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'

Barbie was designed for porn, her creation was all about porn. Sorry you cant see that.

@Needmorelego You have nicely illustrated that while the skin colour may have changed a bit and hairstyles a little barbie is still largely long haired and anorexic.

Is there any evidence this is actually the case? How are you defining porn?

@anyolddinosaur I remember as a child in the 80s that no one took the body shape of Barbie dolls seriously. We took the piss out of them. We would stand on our tippy toes and walk with our arms in the bent position and push out our (non existent because we were 9) boobs out and strut around going “Look at me…. I’m Barbie”. Not in a flattering way - a taking the piss way.
Children aren’t daft. If they were we would have hundreds believing that as adults they will grow up to be a rabbit living in a half victorian/half modern village (Sylvanian Familes).

Thje black barbies all seem to have the same standardised 'European' features which are considered beautiful.

I was thinking that. The new improved diverse range still looks like a lot of thin white dolls with impossible figures (what is with the matchstick legs) some with different skin tones and hairstyles - including pretty pastels!

@YetAnotherSpartacus the “new improved diverse ” Barbie range has been around for 14 years. So not exactly “new”.

@tryingtobeagoodhuman Thank you, I won't use the term 3rd world again. I was paraphrasing an article I read, which used the term but I can see it's wrong. All the same, are you not bothered by the idea of women working in terrible conditions to make the dolls? I'm astonished feminists don't seem to consider it relevant to the discussion.

Of course I'm bothered. But can you hand on heart say that your children — or their school — have no toys manufactured in questionable conditions? 70% of all toys are manufactured in China. If I boycotted every toy made in these factories, my children would not have anything. Obviously, this does not make it right, but the issue is hardly specific to Barbies.

@tryingtobeagoodhuman If you are bothered you can consider a more simple childhood for your children, my own have been brought up with wooden toys and a lot of outside natural play. Dolls can be made from grasses, twigs etc. It is hard to be informed about where toys come from, and I have bought lego, though second hand. What concerns me is the idea that parents may buy something they think is feminist in some way, not realising it has been created from the suffering of women. I have no more to say, as I am just too incredulous that feminists, at least on MN, would be uninterested in the exploitation of women in other countries. Actually, you are the only person who even expressed an interest, so thank you for actually considering the contradiction at the heart of 'feminist' Barbie.

At one point all the dolls DD had were DoC (dolls of colour). She's a tall, skinny, blonde girl. It was a weird situation because the people I was getting all my second hand toys from were Black and Asian (family members and friends with children a few years older) and they probably had gone out of their way to look for representation. But it does happen.

The tone some posters are using on this thread is really patronising. 'I'm sorry you can't see that' for example. Which is interestingly indicative of a wider issue. Feminism needs to be a broader church. Less purity spirals and expectations of perfection. More acceptance of all women and the compromises we make to make life in the patriarchy easier. Women need to see themselves in feminism. If you only accept organic-fair-trade-pine-cone-sourcing feminists who abhor dolls, it will be a very small Judean People's Front.

No, Barbie isn't perfect, or even probably feminist in any real sense. And toys are made in the majority world in shit conditions. It is flawed. But Mattel have already moved on the first issue and we should all pressure companies on the second issue. But I'm writing this on an iPad and Apple are one of the shittiest tech companies. Unless you're living under a rock sending your posts to MN by carrier pigeon, you're probably not perfect either. At least Barbie can be President and a doctor. Unlike the vast majority of representations in the media of women.

I think this misrepresents what the majority of this discussion has been about. I haven't seen anybody describe Barbie as feminist, which is clearly ridiculous. However, it has been a useful tool for me to introduce some real world diversity and inclusion concepts into our role plays, in a way that my DD finds engaging. I'm not sure twigs and grass would have the same effect.

You know nothing about my parenting or how much outside natural play my daughter gets, which is as much as I can manage as a disabled mother. But thank you for your suggestion that I'm not doing enough, how very 'feminist' of you.

Perfectly put @MrsTerryPratchett - far more articulate than I have managed!

When I get a chance I'll pop into a toy shop/supermarket for some physical world data (no idea when, I have sensory issues so usually avoid these places) to see what's available locally. I suspect that Mattel haven't done enough to make me personally think the benefits (e.g. roleplay, diversity) outweigh the negatives (e.g. body image, plastics, advertising promoting unsustainable overconsumption). Particularly as all the benefits can be gained from other places without the negatives (e.g. other types of dolls). It's not about purity spirals for me, it's more about choice based on individual perspective/circumstances.

Mattel's profits have been falling and they're naturally looking for ways to increase product sales. I disagree that taking advantage of underfunded schools is an acceptable way for them to do this. With the film they say they are hoping to create a sort of Mattel-verse to rival Marvel. To me they have jumped on the idea of "diversifying" the Barbie brand because it means children can then be encouraged to have more Barbies.
And fwiw I do love lego and do take issue with some of what they do. Interestingly, they have had huge success with the adult market and perhaps Mattel are looking to emulate that too now with the film and product tie-ins. And both companies fund research which discovers that their products are awesome for children.

