LIVERPOOL, UNITED KINGDOM: A comedian named Avery Edison recently sparked a Twitter row about classism after claiming that Barbie dolls were only meant for children from rich and privileged families and never for the ones financially struggling. In her now-deleted original tweets, Edison wrote, “don’t know if this is entirely fair but when someone says ‘I grew up loving Barbie’ I hear ‘my family was not poor.’”
The Twitter user went on to explain that while she does not have a problem with people “simping for a brand – that’s all movies now,” Barbie reminds her of “all the kids in school who had savings accounts and went on vacations.” Edison also concluded her small thread with a cheeky remark that read, “lol if we’re gonna do barbie discourse let’s *really* do it now.” The comments come in the wake of the release of the new trailer for Warner Bros upcoming live-action film, ‘Barbie,’ starring Margot Robbie and Ryan Gosling in lead roles.
READ MORE
'You don't want to see her b***': Margot Robbie reveals why Barbie should NEVER be sexy
'This is so exciting': Fans thrilled as 'Barbie: The Album' full tracklist is announced
‘Are we really going to rewrite history’
In the wake of Edison’s remarks on Barbie’s affordability, hundreds of Twitter users flooded her comments showing disagreement with her opinion. “Are we really going to rewrite history and pretend that Barbie dolls were rare exclusives reserved solely for the elites,” one user asked. “Literally so obsessed with how patently disingenuous ‘only rich people had barbie dolls’ is. the most obvious attempt at outrage bait i’ve seen in some time and that’s saying something,” another said. “That ‘barbie is for rich kids’ take absolutely has to be clickbait lmao just an utter dismissal of barbie dolls either bought at thrift stores or given as hand-me-downs so you can fulfill your resentment fantasy against the pink glitter movie PLEASE,” a third added. One said, “We were poor and I had tons of barbies. It was the rich kids that got the barbie cars and the barbie dream house and the extras like that,” while another mentioned, “My family was poor enough to be on public assistance for a period of time (70s), and my sister had every Barbie doll they made.” “The most of my Barbies were from garage sales!! Barbie has always been for everyone,” one former toy owner wrote. “I grew up poor and am a lifelong Barbie collector,” another added. One user noted, “The ‘Barbie is for rich people’ discourse is silly and nonsensical. We SHOULD talk about how we assign toys to specific genders, though, as my inaccessibility to Barbie had much more to do with ‘no, that's for girls’” while another pointed out, “People talking about Barbie being a rich person toy when American Girl dolls are Right There.”
'Barbies used to be quite expensive in the 1980s'
While the majority of social media users refuted Edison’s claims about Barbie being a symbol of wealth and class, others attempted to understand her opinion. “Not to defend the ‘barbie is for rich kids’ bad take but i THINK what she was trying to reflect on was being a kid and discovering that your classmates have so many toys that they forget they have some of them, and not so much a judgement of actual children,” one user explained. “Barbies used to be quite expensive in the 1980s,” another wrote. “I’m from Eastern Europe and this was definitely the case, a barbie doll cost around £25 and at home that’s A LOT of money,” one shared. “Lol but it IS expensive. Idk if all of you can afford it in USA but 3rd world countries has it different. I used to only got one or two from a rich cousin as a gift. Tho that's also cause my parents hate barbie but those dolls esp the sets were and are still expensive,” another added. Some users even referred back to old catalogs from the early 1990s to continue the debate. “Toys R Us catalogue from 1991. Barbies are $8.99 - $12.99 which is about $20-$30 today. This is significantly more than Babies retail for today,” one user argued. “Here's a McDonalds Menu from the 90's. A doll costing 2-3 meals at McDonalds is still pretty reasonable,” another refuted.
‘One aspect of my reaction to an upcoming movie’
In the wake of the major Twitter discourse over her opinion, Edison deleted her original tweets and acknowledged the situation in another thread. While she mentioned that her remark was mainly a single aspect of her reaction to an “upcoming movie,” seemingly Greta Gerwig’s ‘Barbie,’ Edison also admitted that she “didn’t do an absolutely perfect job with the wording.”
However, she also defended her original comments and called out social media users sending her harsh responses. “Hi! I tried to describe the particular memories of extreme childhood poverty which are one aspect of my reaction to an upcoming movie. I didn’t do an absolutely perfect job with the wording, so I deserve to have hundreds of people screenshot and talk about what an idiot I am,” Edison wrote.
“Think it’s very clear to someone reading the original tweets with even an ounce of kindness in mind that I am clearly trying to get my arms around why I feel the way I do about this movie. I deleted my tweets when I realized I’d so firmly rubbed people the wrong way!” she continued. “Like, there’s no need for this. “We do not need Barbie classism discourse” on a post which now has hundreds of retweets and quote tweets. I deleted the tweets! *You* are the one choosing to prolong this,” Edison added while quoting a now-deleted tweet. “And before anyone says “you asked for this”, my final tweet on that mini-thread is an obvious joke about the complete non-necessity of Barbie discourse and the ridiculousness of me adding to it,” she further mentioned.
This article contains remarks made on the Internet by individual people and organizations. MEAWW cannot confirm them independently and does not support claims or opinions being made online.
