Barbie Who?

My mom sent me a photo the other day of a hippy-like Ken doll. I wasn’t entirely sure that it was actually Barbie, or, even, Mattel, but I could tell it was something different. It was different from the standard, anyway, and intentionally so.

Today, while checking out some fabrics and yarns for making dresses for these Barbies that I’m painting for Día de Muertos at the end of the month, my mom stopped at an aisle in the store to show me something. Low and behold, it was the Ken doll… surrounded by several other new and different Barbies. And yes, they are Mattel and Barbie. They are the real deal.

Turns out, there is this whole line of Barbies and Kens that I had never even heard mentioned, let alone seen myself. From hipster baristas with man buns to prosthetic legs to heavier everyday girls, Barbie has released a line of dolls called “You can be anything” Barbies.

And, at Walmart, anyway, they are only $8 plus tax (total of $9 exactly in Texas), and I am kind of in love. Something within me wants to own, to have and to hold a couple of these Barbies…, specifically, the man-bun barista Ken and the hypopigmentation black Barbie.

Here’s a closer look at the lot.

Note the size and shape of Park Ranger Barbie and the neighboring Fashionista Barbie #144 (that seems to be the generic term for the ones that haven’t been given specific names yet). Big fan over here of the human-shaped Barbies. 🙂

Check those prosthetics! Baller! I still remember the video of the little girl who got the first doll she had ever seen with a prosthetic, how she cried, declaring, “It’s got a leg like me!” (Info here, and original video here. Fun fact: That girl is actually from Houston.)

And that hunky man-bun barista Ken… there’s just something about the hipster that always gets me! ❤ 😛

I know this is only a single step in an ocean of stairwells, but it is a huge step and it is definitely is a very good direction, so far as I am concerned.

Thanks, Mattel, for taking this seriously and to heart. It is very much appreciated, and probably more so than you ever will know. 🙂

Post-a-day 2020


I sometimes wonder if my attachment to objects is somehow strongly connected to how I grew up with my siblings…

You see, during my Freudian development years, I have five siblings, and it would be anywhere from all five to non of them around, depending on the current situation… and I have a feeling that it was more often none of them around than any.

I have this vague memory of having a room full of toys when I was really little – it’s just a glimpse sort of memory of this one moment in this one particular house and bedroom… I wonder if my mom kind of surrounded me by toys – granted, we had awesome, genius-type toys and books, not stupid stuff, but there might have been a decent amount of them around – as a means of giving me the company I lacked from my siblings… possibly not, but also possibly so, just not consciously so…

Or maybe I just associate with objects as very important, because those were the versions of my siblings that did stay around whenever the real ones left…

It is difficult for me to let go of things, – I let go of them nowadays, though it definitely takes a lot of work for me to do so – and I wonder if it isn’t in part due to their representing my being surrounded by people who love and care about me.

Maybe not… it was just an idea that floated around for a while, and sounded like an interesting possibility.

I do think it is kind of odd, though, how often it seems I was alone, sibling-wise, in my early years, when considering that I technically had five siblings.

That’s just how those divorces worked out, you know?

Post-a-day 2018