Mattel Falls Short With S.I.S (So In Style) Line Black Barbies

by Guest Contributor Seattle Slim, originally published at Happy Nappy Head

While checking out Bossip, I saw a link to an article at HipHopWired about Mattel’s new line of black Barbies, S.I.S or So InStyle.

You already know I was hesitant to get my hopes up, and that hesitation was warranted.

I am not one to complain about any and everything. However, as someone who would’ve sold my little brother and my first born child for the newest Barbie when I was a wee lass, I expected Mattel to come better than this. You know why? Because I know they can do better.

When I was about 13 years old, my mom bought me Barbie’s special edition Kenyan Barbie from their their Dolls Around the World collection. My mom didn’t give a damn what I did with the other “chocolate” covered Barbies. She cared about this one, and she was and still is prized. She was the first Barbie doll that I felt accurately reflected my features and aesthetics. Sure, I had black and white Barbies, but they all looked like the white Barbies, except for her.

I was so excited that Mattel had put in that work. I always hoped they would strive to make black Barbies look, well, black. It never really happened, as those Barbies always had something that “exoticized” them.

I remember looking at one of them and thinking, “Okay…so she must be mixed then?” It was alright, I guess. My grandfather has blue eyes, and he’s very dark-skinned, so I figured the Barbies had the same background as him. However, I do not have blue eyes. I didn’t have long, wavy hair that had little no kink in it (unless I relaxed of course). Naturally, black Barbie’s appearance was something that stuck with me, and I wished I could look more “other” than I really was.

Trichelle (pictured above) is the one doll that has what could be considered natural black hair, but they couldn’t keep it going, and changed her eye color to hazel and lightened her skin.

Kara (pictured above) has the skin tone, but has what would be the equivalent of a busted ass, Celebrity Seaborn wig. I don’t EVEN want to get into what’s off with her little sister…

Grace and her sister (above) look good, but then again, their eyes indicate that they are somehow mixed with something, adding to their not quite black “otherness.”

*sigh*

This is why I am glad I have boys, although, the situation sucks for them too, because Batman, Superman, and all the other “toy men” don’t usually look like them.

Mattel, you disappoint me. What was wrong with giving these dolls from your S.I.S line natural hair, dark brown eyes, and features that fit with most of the particular demographic, black girls, that you are looking to cater to?

If you guys think that these dolls don’t mean shit, might I kindly ask you to check out the Doll test?

You should not be lauded for this, Mattel. I appreciate you thinking of us and all, but you dropped the ball on this.

Even if you wanted to keep these dolls, that’s fine. I’ve already described my grandfather and family history here. Where is MY doll? Where is the doll with the Afro? Where is the doll with twists? Where’s the doll with the lowboy? Where’s the doll with the dark brown eyes, and the flatter nose, and the voluptuous lips? Where’s the doll that has all of those things, not just some? Where’s the doll for little girls that look like me?

Let me be more clear, these dolls (except for Kara’s crazy lace front) are not terrible. I think they are actually perfect for little girls who have a mixed background. These pretty much cover a broad aesthetic and look like plausibly like someone with mixed heritage. In that respect, these dolls are perfect!

However, for the little black girls that look just like ME with unmistakably Afrocentric features, these dolls appeal to the tried and totally untrue, but respected, hip-hop beauty ideal that has become an “exotic girls only” industrial complex. So not only are young girls bombarded with those images on television, if their parents aren’t careful, they are basically kicked while they’re down walking through the toy store.

The message is clear to little girls, and it’s saddening because they will go on to feel this more acutely as they get older. The message is unless you are “exotic” or multi-racial, you are simply and utterly unremarkable, unworthy and unimportant. They may make a doll with more Afrocentric features, but I wouldn’t hold my breath. Little girls will then inevitably draw conclusions that they are not good enough, because they are not pretty enough. You must be multi-racial (or have some indication that you have some “white” or “Cherokee” in your family), with light eyes and long flowing, loose-curly (3A) hair as a minimum.

Should Mattel somehow make things right, I implore them to give said black Barbie, NATURAL hair. Yes, I said it.

For years, before I gave in and begged my mother to relax my tresses, I would comb my Barbies’ hair and covet the hell out of their plastic hair plugs. Hell, it was long and flowing and straight.

Barbie=Beautiful, so therefore, Barbie’s Hair=Beautiful was my equation.

I imagined that my hair, if “treated,” could grow long and semi-wavy, but kink-less, and I would be one step closer to being a Barbie, in my own right.

What was wrong with creating a Barbie with short, as close to natural hair as possible? Hell, if short is not your thing (and I know you can do it, because you have hairstylists for Barbies, Mattel), then why not a natural mane on, say for example, Kara?

Black women’s hair does not normally grow, or look, like one of Tyra’s gaudy lace fronts. Matter of fact, what I’ve seen in Seattle is anything but long and flowing, but rather, short, fried, sad and barely hanging on to scrunchies and hair bands. It is usually thin, with little volume, even if it may be long. I’ve seen weaves, I’ve seen braids with all kinds of colors. I’ve seen sisters with natural hair, like blowouts, cornrows, teenie weenie Afros (TWAs), locs, twists… The point is I have yet to walk down the street seeing black women, all sporting the same tired, ghastly, and patently unnatural weave or wig.

Do you even know what Kara would look like if she were a real human being?

I’m a firm believer in that indoctrination can bring whole groups of people and civilizations to their knees. These dolls are just one more tool in the indoctrination process that prizes and rewards self-hatred over knowledge of self, and love for self, in the black community.

Shame on you, Mattel. By intentionally leaving out a Barbie with natural Afrocentric features, you’ve basically given little black
girls who don’t match a multi-racial aesthetic in the least, a figurative middle finger. Congratulations!

