Barbie Doll Mocks Christina Hendricks, Real Woman Curves

Watching last night’s episode of ‘Mad Men’, I had to admit that Christina Hendricks, playing Joan Harris, is ‘all woman’. 

It was great looking at this voluptuous, curvacous deeply sensual woman on-screen, on the same day that I received a love note about my own body from a very sexy man, one intimately involved in my own battles with body image.

Reviewing his comments, I cannot print them. He knows that I have been dieting again, insuring that I look my best size-8 self, hardly making me a skinny girl. I did express to him my desire to perhaps become a size 6, and this is what raised flags in his mind about our future.

My friend (who can buy and sell us all; I must add that fact) said that when a high libido-guy looks at a woman like Christina Hendricks, he sees her own sensual appetite and lust for him. Her frailty or lack of it impacts his own ardor in lovemaking.

My friend assured me that my health and wellbeing are his primary concerns, but so is my sexual vitality. Curves like the ones worn by Christina Hendricks say ‘let’s be sexual’ and ‘you don’t need to worry about breaking me.’

My friend spoke of the sensual power in a body like the one owned by Christina Hendricks. She is sexual and her curves communicate a positive message to him about her ability to enjoy life. Please forgive TMI, but we so rarely get positive messages about female sexuality today.

Why then, must Mattel take away Christina’s curves, reducing her to Barbie nothingness? What is wrong with selling a Barbie doll that actually looks like Christina Hendricks? Is the Vatican now approving Barbie Dolls, stamping out any ounce of sexual vitlaity?

It’s my strong belief that post-80s supermodel fashion, led by men like Karl Lagerfeld and Ralph Lauren, seeks to eliminate sexuality from a woman’s body. Woman is reduced to a boy-body, while Lagerfeld celebrates the curves of his feminine muse Baptiste Giabiconi. 

As women theoretically and functionally gain ascendency in the 21st century, the patriachy is hardly playing dead.

Especially American women have been trained by big business to evoke sexuality through the things we buy, and not with our bodies. In rendering us thin as boat racks, taking away our breasts and hips, we rely on possessions and artifice — not our innate sensuality — to communicate our womanliness.

There are moments when I wonder if perhaps I am too harsh on this topic. I have no problem being a raging feminist who loves men. The dichotomy suits me.

Looking at these photos of Mattel’s Barbie Christina Hendricks, it reminds me that I’m not off-base. The over-zealous photoshopping at Ann Taylor last week, Ralph Lauren’s 2009 firing of Filippa Hamilton for being too fat — these trends and countless more reflect a subliminal misogyny towards women.

This patriarchal misogyny manisfests itself today in a determination to control female sensuality physically and psychologically. My benchmark is the 80s supermodels who were thin but also full of vitlaity. When you looked at their bodies, they radiated ‘sexual female’.

The need for Mattel to render Christina Hendricks in a dramatically-different version of her real-deal self is a sick, distorted business practice. The question is whether women will continue to buy into this patriarchal nonsense or revolt, once and for all.

It’s women who will buy this Mattel doll for their daughters. For once in our lives, could millions of mothers ask what we are doing to female identity with these acts? Healthy curves should be celebrated. If the only way business gets the message is with a refusal to buy, then I say “Just Do It!” Anne

More Reading:

Joan Hendricks Reveals Our Inner Lilith Woman

London Fog Hates the Real Christina Hendricks Hourglass Body

Christina Hendricks | Scalding Hot, Sexy and For Real (photos only)

Christina Hendricks | Harper’s BAZAAR Nov 2010

Ralph Lauren Celebrates the End of American Women’s Sexuality

Karl Lagerfeld’s Preferred Vision | No Women Allowed

Comments

[Megen]

It offends me a little that you seem to think that a woman has to have sexy curves and large breasts to be a "woman". I wasn't born with either of those things, and am frankly rather tired of the "real woman" craze - particularly in America, where it is used to excuse all manner of real weight-related health issues.

I agree that we shouldn't have to subscribe to the media's definition of what a woman should be, but it feels as though lately the (admittedly delightful) "hourglass figure" has become the new heroine chic. I refuse to accept that a voluptuous figure is the only one that delivers "positive messages about female sexuality". Women come in all shapes and sizes, and each has its own beauties, as I'm sure you'll agree.

On the other hand, Barbie is Barbie - all the dolls are made from essentially the same mold - in this case, the classic retro Barbie. More ridiculous would be if they had made a separate mold specially for Christina Hendricks.

[Anne]

Hi Megen,

Sorry you're offended. This is a single article in a vast amount of writing on this subject here at Anne of Carversville. The topic of this article is specifically trimming down Christina Hendricks body by the folks at Barbie|Mattel. I don't believe that every article on a website must generically touch every valid point on a topic to keep every reader happy within her/his own world of experience.

