Who wouldn’t want to see Barbie and the Bratz dolls totally throw down?
That’s essentially what’s been happening in the courtroom fashion-doll-brawl between Mattel and MGA Entertainment, the company that manufactures the Bratz line, according to a blog post on Strollerderby. So what’s all the kerfuffle about?
According to Mattel, Bratz creator Carter Bryant was working for Mattel when he came up with the design, and they feel that they deserve a share in the rather sizeable profits from the toy line. (MGA is a private company and doesn’t disclose profit information, but rumor has it that the Bratz merchandise nets them upwards of $2 billion annually.)
Bryant, who defected to MGA in 2000, claims he was on hiatus from Mattel when he came up with the design, but Mattel says that he was still under contractual obligation to turn over any “ideas, concepts and copyrightable subject [matter],” even while on leave.
So, who should win?
To be perfectly frank, I couldn’t possibly care any less.
I frequent Yahoo! Answers to share my toy expertise, and the toy category always seems to have at least one person asking “Which line is better: Barbie or Bratz?” I’m really not a big fan of either.
Let me preface my Barbie rant by saying that I love the collector’s dolls. (You might remember my burst of squee over the Black Canary Barbie, set to come out this fall, and my confession about owning the X-Files set, as well.) However, I feel like the dolls display and promote an unrealistic body image. In addition to the already controversial body design, Mattel released a new shape called “Model Muse” in 2007, which is stick-thin, much more flat-chested, and severely lacking in the derriere department. Can we please NOT promote anorexia in young girls? Thanks.
I also feel that Barbie dolls somewhat limit children’s imaginitive play. Barbie has always struck me as the vapid trophy wife type, like she would fit right in next door to Eva Longoria Parker’s character in Desperate Housewives. I mean, think about it. Why is Barbie always a fashion model, pop superstar, princess with butterfly wings, or something equally pointless? Where are Neurosurgeon Barbie, Senator Barbie, and Chemical Engineer Barbie? Nowhere to be found. Remember the controversy over Teen Talk Barbie and her proclamations on the difficulties of mathematics? While I agree with Barbie’s sentiments, I do see why people got so upset. Quit making Barbie look like a bimbo and give her something intelligent to say to our girls.
And then there are the Bratz dolls, which I hate, loathe, and despise. First of all, they look ridiculous. Huge feet, bug eyes, no nose, and a hydrocephalic head. Why in the world do people find these things attractive? They look like tarted-up aliens. And speaking of the tarted-up bit, could someone please explain to me why a doll being marketed toward girls between the ages of FOUR and EIGHT is wearing heavy makeup, a minidress, and calf-high boots, and beckoning us with a come-hither look? There have been some provocative outfits for Mattel’s blonde bombshell, but this makes Barbie look positively virginal.
And then there’s the whole vapidity thing all over again with these dolls. They promote the idea that beauty is on the outside, and that fashion and boys are the most important things in life. Do we really want to teach our girls to sell themselves short and to allow men to objectify them? I think not.
And if you think that these dolls aren’t affecting the way girls think, look around you at what girls are wearing nowadays. A friend of mine was recently at a school event and saw a young girl wearing hot pants and calf-high boots. I sincerely wish I was joking. I grew up in a conservative household. It was Osh Kosh B’Gosh overalls and cute collared shirts for me. My mother would have died if she’d seen this little girl dressed the way she was.
Anyway, the case looks good for Mattel, whose sales have been declining recently, but only time will tell. I’ll update as soon as I hear more on the case.
