RSS
Is Barbie Jewish? The complex Jewish history of the doll, explained.
(JTA) — Long before the craze over the upcoming “Barbie” movie, most people could conjure an image of the doll: She was the beauty standard and the popular girl, a perky, white, ever-smiling brand of Americana.
She was also the child of a hard-nosed Jewish businesswoman, Ruth Handler, whose family fled impoverishment and antisemitism in Poland. And some see the original Barbie as Jewish like Handler, a complex symbol of assimilation in the mid-20th-century United States.
The doll’s latest revival comes in Greta Gerwig’s hotly-anticipated “Barbie” movie, written by Gerwig and Noah Baumbach and featuring a star-studded cast, including Margot Robbie as Barbie, Ryan Gosling as Ken and Will Ferrell as a fictional CEO of Mattel. The expected blockbuster could collect at least $70-80 million in just its opening weekend of July 21-23, according to The Hollywood Reporter, fueled in part by a relentless marketing machine.
But this in-crowd doll was born from an outsider. Here’s its Jewish history.
The origin story
Ruth Handler was born in 1916 in Denver, Colorado, the youngest of 10 children. Her father, Jacob Moskowitz (later changed to Mosko) had escaped conscription in the Russian army like many Jews at the turn of the century, and landed in the United States in 1907. Her mother Ida, who was illiterate, arrived the next year in the steerage section of a steamboat. Jacob was a blacksmith and moved the family to Denver, where new railroads were being built.
Ida was sickly by the time she gave birth to Ruth, so the baby was sent to live with her older sister Sarah. It was in Sarah’s Jewish community of Denver, when Ruth was 16 years old, that she met Izzy Handler at a Jewish youth dance, according to Robin Gerber, a biographer who wrote “Barbie and Ruth: The Story of the World’s Most Famous Doll and the Woman Who Created Her.” She fell in love immediately with Izzy, a penniless art student wearing a torn t-shirt.
At age 19, Ruth decided to drop out of the University of Denver and move to Los Angeles, where she found a job as a secretary at Paramount Studios. Izzy soon followed her.
“As they drove across the country, she asked him to change his name to Elliot,” said Gerber. “She had felt the antisemitism at that time, in the 1930s, and she really felt that they’d be better off with a more Americanized name.”
The couple never renounced their Judaism. On the contrary, they eventually helped found Temple Isaiah in Los Angeles and became longtime contributors to the United Jewish Appeal. But Ruth was pragmatic, and she would not forget how police officers had stopped her car in Denver to make antisemitic remarks.
Against the pleadings of her family, who knew Elliot was poor, Ruth married him in 1938. She continued working at Paramount, while he enrolled at the Art Center College of Design and took a job designing light fixtures — but they quickly became collaborators. Elliot began making pieces from Lucite in their garage, such as bookends and ashtrays, and Ruth was thrilled to sell them. They were complementary business partners: Elliott was a quiet creative who shied away from ordering in a restaurant, while Ruth was vivacious and unafraid, a risk-taker who said her first sale felt like “taking a drug,” according to Gerber.
World War II challenged their business, as President Franklin Roosevelt restricted plastics to military use. Together with their friend Harold “Matt” Matson, the Handlers pivoted to making wooden picture frames and dollhouse furniture. They found success and named their company Mattel, a combination of Matt and Elliot’s names.
In 1946, Matson sold his share and Ruth Handler became the first president of Mattel. The company soon branched into toys, including a child-sized ukulele called the Uke-A-Doodle, a Jack-in-the-Box and toy guns. Since the design department was entirely male, many of its early toys targeted little boys.
One day, while watching her daughter Barbara — who would become Barbie’s namesake — Ruth had a new idea. She observed that Barbara and her friends were playing with paper dolls and pretending to be adult women. In the 1950s, the only dolls on the market were baby dolls, presuming that girls wanted to play at being mothers. But Barbara and her friends wanted to play being the dolls.
