1. Mediaite
  2. Gossip Cop
  3. Geekosystem
  4. Styleite
  5. SportsGrid
  6. The Mary Sue
  7. The Maude
  8. The Braiser

What's with the name?

Allow us to explain.

Things to Do With Your Kids

Mattel Exec Defends Barbie’s Unrealistic Proportions, Says They Don’t Affect Girls’ Body Image

Barbie is many things: An astronaut. A gymnast. A fashionista. A career woman. “Someone with a realistic body shape” is not one of them. It’s something that’s caused a lot of flak to be sent Mattel’s way over the years, as critics (and studies) claim that the doll’s ultra-tiny waist and, er, ample bosoms cause girls to feel greater pressure to be thin.

According to Kim Culmone, Mattel’s Vice President of Design, that’s all hogwash. Promoting a particular body shape isn’t what Barbie’s about, and the fact that she has that body shape has zero harmful effect on the many millions of girls who’ve played with her over the years.

“Barbie’s body was never designed to be realistic,” said Culmone in an interview with Fast Company. “She was designed for girls to easily dress and undress. And she’s had many bodies over the years, ones that are poseable, ones that are cut for princess cuts, ones that are more realistic.” Another major factor in Barbie’s proportions is that all those hyper-exaggerated curves make it possible to scale her fashions down to doll size: “Because if you’re going to take a fabric that’s made for us, and turn a seam for a cuff or on the body, her body has to be able to accommodate how the clothes will fit her.”

But Ms. Culmone!, you may cry. Practical seamstressing is all well and good, but shouldn’t potential negative effects on the psyches of young girls be regarded as more important? She has an answer for you:

“To me, there isn’t an objective to change the proportion of Barbie currently. And to little girls, they are putting themselves in that doll anyway. You have to remember that girls’ perceptions are so different than grown ups’ perceptions about what real is and what real isn’t, and what the influences are… Girls view the world completely differently than grown-ups do. They don’t come at it with the same angles and baggage and all that stuff that we do. Clearly, the influences for girls on those types of issues, whether it’s body image or anything else, it’s proven, it’s peers, moms, parents, it’s their social circles. When they’re playing, they’re playing. It’s a princess-fairy-fashionista-doctor-astronaut, and that’s all one girl. She’s taking her Corvette to the moon, and her spaceship to the grocery store. That is literally how girls play.”

Well… yeah, peers, parents, and friends affect a girl’s body image. But to pretend that “play” isn’t a part of that, that it exists in some magical bubble where real-world concerns never intrude, seems massively dishonest. Plus a 2006 University of Sussex study straight-up said that being exposed to images of Barbie dolls made girls between the ages of 5 and 8 have “lower body esteem and greater desire for a thinner body shape” than girls exposed to either no dolls or dolls that are US size 16.

But sure. Everyone’s A-OK in Barbieland. Nothing to see here. Move along.

(via: Jezebel)

Are you following The Mary Sue on Twitter, Facebook, Tumblr, Pinterest, & Google +?

TAGS: | |

  • Joanna

    I actually found it was real women like pop stars and celebrities that affected my self image rather than dolls. I knew dolls and cartoons weren’t real, but celebrities were.

  • Jamie Jeans

    The sheer amount of bullshit from this man’s ‘logic’ is enough to make my eyes water. Not to mention the effect of having a white woman’s beauty in a girl’s doll pushed on young girls of colour.

  • Anonymous

    I’ve always been fat. I grew up idolizing Barbies. I don’t remember once having body issues because of Barbie. But that’s just my personal experience…

  • Charlie

    Mattel exec ‘tells blatant lies to defend his product’

  • k23mt

    that’s why I love that so many people are posting the facts about celebrity images…..the makeup, the photoshop, the fact that they probably couldn’t maintain their level of fitness without an army of trainers and nutritionists……turns out, they’re not actually “real”, either

  • St. Jason

    It’s pretty clear this exec is a lady

  • Joanna

    Yup. And the fact that they usually had actors in their 20′s playing high school characters on tv shows didn’t help either. Was wondering why I didn’t have adult proportions when I was 15 =P

  • Charlie

    her* then.

  • k23mt

    I was affected more by “real” women in pop culture, too…..I didn’t think I was supposed to look like my Barbie dolls, they were dolls. But I’ve talked to elementary school teachers who say they’ve heard girls complain that they’re “fat” because their waist isn’t as thin as their Barbies.

