"Hetero Barbie?"

Mary Rogers, the author of “Hetero Barbie?” opens up the discussion by declaring that most heterosexual females will shift the focus of their lives around their teenage years.  When young women get “heterosexualized” they believe dating and boys/young men should be at the forefront of their thinking (Rogers 1999).  The purpose of their actions and appearances are meant to impress a boy or young man.  Rogers argues this focus on dating is the reason why young women become so obsessed with their appearances and popularity at school.  She uses Barbie as an example of the “epitome” of the female form and makes a note to state how exaggerated the doll really is.  Even though Barbie was thought to be the ideal image all girls strived to be, Rogers notes that the doll “escapes the typical outcomes” presented on her by society.  Barbie never marries or has children, suggesting that her femininity is not “normal.”  This evidence allows the doll to be interpreted in many ways.  This fact allows for a wide range of consumers, and thus is a good marketing technique by Mattel.            

The fact that “Barbie exudes an independence that deviates from the codes of mainstream femininity” further supports the author’s argument (Rogers 1999).  Barbie may not be heterosexual, or even a woman for that matter; she may be a drag queen (Rogers 1999).  After offering various pieces of evidence for this argument, such as Barbie’s long legs, flat hips, and heavy makeup, Rogers suggests Barbie may have some appeal to gay men.  So not only is she the icon for traditional heterosexual femininity, she can also be taken as an icon for “nonheterosexual femininity” (Rogers 1999).  The exaggerated aspect of Barbie “demonstrates that femininity is a manufactured reality” (Rogers 1999).  Barbie could be exemplifying the constructed female performance, demonstrating how reality usually entails a lot of artificial aspects.

Rogers switches her focus in the article to discuss how the doll has impacted people.  A specific collector of these dolls, Michael Osborne, has stated he often has trouble with relationships with real people “because they did not really like Barbie” (Rogers 1999).  This exhibits how much some people identify with Barbie and the particular aspects which she embodies.  Some of these aspects include interests in activities that are non-normative, such as men being hairdressers or ballet dancers.  Roger closes her article by quoting Jesse Berrett: “[Barbie] is seen as mass culture’s power to define, commodify, and mutate sexual identity” (Rogers 1999).