Barbie cannot have a flatter nose, Barbie cannot have natural hair, and she damned sure cannot have short, natural hair (GASP!). Barbie shall not be too ethnic, that’s not hot in these toy store “streets” I guess. For Barbie to be pretty, she cannot be too black. For Barbie to be feminine, her hair must not give any inclination that it might be “nappy.” God forbid, she have shorter hair than her “down to her back” tresses… That would make her a boy, I guess…

I urge parents to not fall for this, and urge you to not accept anything below the standard, because these dolls are way below
standard. Mattel has been around too damned long to put these dolls out, oblivious to the message they send. They are trying to get on the right track, but they need a hell of a lot more work to get to the goal of having fully inclusive black Barbies.

Again, we come in many shades and colors, with a plethora of features, but I seriously question Mattel’s motives for “excluding” a certain shade, with certain features.

Not GOOD enough, Mattel. Sorry to break it to you.

(Source and photos spotted at HipHopWired)

Share and Enjoy:

Trackbacks & Pings

Ypulse Essentials: Stardoll Relaunches Piczo, More Teens Want iPhones, ‘I Kissed A Vampire’ | Ypulse on 07 Oct 2009 at 3:16 pm

[...] lots of marketing power behind its new line of Barbie Fashionistas. And over at Racialicious, two interesting takes on the new line of black Barbies. Plus a class of 12-year-olds schools Toys R Us [...]
SiS Dolls get Reviewed by Racialicious « Dolls of Color on 07 Oct 2009 at 11:19 pm

[...] Mattel Falls Short With S.I.S (So In Style) Line Black Barbies by Seattle Slim 091007 [...]
Bonne Vie - The New Black Barbie is “So In Style” on 21 Oct 2009 at 2:52 pm

[...] We got a comment on this post pointing us to this post on Racialicious and it was a great point of view. Check out some of the comments: “And while I could [...]

Comments

j wrote:

mattel knows better than this! i mean, dang…. i’m sure they know what they’re doing by making dolls that look like this. i want to know what their committee that comes up with this stuff looks like.

anyone remember the kenya doll from the 90s? yeah, she did come with the lotion to make her hair straight, but i think she at least looked more authentic than this nonsense. (and she looked like a KID. you know, like the KIDS that played with her, not all grown like these do.)

Posted 07 Oct 2009 at 9:52 am ¶
malted_tea wrote:

The point of this convo was taken over by the YouTube clip’s superb voice over ending: “Thank you for this filthy, long, tawdry little hairdo.”

But then again, maybe that’s the point. All Barbie dolls have this fetishized long straight hair and ridiculous, unattainable body size.

Barbie is not for little girls. Barbie is for today’s adults sexualizing tomorrow’s adults well in advance so that they are primed for a lifetime of inadequacies that can only be fix via consumerism.

Making the leap to assume that, umm, girth is as appreciated in Kenya as it is in my partner’s native Ghana, then even the try to be Kenyan doll is not that close to what a Black girl would regularly see in real life.

I gave up on Mattel when I was a little girl myself and I buy respectful dolls for my daughter that represent everyone. She has puzzles that reflect girls diversity, too.

Now, if you’ll excuse me. I need to watch more of these “Celebrity Status!” videos on YouTube…

Posted 07 Oct 2009 at 10:09 am ¶
blah wrote:

Frankly, I think minority girls should stay far away from Mattal and its Barbie. White girls deal with too many image issues because of that doll

Posted 07 Oct 2009 at 10:32 am ¶
Alexia wrote:

O. MEU. DEUS. I almost straight DIED over the YouTube commentary! Jesus jumped up Christ that was hilarious, I’m sorry y’all.

Yes. This article is definitely on the money.

Posted 07 Oct 2009 at 10:43 am ¶
kenda wrote:

Lord knows I spent a good part of my childhood wishing my kinky hair would look more like Barbie’s, but what bothers me most about these “authentic” dolls are the eyes. Why do they have to be so light?! I completely agree with the author. These dolls reinforce the ridiculous idea that for black women to be beautiful, they have to be mixed with some other race to bring them closer to eurocentric standards of beauty.

Posted 07 Oct 2009 at 10:56 am ¶
Eva wrote:

I think they should have made at least ONE Barbie doll with darker skin and natural hair; maybe like an Alek Wek doll. Though when I was growing up, Christie and Julia had darker skin than I did and I asked my mother why didn’t they make dolls that had my skin color (BTW, I’m not biracial), which is closer to Trichelle’s.

However, if I had daughters I’d stay away from Barbie.

Posted 07 Oct 2009 at 11:09 am ¶
aimerrouge wrote:

These dolls are my complexion, so am I not authentic? Am I not black enough? Must the dolls be darker than me to be of authentic. Do I have to apologize for my (lack of?) coloring? My hair isn’t always kinky. Sometines it’s just as straight as the dolls or even straighter. So I’m not a representation of “authentic” black physicality?

So what does “authentic” black physicality look like, since this doesn’t appear to be it?

My coloring is somewhere between Trichelle and Grace is my coloring depending on how much sun I get. My parents are 2 Black Haitians so I’m not bi-racial either, in case anyone wanted to know.

Posted 07 Oct 2009 at 12:11 pm ¶
Ronda wrote:

@Kenda

Not only this reinforce the idea that you have to be mixed to be beautiful, but that a beautiful mix worth to be noticed is when your euro features stand out such as exotic green eyes. All the myth beauty around mixed people is as shattering for monoracial minorities than biracial or mixed people and I sincerely doubt many biracial girls would even see themselves in those dolls.

Posted 07 Oct 2009 at 2:37 pm ¶
Asada wrote:

@ aimerrouge
No one is saying that you are not authentic. No ONE. We are simply asking why mattel is staying away from dark skin and kinky hair.

—————————————————–
Personally, I do believe they got the lips and nose right, as I see some of these dolls look like Ciara and Destiny’s Child before the fame and surgery.

Most Blacks in America are of mixed heritage. Even those who ” look” like they might not be have some mixture down the line and mattle is keeping with that. The continent of Africa IS a mixture!!!

But, like the author, I will also ask, where is my Alek Wek doll!!!!????

