Drag Queen Barbie Is Finally Here? (No, It’s Not Ken in Heels)

It's been over 50 years, but a cross-dressing version of everyone's favorite doll is finally here.

  • Share
  • Read Later
Mattel

It was probably only a matter of time. In her 50+ years of existence, Barbie has been no stranger to controversy. She’s donned various guises, some particular stand-outs being McDonald’s Worker Barbie, Pooper Scooper Barbie, Cat Burglar Barbie — and at one point even Pregnant Barbie. Now there’s a new variation that some are already dubbing Drag Queen Barbie.

Except “Drag Queen Barbie” isn’t its actual title. And, in true Barbie tradition, it won’t reveal certain parts of the human anatomy — male or female.

Envisioned by fashion design duo The Blonds, the doll is officially styled, somewhat clunkily, as The Blonds Blond Diamond Barbie Doll. But it bears a striking likeness to one half of the duo, Phillipe Blond, who is himself a glamorous cross-dresser.

(More: Photo History — Barbie Turns 50)

“One of the great things about Barbie is that she continues to push the envelope,” Cathy Cline, vice president of marketing in the United States for Mattel’s girls’ brands told the New York Times. “Barbie doesn’t worry about what other people think.”

The Blonds’ partnership with Mattel began in 2009 — a mere two years after they launched their brand — when they were invited to take part in a fashion show marking Barbie’s 50th anniversary.

Phillipe’s partner, David Blond, is optimistic that the venture will enable the duo to break into the mainstream: “A whole different audience, that’s always good for anyone’s business,” he revealed to the New York Times. “And that’s the direction we would like to produce — things that are more accessible to more people. This is a step in the right direction.”

Dressed, according to its official description, in a “stunning silvery mini corset dress—designed by The Blonds themselves—featuring countless sculpted faux gems and a full length faux fox fur,” and accessorized with “silvery jewelry suite and glitter pumps,” the doll certainly “brings the most sparkly splendor of fashion.”

(MORE: Mattel agrees to create a bald Barbie)

But parents be warned: If you’re planning on adding it to your daughter’s (or son’s) Barbie collection, you might find yourself a little pressed for cash. Just one doll will set you back an eye-popping $125.

58 comments
gingerthree
gingerthree

( Feeling a little CAT-aggression, FILLUS -the cat-becomes a SMARTY CAT)

PHICK ( This is Fillus' cat sounds)-HEY, MOOD-ERATOR . . . COULD YOU HURRY IT UP AND DECIDE IF YOU ARE GONNA PRINT OUR COMMENT ?! . . .IT'S BEEN DAYS. . . ALL WE SEE IN OUR "LITTER" BOX IS YOUR " YELLOW " COMMENT -IN WHICH THE READERS CAN NOT SEE . . . ONLY THE CATS IN THIS OCCUPIED SPACE!!! . . . DON'T BE SUCH A DRAG !  

Crystal Hope Kendrick
Crystal Hope Kendrick

 Similar to but not the same as "First Battalion Transvestite Brigade".

 

z3ncat
z3ncat

Eddie Izzard reference!  +1,000 internets.

Crystal Hope Kendrick
Crystal Hope Kendrick

 A lot of queens do get paid professionally, haven't you seen Rupaul's Drag Race?  The contestant vie for professional gigs.  And then some queens just feel better in fabulous clothes.  Why knock it? 

bzelbub
bzelbub

Considering that Barbie, was based on a German doll of epic proportions, the little skank has been pushing up her bra line for years. Not bad for a girl from Wisconsin. By the way her measurements as figured come to 5'9" and 36 - 18 - 33.  Not bad and certainly comparable to many drag queens I've observed over the years. Who also enjoy dressing up and tucking their junk.

Raven Michelle Dunbar
Raven Michelle Dunbar

Okay ... so first off... this Doll is not actually a Cross Dressing Doll, and secondly, so what if it was? Come on, People. Get with the times. There are always going to be Gays, Lesbians, Crossdressers, Transexuals, Transgender, Heterosexuals ... the whole shebang. Our children are going to be exposed to it in one way or another. You cannot stop it. So maybe we should stop hating people for being who they are ... I cannot stand the bigoted views of some of you people. It's utterly disgusting and appalling. If you believe in God, you should realize that he created all people, and if those people happen to be Gay or anything, that is how he made them. Are you saying God is wrong for doing that? You're going against your own Deity? Saying he's wrong for making people the way they are.

And by the way, even if the Doll is a crossdresser, that doesn't mean it's someone "erotic fantasy." Not all Crossdressers crossdress for sexual purposes. They simply do it because it's fun! It's like playing dress up! And who didn't like playing dress up when they were a kid! 

Let's stop preaching hate, and just teach our children about love and acceptance! 

Mandy Parsons
Mandy Parsons

 Oooo La-Dee-Dah is hiding something! Probably sits in her bathtub with the Fifty Shades books. ;)

gingerthree
gingerthree

MEOW: hey, sister. . . do ya think that PIEERE-the pussy . . . will love the hair and the fur on this toy?

