Trackbacks & Pings

1. Ypulse Essentials: Stardoll Relaunches Piczo, More Teens Want iPhones, ‘I Kissed A Vampire’ | Ypulse on 07 Oct 2009 at 3:16 pm

   [...] power behind its new line of Barbie Fashionistas. And over at Racialicious, two interesting takes on the new line of black Barbies. Plus a class of 12-year-olds schools Toys R Us about advertising [...]

2. SiS Dolls get Reviewed by Racialicious « Dolls of Color on 07 Oct 2009 at 11:17 pm

   [...] I’m saving my cheers over new, “authentic” black Barbie line [Alternate Perspective] by What Tami Said 091007 [...]

3. Links of Interest: October Edition « The Requisite Variety on 18 Oct 2009 at 2:18 pm

   [...] conversation America won’t have on race The absence of black teen role models on television The New Black Barbie: I’m sharing my cheers How to make the Congressional Black Caucus Weekend More Social (Media Oriented) Is Ebony up for [...]

Comments

1. Eva wrote:

   When I was growing up, the first black doll that Mattel has was Barbie’s friend Christie and Julia, based on the TV show of the same name. It takes more than dolls to change self esteen but it is a start. Self esteem starts with what children see every day.

   The reason children covet the white dolls is because what they see every day, on TV is white people doing everything, solving crime, solving the problems of the world, etc. Having a doll can’t change that, but it is a start.

   BTW, those dolls are closer to my skin color than either Christie and Julia were and I used to ask my mother if they would ever make dolls that were my color.

   Posted 07 Oct 2009 at 11:05 am ¶

2. c.n.edaw wrote:

   I agree with much of the sentiment…these dolls are not “authentic” and as you mentioned neither are the white dolls, for that matter.

   BUT, essentially that’s not the point of dolls, really. Much like fashion magazines for a lot of women, dolls for children are fantasy. You (or I did as a child) want the doll to be something of an idealized version of you, but then again there’s the problem of who/what has set the standards for the ideal. I get that.

   Funny, as a child (30 now )I had only one white Barbie doll..which was my least favorite one. I tended to prefer black dolls of all shades, or the Hispanic or Hawaiian dolls.

   My mom discouraged people from giving me white dolls, so that could have something to do with it. I don’t at all feel like my family is the most “black and proud” ( I also have some mixed heritage) but I never felt this beauty standard pressure as a child–now late teens/ early adulthood is a different story– but somehow as a child I was almost arrogantly proud of my brown skin and curly hair.

   Also interesting, I have a few white co-workers who tell me their daughters preferred the black dolls to the white ones. One guy told me his 5 year old neices got into a fight on Christmas morning because he made the mistake of giving one of them a black version of a doll and the other only the white version.

   Posted 07 Oct 2009 at 11:09 am ¶

3. Emma wrote:

   On the subject of Mattel, dolls, and race, specifically the doll test, I’m curious–does anyone know what the sales rates are comparatively like for the American Girl dolls? I had Addy (the only black doll, and at the time, the only one who wasn’t white), and she was definitely my favorite. They use the same face mold as all the other dolls for her, but her hair is natural.

   Posted 07 Oct 2009 at 11:36 am ¶

4. curlyscales wrote:

   Please help me here – what exactly are we expecting from THIS industry? All of the dolls are unrealistic.

   Posted 07 Oct 2009 at 11:49 am ¶

5. aimerrouge wrote:

   “BTW, those dolls are closer to my skin color than either Christie and Julia were and I used to ask my mother if they would ever make dolls that were my color.”

   These dolls are my complexion, so am I not authentic? Am I not black enough? Must the dolls be darker than me to be of authentic. Do I have to apologize for my (lack of?) coloring? My hair isn’t always kinky. Sometines it’s just as straight as the dolls or even straighter. So I’m not a representation of “authentic” black physicality?

   So what does “authentic” black physicality look like, since this doesn’t appear to be it?

   Posted 07 Oct 2009 at 11:56 am ¶

6. Ryan Barrett wrote:

   Sounds like you are hating.

   You say that black girls choose the white dolls over the black ones – that the blonds are the queens of the show – but I’d venture that’s the case (at least in the doll biz) because they always have been. At least this woman is giving the black dolls their own history, their own storyline, their own centerstage.

   Though by no means is this a huge leap, I think it’s a step forward. Historically, Barbie has defined beauty. I don’t condone that, but it’s a fact. So perhaps, if Black girls see a reflection of themselves in the spotlight this will start a positive change in the inherent definition of “beauty”.

