Pushing the plastic princess
Imagine a new concept in marketing, aimed at warping the minds of little girls to convince them that the last word in glamour in this sick society is represented by a fully made-up, blonde-haired and blue-eyed overdressed plastic doll in the image of an abnormally underweight but full-breasted adult woman. And to buy it, of course.
You don't need to imagine really, because you can pick up a copy of Barbie: The magazine for girls from a newsagent. If you live in inner city Sydney, however, you might find the mag a bit more difficult to get. I had to go for mine to a "family" newsagent in outer suburban Brisbane. You might not even have known about this latest gem of modern marketing if you hadn't read Kaz Cooke's August 9 column in the Sydney Morning Herald or watched Saturday morning television cartoon shows, where Barbie is advertised heavily.
After comparing Cooke's review of her copy with the September issue (out now!) a sinister pattern appears, proving the general point that Barbie exists solely to market Mattel Corporation's Barbie, necessarily reinforcing sexist imagery of women along the way. As Cooke notes, "Ten-year-olds are not usually graduates of media courses. They don't understand that advertising poses as instructive editorial." That the theme of each month's Barbie corresponds with the new Barbie from Mattel might be missed by the less cynical minds of primary school girls.
In the issue reviewed by Cooke is an interview with "celebrity life saver Pamela Anderson", an article about wanting to be a life saver and an interview with a nine-year-old from Sydney beach suburb North Curl Curl. "Coincidentally", there was a new Baywatch Barbie on sale. In the current issue, one of the new Barbies for the month is revealed in the "letters" page when "Tracey" from "NSW" writes in to find out the month's new barbies to tell her mum what she wants for her birthday. One answer: Ocean Friends Barbie.
This month's mag contains an ad for the "coolest whale book ever"; an editorial with a picture of the editor and assistant editor in their Greenpeace save-the-whale T-shirts; a lift-out poster of Ocean Friends Barbie swimming glamorously (her flippers have sequins) with a very plastic looking killer whale; an article on saving the whales with yet another advertisement for "awesome" Ocean Friends Barbie ("mega-cool!"); and an ad for joining Greenpeace (concession rate, $25 and that's about the cheapest thing advertised in Barbie)
There's an interview with this month's girls' role model, vet Katrina Wild, a TV presenter on Totally Wild and Candid Camera, who is pictured hugging a dolphin (a killer whale might be a little hard to find for a photo shoot and dangerous to hug). Just in case the whale connection is not clear, there's also an ad for veterinarian Barbie on the same page.
While not all pages have a little "Advertisement" sign on top, they all should. Many have ads using "kids" font mimicking children's handwriting and use the words "cool", "awesome", "excellent" or "yummy" at least twice per page. Doesn't Editor Nikki Hodson know that girls don't talk the way she writes in her editorial ("Awesome huh!")?
Particularly nauseating is fashion shoot with pre-pubescent Selina and Candice in full make-up and alluring poses modelling "flower power" outfits, which don't come under $50. If mum and dad won't come at the $54 frock for their little girl, there's always Barbie's spring Flower Pretty fashion collection on page 56 or the Barbie About Town fashion spread on pages 10-11.
Add my vote to Kaz Cooke's conclusion after exposure to Barbie: The magazine for girls? "Thanks for nothing, Barbie, you dill-faced, dumb-shaped, hard-sell, plastic-extruded nong. Take Ken and your poxy magazine and CLEAR OFF!"
By Jennifer Thompson