  • Stephen C

    * woman’s ‘logic’

  • Charlie

    Like it makes a difference.

  • locuas

    personally, i agree with Mattel. Sometimes a doctor driving her space shuttle to her underwater castle is just a doctor driving her space shuttle to her underwater castle. And i do not approve of the idea of lowering the…(i’m not sure what the correct word would be, Beauty? screw it, i’m going to use beauty anyway) of lowering the beauty of someone or something just to fit with the average population the same way i do not approve of making someone or something prettier just to fit society’s standard of beauty.
    Besides, i believe it would be more harmful to show Barbie as just a nurse or a housewife than as someone with a beautiful body.

  • aerinha23

    Psychology fail, educational theory fail, research fail, real world fail, fail, fail, FAIL.

    Seriously, though. Any teacher can tell you kids learn how to navigate the world via play. Any parent of a girl can tell you girls internalize ridiculous expectations from media and popular culture (which includes popular toys). Any girl can tell you what a pretty woman is supposed to look like. They might not say Barbie, and they might not end up struggling with body image personally, but she’s a iconic figure in a larger equation of BAD.

  • aerinha23

    Totally agree, except it makes it even worse that it’s actually a woman perpetuating this drivel.

  • Matias Furia

    “Just” a nurse or housewife? You are implying that by being a “beautiful” nurse or housewife Barbie would somehow be beyond that. So pretty people are better.

    Perhaps you didn’t mean that, but I don’t know what you were trying to say, honestly.

  • White Rose Brian

    This is a reason why I strive to draw realistically, believably lean and curvy women.

  • Penny Marie Sautereau

    What a repulsive little Stepford Quisling she is. Must be how she got so high a position in that Boys’ club we call Mattel

  • locuas

    since english is not my first language, i sometimes have problems to write what i want to say.
    What i meant was, as long as they offer a good role model with their dolls, showing to girls that they can be anything they want(well, maybe not princesses, but then again, here in argentina there is someone who managed to pull THAT of), i don’t mind that much how they portray the…female body.

  • athenia45

    If Barbie’s body shape has no effect whatsoever on girls, then it shouldn’t be any problem changing Barbie’s shape to a size 16–OH WAIT. LOLSOB

    Little girls are very much in tune what it means to be beautiful. They may fly corvettes to the moon, but they aren’t idiots.

  • Paolina

    Disclaimer: this is just my own personal experience.

    I loved my Barbies as a kid, but I never wanted to look like them. No more than I wanted to look like my Playmobile figurines. Growing up, my peers always had the most effect on how I viewed myself. Can I venture to say that by attacking the shape of Barbie we are focusing on the wrong part of the issue? Perhaps if we create a culture of self-assured children (boys and girls alike) then they will be able to tell that a toy is just a toy, and separate reality from plastic?

  • Kash Mitaukano

    Children are the opposite of idiots, I believe that the question of body image and barbie deserves more study. I never wanted to be thin while playing with my Barbies as a kid. I was taunted daily for my weight, called “Eleanor the Elephant” every day at lunch and just plain demeaned. I never sobbed on Barbie that I wished I looked like her, I’d use my customized barbie jungle princess to scream war cry’s and decimate legions of plastic action figures I named after my tormentors. My G.I. Joe’s rode their My Little Pony steeds into the fray as Barbie seemed outnumbered.
    I do agree Barbie has problematic body standards, but I think that more research needs to be done, I can’t use a single source to base my entire term paper on, so I need more information then this to make a call. My own personal experience tells me different.

  • lemon floor wax

    I was a teen in the 90210 era (I’m oooooold). I remember girls (9-10 ish) starving themselves to look like Donna. Not Barbie. A woman who had personal trainers, dieticians, hairdressers, makeup artists, etc was more “realistic” than a plastic doll.

  • cheesy

    I didn’t have very many Barbies as a kid (I was more of a Lego child, but Grandparents tended to provide me with Barbies despite my wishes), but I don’t remember being terribly concerned with how she looked. Except her feet. I remember being really confused and befuddled by her freaky, tiny, pointy, alien feet. That used to weird me right out. And the fact that she couldn’t stand up on her own (probably a result of the freaky alien feet, now that I think about it). I used to hate that.

  • athenia45

    Well, Barbie’s size may not effect everyone the same way, but I wonder if it would effect her sales the same way? I’m not sure if there’s been a study about that.

