Barbie's For Boys....Why Not?

I can still recall fondly my childhood. Years spent playing with my assorted dolls and their accessories. Creating imaginary worlds of glamor and adventure. My dolls were an outlet-as for most little girls the opportunity to forage into the social realm with the proverbial security blanket. A 12 ” blonde- haired perfectly proportioned piece of perfection. Gaggles of girls would flock together with their representations of themselves in tow. These dolls provided the opportunity to socialize and play in a group setting.

I never gave the boys much thought. Until I had a little boy who the other day requested a doll. I had always thought the boys busied themselves with their trucks and action figures etc. Being the progressive thinker that I am and knowing as an educator that all children play with dolls as a means to dramatic expression, I said “yes”. My husband reluctantly agreed to his demands but only when the verbiage was changed to “action figure”.

Armed with his approval, I searched the internet for ‘dolls for boys’. Much to my chagrin, there were virtually no dolls and mostly articles discussing the fear of doll play as a signal to homosexuality. I tried a number of different phrases including “action figures”, “Ken dolls”, and sports heroes. I even tried “articulating dolls” in the hopes of making the blasted computer understand that I wanted a Barbie doll but one that was male. My search led me to collectibles, movie icons, and figurines costing well over $50.

What happened to the dolls of yesterday? They were a couple of bucks and children had them by the dozen. Instead of coming away with a toy, I discovered a new prejudice-the anti-male. This is of course, ironic as I am a feminist and applauded the line of Barbies that allowed her to “be anything” and “do anything”. But in our quest to show our little girls strength and beauty and provide them with oodles of confidence, have we canceled out our male counterpart? This is apparent from the meager selection of ‘boy dolls’. The representation of the male ranges from the feminized “boy toy” that Ken has become to physiques on steroids.

Sexual connotations abound from Ken’s dress to his lack of occupation. Today’s Ken doll comes equipped with little more than a surf board and flip flops. He drives a pink car and I kid you not one of the lines of the doll is called “Hottie” Ken. Need I say more? How ironic that we feminists who were up in arms at the unrealistic representation of Barbie’s figure are allowing our male counterpart to be perceived as an effeminate slacker who’s only aspirations are fashion and the beach. A 15 year old nephew of mine offhandedly said that Ken is just one of Barbie’s accessories. How astute of that teenager to recognize that for all appearances, Ken was given the same consideration as one of Barbie’s handbags or shoes.

To the other extreme are the grotesquely muscled “action figures”, who are more like figurines and resemble aliens or monsters. They are icons of movie heroes or rescue heroes etc…and not one in the slightest resemble any man I know. This is not to say that thousands of boys delight in their mock fighting and evil vs good dramatic play. But my child is only 4 and does not relate to the representations on the movie screen. He nods in recognition at the mention of Batman and the like but is not interested in that type of play…not yet.

Where are the toys of yesteryear? I distinctly recall cowboys with brown horses (not purple glittered My Little Pony), Indians, astronauts and The Lone Ranger. Why can’t Ken come with a basketball or a briefcase, go mountain climbing or ride a bike. Be a construction worker, a stockbroker or a chef or drive anything that’s not pink?

In short: Have we gone so far the other direction that we have forgotten the male perspective?

If I am in error, please find me the site or store that I can purchase a male physique doing/wearing and acting like a regular guy so that I can buy for my kid his doll. In the meantime I’m still searching….