PHICK: well of course he will . . . whether male or female  -any cat loves HAIRY things. . . my PEOPLE PEEVES is why they have to name this doll after the FEMALE-species of a cat! ( i.e.  A ' QUEEN '  is a FEMALE cat ) 

sscarzz
sscarzz

Flat chested w/big hands amp; feet?

KB_Corkless
KB_Corkless

There's no adam's apple on the doll's throat, so clearly this is the same hoax as the "Victor Victoria" scam - girl doll pretending to be a boy doll pretending to be a girl doll. Barbie, you fraud! 

A drag queen G.I. Joe - THAT would be something. 

Elliott Hinson
Elliott Hinson

Clothes companies don't women's clothes for men, crossdressing men wears women's clothes, the tag doesn't say "cross dresser size S,M, etc" 

If you want a cross dressing doll, get a gi joe and buy barbie clothes, like real cross dressers

Julienne
Julienne

@Elliott Hinson You mean, like the real cross dresser that live in the reality of your mind...

La-Dee-Dah
La-Dee-Dah

So much for Barbie being an innocent kid's toy. Now she's a vehicle for adult erotic fantasies? What's next...the 50 Shades of Ken doll? Whips and chains sold separately?

bzelbub
bzelbub

Considering that Barbie, was based on a German doll of epic proportions, the little skank has been pushing up her bra line for years.

Evey Styles
Evey Styles

 Um...whose adult erotic fantasies?  Yours?

La-Dee-Dah
La-Dee-Dah

No way. Yuck! Strictly vanilla here.  It just gets me that the media always has to come up with stupid crap like this and cause a big ole sensation. Adults imposing their issues (either pro or anti cross dressing) on to an innocent kids toy! Ridiculous. I'm not a fan of Barbie Dolls anyway, but has anyone considered the possibility that maybe it's just another way for dress up, no more or no less? Why is it in some people's minds only cross dressers get to dress elegantly and not real biological women? So if a grown woman wants to dress in a glamorous way, say for a big night out on the town like people used to do until all this sloppy casual dress became the order of the day, then suddenly she's imitating a cross-dressing man? Give me a break! It's not kids saying "oh, look Barbie is a crossdresser." It's the allegedly "sensible" adult people imposing their own garbage and sick ideas and getting all freaked out...over a doggone doll! That's why the whole thing is so absurd.

Kasbohmc2
Kasbohmc2

Unreal.  How does Mattel even begin to justify adding this cross-dressing doll to their product line?  The fact that it even looks like a cross-dressing doll is disgusting.

Barbie is supposed to highlight what is beautiful and attractive in girls of all professions.  Even though some might think that Pooper-Scooper Barbie is a distasteful concept, the Barbie line is supposed to portray girls of all professions and hobbies as beautiful.

However, cross-dressing is neither a profession or a hobby.  It is a distasteful, gender-bending lifestyle.  If cross-dressing is acceptable, than we're only 10-20 years away from a transexual Barbie. 

Society is becoming stranger and stranger by accepting these abnormal ways of living.  We should be advocating acceptable lifestyles that don't inspire a, "what the Hell was that?!' double-take.  What ever happened to just plain, 'normal?'

mia something
mia something

''these abnormal ways of living''.

The blood boils in my veins when I see people like you commenting that sort of shit. An ''acceptable lifestyle'' is one that is comfortable and happy for the person in which it relates to, whether that person be transgender or a cross dresser is irrelevant. And in regard to the society comment; society is not becoming stranger. Society is merely being more accepting of people and who they are. God, that's terrible, huh? I forgot how badly I wanted to live in a society of closed minded fucks. Oh wait. I don't. Now please, go and take your little opinion and leave. Maybe use it to scoop shit while you're there, since that's a preferable lifestyle.

Shelby
Shelby

I believe some people had that same reaction every time a new Barbie came out. There was outrage when Barbie wore a bikini. There was outrage when Barbie got a boyfriend. There was outrage when Barbie became a doctor. The thing is, those things used to be seen as abnormal. Though cross dressing may not be widely practiced, most younger people don't consider such behavior to be unacceptable. Sure, it might not be normal (as in in common) but it is still acceptable.