On a family trip to Switzerland in 1956, she spotted a curvaceous adult doll called Bild Lilli. This toy, based on a seductive comic strip character in the German tabloid Bild, was designed as a sexual gag gift for men. Ruth saw her as a blueprint for Barbie.
An adult female doll for children was so novel that Mattel’s designers and even Ruth’s husband dismissed the idea, saying that mothers would never buy their daughters a doll with breasts. Ruth kept pushing until the first Barbie, decked in a black-and-white swimsuit and heels, debuted at New York’s Toy Fair in 1959.
Sure enough, plenty of mothers said the doll was too sexual — but their daughters loved it. Ruth communicated directly with children by bringing Mattel to television, making it the first toy company to advertise on Disney’s “Mickey Mouse Club.”
“She completely shifted the way we buy toys,” said Gerber. “Up to that point, children only saw toys when their parents handed them a catalog. But when toys came to ads on television, then kids were running to their parents and saying, ‘I want that thing on TV.’”
Mattel sold 350,000 Barbies in its first year. Striving to keep up with demand, the company released her boyfriend in 1961 and named him after the Handlers’ son, Kenneth.
Is Barbie feminist? Sexist? Assimilationist? Jewish?
Barbie’s rail-thin figure sparked backlash from feminists in the 1970s. “I am not a Barbie doll!” became a chant for marchers at the 1970 Women’s Strike for Equality in New York. Advocacy groups such as the South Shore Eating Disorders Collaborative have said that if Barbie were a real woman, her proportions would force her to walk on all fours and she would not have enough body fat to menstruate. In the 2018 film “Tiny Shoulders: Rethinking Barbie,” Gloria Steinem said, “She was everything we didn’t want to be.”
Handler said that Barbie represented possibilities for women. Women could not open a credit card in their own name until 1974, but Barbie could buy any outfit to fit any career. Her fashion represented the future: Astronaut Barbie came out in 1965, four years before Neil Armstrong walked on the moon and 18 years before Sally Ride became the first American woman in space. Ken may be Barbie’s boyfriend, but in more than 60 years, she has not married or had children.
In Ruth’s memoir “Dream Doll: The Ruth Handler Story,” she wrote, “Barbie has always represented the fact that a woman has choices. Even in her early years Barbie did not have to settle for being only Ken’s girlfriend or an inveterate shopper. She had the clothes, for example, to launch a career as a nurse, a stewardess, a nightclub singer.”
But years before the feminist discussion, the question of how American Jews could or could not relate to Barbie said a lot about their place in the United States at the time. Handler created Barbie in 1959, when many Jews were wrestling with the concept of assimilation. Although they continued to face discrimination in the postwar period, they also had newfound security — a life they had never identified with, according to Emily Tamkin, the author of “Bad Jews: A History of American Jewish Politics and Identities.”
Suddenly, like so many others, they were moving to suburban, white-picket fence America — Barbie territory.
So, much like the iconic fashion of Ralph Lauren, a Jewish designer who changed his last name from Lifshitz, or the Christmas Carols of Irving Berlin, a Russian Jewish immigrant born Israel Beilin, Barbie would paradoxically become core to the American ideal that Jews were seen to assimilate into, said Tamkin.
“The thinking goes, if you’re safe and secure and in suburbia, is that really an authentic Jewish life?” Tamkin told the Jewish Telegraphic Agency. “And while they’re having this communal and individual struggle, Ruth Handler really enhances the Americana that they have this ambivalence about.”
But was the original Barbie actually Jewish herself? Susan Shapiro, the best-selling author of “Barbie: 60 Years of Inspiration,” thinks so.
“I think Ruth just assumed that Barbie reflects her, in a certain way,” Shapiro told Kveller in 2019. “Barbie was supposed to be all-American, and I think Ruth really considered herself to be very assimilated in America. But she did face antisemitism at Paramount Pictures, and her family fled Europe because of antisemitism.”
The doll doesn’t fit the rubric of stereotypes about Ashkenazi appearance — after all, her first form copied a German sex doll that “looks very goyishe,” said Gerber. (Non-white Barbie ethnicities were not introduced until the 1980s.)
