Even putting aside Barbie’s historically horrid figure, the doll has long been regressive in other, equally disturbing ways – and the new ‘Fashionistas’ line does not go far enough in addressing all of them

Off with her head! Girls' disdain for Barbie is a sign Mattel needs to do more

I know I am not the only girl who ripped the heads off her Barbie dolls.

Just mentioning the slightly twisted-sounding practice to other women my age makes their eyes light up with remembrance. “I lined all their heads up in a row,” said one colleague. A friend told me she cut off her Barbie’s hair before sending her to her doom. As for my sister and I, we made Barbie commit suicide by jumping off our dresser – after she had been deflowered by Ken, obviously.

Apparently, the disdain directed at Barbie is fairly commonplace. In a 2005 study that looked at the way children play, researchers from the University of Bath found that girls frequently “maimed and decapitated” their Barbies, a practice they attributed to a rejection of both childhood and the symbol of femininity that the doll represents.

It may be that the ire my sister and I took out on poor, blonde Barbie was some sort of pre-adolescent rage against the sexist machine – rejecting the tools of our oppressor! – but it’s more likely because destroying dolls is simply unremarkable, age-appropriate play. (The kind that’s shrugged off when seen in boys.) Even so, Barbie is a worldwide symbol of unrealistic beauty standards, and so perhaps it makes sense that young girls would have, let’s say, “complicated” feelings about her.

Now, more than 50 years after she first appeared on toy store shelves, Barbie appears to have found a way to redeem herself in the eyes of young girls. Mattel has launched a new line of Barbie dolls, “Fashionistas”, alongside its “original”-bodied Barbie (a doll so skinny that her proportions on a real woman would make digestion, walking and, well, living all but impossible). The new dolls come in “petite”, “curvy” and “tall”. Sort of like Levis.

The new line of dolls also have an increased diversity in skin tone, eye color and hair texture. “We are excited to literally be changing the face of the brand,” Evelyn Mazzocco, senior vice-president and global general manager of Barbie, said in a release.

Fashion magazine Vogue lauded the move, saying: “Here’s to celebrating a new generation of children who will grow up referencing a more expansive, inclusive definition of beauty – and the healthy self-esteem that comes with it.”

Mattel has branded the change as “the evolution of Barbie”, using language that recalls politicians who change their minds about same-sex marriage when the cultural tide turns against them, and the hashtag #TheDollEvolves, which sounds like it’d make for a better sci-fi horror movie title than an empowering call to arms.

Perhaps I’m being a bit unfair – I have a bit of Barbie baggage, to be sure. I also have a five-year-old daughter. Even with the new body shapes and feminist-friendly ad campaign, I’m simply not convinced it’s a healthy or progressive toy for children, especially for girls.

The truth is that even putting aside Barbie’s historically horrid figure, the doll has long been regressive in other, equally disturbing ways. Teen Talk Barbie, released in the early 1990s, said things such as “I love shopping!” and “Math class is tough!” (Fox TV show The Simpsons lampooned the doll in an episode about a “Talking Malibu Stacy” that Lisa loves until she pulls a string on its back to hear the doll say: “Don’t ask me - I’m just a girl!”)

In 2013, when the company released a Mexican Barbie who came with a passport and chihuahua, it was accused of being racist. In 2014, computer engineer Barbie came with a book that sent the message that girls can’t do real tech work without boys: “I’m only creating the design ideas,” Barbie says laughing. “I’ll need Steven and Brian’s help to turn it into a real game!”

Other parents are similarly concerned, and question if Mattel’s recent move goes far enough. Jef Rouner of Texas, a writer and father to a six-year-old girl, said: “Unless the [new dolls] are reflected in the [Barbie] DVDs or Life in the Dreamhouse [video series], I doubt it will matter much.

“For my daughter, Barbie is a film and TV star, and the toys are secondary,” he said.

Emily Meier of Ohio, who has a five-year-old son, asked: “Can Ken get in on this? Can he be shorter than Skipper in high school and be comfortable with his ‘dadbod’?”

Perhaps we should take the new line of Barbies as a good first step. The body changes are at least something, and the increased racial diversity of the dolls is especially important. But it’s going to be difficult for the brand to shed Barbie’s image as the epitome of everything that’s wrong with beauty expectations. Barbie has long been used as a standard for what’s considered beautiful – there’s even a labiaplasty procedure (read with your legs crossed, ladies) named after the doll. There’s also the issue of keeping the old Barbie while adding on the new dolls as alternatives; it sends the message that the original Barbie is the “normal” one.

And as writer Jill Filipovic points out, the move was largely undertaken because of the financial hits Mattel was taking: sales have been down for three years in a row. “The new Barbie may reflect a feminist culture shift, but let’s not fool ourselves into thinking more diversity means Mattel has the best interests of your daughter at heart,” wrote Filipovic.

Perhaps the only true test of whether this new Barbie is a success is to survey our kids’ rooms at the end of the year and see how many doll heads litter the floor.