  • According2Robyn

    Obviously, she’s lying on the body issue images, but I feel like she’s lying about the clothing issue, too. I smell a whiff of bullcrap coming off of that.

    Does anyone here make their own clothes and want to weigh in on this whole “she has to have huge knockers and a teensy waist because of seam and cuff scaling” notion?

  • Ashe

    It’s telling that multiple people thought a man was saying this.

    Way to go, Kim Culmone.

  • cheesy

    That argument is completely nonsensical because, c’mon, they manage to make clothes for Ken somehow, without too much trouble and dude is straight up and down, so whatever, Mattel, what a stupid thing to say.

  • Jamie Jeans

    Whoops, my bad… still bullshit though.

  • Jamie Jeans

    Whoops, my bad… still bullshit though.

  • hh

    As one who made clothes for her Barbies (and herself) as a child, I call BS on Mattel, too. Those curves are even harder on a tiny doll, especially for a beginner tailor.

  • Erica Throne

    I can’t the only one a little bothered by the fact the exec only says “girls” when talking about children.

  • Anonymous

    It’s true.

    Barbie’s body was designed to work the the clothing of the era: big poofy skirts. All those ball gowns and skirts and sewn in belts with snaps and velcro add a lot of seaming and gathering. Barbie’s waist was made even smaller because all that added bulk when her clothing was on. The appearance of the waist would thicken and balance out the proportions. The doll still had an idealized hourglass shape but it’s significantly less radical when dressed.

    When Mattel made Barbie’s one of the primary means of making money was selling clothing for the doll. You wanted to buy all of the latest fashions and put them on your doll. In the 80s and 90s fashion went through a big shift. Barbie’s body didn’t work with the new fashion trends, namely pants. So late in the 90s/early 00s, the figure was given a huge redesign (a href=”″”>see here). The waist was thickened and hips made slightly slimmer.

    Monster High dolls follow a similar ethos. The upper portions of their torsos are slim because the dolls often come with several layers of clothing: a shirt, a puffy sleeved cardigan and a chunky necklace. On humans an extra inch of fabric bulk is nothing, but these dolls are 11 inches high! An extra inch of fabric is a huge addition in size.

    It’s also why Ken doesn’t get this kind of body treatment. Men’s clothing is less complicated, there’s no gathering and very little seaming.

  • BatiHoney

    I agree with you. I don’t think Barbie’s body shape is the problem, but rather the culture kids are growing in. If your culture is already making you feel bad for your body shape, you will probably start to notice things like Barbie’s shape. But I personally grew up with Barbies EVERYWHERE and I knew she was doll and she wasn’t real and before plastic doll there were other dolls who had unrealistic (but not-thin) bodies… so I think the problem starts elsewhere and then extends to Barbie. Barbie, of course, should come out with different shaped dolls at least for variety, but firmly believe Barbie is not where the problem is born, definitely.

  • Charlie

    In the University of Sussex experiment “a total of 162 girls, from ages 5 to age 8, were exposed to images of either Barbie Dolls, Emme dolls (U.S. size 16), or no dolls (baseline control) and then completed assessments of body image.” The professors discovered that those exposed to Barbie doll images produced “lower self-esteem and a greater desire for a thinner body shape than in the other exposed conditions.” Although, the oldest girls did not have an immediate negative impact from the Barbie doll images. The study concluded that “these findings imply that, even if dolls cease to function as aspirational role models for older girls, early exposure to dolls epitomizing an unrealistically thin body ideal may damage girls’ body image, which would contribute to an increased risk of disordered eating and weight cycling.”

    I will have a better look tommorrow.

  • Charlie

    Dude I think she’s talking crap but that’s a bit harsh.

  • Anonymous

    Ken’s clothing is also straight up and down. Men’s clothing is simply overall less complicated than women’s. Ken’s waist never had to shrink to accommodate all the gathering and seaming on a dress like this, although they still slimmed his waist down to allow for seams and fastenings.

  • Charlie

    My favourite toy was Skeletor and I still favour black cats and want a skull shaped volcano castle. Conclusive evidence right there.

  • frankenmouse

    I think a lot of people miss the second part of that: i.e., that the effects of Barbie’s shape (which do exist, even if they’re very small) are SUBCONSCIOUS effects. Most girls don’t have the thought process “Oh, look at how thin Barbie is. That is how I should look. Now I’m sad that I don’t look that way.” Instead, it’s a much more subtle process of continuous exposure combined with cultural associations (i.e., thin = pretty = good).

