That is something I agree with. That
contribution is a fact, now let's divine the causation link:
Are you are arguing that the aggregate of people conform to their toys?
Are you arguing that
some children are so neglected that they inevitably fall into lack of critical thinking?
Are you arguing that the influence they exert is greater than that of an educator?
Are you arguing that the contribution is large enough for us to be concerned?
Because going from 'it influences, it contributes', to 'it is unhealthy' is a leap of logic. Even if I admit that it
can be negative to
some people, I'm not willing to tag it as universally and unequivocally unhealthy, given it
may be positive to a larger audience
Be as it may, Barbie has had very positive influence on
some women, that took the
very professional paths Barbie took: doctor, veterinarian, teacher, dentist, firefighter, architect... . Paths in life that Barbie takes on each iteration in spite of being totally able to work as a cam-whore, a black widow, a prostitute, or any other field in which beauty is a requirement. Not like any of those paths in life are bad in any way: Barbie is simply breaking that particular stereotype. Because that is the point Barbie
generally delivers: get over cute, girl; be all pretty if you want to, but learn a profession and contribute to the world (and Barbie doesn't need to ban 'bossy' or brand toys as 'unhealthy' in the process to be a success).