Kasbohmc2
Kasbohmc2

First, thanks for your reply.  Just a couple of comments:

1) In some cases, people did indeed have similar reactions as they've had to this latest Barbie creation.  Unfortunately, none of the examples you've listed support your argument, for they all adhere to the normal, societal conventions which men and women follow to this day (regarding proper gender attire).  Here's why:

  a) "Barbie in a bikini." - Bikinis are far, far more likely to be worn by women than by men.  I will concede that you see the exceedingly rare 'mankini' (for men), but that is very much the exception to the rule.  Therefore, Barbie in a bikini is not extreme, because it adheres to the convention.

  b) "Barbie got a boyfriend." - Regardless of the brand of toy, the vast collection of characters from comics, TV shows, movies, video games, etc. have all had girlfriends, or just 'girls who were friends.'  Though it seemed somewhat 'scandalous,' people tacitly acknowledged that yes, people are in relationships.  Since Barbie's beau was a man, nothing was inherently wrong with bringing Ken into the picture.  The societal convention was adhered to in that instance.

  c) "Barbie became a doctor." - I will concede that it was not until the 1970s that significant numbers of women began to enter the medical profession are the primary care-givers (i.e. doctors/surgeons, and not merely nurses or 'technicians').  Barbie getting an 'M.D.' after her name merely highlighted the increasing equality of employment opportunities for women at the time.  Since Mattel knew that women would be entering other professions in significant numbers, there was very little holding them back from introducing Barbie into other professional fields.  As with the prior two cases, this case adheres to the societal convention.

Now, enter Cross-Dresser Barbie.  Does Cross-Dresser Barbie meet any of the conventions mentioned in your 3 examples?  Well, let's see:

  a) Cross-Dresser v. Bikini - A huge percentage of girls wear bikinis to the beach or pool.  Yet, an incredibly slim minority of girls choose to become cross-dressers.  In this instance, the comparison to Bikini Barbie invalid.

  b) Cross-Dresser v. Boyfriend - Cross-Dressing is a lifestyle choice.  Boyfriend/girlfriend is a relationship choice.  In this instance, the two are not even close to being comparable, thus rendering your comparison and invalid.

  c) Cross-Dresser v. Doctor - Since the 1970s, the medical profession has witnessed a large growth of women as doctors and surgeons.  Contrast that with the (electron-) microscopic growth of women as cross-dressers.  Again, the two do not even come within the same galaxy of being comparable, thus rendering your comparison invalid.

If you disagree with any of these assertions, please state those disagreements (and support) here.

2) In the Real World, it is the opinion of established members of society which matter most.  Regardless of the attention showered upon Occupy Wall Street (mostly college kids) by the media, the opinion of younger people does not count for very much (that assumes you're referring to people between the ages of 8-18; if I'm wrong, please correct me). 

It is the established members of society (a.k.a. 'The Establishment') whose opinions matter most.  They are the ones who make the hiring and firing decisions on a daily basis.  They are the ones who govern localities, states, and nations.  They are the ones who pay the taxes, make investments, and input money back into the economy via purchase of goods and services.  They know how to successfully run a business, a home, and any organization better than a 'younger person.'

Given that, why would we begin to consider how younger people view cross-dressers?  The younger people are more naiive and less mature than their elders.  Younger people are unfamiliar with concepts like, "an employee is the face of an organization."  If they were adults, do you really think they'd want some cross-dressing looney tune being "that face" of their company?

Again, they are less experienced and less aware of what working adults already know.  In time, they will become acquainted with the normal conventions of society, and blend into the mold. 

I eagerly await your reply, Shelby.

Mark Favre
Mark Favre

Being a drag queen is definitely more of a profession than being a pooper scooper....

Kasbohmc2
Kasbohmc2

Also, just out of sheer curiosity, how is drag queening more of a profession than pooper-scooping?

You've really piqued my curiosity.

Kasbohmc2
Kasbohmc2

First, thanks for your comment.

Just one question....how much do drag queens get paid nowadays?  If it's a profession, that 'queen' should get compensated for her 'time,' right? 

At least pooper-scoopers get paid for their time....

Nichole Indelicato
Nichole Indelicato

 I'm so sorry you think Barbie was meant to reflect anything besides your personal beliefs.  Since Mattel has widened its views on who Barbie can be, would it be wise to get rid of the Bald Barbie since it can be associated with a man as well? Or the pregnant Barbie since it shows little girls that it's perfectly fine to be pregnant.  Honestly, you'd think since we're in the 21st century we as a race would be a little more open-minded about things. 

Kasbohmc2
Kasbohmc2

First, thanks for your reply.  Just a couple of comments:

1) Your claim that I, "think Barbie was meant to reflect anything besides your [sic] personal beliefs" is completely unsubstantiated.  If I gave that impression, than I apologize for that here.  However, if you still believe that I did, please support your claim here.

2) Regarding your question of, "would it be wise to get rid of Bald Barbie," the simple answer is that, 'it depends.'

If Bald Barbie was themed after a hypothetical cancer patient receiving chemotherapy, that would be completely understandable and commendable.  In that context, Bald Barbie would be a symbol of hope, beauty, perseverance, and strength to young girls everywhere.  I would have zero problem with that, and would commend Mattel for such a thoughtful creation.

Conversely, if Bald Barbie was themed after a hypothetical Skinhead (a.k.a. Neo-Nazi, who would shave his/her head in solidarity with the movement), I would have a major problem with Mattel.  After all, should Mattel mass-produce a doll that celebrates the Skinhead way-of-life and philosophy?  I wouldn't think so, but people have the right to disagree. 

