Click amount to donate direct to CounterPunch
  • $25
  • $50
  • $100
  • $500
  • $other
  • use PayPal
Spring Fund Drive: Keep CounterPunch Afloat
CounterPunch is a lifeboat of sanity in today’s turbulent political seas. Please make a tax-deductible donation and help us continue to fight Trump and his enablers on both sides of the aisle. Every dollar counts!
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

Banning Barbie

It is refreshing to have a bit of silliness introduced into a world consumed by weighty problems seeking resolution. For our examples we turn to West Virginia and the European Union. West Virginia is concerned with beauty and the European Union is concerned with ugly.

The voice for West Virginians concerned with beauty belongs to Jeff Eldridge of West Virginia, a member of the House of Representatives of that fair state.

On March 3, 2009, Mr. Eldridge introduced House Bill 2918. The summary of the Bill says it is a bill banning “the sale of ‘Barbie’ dolls and other dolls that influence girls to be beautiful.” The bill provides that “It shall be unlawful in the state to sell “Barbie Dolls” and other similar dolls that cause girls to place an undue importance on physical beauty to the detriment of their intellectual and emotional development.” The Bill has been assigned to the Judiciary Committee where, as of this writing, it resides, if not languishes.

Mr. Eldridge’s goal, apparently, is to give Barbie a birthday present she’ll not forget-banishment from the state. On March 9 she celebrated her 50th birthday. Mr. Eldridge believes that even though during Barbie’s lifetime women have achieved much many would not have believed possible on Barbie’s birthday, they would, nonetheless, have gone to greater heights but for Barbie’s pernicious influence.

Springing full blown from Mattel’s womb, Barbie did not have to wait until she grew up to wield her evil influence on girls. She started the minute she saw the light of day. And a devastating influence it’s been. As Mr. Eldridge explained: “Basically, I introduced legislation because the Barbie doll, I think, gives emphasis on if you’re beautiful, you don’t have to be smart.” If any beautiful woman happens upon this column she can decide for herself whether or not she has forsaken brains for beauty. All that said, it’s clear Mr. Eldridge would applaud the recent actions of the European Union. Beginning in July 2009 “ugly” will be in and “beauty” will be out. It started one year ago.

For many years the European Union has enforced strict rules not only on the quality of fruits and vegetables but on their appearance. The rules dictate the acceptable colors of leeks, the angle of repose of cucumbers as well as carrot’s shapes. The rules apply to cherries, onions, peas, plums and countless other vegetables. According to a report in the Times on Line tons of fruits and vegetables are discarded each year due to absence of beauty or ideal size. Tim Down, a Bristol UK fruit and vegetable wholesaler experienced the consequences of these rules first hand. He “was forced to throw away 520 Chilean kiwis after being told by the Rural Payments Agency that they did not meet industry standards.” Some of the kiwis were 4 grams less than the prescribed weight. Talking to FoodNavigator Mr. Down said standards should be implemented in sensible ways. “How anyone ever sat down in an office in Brussels and got paid an enormous amount of money to decide on the correct curvature of a cucumber beggars belief.” Mr. Down was referring to Commission Regulation No. 1677/88 of June 15, 1988.

Commission Regulation No. 1677/88 sets the beauty contest rules for cucumbers. Addressing Class I cucumbers and their beauty, the Regulation specifies that they must “be reasonably well shaped and practically straight (maximum height of the arc: 10 mm per 10 cm of the length of cucumber)”. If they are slightly crooked (also defined by reference to their arc) they may be sold if otherwise “cosmetically perfect.” If they fail that test they must be destroyed or shipped off for processing where beauty is not an issue. Carrots may not be forked and must be free from secondary roots. According to a report from the BBC magazine as a result of the focus on beauty in the fruit and vegetable world “tones of perfectly-edible produce across the EU is thrown away so that when you walk into the supermarket all you see is rank after serried rank of cosmetically perfect fruit and vegetables.” Thanks to the actions of the EU a significant number of members of the fruit and vegetable kingdom will no long depend on their beauty to find acceptance on grocers’ shelves.

