I read the work on Our Barbies, Ourselves by Emily Prager. This work expresses the feelings Prager has towards Barbie dolls; both as a child and as an adult. Prager describes how Barbie was designed by Jack Ryan, a male who had designed Sparrow and Hawk missiles for the Raytheon Company. She goes on to describe how since Barbie was designed by a man that she “she’d fall flat on her face” due to the fact that she is miss-proportioned, and how this made sense since she was designed by a man, and not a woman. Prager then goes into more detail about how Jack Ryan is sexist because Barbie shows more “cleavage” than her counter part Ken. Then she goes on a bit deeper about how since Ken didn’t have male genitals when his clothes were removed, just a hump of plastic to give you the general idea. She the talks more about how Barbie shows more “cleavage” than Ken does, and how this is as to be expected of a male designer. Prager then expresses a sense of relief because she was designed by Jack Ryan, expressing that if it would have been designed by a woman it wouldn’t be the Barbie we know and love today. Prager puts Barbie in a category with Playboy Playmates and guest on The Howard Stern Show. Prager also makes a hypothetical accusation
. . .
Prager did not touch on the fact that Barbie was just as “sexually explicit” as any other female dolls at this time, just because she was meant to be pretty does not mean that other women are not just as, or prettier than Barbie. Prager also went on to say that Barbie would never turn Ken on and that she would express deep dissatisfaction by not being able to do so. Ken was produced to represent a little male awareness in the world of Barbie; Ken was her one true love. If you examine a Barbie doll close enough you will discover that she has no more than breasts as far as female genitals. When I think of the situation that Prager expressed, I cant help but ask why she didn’t turn the tables and ask why Ken couldn’t turn Barbie on either, she didn’t mention anything about Ken’s feelings, and that he might have felt hurt too that he couldn’t turn Barbie on either. Prager only expresses her own personal views and not the views that the opposite sex, or even other females who had a view on Barbie. I also don’t feel that Barbie “had a loneliness about her situation” with Ken. This work is too critical of Ken and how he was designed. If Mattel© had wanted Ken to have genitals they would have either put them there or released a more adult Barbie that could only be purchased by mature women. The design of Ken should not in anyway affect the fact that she has not married and should not have been included in this work, her not being able to find a man in no way has any effect on the way Ken was designed, and further more should not have been stated. I do not believe that Jack intended to make Barbie look like a sex symbol to little girls, who would alter their minds into growing up and getting breast implant surgery to complement Barbie’s looks, so they could attract a Ken doll look-a-like. Prager had some strong points about Barbie, but also lacked some facts. In reality Ken was made as a companion for Barbie, not some “boy toy” for Barbie to play with any time she pleased.
When reading this work I completely had a different standing point on the subject than Prager.
Approximate Word count =
1011
Approximate Pages =
4 (250 words per page double spaced)
Simply subscribe to view this paper, and 100,000 others.
| CREDIT CARD |
ONLINE CHECK |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
JOIN BY PHONE
|
|
|