Posted 07 Oct 2009 at 3:08 pm ¶
Christine wrote:

aimerrouge, I COMPLETELY agree with you. I don’t like that people try to create these narrow definitions of what is black. I think we need to keep in mind that “black” features are on a very wide spectrum. There are many black people, especially in this country who have features like blue/green eyes, “light” skin, “straight” hair, that are generally asscociated with non-black people. These people are not necessarily mixed (not in an immediate sense at least, but nearly every black person in this country whose family has been here since slavery is “mixed” in some way). I understand people want to see more representation of black women and our wide variety of beauty, I absolutely do to. I think we need to keep pressing for that. I just think we have to be careful not to become narrow-minded about it.

Posted 07 Oct 2009 at 3:47 pm ¶
9jah wrote:

“The continent of Africa IS a mixture!!!”

Really? News to me.

Black Africa is not typically mixed and that sits just fine with them. Black America is of several degrees of mixed heritage – and that is great too. I think we can respect one another’s identities – monoracial, biracial, multiracial.

Incidentally, Alek Wek as an African archetype is a creation of white model industry. Somehow, white folks seem to be setting the dictates for better or worse. The reality is Alek Wek is not necessarily representative of Africa either in terms of complexion or look.

Posted 07 Oct 2009 at 3:50 pm ¶
Christine wrote:

@ Asada

OMG an Alek Wek doll would be sooo fly!

Posted 07 Oct 2009 at 3:54 pm ¶
kenda wrote:

@ Ronda
Good point.

@ aimerrouge & Christine
Like Asada said, no one is saying that you’re not authentic. My problem is that black folks with dark skin are rarely represented in a neutral way. Whenever I see a black man or woman on television or, in this case, as a doll, they usually have light skin, light hair, and light eyes. All I’m asking for is a little love for brown skinned folks on the darker side of the spectrum.

Posted 07 Oct 2009 at 4:33 pm ¶
moth wrote:

Hmmm. Since race is socially constructed and not real, I can’t really get into debates about people, or dolls, being mono or bi-racial. That said, I don’t know why one doll has to have a flat nose and full lips and dark skin and not only kinky, but short kinky black hair and dark brown eyes to ” fit with most of the particular demographic, black girls, that you are looking to cater to.” Most black people in America or Africa, mixed or not, don’t fit that narrow description. I like that the kinky haired girl has light skin. It bashes the whole light skinned/long-straight hair dark skinned/short-kinky hair dichotomy. Real people don’t come in types such as that with one type being authentically black and the rest being evidence of “mixedness.” Real people have a mix of features whether or not they’re mixed. My main issues are Kara’s rapper necklace, Kara’s hair color and Trichelle’s and Grace’s little sisters eye colors which don’t strike me as inauthentically black or evidence of mixing but simply as incongruent with their skin tones, Trichelle’s stereotypical name, their stereotypical makeup (purple lips?!) and Grace’s hot pants. Despite that, I really like these dolls. I like their academic interests, the fact that they are mentors, and their beautiful broad noses, full lips, and high cheekbones — and yes, the curly hair! The long hair on a black woman isn’t authentic meme really drives me crazy. Yes black women can and do have long hair and it often has nothing to do with being mixed. As for Kenyan Barbie — she should be called Massai or Samburu barbie. African nations are often the result of random border lines drawn by colonial powers and contain a host of ethnic groups within them. This Barbie doesn’t look anything like women from some of the other ethnic groups from Kenya. It’s just as insulting as when Plains Indians are made to stand in for all American Indians.

Posted 07 Oct 2009 at 5:02 pm ¶
Tempe Wick wrote:

” Where is MY doll? Where is the doll with the Afro? Where is the doll with twists? Where’s the doll with the lowboy? Where’s the doll with the dark brown eyes, and the flatter nose, and the voluptuous lips? Where’s the doll that has all of those things, not just some? Where’s the doll for little girls that look like me?”

I wish I had read this post before the later one, because my response is more appropriate here. Surprisingly, Mattel has made dolls like you describe. Back in the 90’s there was a series of three black dolls called Asha, Shani and Nichelle. They had three different skin tones (light, medium, dark) and used three different (and new) face molds. The most interesting (and the biggest departure from the status quo for Mattel) was the Nichelle face. She had a wide nose, full lips and on some versions, a teeny weeny afro. The Kenyan doll whose picture was posted uses the Nichelle face mold, so you can see what it looks like.

Since then, Mattel has used these molds on quite a few different dolls, with a variety of hair textures–twists, braids, short afros. Unfortunately, most of those dolls were ones intended for collectors. The play line dolls–the ones intended for children–generally have long hair because hair play is one of the things most girls do with the dolls.

Here is a link to a collector’s page about the various black Barbie’s faces and hair styles/textures.

http://kattisdolls.net/faces/bethnic.htm

Posted 07 Oct 2009 at 5:05 pm ¶
Black Narcissus wrote:

Ahhh good ole Seaborn at Celebrity Status!! LOL…gotta love him!

Oh and the author was on point with this article. They’re just scrambling to keep up with the Bratz market. Too late Mattel. Seems like little girls of color DO buy dolls. Now you want to come up with these afterthoughts? LOL…laughable and tacky and a slap in the face. Just keep catering to your “base” market. Our little girls don’t need to complexes anyway. Barbies built like a greyhound on two legs!

Posted 07 Oct 2009 at 5:32 pm ¶
SeattleSlim wrote:

@aimerrouge and Christine,

This is why I added my feelings of been torn when I mentioned my grandfather.

I come from a family that is pretty much darker on one side and lighter on the other. I’m kind of in the middle, but nobody can tell *lol*.

These dolls are great for you. If my boys would’ve been born girls, they would’ve been great for them, but I still would’ve been frustrated and perturbed at them leaving out my shade, my “Alek Wek” Barbie.

My question is where is MY doll. Even if you take Trichelle and Grace out of the equation, why does Kara look like the poor tragic creature in the Celebrity Seaborn video?

When you look at that video, do you see someone who has formulated healthy thoughts about themselves or their race? I don’t. I’ve watched enough of his videos to know (please Youtube it for a scary study in…God, it’s freaky…I have no words) that the “stylist” and his subjects have unhealthy views of being black, one of them even announcing to not “insult” her like “that” when he said she doesn’t even look black anymore.

