Like many, when I was a child, I was obsessed with Barbie. I always wanted barbies for birthdays, Christmas or just because.
I didn’t think that Barbie ‘represented’ me. I think she represented the idealised version of adult I hoped to become.
When I was around eight – years – old, I was a massive fan of Danish – Norwegian pop group, Aqua. One of my favourite songs was Bsrbie Girl.
It wasn’t until years later that I learned that the song was ineterpreted as a criticism of consumerism and unrealistic beauty standards. However, according to Song Meanings and Facts, Rene Diff claimed the song was about self love and appreciation.
Unrealistic body types
The past decade or so, the media, fashion industry and society at large ihas been wary of unrealistic beauty standards. Social media apps like TikTok and Instagram have only added fuel to the fire.
Yet, before social media, Mattel — Barbie’s manufacturer, sparked fear that the iconic doll eroded girls’ self – esteem. As a columnist of Breakthrough put it:
It’s absolutely true that posessing one of these dolls as a child was a thing of pride and joy, but on the other hand, Barbie dolls can lead to a significant decrease self – esteem and dissatisfaction with one’s body
(‘How Barbie violated body image, self – esteem and consent’, Breakthrough Voice, 26 September 2019)
If Barbie was a real person, researchers have pointed out that she wouldn’t be able to menstruate or stand properly. This is due to significantly. low body fat percentage. Some experts have also suggested that if someone had Barbie’s body proportions, it would be difficult for them to walk.
Barbie’s image evolves
Mattel has beeh listening to people’s concerns. In 2016, they introduced the ‘Fashionista’ line. It featured barbies with different body types and ethnicities.
In 2019, Mattel included Barbies with physical disabilities, with accessories such as a wheelchair and prosthetic leg. In 2020, Mattel made ‘Creatable World’, where the dolls were gender neautral.
Latest edition: Barbie features ASD traits
Earlier this year, Mattel introduced the latest in their diversity branding. ‘Autistic Barbie’ . It includes a fidget toy, noise – cancelling headphones and a conmunication tablet, as well as loose clothes and comfortable shoes.
Members of the autistic community and their families have both praised and criticised the move. While some people have called it revolutionary, others. fear that it cements social stereotypes.
For AuADHD (comorbid Autism Spectrum Disorder and Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder), author, Ellie Middleton, the move was deeply personal:
I truly feel like a piece of little Ellie who grew up feeling broken,damaged, like she’d never find somewhere to belong, and who never ever considered. that autism might be something that could relate to her has finally been healed.
(‘Autistic Barbie sparks joy and concern in community split’, Paige Fryer, Herald Sun, 15 January 2026).
However, Autistic Barbie has also attracted cynicism and concern. On Sky News Australia, Senator Hollie Hughes, who has a son with ASD, said she “rolled her eyes” and argued that, while Mattel’s representation wasn’t incorrect, it was over simplified.
No representation is perfect
I’m not an expert on ASD. What I’ve heard by talking to people is that ASD presents in many ways. Some people with ASD see it as a variety of spectrums, rather than just one. Different people have different tolerances, sensitivities and soothing techniques.
Mattel — or any other company — was never going to get ASD representation perfect. Some have found Autistic Barbie a relief. Some haven’t. I think that’s the way it was always going to be. Because everyone — including people with ASD — is unique.
What do you think if Autistic Barbie? Is it a fair representation of people with ASD? Drop your thoughts down in the comments.
