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'

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.

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?

Our nursery has baskets of pine cones, stones, sticks, on exactly this principle. I think it's largely based on Steiner ideas.

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).

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.

@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.

Sorry very little available

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."

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.

It's the sort of feminism that is rooted and created by consumerism and the 'lifestyles' that can purchased, in my view.

The early women's movemnt rejected all of that.

Before the Barbie craziness this pink -princess obsession just wasn't a thing, though. American consumer culture packaged up gender and sold it to people in the form of expensive plastic toys and hyper stereotyped role models.
Mattel and Disney.

In the 1970's girls didn't wear pink, toy aisles were not segregated in the way they are now - there was far more uni-sex styles of clothing and girls often had short hair..

Imaginative play & small world play is great for kids - they should get more chances to do it, inside and outside school.

If they have lego & playmobil, that is great. but if they only have access to Barbie (because budget / promotion whatever), that is OK too. much better than nothing.

And yet lots of little girls took to it and love it - pink, sparkles and all things cute. The kawaii trend is the same. What is wrong with that? I fucking hated the brown 1970s aesthetic with the boyish haircut and boyish school shoes. I would’ve given anything for the disneyesque colours and frills that girls have now. So many women who personally detest the vomitous nature of the colour pallet are denying their daughters a softer more playful expression of what it is to be a female child.

Is this true though? People go on about the past as if it was some sort of androgynous beacon of equality when it was anything but. Clothing was heavily sexed, women and girls didn't have the same opportunities as boys and men even at school let alone at work, boys were ridiculed for playing with dolls etc and there were very clear societal expectations.

So many women who personally detest the vomitous nature of the colour pallet are denying their daughters a softer more playful expression of what it is to be a female child.

Because anything masculine or associated with men will also be seen as superior and aspirational.

It wasn't " boyish". It was just girls with short hair styles.

Can't you see how defining things in such gendered ways has led to where we are now?

I grew up during the 1970's; played netball, rounders, rode my bike, climbed trees, made dens, constructed cities out of lego; had short hair; enjoyed school; did well; went to an all girls grammar school - continued with sport; and being aspirational was encouraged.

Things changed in the early 1980's - and that was down to the arrival of American style consumer culture and the corportate culture. It was very marked.

The wider issue is that children in general don't do those things anymore. Playing outside is definitely not as much of a thing but we did it in the 80s and 90s and played with barbies (shock horror). Decades gone by absolutely had a wider gulf between girls and boys than we have now, it's ridiculous to suggest otherwise.

I don't like the advertising aspect. But I will stick up for Barbie. DD was obsessed when young. Didn't like any other stereotypically 'girl' things but loved Barbie. Barbie is intelligent, effective, a good friend and family member, has lots of jobs which help her and others, assertive and independent. Passes the Bechdel test in every episode of the series. The series is funny too, "how many jobs HAVE you had Barbie?" "how old ARE you Barbie?". Her relationship with Ken is very much an addition to her life, NOT the main focus.

OK so the body image stuff is awful. It's not a matriarchal utopia like My Little Pony. But it's not as terrible as it used to be. We also got all hers from a mum of twin boys, one of whom LOVED Barbie and Elsa,

DD has grown into a short-haired, jeans and hoodie wearing feminist. Despite Barbie's evil machinations. Not sure we will see the film but I think DD might enjoy a little stroll down memory lane.

If you look at fashions of the last few centuries let alone decades and the roles, opportunities and place in society between men and women you'll see how ludicrous it is to blame barbie for apparently exasperating it.

My mother literally used to ask the hairdresser to cut my hair into a “paige boy” style. I hated it.

I’m sure there were plenty of girls that liked climbing trees, having short hair and dressing in brown. I didn’t. And lots of other girls didn’t.

This is the whole point of Barbie - a lot of the misogyny that feminine women encounter is actually from other women that sneer at beauty aesthetics and ‘bimbo’ insults. You’re not a superior type of female because you have short hair, play sport and don’t like make up. Other types of women exist - ones that are ok with dresses and lipstick and still have brains, qualifications, families and professional jobs.

The diversity in skin colour is good and the availability of dolls with disabilities is good, but they are all still promoting unrealistic body shapes. The standard Barbie is so bad that people are apparently fooled into thinking the newer dolls represent real diversity in body shape. Even “Curvy” Barbie would scale up to a size 8 adult woman - she would be taller and skinnier than the average young woman and with a highly unrealisticly small waist.

With more than 1 in 7 healthy weight girls dieting, a big increase in healthy weight boys dieting, a lowering of the age at which children first start dieting, an increase in the number of healthy weight girls who consider themselves overweight, and an increase in depression for girls who consider themselves overweight, schools need to be very careful about whether they are a part of the normalization of unrealistic body shape ideals and the promotion of a culture that leaves girls feeling bad about being unable to meet them.

Yeah, they should hand out free friendship pine cones instead!

I'm sorry, but I don't agree.

The one main difference, for example, between my education and that of boys at similar type of school was that we were expected to do Domestic Science, and they did Woodwork.

There will always be differences between boys and girls - because there are sexed differences - but the way that gender has become packaged up now has resulted in many girs wanted to simply opt out of what 'being a girl' is now supposed to represent.

My granddaughter ( who is now 8) decided she wanted her cut short when she was 5 ( in spite of no other girls at her school having short hair). She's quite athletic and sporty and likes gaming/tech amongst other more 'girly' preferences. The stylist my daughter had booked completely freaked out. She'd never cut a girl's hair short before - so another older, more experienced stylist had to take over. This is quite common now, I notice: some women's stylists just don't/can't work with short hair. There is a uniform, standard look amongst many girls now -which involves long, straight hair, fake tan, nails etc

I used to teach in secondary schools - and I simply don't think it is true that the gulf between girls and boys was any wider when I was at secondary school - than it is now. It maybe because I went to an school geared up to academic accomplishment? Personally I think single sex schools are good for girls - they can just focus on what they enjoy and are good at without the distraction of boys/pubertal surges etc

I don't think that much has changed between men and women, actually- the hard wired differences ( and same issues) remain - even though more women are now in a range of occupations they simply wouldn't have been in the 1970s.

I wouldn't have wanted Steiner as some sort of role model for my kids and as they are mixed race he wouldn't have wanted it either so I suppose I can agree with him on one thing.