Websites may well show a much wider range but very few brick and mortar stores stock every model. When I look on the shelves there is some variety, but more of dolls are white and blonde than anything else. I’m in London so would have thought that shoppers would be more supportive of a wider range than most places.

Even the websites may only be showing the range but not stocking it. The Argos website pictures the fashionista range for their £6 doll, but if you buy you get one random doll so it’s unclear if they’re actually supplying that diversity. If you look at the Barbies they have where you can choose the individual doll, the majority of them are white and blonde.

@NumberTheory I don’t know where about in london you are but Smyths in Greenwich and Smyths in Croydon have the full fashionista range. As do every branch of The Entertainer I go in (several in SE London). Toy Barnhaus (Toymaster) in SE London also sell them.
The Argos range is currently reduced to clear because new designs are due out - that’s why the full selection may not be available (also why they were on special offer in Tesco).
The Fashionista range are not hard to get. Seriously they are not.

@Needmorelego it's the same up north. No problem getting hold of them in store or via Argos (at least in my city).

I do agree though, @AndOnTheRiverFlows, there are many things to consider and I certainly don't think any of us are saying that Barbies are the perfect model of diversity and inclusion. But choice doesn't just come down to the parents - children will always be exposed to these kinds of toys as long as they have friends playing with them. We didn't buy any until my DD asked for them, which FWIW I was disheartened about to begin with. But it hasn't turned out to be The Bad Thing I thought it would be in this house, and some good has come from it.

There's plenty to get angry about without making an issue where there isn't one. In the grand scheme of things, a donation of toys to school kids probably isn't going to cause them a great deal of harm - and they might even get some enjoyment out of it.

We didn't buy any until my DD asked for them, which FWIW I was disheartened about to begin with. But it hasn't turned out to be The Bad Thing I thought it would be in this house, and some good has come from it.

Nor me. And since I think mine were all second hand, I get extra points . Because I'm cheap, rather than eco-friendly, if I'm honest.

And even the series DD used to watch wasn't as dreadful as I thought it would be. Barbie is a good friend, she makes good choices, is active and treats her relationship as an add on not a necessary. Honestly if more relationships in media were treated as Barbie and Ken's is, our girls would be better placed. Family and friends are central, not Ken. And she is hard-working. She also likes clothes and lives in a pink house. DD does neither of the last two so it can't have been that bad.

However, the only other toy range I liked was MLP who live in a matriarchal feminist utopia. MLP is definitely better as a feminist treatise.

'There's plenty to get angry about without making an issue where there isn't one. In the grand scheme of things, a donation of toys to school kids probably isn't going to cause them a great deal of harm - and they might even get some enjoyment out of it.'

Questioning the narrative and discussing the possible implications and resonances is not 'getting angry'.

I’m not saying there aren’t non-blonde Barbies available, though I don’t think I’ve ever seen all of the Fahionistas anywhere, I’m saying when you look at a shelf of Barbie dolls it’s still dominated by the traditional Barbie look. And the Argos website is a great example of this - the fashionistas range is there but it’s one listing, the majority of doll listings are for blonde Barbies. And that’s definitely what I see on the shelves at my local toy shop and in supermarkets.

@NumberTheory I saw a variety of different Fashionistas on the shelf in Tesco Surrey Quays literally half an hour ago. They are not hard to get.

Who said they were hard to get?

What is your point @NumberTheory ? That blonde Barbies shouldn't be available? I'm struggling to understand.

@NumberTheory you did. You said you don’t see them on the shelf in shops.

@NumberTheory many of the “basic” or “starter” Barbie dolls (single doll, no accessories) are pretty much always available in 3 types - white/blond, black/black hair and brunette/ slightly hispanic looking.
The “Made to Move Barbie” is available in all 3 too.
Every new “season” of Barbie released will have the trio of dolls available.

That's very interesting and helpful to hear @tryingtobeagoodhuman and we may well find ourselves in the same situation and it's not something I plan on making a big deal of if we are.
Coming from friends is one thing, but school would be another. This article is really helpful to get more into the detail of what Mattel have done:
https://www.bmj.com/content/382/bmj.p1672

It is reception classes that they have targeted and their aim is to make schools and teachers "brand ambassadors". They have overstated some research they did with the University of Cardiff to try and get parents and teachers on board. And as previous posters have pointed out, the dolls come with branded lesson and classroom materials. The activities they suggest are not even the same as the ones in the research and the research compares solo play with dolls to solo play on a tablet. When the child has an adult with them the benefits disappear completely.
At the same time there's a quote from a teacher in the BMJ article and I can understand their position: free resources and the kids seem to benefit. But surely there's a way to do it without the possible downsides of Barbie?
I admit I still find it hard to see these ultra-thin dolls and get away from the feeling they are defined by a particular type of male gaze (the original inspiration was unknown to me before this thread but it isn't surprising). I'm off to check out the tv programme. I suspect I am not going to love it.