When Mattel and others intentionally leave out dolls that represent an aesthetic that has long been considered unattractive in the first place, they reinforce that “light” is right, and everything else is unremarkable.

Posted 07 Oct 2009 at 5:37 pm ¶
SeattleSlim wrote:

Correction:

He tells her when she shakes her new ghastly wig that she doesn’t even look black anymore. She then responds in the effect of not being black in the first place, don’t insult her by even imagining that she could’ve been black in the first place, and then saying that her dad and mother are Native American and hispanic.

She’s clearly multiracial. So if she’s not black, fine, but why would it even be an insult? Black or not?

These Barbies play into that. There is nothing wrong with not being light, with light eyes, and kinky hair. Nothing. When Mattel chooses to miss that “memo” it can hurt.

Posted 07 Oct 2009 at 5:40 pm ¶
Ree wrote:

FWIW, I collect Barbie’s and Mattel has a collection of very beutiful dolls by Byron Lars. There are 14 dolls in his collection with a great diversity of skin tone, hair texture and face molds. His line is here:

http://www.barbiecollector.com/showcase/gallery.aspx?t=modern&y=s150010

As for the S.I.S dolls, I am not crazy about them. But I don’t think 3 dolls could ever cover the sheer volume of hair/skin/features combination that sisters have.

Posted 07 Oct 2009 at 8:57 pm ¶
Zahra wrote:

WHAT is with the blue eyes? Yeah, I know it can happen–but last I heard, brown eyes were more common even among white people. It’s just nuts.

It’s like Toni Morrison’s The Bluest Eye: The 2009 Mattel Edition. I can’t look at those dolls without thinking of Pecola.

Posted 07 Oct 2009 at 9:06 pm ¶
ashlynn wrote:

Not to mention, if these dolls were “So In Style”, they would know that Black girls returning to their natural textures and exploring natural styles- ‘fros, braids, locs, twists, kinky, curly, nappy hair DO NOT CARE! is TOTALLY in style right now.

And let’s hope it stays that way!

Posted 07 Oct 2009 at 11:46 pm ¶
n wrote:

To be honest, to MY eyes all the dolls look quite “black”.

And while I could quibble about the authenticity of the dolls, the issue is not whether the dolls are representative of ANY women of African heritage. The issue is why there are almost never any dolls that are representative of CERTAIN women of African heritage.

From a marketing perspective, I am sure that they picked a happy medium. Dolls that would likely appeal to the broadest range of black consumers. Thats cool. As I said, to ME the dolls all look “black” and other than the hair I’d not blink when presented with them. So Im sure the white folk and other non black people who see the dolls and signed off on them felt they met the blackness standard, they are operating from a different frame of reference. Its entirely possible that white people and even the black woman who designed them felt the dolls are entirely representative of black women. I mean, most people in the US see straightened hair as the norm and natural hair as the exception or aberration.

But, if the company wants to claim they are representing, which I doubt, they surely could have a wider range of black. There are 3 dolls, 6 including the small kids. One could have some kink to the hair.

But this is the problem, black people need to IMO stop looking to white people to represent them. The problem isn’t diversity in the dolls, its diversity in the company. I’m mentioning my appearance today to point out that we all have different POVs. I see all the dolls as dark. I think Beyonce and Halle Berry are dark.And Im a black woman.I KNOW differently, but I SEE and PERCEIVE them that way and if I were told- Make a dark doll. I may make one like the lightest one there. Not out of hatred, racism or malice. But because what one person sees as dark may be what another sees as light. I have a white coworker who sees her brunette daughters as dark, I see them as lily white. SO AINT NO CHANCE IN HELL that a company with very few dark skinned black people is going to approach these dolls and say,”Not dark enough, not black enough”.

Black people, people who are intimately aware of the differences in hair types and textures, in eye colors and so forth are the ones who need to be doing this. Not one or 2, a LOT of them. People who are approaching this from a black standard not a whiter or lighter one.

And to be frank, I think we are all foolish if we believe anyone else is going to let us come in and take over their companies and push our aesthetic. We have to find a way to do it.It is, IMO, foolish or idealistic beyond belief to expect the company that created the doll that is now considered the archetypal white woman, to promote any other beauty ideal.

My little one turns 6 soon and I was online today looking for a doll for her. I have never been able to find dolls with the coloring and features t hat match my girls AND the correct hair. I figured I would just buy a doll I liked then get a curly doll wig for it. It would be lovely if someone else would make them,but I truly believe it is our responsibility to do so. And hopefully we will get the means to do that.

Posted 08 Oct 2009 at 12:19 am ¶
Nappy Mind wrote:

On the link, this Black British woman almost lost her eyesight after flying to Panama to have her brown implanted with blue lenses.

http://madnews.wordpress.com/2009/08/30/uk-news-black-woman-almost-blinded-after-undergoing-operation-to-turn-her-brown-eyes-blue/

Posted 08 Oct 2009 at 12:24 am ¶
little mixed girl wrote:

I guess I will be in the minority when I say that even though I had barbie (and a skipper) doll when I was little, I wasn’t in love with them, and I never wanted or searched for a doll that looked like me.

I played with the dolls, but for me, I was just giving a voice to a doll.
Barbie hair is hard and stiff and most of my dolls had tangled hair. Out of the bunch, the only one I liked was the pocohantas doll.

But, I digress.

One thing that struck me was the part about the current dolls looking mixed.
It seems like a person who is part-black can never win in the black community.
If we don’t identify as black (especially those who have 1 black parent), then we’re called sell-outs and whatever other vile language people can throw.
When they do identify as black, and especially if they are women, the message is “you are only popular because you’re mixed”.
I’m quite tired of mixed people being used as a standard of beauty for non-mixed minorities.

I would totally prefer that if mattel was going to make a line, they make one of mixed dolls and one of monoracial dolls.

As to the black dolls not having curly hair, I know that when I was 5 or 6 I got a black barbie from my aunt.
She had curly hair (and also a rat-tail mullet thing going on). Again, I’m not a Barbie fan so I couldn’t give a barbie history, but there certainly have been curly haired ones.
Maybe they weren’t released nationwide?
I guess I could see how my aunt could have gotten that doll living in metro-Detroit where there’s a market for black dolls?