A less extreme, non-Skinhead example would be if Bald Barbie represented the typical rebellious teenager.  Teens have the habit of dressing and acting in ways contrary to how their parents and society at-large would approve.  In a similar manner, should Mattel mass-produce a doll that celebrates rebellion against societal norms?  I wouldn't think so, because it's counter-productive to building societal cohesion, but you're free to disagree.  If you have better facts or a better argument, please state it here.

3) Regarding your question of how wise it would be to get rid of, "the pregnant Barbie since it shows little girls that it's perfectly fine to be pregnant," that entails a more complicated response.

Selling a 'Pregnant Barbie' should be done with caution.  Extra care should be given to precisely what kind of message you (and Mattel) want to send those young girls.  Do you really want young girls getting the message that pregnancy is okay?  Or, would you want a better role model in their lives besides a doll with a 'baby bump?'

Also, a Pregnant Barbie raises the age-old philosophical question, "Does art imitate life, or does life imitate art?"  If art imitates life, than Pregnant Barbie is a physical 'imitation' (manifestation) of where we are as a society.  If little girls are talking about (hypothetically) teenage pregnancy with their parents, would that parent want to hear from their child, "But Mommy, Barbie's pregnant!!!  What's wrong with that???"  Selling a pregnant doll as an object of desire (something a kid wants to own) makes that doll attractive (desirable).  It works against the parent's goal of instructing their child in sound, moral values.  No sane parent would want such a doll in their house.

Now, if "life imitates art," the problem becomes much larger.  If kids look up to these dolls as role models (a big 'if'), than what's to stop a kid from thinking, "maybe pregnancy isn't that bad."  Once the kid is old enough, that can add incentive to things like promiscuity, premarital sex, etc..  After all, Barbie apparently 'did it,' so why can't little Susie or Jacky??  Pregnant Barbie takes any and all moral consideration out of whether to get pregnant, and makes that very pregnancy the selling point. 

So, again, just what are you (or Mattel) trying to encourage here with Pregnant Barbie?

I eagerly await your reply.

trochen
trochen

The only reason they're inspiring a, as you put it, "what the hell was that?" 'Double-take' is because you are close minded enough to think like that. All of these problems would be solved if you would just worry about yourself and teach those around you to do the same.

Kasbohmc2
Kasbohmc2

First, thanks for your reply.  Just a couple of comments:

1) If you will refer to my reply to Mandy Parsons comment (just above Nicole Indelicato's), you will see that my opinion is not formed from a 'close minded' point-of-view.  Instead, it is formed by the study and application of the Social Studies (i.e. History, Sociology, Psychology, etc.). 

Cross-dressers inspire the aforementioned, 'double-take,' because they are the exception to the norm.  Essentially, they are abnormal when compared with the rest of society at-large.  The scientific way to test this is to observe the first 100 (or even 1,000) people you meet.  For each one that is a cross-dresser, mark a tally.  After Person #1,000, count up the tallies you have, and then divide by 1,000.  I would bet $100 that you don't end up with more than 10 tallies (or, 1% of those observed).  If you're willing to put your money where your mouth is, let me know.  We'll go by the Honor System (I will trust that you will be honest with your tallies, and you can trust that I will put up the $100 if I lose; you will do the same if you lose).

The point of our bet would be to show that cross-dressers do not consitute anywhere near a significant portion of the population, thus consituting a very slim minority. 

2) There is legitimate reason to 'worry' (I prefer to say, 'be concerned') about Mattel's decision to release this unofficial Cross-Dresser Barbie.  It sends the wrong message to girls (Barbie's target demographic) that dressing like a guy is socially acceptable. 

In our society, that amounts to dressing in a 'costume' of sorts.  That's what Halloween is for - to dress as something odd and/or bizarre.  In today's society, the overwhelming majority of society follows social conventions, and adheres to male/female guidelines regarding dress. 

Following that, should Mattel want to encourage girls that it's okay to dress as something as abnormal as a cross-dresser?  Is that something healthy to encourage?  Given the information stated above, the answer (to me) is an obvious, 'no.'  If you can offer better facts and/or explanation, please offer it now.

3) With this issue, I will certainly not, 'teach those around me to do the same' (in reference to your implication that I (paraphrased) should not worry about this issue).  If I have daughters, I would certainly not buy a Cross-Dressing Barbie to encourage that kind of behavior.  Additionally, I would certainly not condone that behavior while they live at home.

Is that borne out of insensitivity?  Absolutely not.  It instead is meant to prepare them for the Real World, where Cross-Dressing is still viewed as abnormal, and the vast majority of companies (minus those which advocate cross-dressing) still frown upon those who engage in cross-dressing.  I will not sugarcoat the truth, and tell them that it's, 'ok.'  That would be telling lies to them, and would consitute derelection of duty on my part as a parent.

