Grilling a Barbie Controversy

"[The introduction of Barbie dolls with wheelchairs / prosthetic legs] adheres to safe disability stereotypes, and reinforces the perception that disability means a visible mobility impairment."

Stumbled across this (https://themighty.com/2019/03/new-disabled-barbies-representation/) opinion piece by Erin Pritchard while reading a BBC story about a new Rosa Parks Barbie.  And I'm just...gobsmacked to be frank.

Representation matters, visibility matters but precisely how specific do you expect a MASS PRODUCED TOY to be???? People come in an infinite variety - unless you have dolls custom made they're really not likely to look like anyone in particular. Does anyone really think it's feasible to make dolls in seven billion variations?! We're supposed to be cutting down on plastics for heaven's sake!

Barbie's are DOLLS, they are very much of the Caucasian persuasion with a lot of parents rightfully indignant that ethnic variants are hard to come by.
They do not have realistic body proportions, have been criticised for glamorising anorexia and certainly do not represent the obesity problems especially prevalent in the western world.
Dolls are for creative play...why are modern-era kids so incapable of making stuff up?! Or is just that adults can't imagine being creative? There's a comment following the article "Autistic Barbie doll with stim toys and noise cancelling headphones in case of sensory overload." ...in my youth a pipe-cleaner would be fashioned into headphones & other accessories improvised to achieve this.  A bit of blu-tack for a hearing aid (Hearing Impaired Barbie), a lollipop stick or a roll of paper for a cane (Visual Impairment Barbie), we used to PRETEND. WHY do you need a special doll for that? Erin Pritchard (who has dwarfism) asks "What about a cousin for Barbie who has a more contested disability, such as dwarfism or vitiligo etc." So I ask, which of the myriad different forms of dwarfism do you feel they should represent? YOURS, I suppose... Also, do you want representational dolls for those who undergo limb-lengthening surgeries?! Vitiligo can be represented with a custom paint job if you're up for a bit of craft work. Improvising a wheelchair might be rather harder to achieve, not to mention the multitude of different disabilities that might require a person to use one. And whilst you can remove a doll's limb, creating a prosthetic could be tricky. Then there's the fact that many people have combined disabilities - a person with dwarfism AND vitiligo for example? You simply can't give everyone representation and as I've already stated, with a bit of imagination (optional glue, paint, scissors and sticky-back plastic) dolls can often be adequately customised anyway.

The author cites this WHO South-East Asia factsheet (http://www.searo.who.int/entity/ disabilities_injury_rehabilitation/wheelchair_factsheet.pdf) to show that (a) 10% of the world population have disabilities only 10% (i.e. 1% of the whole) require a wheelchair for mobility. However, many disabilities have no physical characteristics - in terms of Barbie, a person with a cognitive or intellectual impairment, developmental disorder or mental disability may look like any other Barbie. Even many conditions under the heading of physical disability might have no outward sign - chronic fatigue, epilepsy or fibromyalgia for example. I'd be interested to know what proportion of people with a visible disability use a wheelchair, because in terms of Barbies it's all about looks!
I'd also like to point out that one way or another most of us will be in a wheelchair at some point, even if temporarily - sprained ankles, broken bones, an expectant mother being wheeled down to delivery...a lot of older people, such as my stroke-survivor mum, might be wheelchair dependent without being 'registered' anywhere as being disabled and therefore not included in any statistics.
But most importantly, The Guardian article (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/ 2019/feb/25/disability-barbie-dolls-emojis) that the opinion piece is responding to - which is itself an opinion piece by Karl Knights (a writer with autism, ADHD & Cerebral Palsy) - states clearly that "Mattel commented that a wheelchair has been among the most frequently requested accessories for the doll." There is, quite clearly, a demand for this type of doll. I'm certainly not seeing anything in his piece to back up Ms Pritchard's assertion that Mattel are "reinforcing the problematic stereotype that all disabled people use a mobility aid, in particular a wheelchair" - she's reading an opinion piece by a man with a disability who is happy at a form of non-patronizing representation and interpreting into HIS words that Mattel are representing ALL disabled people? That's not even what Mr Knights is saying in that article! The closest thing I can see is "If I had even something as simple as an emoji representing myself as a kid, I wouldn’t have felt so isolated." - clearly using 'I', clearly not mentioning wheelchairs, just referencing the idea that acknowledging that disabled people exist is important with no caveat that it has to be the same kind or form of disability.
"If companies still choose to use a more “acceptable” impairment to indicate that they are inclusive and diverse, can they please not claim they are representing us all?" (1) who is to decide what is an "acceptable impairment"? The wheelchair is an internationally recognised symbol of disability - yes, it is enormously problematic and there are campaigns for awareness that non-wheelchair users can use disabled loos & parking spaces - but at the same time it is an inclusive and diverse symbol because it is used by people with such a wide variety of needs (2) they never did make that claim - it is your misinterpretation.

I for one am glad to see Mattel doing ANYTHING to improve diversity - more natural body shapes, more ethnic variety, any level of disability representation - these things are GOOD.  For people who've read my blogs before you might be surprised at me, an agender potato, defending Barbie.  Admittedly I LOATHE the pink but Barbie has long been a remarkable 'role-model' for girls with some impressive careers represented.  For example she was first depicted as an astronaut in 1965, only 2 years after Valentina Tereshkova became the first woman in space - the US didn't have a female astronaut until 1983.  She was also the first female POTUS in 2000 (tbh a lump of plastic is still a better candidate than Trump).  She has been a business executive (in 1960, not a secretary until 2007), two forms of Olympian (1975), a pilot (1990), an army medic (1993), a paratrooper (2000), a surgeon (1973)...and a sign language teacher in 2001. (source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbie%27s_careers).  Barbie may be unashamedly feminine but it's a gender stereotype in itself to suppose that that is somehow innately negative.