    The long and short of it is that effects have REPEATEDLY been demonstrated, not just in general, but with Barbie specifically. The fact that you’re getting that kind of effect (even if it is small) as the result of exposure to one of the single most popular toys in the U.S. is very troubling.

  • Anonymous

    You what the problems we have as adults – WE LEARN THEM AS FUCKING CHILDREN. Jesus did they consult even one psychologist…

  • Andrea_R

    ” “Because if you’re going to take a fabric that’s made for us, and turn a seam for a cuff or on the body, her body has to be able to accommodate how the clothes will fit her.””

    Bullcrap. A huge stinking pile of BULL. CRAP.

    By this logic, there should be no other dolls. Also this logic is the same one used by couturiers over vanity sizing and showing impossibly proportioned women in their design sketches.

    And I say this not only as someone who has sewn clothes for the average female body, but also as someone who has sewn clothing FOR BARBIE.

  • Aaron Foster

    It’s quite true. That which is most influential is what is idolized. Celebrity culture has glamorized thin to the point of demonizing anything non-thin. What we really need to put the focus on the message and not on any one body shape.

    You’d think “thin” women would be absolved of body shaming. Unfortunately, our society obsesses over the body in every way. Back in school , my wife constantly got her mother called at least once a year (or more), because one teacher or another thought she was anorexic or bulimic. It was so popularized that all models were starving themselves after all. Surely that was the reason she was thin, right?

    It’s what we praise/condemn that most influences a child’s development, not the image itself. We’re so focused on how thin/heavy a person is, that we as a society stop treating people as people and only what they look like.

  • Saraquill

    Not helping were cartoon shows I watched where some episodes had a plot where a character that wanted to lose weight, forgo eating entirely, and lose a whole chunk of weight by the episode’s end. The Goof Troop and the older Ninja Turtles cartoons come to mind.

  • Saraquill

    I sew for dolls with both hourglass and cylindrical shapes. The seam or cuff thing the executive mentioned certainly does not apply. If they were issues, barbies would be larger than a 1/6 scale to lessen the bulk caused by seam allowance.

  • Paolina

    Yes, extremely blond. Barbie is far from a “perfect” toy. But I’m glad that some agree that the anger might be a tad misplaced.

  • Camille Monae

    I was just about to post something similar. I loved my Barbies. Did they subconsciously alter my body image, um… no. That came from my mother and grandmother’s constant dieting. In high school I was a little plump, but I had boys that liked me and it wasn’t until I got to college where I was faced with more body conscious people and gained the freshman 15 that I developed a lot of the body issues I am now working to get over. So, Barbie can be Barbie. I don’t expect her to look “real”. Let’s focus on the fact that she is a doctor, an astronaut, a teacher, a sister, a friend. If your daughters are looking at Barbie and developing body image issues, you are not doing enough as a parent to reinforce and promote a healthy self esteem and self love

  • Blacksheep

    I know Barbie’s proportions are stupid ridiculous, but really, Barbie is not a representation of a real life female. Just like cartoons. We know cartoons are not real people, and we know Barbie does not represent a real person. To me the more pressing matter lies in the falsified super photo shopped photo shoots and ads that ARE meant to represent real people. They are made with the intention of fooling one into believe a REAL person looks this way or that way, we are presented with an image that fools our minds into believing we are seeing a human being when really what we are seeing is a humanoid and not real at all.

    That said you would think as with any other business they would constantly be looking to improve and reinvent their product to be better, Barbie’s proportions have never changed drastically you’d think it would be time for a remodel.

  • Tegan Dumpleton

    Though it’s true that there are girls affected by Barbie’s body image, I personally never had a problem with it. I was far more affected by all the ads, columns and news about diet and “thinning up” and cup & butt sizes. The only thing that ever made me annoyed about Barbie was the incredible amount of pink. I only started thinking about the body image when I saw the blown up body of Barbie’s proportions.
    Though, I gotta ask: What about the extremely pointy breasts and pointed “made for high heels” feet made it easy to dress the doll? Always found it frustrating myself

  • Charlie

    Yeah, when I was a kid I was perfectly aware that Barbie dolls and Disney princesses weren’t realistic. I’d argue that the live-action kid shows are probably more harmful- all of Nickelodeon/Disney’s recent live-action female protagonists seem to be thin. Which isn’t a problem in individual shows, but when the channel keeps presenting that image over and over, it’s arguably just reinforcing one type of ideal.