I eagerly await your reply, trochen.

trochen
trochen

You misunderstand my comment, I don't care how many tests you do on what is normal in society or not, people have different opinions, we knew that. Of course it is a minority, once more, we knew that. But how dare you attempt to attack a portion of human population by calling it abnormal.  You speak as though what they're doing is wrong, but it is not illeagle,  it does not hurt anybody, and it makes them happy. So please forgive me for my opinion, but it doesn't sound to me as though anyone in or around Mattel is doing anything wrong.

z3ncat
z3ncat

What's wrong with a female dressing as a male?  Do you live in some bizarre alternate universe where females only ever wear skirts?  Where everyone can tell the difference between, say, a women's-cut t-shirt and a 'regular'-cut t-shirt at first glance?  

What counts as female cross-dressing, anyway?

And I see your attitude as highly detrimental, both to society as a whole and to any children you may have, may someday have, or may have had.  

There is NOTHING - NOTHING AT ALL - inherently harmful or dangerous in cross-dressing.  There is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING harmful or dangerous in individuals refusing to allow artificial constructs about gender norms to bar them from acting in a way that pleases then and does no harm to others - like, say, cross-dressing.

There IS, however, something harmful - and repugnant - in the opinion that instead of encouraging society and individuals to ignore non-harmful behavior in favor of supporting people to be true to themselves in, society and individuals should be encouraged to ostracize and condemn any individual who doesn't conform strictly to what they consider to be 'normal' behavior.  As for ACTIVELY SEEKING to pass that belief set on, well... repugnant doesn't begin to cover it.

trochen
trochen

The only reason that they are inspiring, as you put it, a "what the hell was that," 'Double take' is because you are closed minded enough to need to think like that, the problem would be solved if you would just worry about yourself and teach others around you to do the same.

Kasbohmc2
Kasbohmc2

I'm replying to the opinion you posted, beginning, "You misunderstood my comment..." (Time.com did not allow the discussion thread above to be expanded any longer).  My reply is as follows:

1) I actually understood your comment quite clearly.

2) Your disagreements with my comment indicate that either I did not elaborate enough in my reply, or that your subjective feelings on my perceived political incorrectness have gotten the better of your rational judgment.  We shall see below...

3) I understand that you, "don't care how many tests you do on what

is normal in society or not, people have different opinions, we [sic] knew

that." 

Well, I'm glad that we can agree about people having different opinions.  However, what I'm not glad about is your belief that I'm in some way testing peoples' OPINION.  I am doing no such thing at all.  What I advocated was an objective tallying of the number of Cross-Dressers a person sees (in this case, out of the first 1,000 people).  That does not derive from opinion at all.  Spying a man in a lady's evening gown, or a woman in a man's suit (NOT a lady's suit) is not a hard thing to miss, as both look out of place enough.

Essentially, our experiment would determine whether a majority or minority of individuals legitimately Cross-Dress.  We would then determine how slim or large that majority/minority totaled.  From that standpoint, we would both have to accept the conclusion of our findings, and concede (based on science) whether Cross-Dressers 'constituted the norm,' or 'were an exception to the norm.'  In other words, normal or abnormal when compared against the rest of the population.

4) Your implied refusal to participate in such an experiment was then followed by your assertion, "Of course it is a minority, once more, we knew that."  Aha!  But how would you know that without first being able to scientifically verifying that for yourself??  Are you taking a leap of faith by making that statement?  How is that compatible with modern norms, which demand scientific data for support?  It sounds like someone is generalizing and assuming things that one does not actually know for sure...

5) Following your faith-based assertion that Cross-Dressers are a minority, you then harshly rebuke me, sternly saying, "But how dare

you attempt to attack a portion of human population by calling it

abnormal."

Well, for one thing, I'm not 'attempting' to do anything.  I'm straight-up calling Cross-Dressers abnormal.  What they do is not practiced by an over-whelming percentage of the population.  In fact, it's generally viewed as outright odd to look at.  You would expect to see such absurdity at a circus or on Halloween, but in everyday life? 

Until you offer hard evidence to the contrary (besides your subjective opinions and condemnations), the 'abnormal' designation stands.

6) Following that, you further chastised me by saying, "You speak as though what they're doing is wrong, but it is

not illeagle [sic],  it does not hurt anybody, and it makes them happy. "

Let's get the obvious out of the way - I never said not implied that Cross-Dressing is illegal or that it hurts anybody (besides their retinas for having to gaze upon such an oddity).

First, what Cross-Dressers do is wrong.  It defies social convention by displaying an abysmal lack of judgment on proper public attire.  Again, no one wants to look at a guy in a dress, or a girl in guy's clothes (again, NOT guy's look-alike clothes that were specifically tailored for women).  It does not seem clear to you people still view that as downright odd.  Of course, political correctness demands that people nowadays say nothing - but, trust me, the Cross-Dresser is always the butt of the jokes when the C-D leaves.

