To think that Barbie advert can piss off?

[TammySwansonTwo]

Starts with a small girl giving a lecture to a room full of adults, then switches to showing her actually playing with barbies. Then says something about how when you're playing with Barbie you can be anything you want to be.

Huh, really? Like something other than an anatomically inaccurate sexualised image of a woman? DFOD.

Anyone seen it?

But what is wrong with having 'beautiful' (barbers useually aren't particularly beautiful imo but whether) doll? It's not like you can't buy ugly ones if that is what you want. Even the barbie brand offers a variety to an extent of doll types. If people like it and want to buy it what business of yours is it. I must admit I would never buy one if I had a daughter, they are too ugly for my taste, I prefer prettier dolls, but I don't presume to tell other people what toys to buy for their children or how to run their businesses. This really is a non-issue, no one is forcing you to accept barbie if you don't want to.

Again, I criticised the hypocrisy of the advert, I didn't come here to advocate for the banning of Barbie or say it's inherently harmful. But yes, some of the comments here have been beyond idiotic, if that makes me a knob, so be it. I'm not throwing around buzzwords, I'm discussing something.

This really is a non-issue, no one is forcing you to accept barbie if you don't want to.

But there isn’t a lot of choice is there? It’s not equally weighted. And so many toys targeted at girls have an emphasis on looks and attractiveness

It’s naive to point to individual choice and to pretend that the collective collage of individual images we see on a daily basis doesn’t have an effect on us.

Advertisers know this, else why on earth would they spend millions trying to influence our behaviour?

People will always prefer things that look attractive, whether it's a Christmas decoration or a film star.

Although I'm inclined to say it's just a doll I do agree that all the "justs" combined do influence children to some extent.

At the moment though Barbie is obviously an extreme (I do know someone lucky enough to have extremely long slim legs and a tiny waist but I expect it's still not Barbie proportions) and everyone knows that, so where would you set normal?

Also think advert is fine - the point is Barbie can be anything you want her to be, vet, CEO whatever. It's not saying you have to be blonde haired and blue eyed to do those things,

Posted too early

, but why should Barbie be excluded from being any of those things because of the way she looks?

Fantastic advert. I actually used the full version in a school assembly on women in science.

Funny because when I played with my Barbies I never once thought 'I'd love to have a waist like hers' or 'I wish I was so perfect'. My thoughts were more along the lines of 'how do I get the scissors to cut her hair?'

Also I only ever wished for horse riding Barbie or princess Barbie pulled in a white cart by a horse for Christmas because it was the horses I wanted rather than the doll! Come to think of it the horses were rather extreme in features too and disproportioned but I never wished real horses looked like that!

Still do recognise the difference though as per previous post, to some extent

My DD loved Barbie and Disney princesses (and Harry potter) when young - She is a STEM teacher now.

@IfYouSeeRitaMoreno tbf only lemmings succumb to such 'influence'. If a child is influenced by these things the problem isn't the particular kind of doll, even if the doll looked healthy and of average appearance, the problem is that the parents aren't raising their child properly. The kid will grow up to be an idiot, the desire for a tiny waist isn't really a problem when compared to a lack of intellect or the ability to think for oneself. You're missing the point.

Funny because when I played with my Barbies I never once thought 'I'd love to have a waist like hers' or 'I wish I was so perfect'. My thoughts were more along the lines of 'how do I get the scissors to cut her hair?'

Mine too lol.

It's a doll, one that has shown millions of girls different careers. She's slim and healthy, to make her a size 16 may be realistic for many but not healthy.

Children learn about food from their parents, their size will also factor in they see it as the norm. That's far more likely to influence them not a doll.