In November 2008 the European Commission decreed that effective July 1, 2009, consumers “will be able to purchase 26 items including onions, apricots, Brussel sprouts, watermelons and cauliflowers with as many knobs, bumps and curves as they like.” Bananas, however, will still be regulated and must be “free from abnormal curvature of the fingers.” Acknowledging that beauty contests for bananas might also warrant revisiting, Michael Mann, the EC’s agriculture spokesperson told FoodNavigator: “Perhaps we will come back to bananas in the future.” While applauding the actions of the EC in permitting the sale of fruits with offensive bumps and curves, Mr. Eldridge no doubt hopes his legislature will ban Barbie because of what he perceives to be her offensive bumps and curves.

CHRISTOPHER BRAUCHLI is a lawyer living in Boulder, Colorado. He can be reached at: brauchli1@comcast.net

More articles by:
Weekend Edition
May 25, 2018
Friday - Sunday
Melvin Goodman
A Major Win for Trump’s War Cabinet
Andrew Levine
Could Anything Cause the GOP to Dump Trump?
Pete Tucker
Is the Washington Post Soft on Amazon?
Conn Hallinan
Iran: Sanctions & War
Jeffrey St. Clair
Out of Space: John McCain, Telescopes and the Desecration of Mount Graham
John Laforge
Senate Puts CIA Back on Torture Track
David Rosen
Santa Fe High School Shooting: an Incel Killing?
Gary Leupp
Pompeo’s Iran Speech and the 21 Demands
Jonathan Power
Bang, Bang to Trump
Robert Fisk
You Can’t Commit Genocide Without the Help of Local People
Brian Cloughley
Washington’s Provocations in the South China Sea
Louis Proyect
Requiem for a Mountain Lion
Robert Fantina
The U.S. and Israel: a Match Made in Hell
Kevin Martin
The Libya Model: It’s Not Always All About Trump
Susie Day
Trump, the NYPD and the People We Call “Animals”
Pepe Escobar
How Iran Will Respond to Trump
Sarah Anderson
When CEO’s Earn 5,000 Times as Much as a Company’s Workers
Ralph Nader
Audit the Outlaw Military Budget Draining America’s Necessities
Chris Wright
The Significance of Karl Marx
David Schultz
Indict or Not: the Choice Mueller May Have to Make and Which is Worse for Trump
George Payne
The NFL Moves to Silence Voices of Dissent
Razan Azzarkani
America’s Treatment of Palestinians Has Grown Horrendously Cruel
Katalina Khoury
The Need to Evaluate the Human Constructs Enabling Palestinian Genocide
George Ochenski
Tillerson, the Truth and Ryan Zinke’s Interior Department
Jill Richardson
Our Immigration Debate Needs a Lot More Humanity
Martha Rosenberg
Once Again a Slaughterhouse Raid Turns Up Abuses
Judith Deutsch
Pension Systems and the Deadly Hand of the Market
Shamus Cooke
Oregon’s Poor People’s Campaign and DSA Partner Against State Democrats
Thomas Barker
Only a Mass Struggle From Below Can End the Bloodshed in Palestine
Binoy Kampmark
Australia’s China Syndrome
Missy Comley Beattie
Say “I Love You”
Ron Jacobs
A Photographic Revenge
Saurav Sarkar
War and Moral Injury
Clark T. Scott
The Shell Game and “The Bank Dick”
Seth Sandronsky
The State of Worker Safety in America
Thomas Knapp
Making Gridlock Great Again
Manuel E. Yepe
The US Will Have to Ask for Forgiveness
Laura Finley
Stop Blaming Women and Girls for Men’s Violence Against Them
Rob Okun
Raising Boys to Love and Care, Not to Kill
Christopher Brauchli
What Conflicts of Interest?
Winslow Myers
Real Security
George Wuerthner
Happy Talk About Weeds
Abel Cohen
Give the People What They Want: Shame
David Yearsley
King Arthur in Berlin
Douglas Valentine
Memorial Day
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail