Inspiring Second Wave Girls: How Barbie Broke the Glass Ceiling

This article originally appeared as a presentation at the Brian Bertoti Innovative Perspectives in History Graduate Research Conference, Virginia Tech, where it won the Brian Bertoti Award for 2013.

Barbie. No word evokes more joy or controversy than the name of the doll created by Ruth Handler of Mattel. Born Barbara Millicent Roberts on March 9, 1959, Barbie has since been played with and collected by millions since her debut at the American International Toy Fair in New York. She has been ascribed a family of dolls that have accompanied her at various points in the past five decades: Skipper and Tutti, her sisters; Todd, her brother; Midge Hadley, one of her many friends; and the iconic boyfriend Ken Carson.[1] She has embodied over 125 career roles and showcased countless fashions and accessories.

Today, she has a fan base of millions of people of all ages and throughout the world. The bimonthly Barbie Bazaar reaches over twenty thousand readers[2] and countless conventions have been held in her honor. She is simultaneously a toy and a symbol, a girl and a woman: an artifact ripe for discussion in terms of American material culture that has embodied, as Driscoll states, a “game about gender” and the debates over gender roles that emerged after the Feminist Movement.[3]

Barbie as Artifact

Barbie, as a symbol of American popular culture in the latter half of the twentieth century, is an artifact whose various dimensions provide a glimpse into the realities and contradictions of women in the era of feminism, especially in regards to participation in the workforce. Emerging as the exemplar ‘teenager’ of the postwar years, Barbie represents a ‘teen culture’ that embodied the consumer culture of the postwar years; through her pursuit of various careers, Barbie achieved the economic independence that provided the means to purchase cars, dune buggies, yachts, houses, planes, and nearly countless clothes and accessories that have since made Barbie the “it” girl.

Yet her status as “it” girl has not made her a solitary ideal; debates over the continuities and changes of Barbie since her debut have ranged from her embodiment of conservatism and conformity to the contradictions inherent in her feminization of many traditionally male careers. These debates read Barbie as a historical text, shedding light on the continuities and changes of the “ideal woman” since 1959 through social meanings.

“The doll’s social meanings are a dynamic product of, on one hand, the symbolic possibilities which its producers ‘encode’ in Barbie…and, on the other hand, consumers’ embrace, modification, subversion, and rejection of dominant ideologies and Mattel’s intended Barbie meanings.”[4]

Thus, Barbie is a quintessential artifact of American popular culture in the late twentieth century. She “embraces the standard archaeological understanding of structured material description, identification of material patterns, and anthropological analysis of the relationship between those patterns and their cultural and historical context.”[5] Other material culture studies that have utilized Barbie have generally focused on a specific aspect — most commonly, Barbie’s idealized feminine body — and ignored the sum of Barbie’s parts. However, to understand Barbie’s symbolism and its relation to American culture, scholars must consider other facets of Barbie’s world and, in studying the various parts, form a whole that relates Barbie and her world to a rapidly changing, consumer-based society. This harkens to the archaeological ideal of never analyzing a single object in isolation from related objects in the same assemblage or without reference to its contexts.[6] Thus, studies must be performed on her various parts — beyond the prevalent literature on Barbie’s nearly impossible ideal of beauty — in order to begin forming this whole.

Methods

This study, then, is a step in that direction; herein, Barbie’s careers from her debut in 1959 to 1989 are reviewed as part of Barbie’s artifact assemblage. The evidence of her careers — titles and clothing — is reviewed and compared to U.S. Census data in order to grasp whether Barbie embodied the reality or ideal of working women in the time period. For each decade, the U.S. Census data for the beginning and end of the decade has been utilized to provide an average percentage of women actually working in Barbie’s chosen careers of that decade.

For example, for Barbie’s careers in 1960, each career was matched to the equivalent occupational category in the Census. Then the percentage of women in that category from the 1960 and 1970 Censuses was averaged. This average is believed to reflect the average number of women that, over the decade as a whole, worked in that occupational category. These averages were then analyzed to determine whether Barbie sought traditionally male or female career choices; if Barbie chose predominantly male careers, then it is believed that Barbie embodies an ideal rather than reality, and vice versa. A review of Barbie’s clothes for traditionally male careers was also undertaken, in order to ascertain whether Barbie attempted to “feminize” those occupations. In doing so, it is possible to determine whether Barbie represented an ideal or the reality of women’s occupations in postwar America, and what this may mean for Barbie’s embodiment of the “ideal of girlhood.”

