufacturing this year --- a newsworthy event, yes, but one that was far more topical in the earlier months of 2016 --- those slow vernal days preceding Olympic commotion and, later, election fever. The storm of discussion and general media buzz surrounding Barbie's revamped range of body molds --- the fleshiest of which has been delicately compared to pop icon Katy Perry's "womanly" hourglass --- is now at a mere murmur compared with its initial reception last February. Expanded, updated, and democratized, we have transitioned into a world where our playthings can, if we so choose, summon a healthy human form and not only the expectations of what works best when catering to adult fashions and interests. (These may still be realized, but more exclusively in relationship to those mature collectors with whom I identify, having on occasion acquired Limited Edition dolls intended for show, not out-of-box use.)

Barbie's inherent character has shirked definition in her 60-year history of retooling, tiptoeing between a wide range of careers but never entirely escaping a bleached Wonderbread/Stepford Wife mien. Upending this "dumb blonde" attitude was the central theme of The Simpsons' 1994 episode "Lisa vs. Malibu Stacy" --- and one can easily intuit that Mattel's designers intend to assume the mantle when rebranding their doll for the real world.

SIDE NOTE: It is anyone's guess why J. Stewart Burns, accredited Simpsons scribe of "Friends and Family" (cited above), chose to abandon tradition and not apply the well-established euphemism of Malibu Stacy when referring to Barbie-esq products in the alternate universe of their nebulously-placed, "every town" Springfield, U.S.A. Any viewer who knows his Rod from Todd Flanders is aware of this tradition. Similarly -- but far less consistently -- Apple products are switched-out for the satiric, fictional "Mapple" computer and accessories empire.

THE NEW YORK POST January 29, 2016

As the New York Post first announced in its signature style of unapologetic, unfiltered, un-PC declarations, new generations will be the first to "MEET NEW 'FAT BARBIE'". For those of you who may have missed the now-faded headlines and personal responses, here, unearthed, are the initial insights from TIME Magazine's corresponding behind-the-scenes tour of the Mattel company headquarters (cover article excerpted in screenshots below) and an even more comprehensive reaction from the New York Daily News. Whether kids embrace or deride a more diverse selection of doll sizes and skin tones is still in the air, and likely will not register as deeply at first until these children can distance themselves from their formative ages to cast an objective review (as today's adult bloggers already demonstrate).

TIME February 8, 2016

I, for one, am cautiously optimistic and encouraged by Mattel's alterations (especially the option of a flexible foot sole without permanently pointed toes). The "standard" and "tall" figure molds might still receive the same criticisms that have always dogged the company's company's golden goose --- that the toy encourages impressionable girls to aspire towards difficult-to-achieve physical proportions, and in so doing promotes eating disorders and body dysmorphia. Admittedly, Barbie is not now nor ever will be a wholly sensible avatar and should not be released into the nursery or wreck room with total abandon. But is there really anything that we deposit into our children's hands that doesn't come with a cursory introduction or, in special cases, more nuanced discussion? Doesn't responsible parenting command that we take measures to engage in and monitor the imaginative play of our charges, to help outline where, how, and why gametime deviates from reality? Surely, launching an early, gentle dialogue concerning body image/inclusivity is an improvement over leaving this sensitive issue to simply "work itself out" via other channels of education, risking less family involvement and with it a better guarantee of cautious, sensitive oversight?