If you doubt that, I strongly urge you to go out more often to bars, clubs, restaurants, and observe the reaction the Cross-Dresser crowd gets.  It's quite entertaining to watch. 

7) There's no need to ask anyone's forgiveness for an opinion here.  You have things to say, and saying them makes the discussion all the more worthwhile.  It's alright to think that Mattel officials aren't doing anything wrong.  I disagree, but that doesn't mean we can't have a discussion about it. 

I look forward to your reply.

Mandy Parsons
Mandy Parsons

 So wait...in your opinion...pooper scooper barbie is better than cross dressing barbie, which by the way, isn't even cross dressing barbie. You think a minimal wage job is better than someone being themselves. I don't know if you realize this but this "abnormal" behavior has been going on since the Greeks were wandering around, if not earlier. I think it makes it more normal than you clinging to some false idealism that is dieing out.

Kasbohmc2
Kasbohmc2

First, thanks for your reply.  Just a couple of comments:

1) There's an old adage about how, "if it looks like a skunk and smells like a skunk, than it is a skunk."  Mattel did not label this new Barbie line as Cross-Dresser Barbie for a multitude of obvious reasons.  Yet, it signed an agreement to partner with the Phillipe brothers - one of whom is a cross dresser.  That same brother commented on how this Barbie is, 'a step in the right direction.'  Since Mattel has not denied or criticized that comment, that sounds like an tacit endorsement of how, yes, this Barbie is the first, unofficial, unprecedented Cross-Dresser of its kind.2) Yes, I do believe that Pooper-Scooper Barbie is better than Cross-Dresser Barbie.  For whatever reason, Pooper-Scooper Barbie choose poop-scooping as her profession.  However, being a cross-dresser is not a profession; it's a 'look at me!'-style aiming at garnering attention. 

For adults, it's a grown-up form of teenage rebellion, putting on a clear display of being uncomfortable in the clothes of one's own gender.  Since the majority of girls like to wear girl's clothing (same for guys with guy's clothing), that is considered normal, or 'the norm.'

For guys or girls who like to wear the clothing of the opposite gender, that's considered 'outside the norm,' or 'abnormal.'  So, when Barbie chooses to wear Ken's clothes (slightly tailored for a woman), that's abnormal.  Is there anything there which sounds unclear to you?

3) Your comment about a 'minimal wage job [I think you meant a 'minimum wage job'] being better than someone being themselves' is unsubstantiated and irrelevant.  I never said nor implied that. 

4) Your comment about (paraphrased) 'abnormal behavior occuring since the Greeks' assumes that 'normal' is relative.  In other words, 'normal' is re-defined with each new era that society enters.  To give an example, it used to be 'normal' for people to dress up when they went out to dinner (suits for guys, dresses for girls).  Nowadays, only high class restaurants have any kind of dress code; the vast majority of restaurants allow casual attire.   Likewise, it used to be considered 'abnormal' for anyone to have a tattoo.  In the early 1900s, it was thought that only African natives had tattoes, because they were uncivilized and barbaric.  Nowadays, tattooes are far, far more common (and becoming ever more so).  With tattooes, the abnormal has become the 'new normal.'

Yet, with cross-dressing, we have not reached a point society where that has become part of, 'the new normal.'  Men who dress as women (and vice-a-versa) are still confined to a very slim minority, which makes them the exception to the norm (a.k.a. abnormal). 

Additionally, the fact that cross-dressing is an abnormal practice (when compared to the vast majority of society) makes your comparison to the Greeks completely irrelevant.  Nobody is claiming the Greeks did or didn't cross-dress.  In fact, if you think I'm referring to the wearing of togas as 'abnormal,' think again. 

From the historical records, Ancient Greeks by-and-large wore togas in many walks of life (except when going into battle, when they donned armor).  Togas were quite common in Ancient Greece and Rome, because sewing machines were not available to stitch together high-quality articles of clothing (those machines would not become commonplace until the 20th century).  Additionally, knitting was only done in select instances (i.e. knitting of blankets, towels, or rugs).  Therefore, togas (and other pre-modern forms of dress) would not be considered abnormal.  In fact, they were the most practical and accessible garments available to the mass market of the time.

With the dawn of the modern sewing machine and knitting techniques, more modern forms of clothing appeared.  Due to evolving societal conventions, it was men who donned suits (with varying amounts of frills) and women who wore elegant, flowing dresses.  Thus, it became the convention for men to wear one distinct style of clothes, and for women to wear a separate, equally distinctive line.  These conventions are still followed in the year 2012, which again is why cross-dressers are in the abnormal minority.

5) From all of that, it becomes clear that I am not, "clinging to some false sense of idealism."  My opinion is firmly grounded in the study of history (study of the past), sociology (study of group interactions), and others within the social studies (economics, psychology, etc.). 