Of course, I don’t get why white kids can’t play with Asian dolls or Black kids can’t play with Hispanic dolls…and why a doll has to be a representation of the person playing with it….

Posted 08 Oct 2009 at 12:25 am ¶
n wrote:

@Tempe Wick

Thats a cool link. I like the Summer Head Mold, wish I could find it with DARK eyes and DARK kinky hair.
Nappy hair dolls of ALL complexions and face shapes would be nice.

That Mbili doll is GORGEOUS!!!!!

Posted 08 Oct 2009 at 12:46 am ¶
wendi muse wrote:

i understand the criticism here, but i think that these dolls are a good start for something that’s a long time coming. i, too have the kenya doll and all three of those black dolls from the early 90s collection, and i remember thinking how reaffirming having dolls that looked somewhat like me and my family (who, skin color wise, was closer to white barbie than the black ones, nevertheless) in terms of facial features.

with regard to the hair especially, i am thrilled to see that one doll has curly hair. that’s what seems to be a first for barbies. i personally like that they gave the lighter skinned of the three natural hair bc i think it shows how much diversity in features alone are present within the black community. in addition, it allows the barbies to be more accessible for other communities as well, namely the latin@ population, many of whom happen to resemble said barbie (i.e many women of dominican and puerto rican descent here in nyc).

if they had made the barbie with curly hair have dark skin, i could see people asking the question, “so, lighter blacks are the only ones with wavy/straight hair? why does the darkest one have to be the one with ‘natural’ hair?”

it’s a catch 22 from a marketing standpoint, but i think their choice was a conscious one, possibly one with this in mind. i hear it all the time from my peers when they see black women in magazines and ads. oftentimes, the darker models are the ones on whom they decide to “Experiment’ with the hair, leaving them looking a hot mess as opposed to having a neat coif like the other girls in the ad (and no, i am not talking about the stock photo black lady with curly hair).

again, i think this is a step in the right direction. over time, mattel will come up with other dolls reflective of the black community, but in the meantime, i think this reflects things well (i.e. lots of black women DO have relaxed hair…black women come in different skin tones, have various features etc). and i don’t think that the dolls who have what you call “mixed” features have a not-quite-black otherness. i think this, too, is reflective of the majority of the black population in america, which varies in terms of features.

these dolls call into question what “authenticity” actually is. when we look at white barbies, are they reflective of the general white population? hell.no.

Posted 08 Oct 2009 at 12:55 am ¶
moth wrote:

@Zahra – As I mentioned in an earlier post, I take issue with some of the doll’s eyes because they look simply jarring, but others of the dolls eyes don’t bother me. For example, Kara’s little sister’s blue eyes seem plausible/unproblematic to me. As for the lighter brown eyes, that’s just what Barbie eyes look like no matter the race. The dolls often have swirls of light or bright colors such as purple, pink, turquoise, honey, pale blue gray, etc. in the iris. I don’t think the eyes that read as light brown are actually meant to be light brown — I think they’re meant to be taken as stylized rather than literal or as a trait of racial trait — similarly to how many people argue that the characters in the cartoon Avatar are meant to be Asian though they have stylized blue, gray, etc. eyes based on their power.

Posted 08 Oct 2009 at 2:03 am ¶
insomniac wrote:

I just have to observe, I am white and have never seen a Barbie doll that looks like me either. Barbie doesn’t look like anyone. The body mould itself is that of no anorexic supermodel in the world. As well as race, this is a major consideration. It is one thing to take care that facial features and skin tone are more relate-able for black girls, but still, what does it do to their self-esteem to look at Barbie from the neck down and see this kind of body held up as an ideal?

I don’t think we can expect anything better from a company such as Mattell, which has been encouraging poor self-image amongst girls throughout its history on the grounds of body shape, race and ethnicity. I’d like to see all women boycotting Barbies, and not buying these things for their daughters untill there are dolls that look like all of us in the shops.

Posted 08 Oct 2009 at 3:49 am ¶
Sara wrote:

Oh man, I had Kenyan Barbie! She was the best. I kept her box because I didn’t want her to get dirty, unlike the other black Barbies I had, which now exist in various states of shoe- and head-lessness in my mother’s basement. She would go on dates with my MC Hammer doll.

Posted 08 Oct 2009 at 9:46 am ¶
ieishah wrote:

@9jah
yes, the continent of africa is totally a mix, if you call differences in skin color, hair texture, height, body type etc. a ‘mix’. sudanese and senegalese are so completely different from other west africans (in spain there are lots of guineans), one glance, and you can tell the difference. ethiopians and eritreans have such distinctive hair textures and skin tones, they are instantly recognizable. does this not constitute ‘racial’ difference? or are we only talkin race when we’re talkin black and white?

i had a mozambiquan roomie in grad school in england who was light skinned with curly hair… very typical in former portuguese colonies. black africa is not, by any calculation, a monolith. and trust, many african women who NOT have light skin and straight hair are NOT fine with it. i don’t know what parts you’ve visited, but i’ve never seen skin bleaching the likes of which i’ve seen in different parts of africa. perhaps your experience has been different.
——–

all this to say, i’m with wendi muse on this one. did mattel hit a home run on this? no. do little black dolls in booty shorts make me a tad uncomfy? hell, yes. but i think it’s a start. and i can definitely see these dolls appealing to an ethnic cross section. dolls are fantasy. make believe. and though the fantasy realm is a big part of children’s lives, we can help counter the negative effects dolls like these may have on their psyches by making real life suck less. a simple ‘you are beautiful’, once a day, everyday, i think, would go a long way.

Posted 08 Oct 2009 at 11:06 am ¶
kenda wrote:

@ little mixed girl
I don’t want anyone to take my issues with Mattel as a screed against mixed people. As I wrote before, the problem I have with these barbies is that they reinforce the notion that black women need features normally associated with white people to be considered beautiful. No one should make you or other multiracial people feel out of place because of who you are, but my saying that I want black girls/women with dark nappy hair, dark skin, and dark eyes to be represented is not the same thing as saying “you’re only popular because you’re mixed”.

