Rosen traces Ruth Handler’s rise as an entrepreneur to highlight the specific obstacles successful career women faced in the mid-20th century. The book presents Ruth’s female vision and success as being achieved against the odds, by a combination of female vision, male-coded toughness, and a steady defiance of the sexism that surround her in business. The parabola of Ruth’s professional life at Mattel is an example of female achievement, but also shows how patriarchal structures limit female success, presented through Ruth’s increasing marginalization as her company grows in size and profitability.

When Ruth first brings out the Bild Lilli doll, her female vision meets with the male gaze. The all‑male team reacts with “hoots and howls” and “lewd comments,” (6) summed up by Jack’s “she’s got tits” (6). Ruth regains control by firing a cap gun and mirrors their rough language by calling them “goddamn boys in a circle jerk” (6). This scene sets up Ruth’s effective adoption of male-coded bluntness and profanity that shape the dynamics of her leadership style: The men will consider the nuances of her argument only after she shows that she isn’t cowed—or distracted—by their sexism. Throughout the book, Ruth is often shown adopting this “one of the boys” approach, such as when she is more frank discussing anatomical features than her male colleagues, in order to break down assumptions of her as other and lesser. It is key to this theme that Ruth’s vision for Barbie—one of the most market-leading, successful commercial ideas in history—is enabled by her experiences and perspective as a woman. Rosen literally makes Ruth the proverbial “woman in the room” whose inclusion brings success.

The novel explores how institutional sexism shuts Ruth out of important spaces. Indeed, as Ruth becomes more successful, structural sexism impacts on her more, as she reaches a male-coded stratum of success. This theme highlights society’s gendered hierarchy, in which real power and wealth equal maleness, and where men act as gatekeepers, most explicitly formalized during Ruth’s trip to New York in Chapter 33. When she is condescendingly called “miss” and told “we do not allow women here inside the Harrington,” (239) the “Harrington” stands as one of society’s centers of power. Only after an exception is made—at the insistence of her male companions—is Ruth allowed to enter, although she must do this through the service area. This route highlights sexism that equates women with “service,” and the humiliating challenge posed to Ruth’s chosen identity as a woman who explicitly rejects domestic labor for both herself and Barbie. Similarly, the bankers assume that she is “only” Elliot’s wife. They expect Mattel’s head of finance to be a man, assuming women are merely adjacent to real power. Ruth’s response is characteristic: Although furious, she behaves with overt control, leaving them without “any doubt as to who’s in charge” (241) by adopting a male-coded authority in the room.

This meeting is a narrative turning point. Held to facilitate Mattel going public to support its rapid growth following Barbie’s—and Ruth’s—great success, it prefigures the ways in which Ruth’s control will be usurped by men as the company becomes larger. This culminates in a crisis of marginalization when Rosenberg replaces Ruth as the company’s public representative. His explanation makes explicit the insidious nature of the sexism which considers female leadership an oxymoron, and a risk to market confidence: “‘First, you’re a woman. Second, you’re Jewish… Third… you don’t have the right temperament. You talk like a drunken sailor’” (294-95). Rosenburg’s overt admission that the decision is based on sexism—and antisemitism—effectively disables any practical response from Ruth. The third insult, that Ruth “talks like a drunken sailor,” reveals Ruth’s double-bind, simultaneously damned for being a woman and for not being womanly enough. In revealing the paradox of how the tactic of male-coded “boss” behavior fails Ruth as her company grows, the novel argues that female success is existentially incompatible with a patriarchal structure which considers leadership and femaleness as mutually exclusive.