Reflecting the Female Workforce?

In order to understand Barbie’s reflection of the female workforce, a depiction of the female workforce between 1959 and 1989 is essential. This understanding begins with socialization, as men and women are brought up to behave in culturally proscribed ways. In America, a division of labor exists “whereby women spume the role of wife and mother and men the role of provider. The sex segregation of the labor market reflects this broader division of labor.”[7] In general, women were ascribed to occupational choices that reflect the tradition of wife and mother through nurturing or supportive roles, such as waitressing, childcare, administrative and clerical work, and nursing. The intellectually demanding and task-oriented fields — such as doctors, lawyers, and crafts workers — have traditionally been reserved for men.[8]

Women between 1960 and 1990 were able to transcend this gendered division and enter into male-dominated fields, such as medicine and engineering. Yet, as Hesse-Biber notes, these women were influenced by gender roles and family responsibilities in their selection of specialty; thus, women who chose medical professions tended to pursue fields such as pediatrics and family practice, an extension of a woman’s domestic duties of child-rearing and ensuring family well-being.[9] Thus, trends in women’s work must be considered in light of the socially constructed division of labor, which is why analysis of Barbie’s feminization of traditional male occupations is necessary.

From 1960 to 1990, the percentage of women in the workforce increased as more women, especially married women, joined the workforce in order to participate in the consumer culture. As consumerism dominated the American ideology of the postwar years, the population’s economic need enlarged to include items previously considered luxuries, such as owning more than one car, and to reflect inflation levels that encouraged the participation of wives in order to buy a house, pay bills, or save for a child’s education.[10] Utilizing U.S. Census data, the percentage of women in the workforce increased from 32% in 1960 to 45% in 1990. Most of these women were middle-income wives, whose work rate increased each decade between 1940 and 1970 by at least 28 percent.[11] Between 1960 and 1995, the percentage of married women employed increased by 29% (from 32% to 61%).[12] This increase may be the result of the postwar feminist movement of the 1960s, which encouraged women’s participation in traditionally male roles, as well as the increased desire for consumer goods.

Thus, Barbie — the iconic toy for girls during the postwar decades — embodied this increased participation by idealizing a career-oriented, economically independent woman. However, despite her increased participation in the workforce, did Barbie actually transcend gendered divisions of labor to reflect an inspirational ideal or did she reflect actual women’s participation in the workforce?

The answer lies in a comparison of Barbie’s “careers” between 1959 and 1989 with the percentage of women in those occupational categories. During this time period, Barbie pursued 13 different occupational categories, excluding 8 of her careers that did not clearly relate to categories utilized by the U.S. Census. The excluded careers included three modeling roles (“Teenage Fashion Model” and two “Miss America”), two executive roles in 1963 and 1985 (both of which did not state a specific industry), a Candy Striper Volunteer, a U.S. Army Officer, and a UNICEF Ambassador. Of those excluded, four may be considered traditionally male roles; however, given the presence of women in the military prior to 1960, the ‘supportive’ nature of an ambassador’s role (in relation to the government, as a role that corresponds to women’s role as the social head of the family), and the undefined type of executive she embodies (one is a “Career Girl” and the other is too broad to define a sector, thus it is possible that both executives may have pursued managerial positions in which women were expected to advance, such as in fashion magazines), it is not possible to say that Barbie broke the barriers into these fields.

Of the 13 occupations that Barbie pursued, eight were in male-dominated fields (of which women comprised less than 50% of the workforce according to Census data). Six were the occupational categories of Announcers, Athletes and kindred workers, Editors and Reporters, Engineering and science technicians, Physicians and dentists, and Veterinarians. The other two, Actors and Musicians/composers, were male-dominated between 1960 and 1990, are fields which can be considered “borderline” traditionally male in that the number of people reporting such as their primary occupation may be skewed (as many actors also hold side jobs in order to achieve a steady income). Another field, Designers, was male-dominated in the 1960s (with 21.06% of women employed) but became female-dominated by the 1980s (with 52.71% of women employed). The remaining four fields were female-dominated between 1960 and 1990. Barbie was an airline stewardess in 1961, 1966, and 1973 — a time period in which women comprised 95.82% of the category. She was then a Dancer (specifically, a ballerina) in 1961, 1976, and 1987, during which women comprised 80% of dancers. Barbie was a Registered Nurse in 1961, when 97.44% of nurses were women. Finally, she pursued a teaching career in 1965 and 1985, when between 70% and 73% of teachers were women.