And I don’ t really think there needs to be separate lines of black, white, Asian, Latino, black-white, Asian-Latino, etc. dolls. I just think a good representation of the spectrum of skin tones (and eye colors!) people actually come in would be sufficient.

Posted 08 Oct 2009 at 12:27 pm ¶
SeattleSlim wrote:

Absolutely. As an adult I would never want to have Barbie’s proportions (ouch!) but as a kid I didn’t know any better.

The kids can’t win for losing. Turn on the TV and they’re bombarded, toy store, bombarded, in their own communities too.

I would classify this as an assault on the psyche. Nobody really knows how it will substantiate itself, but it’s there, and waiting.

I wanted a mix of dolls. I wanted something to represent me and my friends and I didn’t get that, which further reinforced the message that I was on the fringe.

My cartoons didn’t have me, popular shows (like Xuxa for me in Panama) didn’t have me, and Barbie kind of had me, but I knew in my heart, that she looked nothing like me.

That’s a very tough thing to reckon with as a kid. Our kids shouldn’t anymore.

The thing is, if say you or I were to create appealing dolls that covered all of the Black spectrum, would kids of all races play with them? The more things change, the more they stay the same.

Posted 08 Oct 2009 at 2:16 pm ¶
9jah wrote:

@little mixed girl:

While I agree with you that separate mixed and monoracial dolls would be just great, i have to object to the notion of mixed people not winning in the “black community” and attitudes towards them. As with outside perceptions of the “black community” this is an equally dangerous generalization about a community that is not monolithic. The point people are raising here is a more nuanced one about representation across the “black” spectrum.

@ieishah:

I think you misunderstood my post. I speak specifically of racial mixture. None of the others typically constitute an oppressed class. Yes, there are countries in/around Africa that have populations with notable racial mixture but this is not at all representative. Even in these countries, the mixed folks are a distinct minority.

My other point was being mixraced is not deemed particularly desirable for myriad reasons. Sure many people bleach but I don’t think it refutes this point. For one, as widespread as bleaching is, you’re still looking at a relatively small number in the aggregate. And bleachers are not viewed fondly. Also, I would argue that African bleaching is its own neurosis and does not reflect a desire to be white since normative Euro beauty standards have not historically resonated (although its probably changing in the area of hair).

Posted 08 Oct 2009 at 4:29 pm ¶
lunanoire wrote:

@ little mixed girl-

Unfortunately so many in the Af-Am community do not like their (likely) African features that:

1. as you said, mixed (part Af-Am) people get jealousy-based hate, a form of self-hate-based hate.

AND
2. non-mixed people get insulted for having African features, a form of self-hate-based hate. I was walking down the street a few months ago and a couple of Af-Am adults decided to stop their conversation to yell “n****r hair” at me.

In short, it’s a lose-lose situation for both groups.

On the other hand, non-mixed looking people don’t get appearance-based claims of inauthenticity based on other’s perceptions.

On the other hand, mixed looking people get a degree of social currency in being viewed as better/smarter/harder-working/more trustworthy/better-looking/more worthy of respect based on other’s perceptions.

Posted 08 Oct 2009 at 4:42 pm ¶
Lizet wrote:

I do NOT understand what all this fuss about these dolls not looking BLACK American…I know many people in the South that definitely look like these dolls. When I first saw these dolls, I was extremely happy that Mattel finally came out with a doll that actually matched the Black American demographic. Not African…not even Carribean American, but Black American. For years, I’ve actually wanted to see Black Americans who primarily are a direct product of the mixtures created from American slavery and slavery represented in the media and in the modeling realm because it seems that ironically, in our own country, aside from the music industry and especially in the modeling industry, where many of the Black models are completely African or even Carribean, we are forgotten.
No offense to and not to alienate anyone, but Alek Wek does NOT represent a person who is the product of Amercan slavery and history, which normally would be a mixture of West (not East) African, White American, and Native American. Even more, the American stereotype of the African “look” is East and Central African, if that, and does not in any way encompass West Africans, which would be the common “African” look for Black Americans since that is where the bulk of the slaves came from…Even more, if Mattel is trying to capture the “typical” Black American look, why would they produce a Black American doll that looks like the Kenyan Alek Wek?
My biggest point is that it seems that the representation of Blacks in the American media is either one extreme or the next… and neither extreme ever even touches the middle “common” Ciara, Queen Latifah, Michelle Obama, Whitney Houston or Kelly Rowland “look” for historically-Black American women, and there are many Black women, especially in the South where the Blacks are definitely a product of American slavery that look like these women opposed to the more diversified East and West Coasts.

Posted 08 Oct 2009 at 5:50 pm ¶
D7ana wrote:

I would have liked new head molds and different head molds among the SiS dolls; they all have the same head mold. I would also have preferred more variety in the dolls’ hair. Mattel actually has produced varied and – by some counts – more ethnically accurate Black doll hair. Please see some examples in this blog entry I wrote on the subject.

My guess is that these dolls were done in a rush to be produced during Barbie’s 50th anniversary/birthday. That could be why the hair didn’t live up to expectations.

Posted 08 Oct 2009 at 8:49 pm ¶
April wrote:

I understand the sentiments here, so I’m not trying to trivialize any of the concerns brought forth, but at the end of the day, these are dolls. They just won’t succeed in representing everyone. In fact, they most likely won’t succeed in representing most people. Even as a child, I never expected a plastic toy (or, for that matter, a stranger in a glossy magazine) to be a mirror of myself. To me, that’s actually a bizarre notion. I think dolls, even ones very dissimilar to their owners, can be a useful outlet for imagination. They don’t necessarily need to represent a neat mirror image of the real world. If little girls have affirmation of their beauty and worth at home, I don’t think any toy can undo that. I think hearing people make silly preferential statements regarding skin color or hair texture has hundreds of times more impact than a doll ever could. Many times we pass on our own hangups without even recognizing so–even when we think we’re fighting against them.

