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'

I wasn't allowed a Barbie in the 70s, I had a Sindy and my cousin had Pippa. My daughters had Lottie dolls. Barbie is really quite extreme in her body shape in comparison to all of those fashion dolls. I think dolls are good for children to play with (my brothers had action men) but Barbie has always been questionable and from the massive marketing campaign it looks like the movie acknowledges that (while still being a massive advertisement that gives the man all the best lines). Still going to see it of course.

@ArabeIIaScott

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

But you said upthread that your own children (who presumably only play with open ended toys, wooden spoons etc) were incapable of imaginative play so I find your logic flawed.

While I’m not convinced by the argument that children are less likely to use their imaginations if they’re given toys that are obviously intended to be something specific than if they have more generic items to play with, OP did not claim that her own children were incapable of of imaginative play.

You need to reread and get your premise right if you want to criticise the logic of an argument.

@NumberTheory

Read the OP's post - she said her children were incapable of imaginative play...

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

I don't particularly agree with the scheme or Barbie dolls in general btw. I also mainly buy open ended toys but as someone upthread said - I'd rather my DC play with barbie than watch screens and I don't think they would inhibit imaginative play.

Give them to the local secondary school art department, ask the students to customise them, and then give them back to the primary school. Would love to see what comes back 😂

Her children's friends don't know how.

She doesn't say her own children can't (and presumably if they didn't do imaginitive play, she'd not have moticed the visiting friends struggling with it.)).

Completely agree with this and am surprised to see how many see this as positive on this section of the site. Playmobil and Lego were always primarily about the worlds you built. The people in it are blank canvases. Whereas Barbie dolls, with their very specific expressions and detailed features, are much more about the character and the specific world (still very pink and pastel from what I can see; nothing wrong with that, but it’s definitely not a blank canvas) that character inhabits. That’s why the world and the characters of the new film are so immediately recognisable.

Things like Barbie - and She Ra and He Man, who I loved as a child! - don’t have a place in schools because they already come with a narrative, one directed by large corporations and flanked by huge marketing events like the current Barbie mania.

That’s without getting into the feminist issues with the doll, which may have decreased haven’t disappeared.

I think that's great. The range of dolls nowadays is just amazing. I'm a massive fan of the dolls that come with wheelchairs or prosthetic limbs and the different careers explored are fantastic.

A lot of the pushback against Barbie is because the stereotypically feminine is seen as inferior to the desirable masculine and I say that as someone who's never been into pink sparkles, my favourite toys were my Britain's farm animals. That's not feminism imo. No one complains about their daughters picking up toy cars but a princess doll is beyond the pale. Yes, the stereotypical 1980s Barbie we have in our heads could be pink and pretty (which is fine) but she could also be president (also fine). This is reflected in comments above where posters are concerned that an equal number of Ken dolls are provided - why on earth can't boys play and identify with lady dolls the way girls do all the time with the opposite sex from toys to characters in books and cartoons?

And we're always exploring the femininity associated with Barbie, maybe we should also explore the masculinity associated with Ken. Sticking with the stereotypical 1980s Barbie, Ken from the same era was submissive to Barbie, always shown in the background in a supporting role, matching her clothing and styles and reflecting her interests rather being designed to have any of his own. Perhaps it was all a lot more subversive than adults think when they over-analyse the toys, what we have is a world for little girls to explore where they are unapologetically the centre and can be whatever they want. And if there are horses and sparkles with that, why not!

@BinturongsSmellOfPopcorn @NumberTheory

You are correct - apologies I read that wrong!

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.

Agreed

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/

Thanks, yes, that was my point! I could add both my kids - male and female - played with dolls - some of them Barbies. Both often lost/lose themselves deeply in imaginative play.

Sometimes other children have come round to play and been at sea, apparently unable to engage with playing at all. I find taht quite disconcerting; some children seem to be unable to engage with anything other than a screen.

Thanks for some good points on this thread, it's interesting to hear other viewpoints.

It's good to hear Barbie have made some moves to diversify. And I agree that there's nothing wrong with 'feminine' coded dolls per se.

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.

A broader argument is the marketing aspect of this, which often causes issues.- private companies promoting plastic tat as some kind of necessary prop to learning, which resource hungry schools can often be kind of hustled into.

Fascinating, and slightly horrifying. Thank you.

'The most popular dolls of that era — Raggedy Ann, for instance — all looked like children. Handler had wanted for years to create a detailed adult doll for children, but her ideas were shot down by her mostly male colleagues, who told her it would be too difficult to manufacture.
“They were all horrified by the thought … of wanting to make a doll with breasts,” Handler, who died in 2002, told Lord in the book.'

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.

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

Sure, those dolls look pretty normal. Overall, the message or narrative I get from the brand is about dating, looking good, accessorising, superficial activities etc.

It's interesting to watch children play with these dolls and see HOW they play - what narratives and stories are they repeating? And this comes from a mix of places, too, of course. Media, family, friends, books, etc.

Yes. In the long run hopefully it will mean we get to test arguments about stereotyping and get other viewpoints, I think. Some good points on this thread that challenge some of my instinctive recoiling from Barbie.

And then again, the article about her roots as a sex doll may reaffirm some of my reservations!

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.

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.

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).

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.

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.

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.