I’m successful in an academic role but my family laugh at me because I’m also interested in fashion, beauty and fitness. The same family members also tell my six year old daughter that she shouldn’t like Barbie because of her strange body shape. Daughter told them that they shouldn’t be nasty about people because of how they look! I therefore don’t feel that Barbie is harmful.
I’d like to think that the commercial will help kids realise that it’s ok to be both intelligent and interested in how they look.
Instead my daughter and I live in a world where snobby academics criticise the things that make us feel happy.

ttbb do you actually believe that only "lemmings" are taught about the world by their surroundings? That's incredibly naive.

i don't get the extreme Barbie hate - sorry but when my older DD was young the "alternative" doll was Bratz - and no one thinks that is a shape etc to aspire too (big heads and weird eyes) on unrealistic bodies.
The Lottie doll is probably better.
But at least Barbie does stuff, unlike all the "baby dolls". And talking about the problems of these dolls etc. is one way to educate our DDs about the gender bias they will encounter.

only lemmings succumb to such 'influence'.

No, only lemmings believe that they are impervious to the culture in which they live.

tbf OP, I think that Barbie has morphed into something far than its origins and has evolved to contain some stealth feminism.

In response to the anti-Barbie backlash it has adapted to the call to increase the opportunities and aspirations for girls.

In order to save itself from extinction.

The result, as shown in that ad, is a faux feminist empowerment spiel. Commercial, patronising and unrealistic. But with perhaps a tiny kernel of something that may actually do some good.

Perhaps that's because kids know that they can neither change the size of their head, nor that other human beings actually look like that. Bratz dolls are clearly not supposed to be a naturalistic representation of a woman. Barbie's proportions are skewed dramatically but not in a way that appears unnaturalistic.

Still, I don't need to argue about why Barbie is problematic because I've posted links from far more qualified people to explain why it is, and there are hundreds more just like them. And because I was criticising the advert which is drivel IMO, not people choosing to by Barbie. Buy whatever toys you want - it's just probably wise to have a good idea of how and why it might cause problems.

www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/shortcuts/2017/nov/14/first-hijabi-barbie-other-sheroes-mattel-dolls-ibtihaj-muhammad

Quite an interesting article on how dolls are diversifying to meet modern demands

I remember my dd playing with Barbies and getting annoyed with them because it was difficult and fiddly to change their clothes due to the giant boobs. She found that an irritation, not something to aspire to. Her favourite doll was a Disney Princess Ariel, but she has never wanted to swim like a fish, have red hair or grow a tail (or marry a prince for that matter).

So should kids also not play with superhero’s because they might grow up thinking they can fly?

An experiment was once performed regarding electricity bills, to see what people thought would be most likely to change their power usage out of economics (lower price if you reduce usage), peer pressure (we tell you where you rank in power usage amongst your neighbours) and environmental guilt tripping (stick a load of green info n with the bill.

People predicted that peer pressure would be the least effective.

The experiment showed that peer pressure was the most effective.

When you ask people why they do something (eg. wear currently 'in' colour combinations, have Jennifer Aniston hair, shave their legs, buy a new iphone every year) they are quite certain they invented the idea themselves, that they have personally valid logical reasons for doing it and it has absolutely nothing to do with peer pressure.

They are wrong....totally wrong.

There are people saying on here that they know for a fact that playing with Barbies non stop during their formative years had no effect on them. How the hell can anyone know that? You went into a STEM subject? So what? It is possible to be effected by Barbie without it being sufficient to change your career aspirations! You've never had cosmetic surgery...okay....but maybe you think about your appearance ever so slightly more than you would have done if Barbie has never been a thing.

There is no point to this message because the kind of people who think that 'seatbelts are useless because we didn't wear them in the 60s and we survived'' or 'my great aunt smoked 50 a day and lived to be 90 so fags aren't dangerous' cannot ever be convinced of their false logic....

Yes, not wanting a tail or to fly are exactly the same /eyeroll

Lol op is it all wooden train sets and penguin classics round your gaff then? What do you ‘let’ your kids have?

I bet they're only allowed to play with wooden abacuses.
Or is that abuceye? es

Never mind Barbie.
what about Ken?

I want to see Beer Gut Ken in the shops.
Much more realistic role model for little boys than Buff Ken.

There you go!! ken!