Barbie has a new body, but was it necessary?

Some are praising the toymaker for making the doll more realistic. Others, predictably, are upset that more body types aren’t being introduced. (Morbidly obsese Barbie, anyone?) Because you can never please everybody, and you certainly can never please those committed to finding outrage and sexism under every rock.

Barbie has been accused of creating an unrealistic body ideal for young girls for decades, yet studies on the subject suggest that’s a myth. One study found that “most notably girls reported ambivalence toward Barbie dolls.”

It appears to be more of a feminist rallying cry than an actual problem.

I played with Barbie as a child. I preferred the dolls based on Disney and other movie characters (I had all three dolls from the movie “Clueless”), so I don’t think I would have cared if there was a short doll or a tall doll. As a child, you don’t know for sure how you’re going to end up looking — whether you’ll be short, tall or curvy — so isn’t choosing your favorite its own form of unrealistic expectations?

Keep in mind, I don’t find sexism or problems with Barbie at all, I’m just questioning the logic behind the new releases. On a practical level, it’s about money. Barbie sales have been dropping dramatically in recent years, so the company needed to find a new way to compete. But the publicity from apparently kowtowing to feminist demands could provide an initial boost to revenue.

My other question for those who claim Barbie hurts young girls by creating unrealistic beauty standards is this: If Barbie hurts young girls by giving them an unrealistic view their own bodies, doesn’t Ken, Barbie’s (now ex?) boyfriend give young girls an unrealistic view of men’s bodies?

Do young girls grow up believing they should only be with guys who have muscular, toned bodies? Of course not, because these are dolls, and children aren’t stupid — they know what is real and what is not.

Yet the focus on Barbie is intense, while action figures for boys are never suggested to be creating unrealistic body images. Where are the claims that steroid abuse stems from He-Man toys?

It’s absurd, of course, but it represents what is ignored by the outrage brigade. For all the focus on women’s alleged problems, boys and men are simply ignored. Women and young girls are encouraged to express their emotions, and in turn are constantly viewed as victims. Meanwhile, boys have their own body issues — especially while growing up — but because they aren’t encouraged to talk about the issues, they’re assumed to have no problems at all.

It’s a double standard perpetrated by those seeking to present a narrative of female oppression.

Speaking from personal experience (which surely doesn’t relate to everyone), I developed my obsession with staying thin from growing up with parents who were not thin. It isn’t their fault I ended up this way. They didn’t do anything wrong. It was my own perception.

I feel like Barbie has become a punching bag for those unhappy with themselves; a person (or corporation) to blame instead of dealing with one’s own problems.

A toy company can’t make a toy that appeals to everyone. It can’t continue to pump out version after version of a doll so that every single person on earth has one that represents them. Already Mattel has received backlash from social justice warriors complaining there are no disabled Barbie dolls included in the new release.

And of course, there are those joking about how many different, incredibly specific, types of dolls that are still missing.

If Mattel wants to make new dolls, that’s fine, but people need to stop blaming a toy for the world’s problems.

Ashe Schow is a commentary writer for the Washington Examiner.