Tiffany Shlain, who made a 2005 short documentary “The Tribe” about the history of Jews and Barbie, is herself a blond, blue-eyed Jewish woman (who wrote the film with her husband, serendipitously named Ken Goldberg). She was often told that she didn’t “look Jewish.”
“Right now, we’re in a real renaissance of seeing all the different ways Jews look, and there’s no ‘look,’ there’s no one ideology,” Shlain said.
Regardless of what American buyers think, Barbie has been labeled “Jewish” by discriminatory bans. In 2003, she was temporarily outlawed by Saudi Arabia’s religious police, who posted the message: “Jewish Barbie dolls, with their revealing clothes and shameful postures, accessories and tools are a symbol of decadence to the perverted West.” Iran has also repeatedly cracked down on the sale of Barbies since declaring them un-Islamic in 1996.
Will the new movie address any of this?
It’s unclear.
Gerwig’s collaborator (and partner) Baumbach is Jewish but doesn’t often reference that fact in his movies, which include “The Squid and the Whale” and “Marriage Story.” The film features a few Jewish cast members, including Hari Nef, a trans actress and model who has appeared in shows such as “Transparent,” “The Marvelous Mrs. Maisel” and “The Idol.”
Details about the movie’s plot have been scarce, but it seems to involve characters leaving a make-believe Barbie world for the real world.
The wide diversity of the cast — which features several different actors playing Barbie and Ken — also seems to be a commentary on Barbie’s white, all-American roots.
“We were able to cast people of different shapes, sizes, differently abled, to all participate in this dance — all under this message of: You don’t have to be blonde, white, or X, Y, Z in order to embody what it means to be a Barbie or a Ken,” said actor Simi Liu, who plays one of the Kens.
—
The post Is Barbie Jewish? The complex Jewish history of the doll, explained. appeared first on Jewish Telegraphic Agency.
RSS
Israeli Cabinet to Meet Tuesday to Approve Lebanon Ceasefire Deal
A view shows the moment of an Israeli strike on a building, amid the ongoing hostilities between Hezbollah and Israeli forces, in the Chiyah district of Beirut’s southern suburbs, Lebanon, Nov. 25, 2024. Photo: REUTERS/Adnan Abidi
A senior Israeli official said on Monday that Israel‘s cabinet would meet on Tuesday to approve a ceasefire deal with Hezbollah, and a Lebanese official said Beirut had been told by Washington that an accord could be announced “within hours.”
Israeli officials had said earlier that a deal to end the war was getting closer though some issues remained, while two senior Lebanese officials voiced guarded optimism even as Israeli strikes pounded Lebanon anew.
US news website Axios, citing an unnamed senior US official, said Israel and Lebanon had agreed to the terms of a deal, and a senior Israeli official told Reuters that Tuesday’s meeting was intended to approve it.
Israel‘s ambassador to the United Nations, Danny Danon, said Israel would maintain an ability to strike southern Lebanon under any agreement.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s office declined to comment on the Axios report.
The US has pushed for a deal to end over a year of hostilities between the Iran-backed terrorist organization Hezbollah, which is based in Lebanon and wields significant political and military influence in the country, and Israel that erupted last year following the Palestinian terrorist group Hamas’s Oct. 7 massacre across southern Israel.
Since the Hamas onslaught, which launched the war in Gaza, Hezbollah has been firing barrages of rockets, missiles, and drones at northern Israel almost daily, forcing tens of thousands of Israelis to flee their homes. Israel had been exchanging fire with Hezbollah but drastically escalated its military operations over the last two months, seeking to push Hezbollah forces further away from the Israel-Lebanon border. The intensified fighting has raised fears of a wider Middle East war.
In Beirut, Lebanese Deputy Parliament Speaker Elias Bou Saab told Reuters there were “no serious obstacles” left to beginning implementation of a US-proposed ceasefire with Israel.
Bou Saab said the proposal would entail an Israeli military withdrawal from south Lebanon and regular Lebanese army troops deploying in the border region, long a Hezbollah stronghold, within 60 days.
