The Ken Paradox

 

From: Bek

Growing up as a girl, I understood the significance of Ken as his own entity separate from Barbie. Ken could wear only his own clothes and shoes, never the extravagant and beautiful Barbie clothes. He fit awkwardly into Barbie’s car and seemed too big for the Dreamhouse. Upon being bestowed the role of Ken one could count on the familiar ring of “I wanted to be a girl doll”. No one ever wanted to be Ken, and those who did relinquished him to the background of the story. Ken became synonymous with Barbie’s boyfriend, or Barbie’s brother, or some other unnamed character that would only be picked up with the offhand when necessary. As I grew further into my teenage years and abandoned my Barbie dolls, I seemed to have forgotten the strange litany of feelings that accompanied Ken. He was secondary, Barbie was the star. Yet, my set of dolls would feel incomplete without his presence, as if there was a critical part of the story missing. In my adulthood, through reflections of my own playtime as a child and in caring for young girls as a nanny, I have seemed to stumble upon the conundrum which Ken exists – what I call, The Ken Paradox.

The Ken Paradox can be defined and understood as the space in which Ken sits as a crucial aspect of Barbie play while simultaneously being “other” and hence unwanted. I observed this phenomenon firsthand as I nannied for parents with a set of twins (a boy and girl, age five) and an elder sister (age eight). The image I selected best represents the idea of The Ken Paradox, which serves as a poignant example of the “Two Cultures of Childhood” model which sets boys and girls as living in two separate cultural spheres in adolescence (Rudman 59). More specifically, the idea of The Ken Paradox provides some insight into the ways in which girls are socialized to reject and move away from “boy culture” while at once recognizing the superiority of it within common society. When given the choice, neither the younger nor older sister chose the Ken doll as their primary toy. But perhaps more interestingly, neither did the boy. As he sought to assimilate briefly into the girl-centered world of playing with Barbie dolls, begging his sister to play, he was met with immediate resistance. When the resistance finally weaned, he was told he may only be the Ken doll, regardless of his preference because “boys have to play with boy toys”. Rudman cites this as the result of gender schema, which develops early on and creates associations between what is considered normal or typical for each gender. Through society’s perpetuation of gender roles, these ideas become synonymous with what is “good” or “bad” for a child to enjoy or seek participation in (Rudman 59-60). In the case of the young girls and boy playing with Barbies, they all have long understood that certain toys are for boys and others are for girls. As the boy ventured outside of his perceived gender expectations to be included in the play, he was met with the perpetuations of his sister’s gender schema. This is demonstrated through both his and his sister’s gaze, a technique I employed to convey this message. As he looks solemnly at the Ken doll which he did not want, his sister glances at him with confusion and a sort of anger at his denial to adhere to the roles in which his gender has placed on him. His sister’s play remains in the background of the image, centering on the idea that although she might hold more power within the dynamic of doll play (she is looking down on him), his play is still the central message of the image. The perpetuation of gender roles and schemas in early childhood creates a separation between boys and girls that is always felt. These beliefs distort personal feelings of self and identity, which are captured in the blurred nature of the doll within the boy’s hands. Although he wanted to take the role of being a girl within their play, he was denied and forced into the expectations of his gender identity, not allowing him to come into ideas of his own self through discovery but rather presumption.

The feelings and ideas that surround Ken demonstrate that girls and boys are surrounded by cultural norms of gender roles. In this sense, Ken exists as a mirror into the ways women are meant to see themselves in contrast to men. Men are strong, they are different, and they are necessary for a happy life in the Dreamhouse. Girls should not aspire to “play” the roles of men, and boys should not “play” the roles of women. This is a drastic enforcement of the “Two Cultures of Childhood” as discussed by Rudman, which permeates youthful development.

 

Works Cited:

Rudman, Laurie A., et al. "The Two Cultures of Childhood." The Social Psychology of

Gender: How Power and Intimacy Shape Gender Relations. The Guilford Press,

2015, 59-63