  • Anonymous

    Barbie was very important to me growing up. I played with Transformers, Thundercats, GI Joe and others but Barbie told me that tall, blonde, conventionally attractive girls could still grow up to be doctors and scientists and paratroopers and whatever else. That we had worth beyond our looks. Now I have a doctorate and work in a museum.

    Which isn’t to say Barbie shouldn’t be more diverse, of course it should. but I do think people focus too much on her looks and not enough on what a damned positive role model she really is.

  • Atua

    My mum made a huge effort for us to have diverse Barbies, as we are mixed race. Usually they would be a redressed “polynesian barbie” or something similar. I treasured my blonde barbies as unlike my siblings she looked like be and she kicked serious butt (usually with aid of some sort of magical powers and a sword).

    From her I learnt that blondes are not stupid, trophy wives or evil. I learnt I was more that my body and could project through her my aspirations. Though I am yet to get my doctorate, I am on my way – currently in Nigeria doing field work (where amusingly I am constantly told that people that look like me don’t go to the forest or that people are surprised that I can do the work).

    I agree that Barbie herself does not need to change, their just needs to be more variety so that mothers like mine can get the dolls that are most like her girls. We should not however in doing this ignore that some of us are represented by Barbie (in a morphed cartoonish way – as she is a toy after all) and that she can be a tool in helping us overcome some of the negative rhetoric arises against us.

  • Laura Truxillo

    Ha! Same here. I was never bothered by her proportions, but her feet were so creepy! I think I really noticed because I had one regular Barbie and one Little Mermaid one, and Ariel’s feet were flat.

  • Laura Truxillo

    I was reading something like this the other day, and yeah, I’m starting to think it IS kinda messed up that whenever Barbie enters the discussion, the conversation almost immediately turns to “She’s such a bad influence because of her proportions!” and never to “Oh, hey, they make an Astronaut Barbie now! And a Scientist Barbie! And a vet, and a doctor, and a soldier Barbie!”

  • St. Jason

    I thought it was more telling of TMS audience than of Kim Culmone…

  • St. Jason

    While I agree that there should be more body types for Barbie I think there are a lot of unintended consequences that would actually worsen little girls body image by doing so. Right now there has been only one body type of Barbie and I believe its more for a financial reason then anything else. You could interchange her clothes with any of the extra clothing sets sold by Mattel, ergo if you buy one Barbie you have to potential to buy all of the thousands of other clothing options for her and spend more money.

    Now lets assume we get two body types for Barbie, even if you make a lot of clothing options for her original Barbie will have all most 60 years worth of clothing all ready made for her. That means when a little girl gets her new body type Barbie the vast majority of Barbie clothes aren’t going to fit her doll. What type of message does that send to little girls if they are constantly trying to put clothes on her doll but her “fat” Barbie doesn’t fit in any of them? Is it not worse to send the message that the Barbie that looks most like you doesn’t get to be the doctor, teacher, engineer, astronaut because she’s too big to fit in the clothes?

    Again lets assume they make this second body type Barbie and I’m a progressive parent and get my child that one instead of the original Barbie. Lets say that child then plays with their Barbie with a group of kids with the original Barbie. Those kids are going to laugh and make fun of your child’s Barbie because she’s the fat Barbie and none of their Barbie’s clothes fit her.
    Kids are terrible and have no filter, they will absolutely do that. So now your kid is even more self conscious and has learned to hate their new body type Barbie and learned to hate bigger people in general in what was an attempt at being progressive on the part of the parents.

    I think that the fat positive movement is a good thing, but that it can sometimes toe the line between being proud of who you are to hating people that are skinny. We’ve all heard “real women have curves”, well skinny women aren’t figments of our imagination, they are real women too. Rather than try to change the way Barbie looks lets make it a learning moment instead. It can be a good way to teach your child about body image and you can point out that the shape Barbie is in is not physically possible. Also while we are at it maybe teach your kids not to be terrible and make fun of other kids that are bigger and teach them to stand up against other kids that do. That will do way more to shift the way a kid feels about them self than any doll ever will.