If you read my body of writing, hopefully you would not be offended, because I make your point often -- that beautiful women come in all sizes and curves don't make the woman.

The terms of this particular last-decade debate have been set by fashion leaders like Karl Lagerfeld and Ralph Lauren. In their world, you are their 'ideal' woman.

As a business person and marketer, I categorically reject your point -- which seems to totally contradict what you just said -- that it would be 'ridiculous' for the Barbie folks to have more than one body mold for the doll that inspires millions of young girls in the world.

We've gotten beyond the argument that Barbie should have a single skin color. Why can't America's iconic doll have more than one ridiculously proportioned body? Best, Anne

[anon]

Hmm, I agree with the first poster, curves = "all woman"?
It's odd to say that thin women have no sexuality or sensuality, it's quite a broad statement to make, maybe in the media and advertising, yes. But then that should be stated in the article.

As a female who is 6'1 and 136 pounds, I obviously have zero curves, and zero boobs. And according to this article, this would make me less woman, really? Personally I don't buy into any gender stereotype.

As for the barbie thing, if it's aimed at kids, they don't tend to care about the resemblence, if it's made for collectors who would pay more and are geeks, they tend to put more effort into the moulds they produce.

[Anne]

Nope. I'm not bowing to political correctness on this one. If I can't make the statement that Joan Hendricks is 'all-woman'' after my body of writing on this website, it just confirms that the world has gone plum crazy pc.

I stand by my argument that the last 10 years of the fashion industry have been misogynistic towards women who look like Cindy Crawford or Stephanie Seymour. We are too powerful, too smoking potent, too sexual for the male psyche.

I understand sexuality trends; Androgyny is very hot. Just today I have guys in women's lingerie over on Sensuality News. I've dated big strong guys who wore black lace panties and they were fabulous. I get it all. The world is going bisexual, and I'm fine with that.

Facts are facts, though. The majority of gay men designers don't like women who look like Lara Stone or Naomi Campbell. The fashion industry couldn't handle those women, and they said 'no more strong, sexy women with breasts and muscles.'

There are exceptions . . Marc Jacobs, for example. But anyone who wants to debate me that Karl Lagerfeld doesn't have an awesome strong-woman problem has to review the same magazine editorials, the same commercials, the same interviews, the same statements that I have and explain to me why I'm wrong. It's so obvious as to be almost comical, when you actually listen to him talk about women.

We're all women, tall, thin, 15 BMI and 25 BMI. But when you shut down an entire body type of healthy, sexy women who rocked fashion with their muscles, it's the male designers who have a problem. That's a fact, or Freud means nothing; Jung means nothing. Human psychology means nothing. Personally, I don't believe it's all hype.

As for children not being at all influenced by skin color or shapes of dolls, I'm honestly not totally in front of the research on kids' minds. I specialize in adult women. More than one mother has agreed with you on my FB page re kids and Barbie. I don't believe it, but I can't prove my perceptions without more research, so maybe someone else can help us. I'll try to check it out.

I did have an experience with a four-year-old girl for whom I bought puppet dolls. She was an interracial child, and she laid four shades of felt in her puppet box. She told me that I was the white one, she was the light one, her brother was the darker beige one, and her dad was the darkest color brown puppet. She thought I was so clever that I managed to find a perfect color puppet for each of us. She had our skin colors nailed at age 4, tying them to fabric colors.

My real point with Mattel is if you are trading on the Christina Hendricks name -- which they openly are -- why do you make her unrecognizable? Don't license women with non-Barbie-like figures. Almost no one has an actual Barbie figure. But don't license Christina Hendricks and then cut her to pieces. I don't like this habit of American business to cut women down in size, presenting an ideal of beauty that is almost unachievable except for 1/2 of 1% of the population.

Indeed, there are really tall women who weight 130 pounds and have a Barbie figure. Great. We have plenty of those versions of Barbie. My real point is don't license Christina Hendricks and cut her to pieces. It's bad psychology.

The Playboy images -- totally NSFW -- are a great example of what goes on in the minds of business, when the subject is womens' bodies. Playboy was led by a woman at this time, so I'm not making it a guy thing.

http://www.anneofcarversville.com/style-photos/playboy-marks-all-women-as-not-good-enough-nsfw.html

As much as I want us to be healthy and lose weight in America, I'm also tired of carving up women's bodies on the drawing board. I believe our obesity and self-image are very intertwined, as I wrote above.

I've been part of many business decisions -- and have a track record of superb financial skills in business -- where we chose to be more realistic about a range of women among our customers.

Thanks for sharing, and I will check out girls' perceptions of Barbie as a self-reference. I've written a lot in response to your comment, because many people read this piece every day. It refuses to die down. In fact, it's gaining momentum, along with the vagina article. xoxo Anne