He said a sticking point on who would monitor compliance with the ceasefire been resolved in the last 24 hours with an agreement to set up a five-country committee, including France and chaired by the United States.
A Western diplomat said another stumbling block had been the sequencing of Israel‘s withdrawal, the Lebanese army’s deployment, and the return of displaced Lebanese to their homes in south Lebanon.
Efforts to clinch a truce appeared to advance last week when US mediator Amos Hochstein declared significant progress after talks in Beirut before holding meetings in Israel and then returning to Washington.
“We are moving in the direction towards a deal, but there are still some issues to address,” Israeli government spokesperson David Mencer said, without elaborating.
Michael Herzog, the Israeli ambassador in Washington, told Israel‘s GLZ radio an agreement was close and “it could happen within days … We just need to close the last corners,” according to a post on X by GLZ senior anchorman Efi Triger.
A second senior Lebanese official, speaking on condition of anonymity earlier in the day, said Beirut had not received any new Israeli demands from US mediators, who were describing the atmosphere as positive and saying “things are in progress.”
The conflict between Israel and Hezbollah spiraled into full-scale war in September when Israel went on the offensive, pounding wide areas of Lebanon with airstrikes and sending troops into the south.
Israel has dealt major blows to Hezbollah, killing its leader Hassan Nasrallah and other top commanders and inflicting massive destruction in areas of Lebanon where the group holds sway.
Diplomacy has focused on restoring a ceasefire based on UN Security Council Resolution 1701, which ended a 2006 Hezbollah-Israel war.
It requires Hezbollah to pull its fighters back around 30 km (19 miles) from the Israeli border, behind the Litani River, and the regular Lebanese army to enter the frontier region.
Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Saar said the test for any agreement would be in the enforcement of two main points.
“The first is preventing Hezbollah from moving southward beyond the Litani, and the second, preventing Hezbollah from rebuilding its force and rearming in all of Lebanon,” Saar said in broadcast remarks to the Israeli parliament.
Far-right National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir said Israel must press on with the war until “absolute victory.” Addressing Netanyahu on X, he said “it is not too late to stop this agreement!”
But Agriculture Minister Avi Dichter said Israel should reach an agreement in Lebanon. “If we say ‘no’ to Hezbollah being south of the Litani, we mean it,” he told journalists.
Hezbollah leader Naim Qassem said last week that the group had reviewed and given feedback on the US ceasefire proposal, and any truce was now in Israel‘s hands.
Branded a terrorist group by the United States, the heavily armed, Shi’ite Muslim militant group has endorsed Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri of the Shi’ite Amal movement to negotiate.
The post Israeli Cabinet to Meet Tuesday to Approve Lebanon Ceasefire Deal first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Take Action Now: Help Stop These 6 Media Outlets From Running Biased Stories Against Israel
The Wall Street Journal’s previous office in Palo Alto. Photo: Wiki Commons.
If we’ve learned anything about the reporting from inside Gaza in the past year, it’s that there is virtually no such thing as professional journalism inside the Strip.
On multiple occasions, HonestReporting has exposed Gazan journalists who have disqualified themselves from claiming to be reporting objectively. Some have publicly expressed their antisemitism or blatant anti-Israel bias. Others have been revealed to be active supporters of terrorism, or friends of Hamas.
Media outlets have taken action against several of these exposed journalists, and their bylines can no longer be found on mainstream media reports from Gaza.
But others have continued to report, as media outlets prefer to sweep the issue under the carpe,t hoping that the problem will simply disappear.
But it won’t.
It’s not enough to expose the biased, antisemitic, or terror-supporting journalists. It’s time to expose the six media outlets whose silence has protected 20 biased journalists.
HonestReporting is launching a social media campaign to hold these outlets accountable. We demand they stop letting these “journalists” report on Israel-related issues.
Six major outlets employ 20 journalists tied to bias or even terror groups. Despite clear evidence, accountability is ignored. Over the next few weeks, we’ll expose how they infiltrated newsrooms—why it matters, and what you can do about it.
