Scheme to give Barbie dolls to primary school children

Barbie is what she was in the 80s, which I think for many of us who grew up then is hard to remember.

I don't think they play with them no just as generally they don't have play areas and toys out at that age, but DS did a project in year 6 with dolls (they had to design a house) so depends really. Yes children age out of playing solely with cardboard boxes, sticks and pinecones though. I don't think the school would or should actively spend money on them, but I can see uses and value if they're free. Schools already have toys anyway, so not sure on the toys vs pine cones it's just whether they have new and more diverse toys or just the tatty, outdated and not very diverse ones they've had for years and can't afford to replace.

@Jigslaw No, obviously not. I was thinking of much younger children. But I don’t think Barbies will be given to ten year olds so I don’t understand your point.

You're being rather disingenuous there. Your first post on this thread was -

Yes let's replace all of the toys in schools with wooden spoons, sounds like a great idea!

which was in reply to this post -

'Dolls may well be beneficial, although iirc children do best playing with something low tech like, say a wooden spoon, which they can make into and project into a far broader range of ideas and ideals.'

That poster wasn't suggesting that all resources be replaced with wooden spoons etc.

Additionally, role play in Primary School classrooms tends to be along the lines of an imagination area like a home corner, or a shop, or a castle etc.I don't think I've ever seen dolls (Barbie or otherwise) in classrooms. And that's not to say that I don't think they could be added if it's found to be beneficial but that it doesn't necessarily need to be Barbies. Which is part of what is being discussed.

Have to say my 8 year old granddaughter does still like soft toys - but those from from Kenji - as she is really into gaming/pokemon etc When with her friends they like to dress up, put on shows, and they also play roblox.

Do 10 year old girls play with dolls?

It depends what age they are really, yes young children like playing with random objects, but as imaginations and creativity develops so does play. The cardboard box doesn't have to go anywhere but it supplements other play- it becomes a shop (along with play food or whatever), a puppet show (along with soft toys or dolls) etc. Honestly as this thread is about primary schools, do you think a 10 year old would be thrilled to recieve a cardboard box as a present to play with?

Open end resources leave all the space for kids’ imaginations to roam and develop. We all know that small children love an empty cardboard box more than whatever shiny new object came in it. The box can be whatever they want it to be.

Teenage GS went to see it with a crowd of friends. The thing that surprised me was he said he thought it was good but the girls didn't like it. I'd thought from reading about it that the girls would like it. Maybe I need to see it.

The sneering on this thread at the idea of open ended resources ('pine cones and wooden sticks!!') is bemusing

Anyone who has children, has worked with children, has spent time playing with children will know that the vast majority love playing with sticks, stones, pine cones and whatever else and come up with all manner of games/scenarios with them- it's more bemusement at the idea of just having these in a school for primary aged children to play with.

Depends on the child's imagination. I remember my eldest son breastfeeding his action man while I was breastfeeding his little brother. I don't think the narrative that came with action man bothered him.

We really are regressing. This would never have happened three or more decades ago. Barbie was very frowned upon for all the gender stereotyping reasons given above.

The sneering on this thread at the idea of open ended resources ('pine cones and wooden sticks!!') is bemusing.

In early years, open ended resources are generally what is considered good practice. For example, dressing up clothes tend now to be lengths of cloth and clothes pegs so that children can create their own outfits. Loose parts play (conkers, corks, shells, etc and yes, pine cones!) are considered more beneficial to imagination and creativity than plastic figurines of animals/knights/princesses etc. Treasure baskets are invaluable for younger children. And that's not just older childhood theorists like Steiner, Montessori, Froebel etc but more recent theorists too.

I can see issues with the traditional stereotyped body of Barbie but also see the benefit of different types of body represented by the newer range. I can see the benefit of resources being offered to Schools in dire need of resources but also feel qualms at them being offered as part of a bigger scheme by a company with a vested interest (based on research which focuses on the benefit of role playing generally rather than specially role playing with dolls such as Barbies).

My daughter, her friend and friend's mother went to see the film last night.

Apparently, it starts off with them in Barbie World, where the female dolls all have good jobs and things are fair between the sexes.

The slip into the real world and Ken loves it, because he can be a slob and get taken care of. They go back and Ken has been infected with the idea of Patriarchy and starts to ruin Barbie World.

All the female dolls have to fight to return to the previous equity.

Friend's mam days it's quite good and a bit subversive. She's a proud feminist.

I’m sure schools EYFS staff are very good at developing role play area without resorting to the use of plastic, sexist toys that objectify women and promote unhealthy body types.

@ArabeIIaScott I don’t think these 2 Barbies and 1 Ken are particularly “pinkified”.
Well the Ken has slightly pink hair.

I still see most Barbies show a pretty narrow role of 'pinkified' femininity with a heavy focus on looks, appearance, and body image. Given the relentless narratives girls receive about this as the ne plus ultra goal of being female I am cynical

This was of course central to gender criticality before we needed to derail to address the threat to our rights posed by the trans narrative.

If this is about Barbie's body then I point out that nobody in the entire world is that size or shape and she is a doll who fits nicely into a child's hand. That's it.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/2023/05/25/barbie-trailer-creator-pornographic-origin-doll/

Agreed

I don't believe brands should be advertising their wares through faux charitable donations to schools.

I also don't see the "regressive stereotypes" that Barbie promotes.

Barbie is a competent and independent woman. She's a scientist, a vet, a firefighter, a gymnast, a baker, an astronaut......

Sure, there are also the fashion dolls and a lot is pink but there's actually nothing inherently wrong with any of that.

Just as there's nothing wrong with any of the mermaid Barbie dolls.

If this is about Barbie's body then I point out that nobody in the entire world is that size or shape and she is a doll who fits nicely into a child's hand. That's it.

Expose your child to a wide enough range of people and toys and media and suddenly pink clothes and a stick body on a doll promoting careers to girls is less of a problem.

@BinturongsSmellOfPopcorn @NumberTheory

You are correct - apologies I read that wrong!