6) Furthermore, it's preeminently clear that my ideas are no where close to, "dieing out."  Traditional male and female dress is still governed by social convention, and cross-dressers are in a very slim minority.  While you might not subjectively agree, you must objectively acknowledge that you don't see a majority (or even a sizeable minority) of cross-dressers on the streets.  Even though you prefer it, I will not be politically correct and sugarcoat the truth.  I am a realist, and will comment on these issues as they are at present.

I eagerly await your reply, Mandy.

z3ncat
z3ncat

Once again I find myself wondering what alternate universe you live in where A) the only women who don any form of pants are cross-dressers and therefore not only 'abnormal' but a minuscule fraction of the female population, and B) it's not only acceptable but apparently commendable to encourage individuals to condemn and ostracize any individual or any behavior that is considered by them to be 'abnormal' - including things like introvertedness, extreme intelligence, mental illness, physical disability, asexuality, extremely short stature, amazing skill on a musical instrument, and any behavior that doesn't fall within the bounds of antiquated, socially-constructed concepts of gender norms.

Doxyk
Doxyk

Flawless Victory!

Doxyk
Doxyk

Flawless Victory!

MuffinCupid
MuffinCupid

Beautiful attractive girls that are anatomically IMPOSSIBLE?

Transexual barbie? Lets do it! She's still a girl!

Jenny
Jenny

 Your definition of "normal" is my definition of "abnormal." What do you know! People have different opinions!

PS. Yours suck.

Kasbohmc2
Kasbohmc2

You aren't a cross-dresser, are you?  lol

Kasbohmc2
Kasbohmc2

Jenny, while I appreciate your reply, your claim that I 'suck' is unsubstantiated, and reeks of an ad hominem attack.

Care to clarify your claim?

La-Dee-Dah
La-Dee-Dah

People should buy more educational toys and fewer Barbies.

Olivia--The Owl
Olivia--The Owl

"Barbie continues to push the envelope"? What? I've never seen Barbie push an envelope in my life. Barbie has looked the same for decades--skinny, Caucasoid, with breasts, eyes, and legs disproportionate to the rest of her body. The only thing that changes about Barbie is what group her makers exploit to sell their pathetic-a$$ dolls. Get out of here.

ERenger
ERenger

You obviously are not familiar with Envelope-Pusher Barbie. 

ERenger
ERenger

If people can pay $125 for a cross-dressing Barbie, does that mean the recession is over? 

Alejo
Alejo

You, my friend are profoundly enlightened. Which Pre-school, School, High-School, and University did you go to? I'll too send my kids there only. JK. However, truly I mean it, you're brilliant and your family must be very proud of you. Btw are you British by any chance? Ha ha ha... (And apologies for this out of track comment)

horsewoman54
horsewoman54

This is what we get when we have such a liberal administration and gays are forced into our homes.  Now they are trying to indoctrinate children into saying it's okay.  Mattell, you are history in our home.  What the heck are they trying to do to our children?

Kendra Rios
Kendra Rios

You, my friend, really need to get a grip on reality. No one is "Forcing" gays into your home. "Cross Dresser Barbie" is a nick name. I have a REALLY hard time believing that you would throw this big of a fit over a nick name but when it comes to Pregnant Barbie you didn't say jack. In my personal opinion, Pregnant Barbie is something to be WAY more concerned about. Barbie is supposed to be a "Role Model" to our children. Would you rather your son come up to you and say, "Mommy, I want to wear your dress and pretty heels." or your daughter tell you, "Mommy, I wanna be like Barbie and have a baby."? You decide which one is worse. And I AM A PARENT. But I am definitely NOT close minded like you are.

L Paul Beck
L Paul Beck

Horse, if your children are like most people under the age of 35 they already think it's alright. The administration has nothing to do with it and since most cross-dressers are straight I'm not sure how or why you dragged gays into the conversation. I'm a Christian and a parent and the only concern I have over it is it's price and the working conditions of the children that manufactured it and it's clothes. Take a deep breath and relax because the only gays being forced into your house are the ones you are related to that are forced to attend family functions.

horsewoman54
horsewoman54

Quite the contrary, try looking at the tv lineup.  While we don't watch these shows like "Modern Family" and "Will and Grace" and then "The New Normal", it does come into your home by way of commercials and ads and news.  When I grew up, we didn't have friends like this, nor television like this and this so called "diversity" that divides us, was not shoved down our throats labled as tolerance.  It didn't exist.

Evey Styles
Evey Styles

So this morning I was just hanging out in my living room when all of a sudden there was a loud knocking at my door.  I opened it up and there stood Obama Barack, of all people!  He was there with another man and some military officers.  I had no idea why he was there, or what his agenda possibly could have been.  I opened up my mouth, meaning to offer him a cup of coffee, but the minute I did so, the military guys shoved the other man into my house.  The man screamed, I screamed, and shoved him back.  I didn't want him in my house!!  Unfortunately, I had no choice.  With the two of us at gunpoint, the poor man was pushed and shoved and told to sit on my couch.  Obama and his cronies left without saying a thing, slamming the door behind them.  I stood and stared at the man on my couch and he sat there staring at me for a while.  Then I offered him some coffee, which he accepted with pleasure.  He told me that the liberal administration had decided that the people of America needed to start accepting the Obama-appointed gay-agenda and that the only way to do so is to start forcing both gays and straights together in such a way that the only choice was acceptance.  We laughed and hugged before I sent him on his way, marveling at well that worked!!!

