Check It Out

What better to write about on WTF Wednesday than the downhill evolution (devolution?) of a creepy doll?

There are a lot of people that are worried about the effect that Barbie dolls might have on the body image issues and self-esteem of little girls. By now, we all know that Barbie would have to be 7′2″ to have the same proportions as a human that she owns as a doll, and there are many who are disturbed by her eternally plastic grin and those feet that are bent into the shape of high heels.

Personally, I think the stick-thin celebrities and glossy magazine covers that scream “YOU NEED TO LOSE WEIGHT NOW, FATTY MCUGLYPANTS!” are far more damaging, but regardless of where you stand on the Barbie issue, there’s a new bad girl in town. Move over, Barbie – Bratz has you beat in triplicate.

The original Bratz doll was worrying enough in its own right. Here’s an image of one of the first Bratz dolls to hit the market:
Remember being worried about Barbie being too thin? This doll’s waist is literally the same size around as her WRIST. Really healthy. Never mind the fact that her legs are twice as long as they should be for her torso size, and her lips are larger than her breasts. She’s also presumably school-age judging by the backpack she carries, and I don’t think any parent really wants their school-age girl going out in five-inch (comparably) platform heels and showing the majority of her midsection.

I’m one of the last people that will ever say we should be censoring the world from children, but I do find these dolls disturbing. Let’s take a look at those shoes. Have you ever seen shoes like that in the real world that weren’t on stage? Don’t get me wrong here, I like Vegas strippers and all the footwear the image entails, but not for little girls, please?

The thing is, it gets worse. This is a sampling of what I saw in the stores at Christmas time:

Let’s not even mention the weird body proportions, since we already covered that with the regular Bratz Dolls. What I think is creepy here is that these are obviously supposed to be babies and toddlers, as evidenced by their accessories. (Unless, of course, they’re trying to tell you that it’s fine for an older girl to ride in a stroller and carry around a baby bottle, which is possibly even weirder than what they ARE propagating.) I don’t know about you, but I am disturbed by the idea of babies wearing eyeshadow and lipstick.

And as for the Bratz Babyz (Ugh, and they blame the internet for the shitty way kids spell these days? At least the internet has spell-checking built into most sites) wedding set… Can’t we just let kids be kids without shoving relationships and marriage down their throats from the second they come out of the womb?

Now, I do give kids credit. I seriously doubt that most kids are going to look at a Bratz doll and say “Oh no, I’m ugly, my eyes aren’t the size of my fists!” but it is one more block in the foundation we’re laying for children. What are they supposed to think, when magazine covers feature Lindsay Lohan photoshopped into having the same garish proportions as their lipstick-wearing dolls?

Thoughts?

2 Responses to “WTF Wednesdays #2: Can’t have a WTF blog without discussing Bratz dolls!”