Posted 08 Oct 2009 at 9:01 pm ¶
DreaD wrote:

little mixed girl said: “I’m quite tired of mixed people being used as a standard of beauty for non-mixed minorities.”

As a dark-skinned woman, you and me both!

Seriously, though, your generalizations about monoracial/darker-skinned Black people are disturbing. I’m sorry for your experiences, they sound painful. But please keep in mind where some of that tension towards Black multiracial individuals might come from in the Black community. It comes from internalized oppression, which has its roots in…drumroll..tada!: white supremacy (surprise!)

@lunanoire: your points are great. Thanks for the balanced perspective.

Posted 08 Oct 2009 at 9:10 pm ¶
Whitney wrote:

To anyone saying that they are “just dolls” …. When I saw the Grace doll I was immediately reminded of when I was a girl and played with Barbies and how much I wanted her body and I was reminded of how I still want it, and how I’ll never get it. As stupid as it might sound, it still hurts. These kinds of things affect people especially since it happens at a young age.

Posted 09 Oct 2009 at 2:07 am ¶
little mixed girl wrote:

@ 9jah, lunanoire & dread,

i agree that if they are going to market black dolls, they should make ones with darker eyes and different hair types.

i’m not arguing against that.

i just find it frustrating that a multiracial look is promoted by whites or whoever for the black community, and that black women are made to feel bad because that’s not a look that they can achieve,…because they don’t have a non-black parent.

but, it comes off as a vicious cycle to me because when a multiracial woman who is part-black makes it big in the entertainment industry, black people want to claim her.
and if she is popular amongst black people, then mattel and other companies are going to take that as another reason to continue to make mixed looking dolls.
then we get back to the girls who don’t fit that mold being made to feel bad about themselves.

i hope none of you took it as me saying that dolls with dark eyes or wider noses are ugly or something, that’s not what i meant.

and to repeat, i do think that the dolls for blacks or asians or native americans should have features that reflect the people and not half-white looking dolls.

oh, and obama got a nobel peace prize?!

Posted 09 Oct 2009 at 10:29 am ¶
c.n.edaw wrote:

N– made some very salient points about corporate/marketing ignorance. While I doubt you could EVER make a doll that would please everyone, certainly in the black community, I think the attempts are not always as intentionally misdirected as perceived.

I think about the make up industry. I am not by most black people’s definition..dark skinned…but by far my most humiliating moments in t.v. news have been trying to get foundation that matches my skin tone from companies and make up artists stations often contract with, or even at the drug store in a pinch. Halle Berry tan is usually as dark as it gets with these people…yet they will tell you “Oh yes we have plenty of colors for African American women” or ” I can do make up for any skin tone” .

Then they spend hours wondering how it’s possible you are brown but not as light as Halle, with yellow undertones instead of red in a cool skin tone family instead of warm..but still kind of olive toned…etc etc. They don’t have the institutional knowledge NOR have they worked with a ride range of black people to know any better. It’s all relative. Or it’s the extreme…a muddy chocolate brown I have rarely seen on any human form…with nothing in between…and since that’s the shade made for black people, why oh why doesn’t that work for you since you are black, right??

And from the range of opionions expressed here, I imagine you would need companies to also have a very wide range of black people with in those companies to consult with, as I am sure is not happening now.

Again, I will point to another industry as an example..the haircare industry where black women are often treated as cattle..given the same products, styling tips, etc because that’s what “black hair does” or “needs’ despite by looking at whole lot of heads of black hair, those treatments apparenty don’t work for most people, certainly not everyone.

Surely,I am not the only one who despite being a black woman, has gone to a black hairstylist who thought she could do to your hair what she does to EVERY black woman and then got mad at you when it didnt come out right.

There were black doll companies in the 70’s who made dolls who I believe fell victim to using the hair stylists paradigm–this is what black people look like–and fell short and thus went out of business. I researched some of those dolls on the internet, and while I suspect that even in the “black power” 70’s some black kids and their parents were still not accepting enough of themselves to buy dolls that had fro’s, braids with beads, much darker skin, and wider features…I also suspect that those companies went under because they didn’t reflect a broader spectrum as we are expecting a white company to.

Not one of the black dolls made by those companies in that era looked a thing like me and only like a few people I personally know. Anecdotal evidence I know, but it’s something to think about as these people had noble intentions.

Posted 09 Oct 2009 at 11:02 am ¶
9jah wrote:

@little mixed girl –

Just a second thought to perhaps round out my perspective. I don’t want to come across as not being fully sensitive to the challenges those of bi/multiracial heritage face in the black community.

While in the middle class community where I grew up, it did not seem to me that mixed kids where excluded in any black circles, I am sure there are situations in which they are made to feel less accepted. This should not be talked around. But also, the underlying prejudices and assumptions that abound when dealing with race should be fully considered.

Sentiments about being shortchanged by monoracial black folks should not be lazily attributed to “jealousy” as is often the case (popular representation – such as the doll issue – being a great example of that sentiment). But neither should mixed people be ostracized or summarily declared to be exploiting racial privilege. Ultimately, I think there is an equal challenge to everybody and we need to look at it that way rather than finding fault in one community or the other.

Posted 09 Oct 2009 at 3:30 pm ¶
9jah wrote:

@little mixed girl – I think our recent posts crossed paths.

With respect to “claiming”, the notion of distinct bi/multiracialism in the black community is a new one (in as much as it may have festered in the mind of bi/multiracial ppl for some time). I guess what is a little amusing is that when the monoracial black community is accused of claiming, racial axioms of, oh, hundreds of yrs are simply ignored. Basically, give people time.

Racial heritage, particularly in this country, is not a flimsy notion – it has fostered the politics, economy…and survival of a people. The concept of a “black” racial heritage that included post-slavery carribeans/Latinos/Africans born in the U.S.; bi-racial and multiracial folks of black ancestry; and monoracial blacks is one that all of these people bought into for centuries for their collective progress and survival. So this is the backdrop of “claiming”.