And that is the story of how the liberal administration forced a gay into my home.

La-Dee-Dah
La-Dee-Dah

Nice work of fiction, but don't quit your day job 

ERenger
ERenger

You know you are expected to marry him, right? 

La-Dee-Dah
La-Dee-Dah

Mattel should be history anyway as they offshore all their stuff, and none of it's made in USA

ERenger
ERenger

Get a grip, Horsewoman! The doll is not being sold as a cross-dressing Barbie --- some people just think it looks like one. 

And what does it have to do with a liberal administration? Do you think the doll should be illegal or the president should take action against it? Do you think Mattell thought, "Oh good! Obama is President! Now is our chance to destroy America with Drag Queen dolls!" 

Personally, I'm less concerned about cross-dressing Barbies than I am about creatures who are half horse, half woman. 

horsewoman54
horsewoman54

Go ahead with your name calling and insults, and enjoy your doll.

ERenger
ERenger

I was just enjoying my doll and made a shocking discovery! It's not a cross-dresser at all! I checked under the dress and there was nothing there --- just smooth, featureless, molded plastic! What a ripoff! 

Brandon Rust
Brandon Rust

How is it being forced into your home? We live in a free-market society. Don't want it in your home? Then don't buy it!

horsewoman54
horsewoman54

It exists and kids will be exposed to it.  You obviously are not a parent.

Namidenshi
Namidenshi

Now days, kids are exposed to SEVERAL things that anyone can take out of context and make it seem horrific. The article said, and I quote, 

"

She’s donned various guises, some particular stand-outs being McDonald’s Worker Barbie, Pooper Scooper Barbie, Cat Burglar Barbie — and at one point even Pregnant Barbie." 

Now, if you think seeing a barbie who is somewhat similar to a cross-dresser is more horrible than seeing a barbie who scoops shit for a living, works at a fast food place, or got knocked up--you, my fair lady, are ridiculous. I don't detest anyone for having their own opinions. Don't expect people to not get offended by your post, however. This article was NOT intended for people who don't like the doll. I mean, it's fine if you don't like cross-dressers, but don't use the excuse, "It exists and kids will be exposed to it.  You obviously are not a parent." Oh, and as the other people said, 

"Except “Drag Queen Barbie” isn’t its actual title. And, in true Barbie tradition, it won’t reveal certain parts of the human anatomy — male or female."

Lrn2readpls.

MuffinCupid
MuffinCupid

OH MY GOD CALL THE AUTHORITIES. THERE ARE GAY PEOPLE AND THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE SEX WITH OUR CHILDREN AND TURN THEM GAY (probably because you're a crap parent) AND THEN WE WILL HAVE TO DISOWN OUR GAY CHILDREN (because that's what any good parent would do) AND OH MY GOD THEY'RE GOING TO RUIN THE WORLD AND GIVE EVERYONE HIV AND AIDS AND THEN BUILDINGS WILL COLLAPSE AND THE HUMAN POPULATION WILL DROP SIGNIFICANTLY AND OH MY GOD, GOD WILL SMITE US AND MAYBE IF WE JUST IGNORE THEM THE PROBLEM GOES AWAY BECAUSE HOMOSEXUALS AREN'T PEOPLE OR ANYTHING.

You're obviously not very smart, Horsewoman.I hope possums poop in your barn. 

MuffinCupid
MuffinCupid

OH NO GAY PEOPLE ARE HORRIBLE AND THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE SEX WITH YOUR CHILDREN. OH MY GOD OH MY GOD OH MY GOD. LETS EXTERMINATE ALL GAY PEOPLE AND PRETEND THEY DON'T EXIST EVEN THOUGH OUR KIDS WILL LEARN ABOUT THEM ANYWAY. MAYBE IF WE IGNORE THEM THEY'LL GO AWAY.

I hope possums poop in your barn.

You obviously are not very smart.

happydayfortennis
happydayfortennis

If you think seeing a vaguely androgynous Barbie doll is going to have more of an effect on your children than your own values and teachings, then maybe you should just try to drill those "traditional values" into them a little harder. Don't let your kids even try to have their own opinions about these weird people and their weird behavior, and remember to tell them you'll disown them if they ever decide to cross-dress. Like a good parent.

Sean Bulmer
Sean Bulmer

"It exists." With respect, I think you are arguing against your own point. Peace-

ERenger
ERenger

You know what else exists and kids will be exposed to it? Cross dressers. 

Olivia--The Owl
Olivia--The Owl

Exactly. You have the choice to buy it or not buy it. No one is forcing you to do anything. Get over it.