Scheme to give Barbie dolls to primary school children

[ArabeIIaScott]

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/07/21/scheme-to-give-barbie-dolls-to-150000-children-is-alarming/

'Primary school scheme is ‘gender stereotyping’ and ‘stealth marketing’ by Mattel, experts say'

'Mattell's "Barbie School of Friendship" programme, in which free dolls are given for children to carry out role play exercises, has been rolled out to 700 schools across the UK, "with the potential to reach more than 150,000 pupils", according to the company.'

https://www.news-medical.net/news/20230720/Mattel-accused-of-stealth-marketing-after-giving-away-free-Barbie-dolls-to-schools.aspx

'experts have criticized the programme, raising questions about potential negative effects of Barbie dolls in terms of gender stereotyping, questioning the use of research to justify the programme, and asking whether companies should be able to freely market their products through schools."The project makes me suspicious that it may be exploitative", said Philippa Perry'

How fantastic.
@ArabeIIaScott I am guessing you haven’t seen the amazing variety of Barbies available.
There loads and loads of various body shapes, sizes, skin colours, hair types. Some have disabilities or skin conditions. And so many many careers.
Barbie is great. .

A bit surprised that someone can think of no issues with Barbie dolls- they have long been criticised by feminists for promoting impossible body image, a Caucasian ideal, a laser focus on superficiality and commercialism, sexist stereotyping.

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.

There is certainly no need for more branded plastic tat to be handed out by schools.

Thanks for the link to the MN webchat, will read.

Barbie isn’t regressive and hasn’t been for twenty years. She was when I was a child in the 1970s, but nowadays her body shape is realistic and she isn’t just a white blonde woman. In addition, instead of just ballerina and beach bunny Barbies we now have Dr Barbie, Vet Barbie, PM/Business Barbie, pilot Barbie, armed forces soldier Barbie, police Barbie, firefighter Barbie, astronaut Barbie, lab coat scientist Barbie, farmer Barbie.

Realistic?!

After the trans issue is put to bed I suspect many here posting incredulously in support of Barbie will hang up their green, violet and white flags and go back to the regularly scheduled misogyny.

A bit surprised that someone can think of no issues with Barbie dolls- they have long been criticised by feminists for promoting impossible body image, a Caucasian ideal, a laser focus on superficiality and commercialism, sexist stereotyping.

Yes they were rightly and fulsomely criticised for this in the 1990s, and I’m response Mattel have radically transformed Barbie.

Yes. Sorry but your view of Barbie is outdated. Have a look at this article from 2016.
https://www.thestreet.com/opinion/new-plus-sized-barbie-is-looking-good-for-mattel-13478149

schools should not being doing this, good heavens

Barbie dolls give a pretty awful message to little girls (side note: I loved mine), schools should not be promoting them

what's wrong with playmobil if you want to promote small world play?

A bit surprised that someone can think of no issues with Barbie dolls- they have long been criticised by feminists for promoting impossible body image, a Caucasian ideal, a laser focus on superficiality and commercialism, sexist stereotyping

Eh? Barbie comes in a huge range. Fat ones, apputee , wheelchair user, Down's syndrome Barbies, various skin tones and ethnicities, hair types etch

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.

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 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.

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!

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

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.

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.

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?

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.

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!

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.

Yes. My kids have both had friends round to play who don't know how to and seem incapable of doing so.

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.

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.

The point about imaginative play is that the more accessories, add ons, and complex doodads and specificity you add to a toy, the less space there is for children to come up with their own ideas.

Hence my point about wooden spoons.

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