Scheme to give Barbie dolls to primary school children

Actually Barbie is the ultimate feminist icon because the message to feminine girls is that you can love pink and traditionally ‘girly’ things and not be ‘less than’ because of it. That’s what the new Barbie movie is all about. Barbie lives in a world that is joyful and nurturing and purely built for girls, not for men (like the real world).

My dds both loved playing with Barbies and as young women now they take no shit with patriarchal ideas or misogyny. I have no problem giving school children barbies to play with.

Wanderingowl · Today 12:48

And Barbie, Life in the Dreamhouse, is genuinely hilarious.

My daughter (10) has asked to go and see it. She still has dolls, but doesn't really bother with them now and she's very much "Pink Stinks."

Sorry very little available

@ArabeIIaScott when was the last time you went to a toy shop?
As well as the extremely outdated view of Barbie you have accessories and Barbie furniture are actually hard to get (there is very available) and the clothes are quite expensive.
As a result many Barbie owners make their own.
Very creative.

Lmao Steiner ideas- he was a massive racist who believed white people were more intelligent than everyone else, inspirational. But yes young children can certainly have a lot of fun with objects such as stones, sticks and other items, there isn't any harm in toys either especially as they get a bit older. Plenty of young girls and boys have great fun role playing and conducting imaginary play with Barbie, Ken, Action Man and whatever other dolls.

You can always dress them as Vikings, Ancient Greeks or whatever the history curriculum is doing these days. and then renact Marathon etc. (Need a lot of Kens though).

I quite like the Barbie brand, my dd had Barbies and they carried very much a "girls can be anything" message, which is important. I remember being pissed off that my dc had been brought kids vest sets with cute stereotypical career cartoon emblems ie girls pictures on the front were subordinate or caring roles, whilst boys got to be the astronauts and scientists. I was told by a family member that I was being precious, so Dr Barbie was well received. My dd didn't care that Barbie's waist was impossibly small, or her legs unrealistically long, she just like that she was pretty and had lots of cool jobs. If a big brand can persuade little girls that they don't have to live their lives as a support to men, then why shouldn't they be in schools?

They may be more varied but I'm still not seeing a single physically achievable body. Even a catwalk director would send all of those to a doctor to be checked for eating disorders.

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

Im not too bothered about Mattel donating Barbie (and presumably Ken) dolls to primary schools to be played with. Everything in a school will have been made by a business so the mere presence of a toy or book or other object the children use could be accused of covert marketing. My DCs primary school had Legos and other branded toys.

Id like to learn more about the role play curriculum though. I think that should be a DoE authored thing, not one given by Mattel.

I'm imagining the girls using the Barbies to act out scenarios of life as a young adult and the boys laughing as they pull the Barbies' heads off and throw them around the classroom. Though of course boys who enjoy dressing Barbie up (as my son did, and he particularly liked Barbie's cooking and dining accessories) are still boys and girls who pretend Barbie is a firearm are still girls.

I'm broadly in favour of the no-strings provision of toys to encourage imaginative play, and "teenage" dolls might be more useful than baby dolls for older primary school age children, but would be wary of corporate educational material. There's always an agenda and it's rarely altruistic.

Wait, so they are giving them to schools for the children to play with at school? So they love playing with Barbies and go home to pester their parents to buy them their very own Barbie? It does sound like a cynical marketing ploy, or at the very least a headline grabbing marketing ploy to boost their credentials as a company that cares about children rather than a company that produces God knows how how much plastic tat every year.

Go figure - I know this because someone I know (a grown up in her 30's) has a huge Barbie collection (which is worth a lot of money!). There is a Down's Syndrome Barbie, a Barbie in a wheelchair, and a Barbie with a prosthetic leg. There are probably others too, but I generally try to not pay attention!

To be clear, I don't like dolls and never have, even as a child. But I also don't think that any dolls can shape a child's mind unless the adults around them let that happen. Someone mentioned the generic "baby dolls" in the toy box - how are baby dolls any less sexist than Barbies? Over a billion Barbies have been sold worldwide - I assume that also means over a billion (mainly) parents buying them for their children. Isn't it the quality of parenting and the convesrations and alternatives that take place (or don't take place) the real issue? Any doll at all can be sexist - and that's not even going down the play kitchen equipment etc etc etc debate. Toys don't make our society - we do.

And I am certainly not defending Mattel, but marketing is their business - they are a huge business in a capitalist world. How shocking is it that they will develop marketing strategies to sell their products, just like every other company tries to do.

As for throwing in Disney promoting their own interests - ditto, this is a capitalist society and what else was anyone expecting. But I am sure that reducing the sexist harm done to poor asylum seeking children was uppermost in Jenrick's mind when he ordered the mural of Disney figures to be painted over.

Children are explosed to all sorts of influences - how we raise them to engage with those influences, encourage critical thinking, and support their choices is far more important than whether they play with Barbie.

honestly so few children are capable of imaginative play now

I'm shocked to hear this. I'm not a teacher or even a mother so the number of kids I know is very limited, but they are all capable of getting absorbed in imaginative play for hours. But of course my sample is biased (mostly my family and DP's, some kids of friends) Are children really losing that capacity?

I see the issues with the traditional Barbie doll, but honestly so few children are capable of imaginative play now (to the point that teachers and TA’s have pointed it out to me) that any help for this should be appreciated.

I’d probably feel more comfortable with playmobile or something similar, but given that they aren’t offering free toys and schools are literally skint, the point is pretty moot.

It's a whole scheme with lesson plans based on social communication

Now THAT is raising alarm bells. Third party lesson plans in schools tend to have a very strange agenda these days. Hopefully it's not the case here.

I wonder how well the diverse range of Barbies with different body shapes actually sell. My small nieces have got a box of "Barbies" (not all of them from Mattel, there are some Barbie-like dolls of Disney characters in there too) and while they aren't all white, I definitely didn't notice any fat or disabled dolls in there.

Multinational corporations have no business in marketing their products in schools. If you allow one company, you allow them all.

Give Barbie a bit of credit.
Independent, multiple home owning, woman, many cars, and a cool boyfriend.

Apparently the creator of Ken said Barbie should never marry him and become a housewife dragged down by loads of housewife stuff.

Come on Barbie let's go party!

I think some people have definitely not realised Barbie is rather more up to date, inclusive and positive than previously, and so is Ken.

I doubt Mattel would be so stupid as to only offer one of the toys out rather than the range given it's for imaginative play! Which is not solely a female activity after all.

I'm sure there are thousands of families who would like any kind of free corporate goodies. Still doesn't mean it's acceptable to turn schools into their free marketing arm.

I doubt people would care if it was Lego doing this.

I have seen this scheme first hand.
It's not just giving schools free toys for general play. It's a whole scheme with lesson plans based on social communication. There is a mix of male and female dolls , a mix of ethnicities and also dolls with visible disabilities. With the right group of children, it could be beneficial.