I’m conflicted by the news that Mattel is releasing a new Barbie doll with Down’s Syndrome. On the one hand, it’s great that mainstream toy brands are attempting to represent all the kids in all the ways in their toy lines, but on the other hand, this is the doll which is so sexualised and unhealthy in its traditional form that, if she were real, she would have a BMI on a level with an adult female with anorexia; would have a flopped over head because her neck couldn’t support its weight, and due to the sexualised nature of her shape and measurements, would be walking permanently on tiptoe to push out her a**e; and have a bust which would lead to permanent backache.
In contrast, the new doll has been designed to have physical features akin to those of real people with Down’s syndrome – when you look at her, she looks much more in proportion than traditional Barbie. On the one hand, it’s great that Mattel has taken such care to represent a Disabled person as true to life. But on the other hand – it’s still presenting non-Disabled people with an unachievable, and actively disabling, ideal of beauty in traditional Barbie. How often does a brand get disability representation right at the expense of non-disability? How often is disability represented as a new standard in feminist representation at the expense of non-disability? It’s such a mind-blowing dichotomy, I fear that trying to get my head around it has turned me into a blonde bimbo.
