Barbie and Homosexuality

Barbie and Homosexuality

         Barbie is most often thought of as a toy for young girls; her long hair begs to be played with and her clothes wished to be changed.  These are pastimes, thought to be suitable for girls.  Barbie was not designed to be appealing to boys; that’s what G.I. Joe and other masculine figures were designed for.  The types of toys children play with often have a tendency of stereotyping gender; toys that are appropriate for boys and toys that are appropriate for girls.  But what about the boys who do like to play with Barbie?  What does this say about their character?  Are they destined to become a homosexual simply because they enjoy the same play-toy as girls their same age, or does their interest in Barbie indicate something deeper within that compels them to play with such a toy?

         In his article “Who’s That Girl? The World of Barbie Deconstructed”, Steven C. Dubin argues against the notion that Barbie is able to manipulate the children that play with her into negative social casts; i.e. the shopaholic, the insecure girl, the homosexual.  Dubin uses Richard Green’s work The “Sissy Boy Syndrome” and the Development of Homosexuality, which examines factors distinguishing the feminine boys from the masculine ones, to argue his point on homosexuality; in this case Barbie’s ability to turn normal heterosexual boys into “sissy” homosexual males.  The results of Green’s study showed that “all the ‘feminine boys’ played with Barbie; for nearly 20 percent of them, she was their favorite toy”.  Green also referred to these “feminine boys” as “sissy boys”, stating that “many of the children in that ‘sissy boy’ group became homosexual in adulthood” (Dubin 33).

                   Any idea that boys are made homosexual by an affinity for feminine toys is absurd; if anything, Dr. Green’s research shows just the opposite.  In an article in The New York Times entitled “Boyhood Effeminacy and Later Homosexuality”, Jane E. Brody thoroughly examines the results of Green’s studies stating that “according to the findings, neither therapy designed to discourage the extremely feminine behavior nor ideal child rearing could guarantee that the boys would develop as heterosexuals”, (Brody 1).  This would indicate that Barbie has absolutely no say so in the sexual preference of the children that play with her.  Brody also cites a study using animals that suggests, “prenatal hormonal influences can interfere with programming the brain of the male fetus and result in the birth of males that act like females” (Brody 1); somewhat disproving any theory of a post-birth transformation into an effeminate boy.  More so, Green’s research does not determine that all “sissy boys” are destined to become homosexual; again proving that even if feminine boys were to play with Barbie, she alone still wouldn’t be able to influence their sexual preference.

         In attempts to dissuade the notion that anything referred to as “sissy” in a boys childhood can possibly relate to a choice in homosexuality in adulthood, Dr. Ken Corbett writes “Cross-Gendered Identifications and Homosexual Boyhood: Toward a More Complex Theory of Gender”.  Corbett states that “there is no conceptual category called ‘homosexual boyhood,’” and that all the “sissy-boy discourse” has “produced a theory of homosexuality wherein adult homosexuality is infused by a pathologized gendered past” (Corbett 352).  He argues that the tendency to view boys who partake in what can be seen as “cross-gendered behavior”, such as playing with Barbie, is devaluing.  According to Corbett a boys tendency to play with a Barbie cannot possibly be the determining factor in his ultimate sexual preference; “early cross-gendered experience is intertwined with later developing homosexuality in complex ways that remain unaccounted for within current developmental theories” (Corbett 353).

         So can we blame Barbie for turning young boys into homosexuals?  Of course not, as Dubin puts it, “Barbie no more ‘causes’ homosexuality that she turns girls into materialistic monsters” (Dubin 33).  There are many factors involved in the shaping of child.  In the case of young boys who do enjoy Barbie, these effeminate tendencies may be “caused” before birth.  This is not to say, however, that these “feminine boys” will become homosexual; the “cause” of someone’s sexuality is influenced by a multitude of complex aspects.  Neither should we view these “feminine boys” affinity towards stereotypical female toys as a negative, nor homosexuality in general for that matter.  Despite your view on gender identity and homosexuality, it cannot be said that Barbie influences any gender confusions, much less homosexuality.





Brody, Jane E. “Boyhood Effeminancy and Later Homosexuality.” The New York Times 16 December 1986. 9 February 2010 <http://www.nytimes.com/1986/12/16/science/ boyhood-effeminancy-and-later-homosexuality.html>



Corbett, Ken. “Cross-Gendered Identifications and Homosexual Boyhoods: Toward a More Complex Theory of Gender.” American Journal of Orthopsychiatry 68.3 1998. 9 February 2010 <http://www2.luc.edu/libraries/reserves/lewis/fall06/gilbert500/ gilbert500corbcros.pdf>



Dubin, Steven C. “Who’s That Girl? The World of Barbie Deconsturcted.” The Barbie Chronicles: A Living Doll Turns Forty. Ed. Yano Zeldis McDonough. New York: Touchstone, 1999. 19-38.