Still discovering my labels...

So my (adult) kids were trying to guess my sexuality... UGH! I only figured out I was agender a few years back (updated blog here: https://heggie31.blogspot.com/2018/01/agender-ex-cinderella-and-name-change.html) and given the plethora of sexualities available these days I so very much didn't want to go there. I have been happier to assume I'm straight than that I was cis so whatever.

But anyway, the topic came up last night and there are my twenty-somethings looking at me speculatively trying to figure out what I am when I have no damn clue myself.

So here I am, forty-one-and-a-bit, trying to work out where I fit using nothing but Google and Instagram hashtags to find something that seems to be 'me'.

And I *may* be wrong but I *think* I found it - Heteroromantic Demisexual. 

I can't spell it, I'll certainly never remember it. Kill me.

So the official-ish definitions go like this:

A heteroromantic person is a person who is romantically attracted to a member of the opposite sex or gender. Heteroromantic asexuals seek romantic relationships for a variety of reasons, including companionship, affection, and intimacy, but they are not necessarily sexually attracted to their romantic partners. Most heterosexual people are also heteroromantic. (source: http://wiki.asexuality.org/Heteroromantic)

A demisexual person is someone who does not experience sexual attraction to another person unless or until they have formed an emotional connection with that person. It's more commonly seen in, but by no means confined, to romantic relationships.

When describing demisexuality as an orientation to sexuals, it is often mistaken as an admirable choice rather than an innate orientation. Demisexuals are not choosing to abstain; they simply lack sexual attraction until a close, emotional, relationship is formed.

Though factors such as looks and personality do not affect primary sexual attraction for demisexuals (since demisexuals do not experience primary sexual attraction), such factors may affect romantic attraction, as with any other orientation.

(source: http://wiki.asexuality.org/Demisexual)

RIGHT. So the way I'm interpreting this (and feel free to sort me out if I'm wrong)...

Heteroromantic (nearly forgot that 2nd RO again, dammit) - I'm agender but I'm still happy to identify with she/her pronouns as a biological female so the 'hetero' element doesn't feel problematic. When I look at a cute guy I may have soft squishy feels, not X-rated ones. Decidedly more "I hope they're a nice human, I'd kinda like a candlelit dinner with that one" than "Yes, I would totally boink that". In fact, I only just discovered 'normal' people look at people of their preferred gender (if applicable) and skip the 'I'd like to get to know you' for the '...biblically' bit. Weird.

I look at cute females and have rather different soft and squishy feels - decidedly more "Why can't I be like that instead of an agender potato?!" again, rather than "I would totally go there".

Not ruling out one-night-stands (or getting off with a female of the species) but these things don't seem at all likely. Not saying I'd have to be IN a relationship with someone either, more that I'd have to WANT to be in a relationship with them to contemplate the other. Does that make sense at all?

And that's where the Demisexual bit comes in - I don't get the primary sexual attraction thing like AT ALL. I haven't been single all these years by choice, obviously a huge element is because I'm a hideous potato person who no one looks at that way, but also I am not interested in seeking a meaningless encounter for the sake of getting my jollies. 

Sure, sex is great but have you tried having self-esteem in the morning?! 

Unlike some definitions of demisexual I have (I assume) a perfectly healthy sex drive (TMI? Definitely. Soz.) it's just not so...overwhelming? that I want to do the you-know-what without getting to know someone at least a little bit. 

Looks and personality of course I have my preferences but even finding someone who ticks a lot of boxes by the time you KNOW they tick those boxes you've developed an attachment, y'know? Or at least that's how I work.

EXAMPLE) My most recent humungous crush of which many of you will be painfully aware went like this:

• *sees for 1st time* Who is he? Who is he? Who is he?
• Band member? Check. *looks up name of band* Singer? Obviously. Guitar? Bonus!
• *looks up photos* Damn he's cute in close-up... Hazel-green eyes? Why am I not surprised.
• *reads interviews / watches youtube clips* Smart? Check. Funny? Check. How tall is he? 6' 2", excellent! Pronounces 'scones' correctly? Meh, no one's perfect.

And it was about THEN what's left of my hormones kicked in. I'll happily call it 'love at first sight' but I wouldn't call the attraction 'sexual' per se.

To close, I really like this joke:

Obviously the crux of the joke is that their 'sexuality' is basically just straight (with a preference for smart people they're already bonded with) and I can see why people would be offended by the 'queer' label being applied. As I said at the start, I've spent the best part of four decades presuming I'm just hetero, it's only learning that 'primary sexual attraction' is a thing that has made me realise any differently. I certainly don't see myself as 'queer', not least as that term seems derogatory to me although I know a lot of people embrace it.

Also, 'sapiosexual' is a virtually 'joke' sexuality identifier that is an attraction to brains, quite aside from any zombie tendencies. But it's also kinda true: intelligence is attractive. A dumbass'd have to be hella attractive in other regards...passion for a pet interest can be sexy, for example. Depends on the pet interest though... Dude could be REALLY hot, but then he says or does something incredibly stupid and it's like a bucket of ice on the libido.

Do you ever look at a dumbass and wonder how the hell they came to have a partner / spouse / significant other?! Especially when said partner / spouse / significant other is of normal or higher intelligence. 

EG I have no idea what X sees in Y, what he lacks in smarts he makes up for in nose hairs.

So yeah, I am a biological female interested in males romantically with a view to more. Basically straight but experiencing it slightly differently, so it would seem.