The Curious Case of Ruby, the Anti-Barbie

40 Replies

I suspect that you have been seeing this picture popping up on your Facebook and/or Twitter stream this week. I did. Like you, I had a visceral response to it.

FUCK YEAH!

Was exactly what I said to the monitor as I responded to the plea on Facebook “This was an ad made by bodyshop. But Barbie INC. found out about it and now it’s banned. Repost if you think this ad deserves to be seen,” and hit the SHARE button before I could say “Happy National Donut Day!”

Then my inner Cyber Sleuth / Internet Meme Historian took over. “I wonder whether this is yet another hoax?” Ok. Fine. It was also my inner cynic’s doing. I googled it.

Good news (or is it in fact bad news?) : This is for realz. The Body Shop did wage such a brilliant war against The Barbie.

Bad news (or does it really matter?) : It was from 1998.

The late Anita Roddick, founder of The Body Shop, wrote in 2001:

In 1998, The Body Shop debuted its self-esteem campaign, featuring the generously proportioned doll we dubbed “Ruby.” … …

Ruby was a fun idea, but she carried a serious message. She was intended to challenge stereotypes of beauty and counter the pervasive influence of the cosmetics industry, of which we understood we were a part. Perhaps more than we had even hoped, Ruby kick-started a worldwide debate about body image and self-esteem.

But Ruby was not universally loved. In the United States, the toy company Mattel sent us a cease-and-desist order, demanding we pull the images of Ruby from American shop windows. Their reason: Ruby was making Barbie look bad, presumably by mocking the plastic twig-like bestseller (Barbie dolls sell at a rate of two per second; it’s hard to see how our Ruby could have done any meaningful damage.) I was ecstatic that Mattel thought Ruby was insulting to Barbie — the idea of one inanimate piece of molded plastic hurting another’s feelings was absolutely mind-blowing.

In 2002, Ms. Roddick again wrote about Ruby when the Danish pop band Aqua was sued by Mattel for their song “Barbie Girl”. In the same post, she also mentioned how an American artist, Tom Forsythe, had been engaged in lengthy legal battle against Mattel when Mattel sued him for his photographic project “Food Chain Barbie“. (You’d be happy to know that in 2004, after five years and millions of dollars in legal expenses, Mattel was ordered by court to pay $1.8 million in legal fees for Mr. Forsythe.)

Googling also led me to believe that every year or so, this poster of daring and clever protest by The Body Shop would resurface to the Internet’s attention but then the buzz would die down as fast as it started. For example, this article in Mother Jones from 2007.

It seems that more and more people are being outraged on Twitter and Facebook asking people, “It is banned by Mattel. OMG! RETWEET IF YOU WANT THIS POSTER TO BE SEEN!” It has caught on like a bad rumor. (It has now appeared on BuzzFeed with no historical context).

At first I wanted to “set the record straight” by shouting from the mountain top: This was from 1998, people. Case closed!

Then I thought about what Ms. Roddick wrote:

It makes me angry, not only because it is a male-dominated industry built on creating needs that don’t exist, but because it seems to have decided that it needs to make women unhappy about their appearances. It plays on self-doubt and insecurity about image and ageing by projecting impossible ideals of youth and beauty.

Things have not changed much since 1998 when the world first met Ruby. And yes, the world needs to be reminded of Ruby once in a while. We are a forgetful people with short attention spans which seem to get shorter with each new generation.

Ruby, who still watches us from posters throughout The Body Shop’s offices, won’t let us forget.                                     — Dame Anita Roddick

40 thoughts on “The Curious Case of Ruby, the Anti-Barbie”

  2. The Sweetest

    Every day I am thankful that I don’t have a girl. It is sad that I feel this way, but I would not do a very good job of handling the way girls are marketed to and portrayed these days. Someone earlier mentioned the clothing, and it’s true. I see second graders dressed in makeup and leggings like they are twenty, and it freaks me out. As a teenager I always wished my body was different, and I can’t imagine that girls today go through.
    The Sweetest recently posted…It’s Almost Christmas. Let’s Make Red and Green Stuff.My Profile

    Reply ↓
  3. Nance

    Um, yep. There’s so many reasons this poster is a good thing…every reason from anorexia to stilettos. On the other hand, we are a desperately out-of-health country (started to say out of shape, but health is what it’s really about). And the Body Shop makes its money selling what? Say again? So, this is a clever counter-marketing coup…cosmetics politics…and I wish Barbie had gone the way of the Cabbage Patch Kids. Both things are true.

