I just thought it was odd that people were so vociferously defending a toy that does (like it or not) have certain attributes, connotations, and a past that might make women feel uncomfortable giving it to their daughters.
Certainly the historical context of barbie is that she was born in a different time, when women were much more constrained in what they could do and how they could look, and the doll reflected that. Increasing her waist size slightly and saying that actually these days she's a philosopher and genetecist doesn't get away from her origins.
So if some women feel uncomfortable with that particular toy then fine, surely understandable given the "math is tough" etc stuff. Saying that Barbie does not fit in with the idea of a role model for girls, for some women, isn't an attack on women - it's an attack on a symbol, if you like, of a different time.
For me, personally, I feel that dolls like this contribute to stereotypes rather than break them. As a blonde woman, I feel annoyed that blondes are classified as "dumb", and I think that these dolls and other images contribute to that, I personally don't accept the argument that the fact Barbie can now come with a space-suit is breaking down gender stereotypes. Because everyone knows, really, that Barbie is all about clothes and boys and fun and not at all about trying to pee into a bizarre receptacle in zero gravity conditions with her hair going bananas.
I think I just came on as it was all getting a bit personal with Strix, and I'd heard that "math class is tough" thing, and something rang a bell about the thin-ness as well, and of the various positions being adopted i identified with the "not keen" position. And had a nagging feeling that Barbie herself wasn't blameless in all of this.