Barbie Breaking Barriers

By comparing Barbie’s careers to the Census averages, it becomes evident that Barbie preferred to ‘break barriers’ rather than pursue traditionally female career choices. Her ‘feminine’ careers, however, were stereotypically female roles, and her overall career choices did not embrace the growing trends of administrative support positions pursued by women during this time period. Taken together, Barbie either attempted breaking the hardest barriers (such as into the medical and engineering fields) or remained in roles that had been traditionally ascribed to women. Thus, while Barbie may have attempted to break the mythical glass ceiling, she did not portray the intermediary steps (such as administrative support positions) that real women often had to achieve before attempting to break the glass ceiling.

Furthermore, Barbie’s achievement of traditionally male-dominated roles included the feminization of those roles. A good comparison comes from her two stints as an astronaut, in 1965 and 1986. In 1965, Barbie’s astronaut uniform was a relatively non-form fitting spacesuit and large helmet, akin to the orange jumpsuits and white helmets worn by male astronauts of the time. However, Barbie’s 1986 astronaut uniform was a drastically feminized outfit, more akin to a sci-fi movie costume than the actual uniforms worn by men and women astronauts of the time, that Pearson describes as a “fashion-conscious space traveler” who was accompanied by a line of “Astro Fashions” for “chic astronauts.”[13]

The same feminization occurred when Barbie became a surgeon in 1973, sporting scrubs in the form of a dress, with her hair pulled into a low ponytail and covered as if by a scarf rather than traditional unisex surgery scrubs. It again occurred in 1988, when Doctor Barbie donned high heels, a colorful dress, and white coat as her preferred outfit for a day on her feet. Doctor Barbie of 1988 also included babies and a list of childcare rules. In addition, another medical role — that of Veterinarian — included cuddly puppies and kittens, and her 1991 career as a Marine in the Persian Gulf War included a dress blues uniform and Desert Storm metal, but no gun or combat uniform. The choice of outfits and accessories therefore alluded to the more nurturing and supportive aspects of Barbie’s careers: the maternal nurturing of children, cuddling with animals, and having supported (but perhaps not participated in, given the ambiguous nature to the medal) combat operations.

This feminization is prevalent in most of Barbie’s career outfits and accessories, with form-fitting clothing and accessories that ascribed to nurturing roles. What this feminization entails for career-minded women is still debated by scholars, as explained by Stone:

Every Barbie outfit has careful attention paid to it, but perhaps for the career dolls this is a double-edge sword. Some feel that Barbie’s wardrobe sends the wrong message to girls dreaming of themselves in these professions and that it takes power away from the idea that women are as qualified as men no matter their appearance. Others believe it demonstrates that girls can be as feminine as they like and still be taken seriously at whatever job they choose. It is hard to know what has more impact on girls — Barbie entering ‘male’ careers, or the idea that her clothing keeps her ‘in her place’ as a woman.[14]

Thus, Barbie’s ascendance to traditionally male occupations generally comes with a feminization of the role through her clothing. This feminization embodies the ambiguity that continues to define women’s place in the workforce: whether a woman must utilize her feminine attributes, accentuated by clothing, in order to break the glass ceiling or whether a woman, ascribing to the same typical clothing and mannerisms of a man, could break the glass ceiling, and all the gender bias and sexual discrimination that is entailed by her choice.

What Barbie Doesn’t Do

Another aspect that must be considered in this analysis is what careers Barbie did not pursue. As Driscoll states, Barbie’s variation had real limits; certain kinds of Barbies were not made, such as ‘Feminist Barbie’ or ‘Pregnant Teen Barbie.’[15] Barbie also does not pursue blue-collar jobs, especially in manufacturing, a traditionally male occupation. She also does not pursue careers that are ‘stepping stones’ into managerial and executive positions, such as administrative support (secretary, transcriptionist) and retail sales. Besides having been a perpetual babysitter for her younger siblings, Barbie also does not pursue private household and personal service occupations, such as waitressing, cleaning, childcare, and counseling. It is this absence that is striking, given that these are traditionally female-dominated occupations.