    Last point, I agree that it’s not just Barbie but there are not larger sized dolls anywhere. I think that’s a shame and there should be a line of bigger sized dolls its just that I don’t think Barbie is the way to go. Make a new line of dolls, or create some new IP with dolls of all different shapes.

  • Ashe

    We are a little TOO used to men being dismissive of women and their troubles, admittedly.

  • Ashe

    We are a little TOO used to men being dismissive of women and their troubles, admittedly.

  • Anonymous

    would be interesting to see what would happen, because the media would probably call it the “plus size”-barbie and I’d think that stigma would effect sales.
    (only my assumption because this would mean the doll is ‘different’ and often in that age children don’t want ‘different’, isn’t that so?)
    oh and what about Skipper? I don’t know the current market, does she still exist? personally I liked her better, she was cooler and “more normal” in shape ;) but she’s never been as successful as barbie, has she? was it the body? or the “age”?(too young to be successful ;)) or the marketing? did they maybe not sell enough fancy clothes for her?

  • aerinha23

    Actually, I’m citing the wikipedia article as a primer (which is primarily what wikipedia is good for) on the EDUCATIONAL theories about play, for those who are not familiar…Dewey, Vygotsky, et. al. are highly respected theorists. And I’m citing educational theory in general as an educator with a graduate degree and professional specialization in experiential education, which places a particularly great importance on play.

    The primary fail, as I term it, in Mattel’s response is that the exec de-emphasizes the importance of play in child development and education. Kids know that Barbie is a toy (like any other toy), but in early childhood kids aren’t taught how to interact with the world didactically, so much as they learn experientially through play by themselves, with their peers and parents, and other social interactions. Any educator or person with a background in child psychology or development will affirm this. What they play with and the images they’re exposed to are internalized at a very early age. Barbie is not a realistic image, and not, in the long run, an affirming one. I’d go so far as to say that even if Barbie is a princess-astronaut-president flying to the moon in her Corvette, that empowering, strong woman play character gets tangled up with the disempowering, ridiculous image of the toy.

    I can’t speak for the studies conducted on Barbie specifically; I haven’t read them or had an opportunity to assess the validity of their methods (although I will say that a 2006 study–the one TMS linked to–is not old, in the scheme of academic research, and an APA journal, which that study is published in, is a pretty reliable peer-reviewed source (one might go so far as to say “accredited,” in your terms; I would consider the paper *likely* to be methodologically reliable just from the headers). I suppose we could go looking for a meta-analysis, but hey, this is the comments page, right? :)

    I don’t think Barbie is singlehandedly propelling American girls into eating disorders; she is a piece of a complex equation that also includes celebrity culture, advertising, etc. But she is definitely an iconic PART of the problem.

  • aerinha23

    Yeah, getting some of Barbie’s clothes over her boobs was a challenge…not a problem one would really want to have getting dressed, no? (I say, with all respect to those with large tracts of land…)

    I agree…bring on the mud!

  • Anonymous

    There already is another doll in the Barbie line with a different body mold: Skipper. She’s Barbie’s little sister, and is accordingly smaller, shorter, and has smaller boobs. She and Barbie don’t fit into each other’s clothes–you have to buy Barbie clothes for Barbie, and Skipper clothes for Skipper. This does not make short girls feel bad about themselves, nor does it inconvenience Mattel to sell girls two times the clothing so they can clothe two dolls.

    You can solve the “no clothes for my fat doll” problem pretty easily by… buying clothes for the doll.

  • Sherrie Ricketts

    When I was young, I had a couple of Barbies like most kids. I do think they had an impact. But something else also had an effect. I overheard someone say a woman was a “perfect 10″. It registered in my little kid head that it was a size 10, not a rating. So I thought that size 10 must be just right. I think it kept me from going to extremes in trying to be as thin as some of the other girls I knew who were way too thin.

  • NyxKnack

    I grew up just when Bratz style ulta thin dolls were getting popular, so I will always be on Barbie’s side. Sure she ain’t perfect, but at least she had actual jobs beyond fashion/pop star/actress.
    I also never internalized that I should look like Barbie either, hell Barbie made me trans/gay friendly because I only ever had female ones. The Posh Spice doll was always the dude (because she had short hair) so I was conditioned to recognize gender as separate from stereotypical body shape.
    On another note, why do people by little kids dolls? Don’t people know by know that everyone forever make them have “sex”? If you did it when you where a kid, your kids are going to do it too.