Stay tuned. pic.twitter.com/BOZ3r4k6Yd
— HonestReporting (@HonestReporting) November 19, 2024
Reuters
The agency still employs eight journalists exposed for infiltrating Israel, expressing biased views, or having unethical ties with Hamas:
- Yasser Qudih: Infiltrated Israel on October 7, and was honored by Hamas. He also won the 2024 Pulitzer prize with Reuters photography staff.
- Doaa Rouqa and Hamuda Hassan: No action taken after they celebrated images of October 7 atrocities.
- Iraq Bureau Chief Timour Azhari: Covers the Israel-Hezbollah conflict, yet demonizes Israel online.
- Suhaib Jadallah Salem, Mohammed Jadallah Salem, Fadi Shanaa, and Ibraheem Abu Mustafa: All received awards from Hamas. But Reuters had no problem with this, or with the terror groups‘ paraphernalia that decorated the Reuters office:
The Associated Press
The wire service still employs seven journalists who either infiltrated Israel or collaborated with terror groups:
- The agency hasn’t taken action against Hatem Ali and Ali Mahmud, who were in exactly the right place on October 7 to capture images of Israelis kidnapped to Gaza:
- Adel Hana, Hatem Moussa, Fatima Shbair, and Khalil Hamra: All participated in official Hamas propaganda events, yet were and are defended by AP. Adel Hana also taught media courses for the Hamas-run Information Office.
- Mohammed Zanaty: A Lebanese cameraman who supported an ally of Hezbollah online, yet AP kept silent on the matter.
AFP
The wire service stood by Mohammed Baba, a photojournalist who participated in a Hamas promo and was honored by the terror group.
The Wall Street Journal (WSJ), New York Times (NYT), and CBS News
Zero action has been taken against the following journalists:
- Abeer Ayyoub, WSJ: Shared terrorist propaganda.
- Samar Abu Elouf, NYT: Honored as Hamas “work partner.”
- Yousef Masoud, NYT: Infiltrated Israel on October 7.
- Marwan Al-Ghoul, CBS News: Spoke at an official event of the PFLP, a proscribed terror organization.
These 20 identified journalists have proven they cannot report on Israel objectively. It’s past time for these outlets and journalists to be held accountable.
How You Can Help
Take action now. Demand accountability from Reuters, AP, AFP, The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, and CBS News: These journalists must no longer be allowed to report on Israel for any respectable publication.
Go to HonestReporting’s dedicated Call Out Complicity page, where you can sign the petition, send emails to editor,s and post our campaign content to social media.
We must get loud.
We must demand action.
HonestReporting is a Jerusalem-based media watchdog with a focus on antisemitism and anti-Israel bias — where a version of this article first appeared.
The post Take Action Now: Help Stop These 6 Media Outlets From Running Biased Stories Against Israel first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Will Donald Trump Continue to Allow US Weapons to Be Used By Ukraine for Offensive Purposes?
US President Donald Trump is interviewed by then-Fox and Friends co-host Pete Hegseth at the White House in Washington, US, April 6, 2017. Photo: REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque
On the night of November 19, 2024, a strike targeted the 1046th Logistics Support Center of the Russian Armed Forces near the city of Karachev in the Bryansk region. The Ukrainian Defense Forces (UDF) used American ATACMS ballistic missiles to carry out this strike, according to media reports.
Washington and Kyiv had not issued any official statements regarding the approval and receipt of such permissions at the time. However, the confirmation of Ukraine receiving the authorization came by November 21.
Another strike followed, targeting a command post near the village of Maryino in the Kursk region. This attack involved at least 10 British subsonic Storm Shadow cruise missiles.
Earlier, media reports suggested that Ukraine had received a “green light” from the US to use long-range missiles, not only for ATACMS but also for Storm Shadow. Even without official statements, it became evident that the reports were accurate — the permissions were granted, and the first strikes on Russian territory had already occurred.
