To celebrate the Queen’s Platinum Jubilee, Barbie toymaker Mattel has just announced that it is releasing a doll of Her Majesty. There’s only one problem: it looks nothing like her.

Queen Elizabeth II is the epitome of power; she has reigned for 70 years, survived countless prime ministers and isn’t afraid to make her opinion known.

She’s smart, dedicated and, at 96, looks pretty damn great. 

Let me settle this before I go on: I’m not a royalist and will happily talk about the many issues with the crown including its outdated views on equality, the troublesome stance surrounding the Prince Andrew allegations and the treatment of Meghan Markle. 

But despite the glaring problems with Buckingham Palace, I respect the Queen as a leader and a woman, and this commemorative toy does neither. 

Rather than honour her beauty, both inside and out, Mattel has created a figurine that has no wrinkles or signs of getting older except for its coiffed silver hair, proving once again that women are not allowed to age. 

Adding insult to injury, the character has noticeably smaller curves and breasts. Frankly, as an E cup myself, I’m offended on Her Majesty’s behalf. 

I am exasperated at the ageist message this doll sends, especially when it is meant to emulate someone so revered across the globe. It’s an insult to women.

Growing up, I was more interested in Barbie’s dreamhouse than her body (which explains my adult obsession with interior design). But I have struggled with my weight all my life, often obsessing over what the scale shows.

As I got older, I also began to worry about my ‘advancing’ age. At 32, I know better, but it has taken me a long time to get there.

It appears Mattel, which owns the Barbie brand, is yet to catch on.

It should come as no surprise, given how many times the company has come under fire for its lack of diversity as well as some of their more problematic creations. 

Like when the company released five new designs for the Tokyo Olympics but somehow didn’t think to include a doll to represent Asian ethnicity, even though the event was held in an Asian country. 

In 1965, they created Slumber Party Barbie, who carried a book dubbed How To Lose Weight and came with a set of scales fixed to 110lbs. 

Might as well add ageism to the list, right?

I’ll give Barbie credit where credit is due and say that the brand has tried to do better in recent years. But with yet another ridiculous doll under its belt, I have to question if these were genuine attempts at improvement or simply virtue-signaling to appeal to culturally-conscious shoppers. 

Let’s not forget that Brian Stockton, Mattel’s chairman and chief executive, was fired in 2015 after the firm reported dwindling sales; so the company needs to appeal to a new generation of parents and children in order to survive.

For argument’s sake (and ignoring the hair colour), let’s assume that Mattel has chosen to picture Queen Elizabeth II in her younger years. 

But if the aim is to celebrate her 70 years on the throne, then why not depict her as the incredible woman she has grown to become?

Her current ‘likeness’ would only serve to encourage us to have Botox and plastic surgery in our 90s, because there’s no other way to achieve that smooth look at 96, no matter how much anti-ageing cream you use or supergreen smoothies you drink. 

I’m not shaming women, men or non-binary people for getting beauty treatments (I have the cream too). You do with your face and body as you please, no judgment here.

However, none of us are immune to body or age shaming, and Barbie dolls are primarily marketed at children, who are even more impressionable.

Research shows just how damaging toys can be to their body image. One study from 2016, published in a medical journal, reported disturbing findings including that doll body shapes influence how young girls view themselves, and that those who played with thin dolls “desired thinner body shapes”. 

If Barbie was real, it was once claimed her original dimensions would have seen her having to walk on all fours due to her impossible head-to-waist ratio. 

She is also technically 63 years old, so where are her wrinkles, cellulite, moles and varicose veins? 

In its press release announcing the new doll, Barbie writes that, since its inception in 1959, its ‘purpose has been to inspire the limitless potential in every girl and remind them they can be anything’. 

Except old, that is.

The Queen and Barbie both deserve better. Let them age.

Do you have a story you’d like to share? Get in touch by emailing [email protected]. 

Share your views in the comments below.

Source: Read Full Article