    Put me down as ambivalent, but deeply appreciative of you and your research.
    Nance recently posted…The Mouse And The MoonbeamMy Profile

    Reply ↓
  8. secret agent woman

    I’m generally skeptical of those “re-post this!” FB things, although I sometimes do like one enough to re-post it.

    Funny that Mattel got bent out of shape about the ad. Are they really that threatened? I hate Barbie dolls – such a bizarre portrayal of women to little girls (although Bratz dolls are even worse.) My sincere hope is that one day we accept that women are beautiful in an array of body sizes – thin, medium, heavy – and that there isn’t one shape that is the “real” shape for a woman.
    secret agent woman recently posted…I dont want to talk about itMy Profile

    Reply ↓
  9. Ketira

    I look at Ruby and I want one too – I’d love to dress her up! I don’t have any design schooling, but that’s not going to stop me from trying out ideas….. X D

    Hm. You know, artist’s models (those wooden doll-like things) seem to also be modeled after Barbie. Think Mattel would sue me if I “poofed up” one to be more like Ruby? ; )

    ….and I think P!nk may have seen this as well; go look up the video to “Stupid Girls” as well as “Raise Your Glass”. ; )

    Reply ↓
  13. chuck

    Wow – small world ++. I saw this on facebook too, immediately started digging on google, found the same explanation that you did – an ad campaign from 1998, clicked a link and ended up here!

    Reply ↓
  14. jotter girl

    I love Ruby for her glorious shape but also for the fact that she has flat feet. Poor Barbie was made with feet in the shape of high heels. I’ll bet Barbie was secretly a fan of Ruby behind the closed doors of Mattel.

    Reply ↓
  16. KimB.

    More info on this, because I remember when it happened:

    Ruby was publicly referred to as the “Anti-Barbie Spokesperson”, and they had other ads that used the same body with an actual Barbie doll’s head (see here: http://www.johnriviello.com/bodyimage/ruby.html )

    Mattel (not “Barbie INC” which isn’t a company) issued a cease & desist order due to copyright infringement. It’s not because they were making Barbie look bad. Toy companies don’t have that kind of power, but they did have a legitimate copyright claim. The ad campaign was infringement.

    Reply ↓
  18. Brahm (alfred lives here)

    Wow, have never heard of Ruby before, nad love it — gonna look her up and learn more.

    I loved Anita Roddick, I thought she was a brave adn important woman, I wish the lessons she taught about the environment and self-esteem had more impact. Oh well, maybe they will.

    Great post!

    Reply ↓
  19. SisterMerryHellish

    It’s like they someone used my body (alright, less 20 pounds) to model Ruby after! I can’t believe I’ve never seen her! Before I could even comment I went searching for one to buy and came up as empty as a Barbie head.

    Love this post!
    SisterMerryHellish recently posted…Wish I Was Here!My Profile

    Reply ↓
    1. Absence Alternatives Post author

      I am so sorry about that! I would love to read what you had said. And I got you. After I posted this, I started looking at the pictures of movie stars rotating on my right sidebar… can you say “self contradictory”?!

      Reply ↓
  21. Tea

    The best thing about the internet, other than my ability to spend hours doing absolutely nothing, is that we can find like-minded people faster than ever before. It’s sad that nothing much has changed since 1998. But now we can talk about it.

    Reply ↓
  23. Andrea

    I can’t get over that Barbie’s proportions changed to fit into hip huggers. My six-year-old daughter wears sweats to school because she hates that most pants — for six-year-olds! — show her butt crack while she sits on the floor at school. What are we doing??
    Andrea recently posted…With My Own Two HandsMy Profile

    Reply ↓
    1. Absence Alternatives Post author

      Wow! That is beyond disturbing. It is getting more and more ridiculous it seems. We have read so many blog posts where moms are just outraged by the clothes marketed to really really young girls but things kind of stay the same… *sigh*

      Reply ↓

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

CommentLuv badge

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.