The process of obtaining approval for Ukraine to strike Russian territory was a long and complex diplomatic effort. The Biden administration consistently denied Ukraine this right, citing concerns about escalation. At one point, US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin dismissed the idea, with the implausible claim that there were no significant targets worth using ATACMS on within a 300-kilometer radius of Ukraine’s borders.
In reality, there are more than 200 significant targets in that zone, including 16 airfields used by the Russian Aerospace Forces. Striking these targets, according to UDF command, would significantly ease the situation on the battlefield in Ukraine and improve the country’s defensive capabilities. Priorities included ammunition depots, which would disrupt artillery operations; airbases, which would reduce tactical aviation activity; and command centers, which would weaken operational management efficiency.
The strikes in Karachev and Maryino clearly followed this strategic sequence.
Despite the evident benefits of such strikes for Ukraine, the US delayed granting permission, resulting in avoidable losses. Political considerations, rather than military ones, clearly drove the Biden administration’s decision.
From a broader perspective, Ukraine’s military and political leadership operated under the premise that a country facing aggression has the full right to employ all lawful means of defense, including striking enemy territory. When partner nations provide weapons for defense, it should be assumed that these can also be used on the aggressor’s territory. However, for the first time in the history of wars and conflicts, such a restriction was imposed.
This has led to a paradoxical situation where a country receiving weapons for self-defense is constrained in how it can use them. The situation bears resemblance to the Soviet Union’s receipt of Lend-Lease equipment during World War II, and its prohibition from using it beyond its borders.
Thus, using Western-manufactured missiles on Russian territory is a normal practice, while prohibiting their use is an unprecedented anomaly in the history of warfare — one that cannot be explained solely by fears of escalation.
Since 2022, Ukraine has repeatedly demonstrated that Russia’s so-called “red lines” are ineffective. Strikes, including ones like the attack on the Kremlin, have not led to escalation or fundamentally changed the nature of the war.
Biden’s “Swan Song”?
On the eve of the US presidential elections, there was speculation in Ukrainian political and media circles that granting Ukraine the right to strike Russia might be President Joe Biden’s “swan song” — a final memorable decision in his career. Opponents of this view argued that such permission would only come from the next US president, whether it would have been Donald Trump or Kamala Harris.
This decision was one of those rare foreign policy moves unlikely to provoke significant opposition from either Democrats or Republicans.
Future Prospects Under Trump
It’s possible that Biden’s outgoing administration made this decision as a preemptive measure to counteract fears of a radical shift in US policy on Eastern Europe under Donald Trump. Biden’s move effectively granted Ukraine carte blanche, not just for ATACMS but potentially for other advanced weaponry.
Future plans call for Ukraine to receive US-made AGM-158 cruise missiles and AGM-154 precision-guided bombs. These systems will also require approval for use deep within Russian territory, a decision that would likely fall to the Trump administration. Additionally, Ukraine seeks the ability to shoot down Russian military aircraft in Russian airspace using Western air defense systems and AIM-120C/D AMRAAM missiles for its F-16 fighter jets. These, too, will require US approval, dependent on how effectively Kyiv establishes communication with Trump.
Another key issue will be the continued supply of long-range ATACMS missiles to Ukraine. Trump might aim to appear as effective as Biden — or even more so — in supporting Ukraine.
Biden’s decision has effectively placed Trump in a politically awkward position with limited room to maneuver. Any attempt to block permissions granted by Biden could politically weaken Trump by making him appear less decisive in comparison to his predecessor. For Ukrainian diplomacy, convincing Trump to grant similar permissions for other long-range missile systems will be a challenging yet critical task.
In the near term, it will be difficult for Trump to reverse permissions already granted by Biden without undermining his own political standing. However, Ukraine’s diplomatic corps will face the formidable challenge of persuading Trump to approve the use of additional advanced weaponry expected to arrive in the short term.
Alexander Kovalenko is amilitary-political analyst of the “Information Resistance” group from Odessa, Ukraine. A version of this article was originally published by The BESA Center.
The post Will Donald Trump Continue to Allow US Weapons to Be Used By Ukraine for Offensive Purposes? first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
You must be logged in to post a comment Login