Taking into account Barbie’s career choices between 1959 and 1989, as compared with U.S. Census data, as well as the feminization of her unconventional career choices and her lack of participation in traditionally female occupations, Barbie is thus a symbol of the ideal career woman who has broken the glass ceiling. Perhaps inspired by her creator, career woman Ruth Handler, Barbie has come to embody the economically independent, consumer-oriented “it” girl to which the feminist movement looked to for inspiration.

“The daughter of a Polish Jewish immigrant, Ruth Handler coded with her fashion dolls the same sort of phantasmic ‘America’ that Louis B. Mayer had coded in his movies. […] There was no tribal taint in her plastic flesh, no baggage to betray an immigrant past. She had no navel; no parents; no heritage.”[16]

She also does not reflect the reality of women’s occupations during the postwar years, nor does she reflect the many mid-level careers to which women paid their dues before rising to positions of authority in their occupational choices. Rather, Barbie has achieved her dreams without any real story as to how she accomplished such a feat, especially considering that Barbie is meant to embody a teenage ideal and not to have crossed into the realm of adulthood. It is in this achievement, however, that Barbie’s true power resides.

Without a background, Barbie opened the doors to girls’ imaginations: Barbie had ascended to her position of independence by whatever means her consumers preferred, thus giving girls an avenue to explore the many ways in which their own dreams could be achieved. In doing so, Barbie has continually participated in the renegotiation of gender roles that dominated postwar America. She embodies the “irresolvable openness of girlhood itself” through her ideal lifestyle: an openness to which her consumers may generate their own stories of ascendancy both to Barbie and to themselves.[17]

This is perhaps no better reflected than in Barbie’s 2011 career choice: Computer Engineer. Chosen through a massive online poll by thousands of Barbie consumers, Computer Engineer Barbie now strives to break into a field that, even today, is male-dominated. Retaining her trademark platinum blonde hair, small waist, and high heels, Computer Engineer Barbie wears a neon-colored, binary code pattern T-shirt, carries a smartphone and Bluetooth headset, and looks through hot pink glasses to her hot pink laptop.[18]

In doing so, she again imposes femininity on a traditionally male role, breaking the glass ceiling both in terms of achieving the career and personalizing it. Thus, Barbie continues her embodiment of ideals about career-minded women who constantly renegotiate gender roles and ideals in the wake of feminism. She remains a toy and a symbol, an artifact through which historians may view the renegotiation of gender that began in the postwar years and continues today. Though she may not reflect the realities of female occupations, she embodies the ‘American Dream’: the ability to constantly redefine one’s self and aspire to a degree of economic independence and leisurely consumption that dominated the American ideology of the twentieth century.

Sources

[1] Doll Reference, “All Vintage Barbie.” Accessed December 2, 2011. http://dollreference.com/barbie_menu1.html.

[2] Lord, M.G. Forever Barbie: The Unauthorized Biography of a Real Doll (New York: Walker & Company, 2004), 5.

[3] Driscoll, Catherine. “Barbie Culture,” in Girl Culture, ed. Claudia Mitchell and Jacqueline Reid-Walsh (Greenwood Publishing Group, 2007) 39.

[4] Marlys Pearson and Paul R. Mullins, “Domesticating Barbie: An Archaeology of Barbie Material Culture and Domestic Ideology.” International Journal of Historical Archaeology 3, no. 4 (1999): 227.

[5] Ibid., 226

[6] Ibid., 226

[7] Hesse-Biber, Sharlene Nagy and Gregg Lee Carter. Working Women in America. (New York: Walker & Company, 2004), 83.

[8] Ibid., 83

[9] Ibid., 83

[10] Weiner, Lynn W. From Working Girl to Working Mother: The Female Labor Force in the United States, 1820–1980. (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1985), 93–94.

[11] Ibid., 93–94.

[12] Hesse-Biber, Working Women in America, 45.

[13] Pearson, “Domesticating Barbie,” 252.

[14] Stone, Tanya Lee. The good, the bad, and the Barbie: a doll’s history and her impact on us. (New York: Viking, 2010), 1.

[15] Driscoll, “Barbie Culture,” 46

[16] Lord, Forever Barbie, 159–160

[17] Driscoll, “Barbie Culture,” 45

[18] Miller, Claire Cain. “Barbie’s Next Career? Computer Engineer.” New York Times (2010). Accessed December 5, 2011. http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/02/12/barbies-next-career-computer-engineer/