Regardless, I’m not sure today how many black folks care to claim. Another further complication is that some bi-racial people still view themselves as “black” and most multiracial people (such as Beyonce who is of creole ancestry) view themselves and are definitively viewed as Black. What it means to be “black” in our age is not a simple matter and will take time to sort out.

Regarding Mattel etc. making a multiracial personality the standard because of claiming, I would simply point out that black people equally “claim” non-multiracial personalities but we don’t see these folks elevated in the mainstream. so i doubt claiming plays a huge role. There was always an undercurrent about Nia Long in the black community during the Halle era but that didn’t get her on any “most beautiful people” lists.

Posted 09 Oct 2009 at 6:58 pm ¶
Jackie wrote:

@Black Narcissus

FYI, Mattel sued Bratz and won $100M because the creator came up with the concept while he still worked for Mattel:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26410627/

Posted 10 Oct 2009 at 6:02 am ¶
Itsa wrote:

As someone who collects playline Barbie and has for years I can tell you that Mattel has always made a real effort to include people of all races in their line up. They made Afro Barbies when no one else did and continue to make a wide variety of dolls in many skin tones today. I have several very dark ladies in my collection so I know the darker dolls are being made. You just have to be alert to when they appear and grab them.

(The Alvin Ailey doll they made this year is particularly stunning and there are a couple of FF Nikki’s that are just gorgeous out there.)

That being said the bottom line for Mattel is they have to make what sells and it’s an unfortunate truth that the Afro dolls seldom sell as well as the blond Caucasian ones do.

I’m in retail and here’s a heads up for you as to the situation. Unless it’s a collector’s addition most Afro Barbies will sit on the shelf long after the Caucasian and Hispanic dolls are sold. Nikki for instance sells at a much reduced rate when compared to Barbie, Summer and Theresa.

You want Mattel to make more darker dolls? Well, you have to actually make a point of buying the ones that are out there because they won’t make even more if the ones they are doing now are struggling sales-wise. It just doesn’t make sense for them to do so when they just don’t sell as well.

Personally I think these dolls are a major step up from just the odd Nikki being available and a really great playline collection for little black girls. But already I’m seeing them on clearance marked down to get rid of them because they are not selling.

News flash, when the little girls of African descent come into our store looking for a new doll most of them head straight for the non-AA Barbies. They don’t want a doll that looks like them, they want a doll that looks like Halle Berry or Beyonce! If a doll has the shorter afro hair you mention most of them will put it back on the shelf because they can’t comb it and play with it. Their fascination with the dolls they have? It’s all about the long, luxurious and mostly straight hair and even when they do buy a black doll, it’s got to have a mass of hair to cut and style and that’s why the makers of most fashion dolls, Mattel included tend to give their dolls those features and of skin color.

If your kid actually wants a doll that looks like her? Well, great, you’re doing a wonderful job of raising a self-aware, self-appreciating kid. But most of the AA kids I see every day? When they’re not reaching for the nearest bleached blond Barbie they’re lamenting their own less than perfect hair, skin color etc, and it’s these same kids who a few years later will be straightening their hair and doing it up in weaves, bleaching their skins whiter and some of them even contemplating surgery on noses that are perfectly fine.

It’s not just about dolls. It’s about kids and what they think is “pretty” and I hate to say this but it’s a sad fact that most black little girls today have gotten to the point where they’d rather look more like Beyonce or Halle Berry than not.

It’s like the Caucasian kids and the weight thing. At 9 years old no matter what half of them think their fat and ugly because they don’t look like Sarah Michelle Gellar, Paris Hilton et all.

It’s a crazy attitude this “we need to be perfect” mentality and it’s infecting ALL our kids regardless of race. Yeah, there are some kids out there who are bucking the trend, goodness bless them, but they are seemingly few and far between.

Mattel is actually taking a step in the right direction with these dolls. They’re not perfect, but they’re better than nothing. I only hope this line does better than I think it will. Because they’re not exactly flying off the shelves as I type and that’s a shame…

Posted 21 Oct 2009 at 11:54 pm ¶
jordin wrote:

i like when the part when 3 of the so in style girls have long hair and I want one!

Posted 29 Oct 2009 at 4:11 pm ¶
Andy S. wrote:

I have to go with ‘wendi muse’ on this one.

As a doll collector, I was thrilled that there was an all black girl line and that we were being represented in a positive way. I think everyone is expecting all of these dolls to be perfect and somewhat caricatures of themselves. All of the characters are diverse, yet are each positive. There’s such a slippery slope between accurate portrayal and stereotypes though, and it’s hard to make a slam dunk on everything.

Personally, I’d love to know how each of you would change the line to be better. It’s a good start and why is that not good enough?

I think we, as adults, get too caught up in what things we’ve been waiting on don’t have that that we can’t even enjoy what the products actually are. A perfect example of this is the new Princess and the Frog movie. Instead of being completely happy that we finally get our princess, I keep hearing people upset that the prince isn’t black. If he was black, then people would say ‘why does he have to be black?’ There’s no satisfying everyone and we judge things not even meant for us too harshly because it’s something we’d been dreaming about but didn’t get. But I guarantee if we were children, we’d be happy to have this representation instead of complaining that one thing or the other isn’t what we wanted.

As far as body types: Since when has Barbie EVER represented a healthy body image? Shouldn’t that be something the parents do themselves. Barbies should be aspirational but not to the point of want something so impossible, like the barbie perfect body. people have tried, and I feel for them and their mental health.

But back to my other point: these are not FOR us! They are for the next generation, and the S.I.S. girls do represent a good portion of the next generation, who, sorry people, are mixed, and there’s nothing wrong with that. How we look is all about how are genes work together, and who’s to say what looking ‘black’ is. If we can support the effort to try and give us at least this, then more will come, and even more diversity will come to the dolls. But if we don’t, then the dolls will go away and it will be just that much harder someone else tries to give us a voice. Then, instead of having something to nit pick, we won’t have anything at all, and really, who wants that?

Also, for the record, Grace is on the Drill team, hence her outfit.

Posted 02 Nov 2009 at 8:56 pm ¶