   Posted 07 Oct 2009 at 1:18 pm ¶

7. Tami wrote:

   Eva, Aimerrouge–

   Note that I did not say that the skin colors on these dolls did not represent some black people. In fact, they are close to my skin color as well. My point is that they represent a narrow spectrum of black coloring–that which is most acceptable within Eurocentric beauty standards. I am not arguing that my skin color is not authentic, but that those that are darker and lighter than I am are equally authentic.

   By using the word “authentic” in its marketing, Mattel implies that the appearance and back stories asscociated with these dolls represent a universal black experience.

   Posted 07 Oct 2009 at 2:51 pm ¶

8. aimerrouge wrote:

   “I am not arguing that my skin color is not authentic, but that those that are darker and lighter than I am are equally authentic.”

   So the dolls are the wrong color? At least one should be much darker and at leaston one should be much lighter? Is that what you’re saying?

   Posted 07 Oct 2009 at 3:21 pm ¶

9. 9jah wrote:

   “My point is that they represent a narrow spectrum of black coloring–that which is most acceptable within Eurocentric beauty standards. I am not arguing that my skin color is not authentic, but that those that are darker and lighter than I am are equally authentic.”

   Good point. Not only that, but “black” representations when they ultimately appear tend to be almost exclusively in the sphere of eurocentric standards Tami describes above. Advertisements, film etc. reflects this.

   The point is, popular images will never completely reflect every hue of black (from very light to dark). Without taking for granted that black folks are diverse in complexion, the majority of black folks in America even today are below paper bag brown, even if not very dark. The black archetype in America is somewhere in this middle; however, this image is virtually non-existent in popular media.

   The complexions of the little kids in the video above are a good place to start.

   Posted 07 Oct 2009 at 3:33 pm ¶

10. Eva wrote:

    “My point is that they represent a narrow spectrum of black coloring–that which is most acceptable within Eurocentric beauty standards.”

    I see what you’re saying. Like, how hard would it to have been to have one darker skinned Barbie with kinky hair, or braided hair, or locs?

    Posted 07 Oct 2009 at 3:55 pm ¶

11. Tempe Wick wrote:

    What I find interesting is that Mattel has already done this sort of thing and done it better.

    Back in the 90’s, Mattel put out a series of black dolls–Shani, Nichelle and Asha. They had three different skin tones (light, medium, dark) and used three different (and new) face molds.
    The Nichelle mold was the most interesting in that it really was quite different from the average Barbie. She had a wide nose, full lips and on some versions of the doll, short hair. Since the long hair is rather stereotypically Barbie, that was quite a departure for Mattel.

    I don’t know how these went over with the average consumer, but a lot of doll collectors (myself included) thought they were great.
    Then again, those are often two very seperate markets. What adults want to see in dolls (diversity) may not mean much to kids, who want long hair to play with and may not care how much the dolls look like them.

    Posted 07 Oct 2009 at 4:06 pm ¶

12. Erin wrote:

    When I was little I asked for (and got, because my parents are awesome like that) black Barbie dolls and Cabbage Patch Kids. I’m white. I wonder what the testers in that study (or what you guys) would think that’s all about? Was I exoticizing? Coveting my black friend LaToya’s collection? Just trying to add diversity to my toybox?

    Posted 07 Oct 2009 at 4:16 pm ¶

13. Tami wrote:

    aimerrouge,

    There is nothing wrong with the color of these dolls. The problem is that Mattel has labeled their look and stories “authentic” negating everything that falls outside. My problem, in this case, is with the marketing. Can you imagine Mattel marketing Barbie as “authentically” white?

    Posted 07 Oct 2009 at 4:56 pm ¶

14. aimerrouge wrote:

    @Tami, admittedly, advertising is not my forte. I went to the Mattel website, where does “authentic” appear? Is the narrowness of the backstory of the dolls problematic?

    I’m really trying to understand your point of view.

    Posted 07 Oct 2009 at 5:12 pm ¶

15. SeattleSlim wrote:

    Whole post=ON POINT!

    Posted 07 Oct 2009 at 5:47 pm ¶

16. SeattleSlim wrote:

    #8 Aimerrouge,

    If you put my cousin Ebony and I together, we are family, but you will see two totally different people and would not imagine we are related.

    I am darker skinned (color of milk chocolate I joke with people lol), natural hair, kinky afro puff, thick lips, flatter nose.

    Ebony as I recall was extremely light, long black wavy hair, she looks like the Trichelle Doll.

    So she’s represented, I’m not, and neither are the scores of little girls that look like me (not to mention women). Why?

    This is what I would love for Mattell to answer.

    Why is my cousin Ebony represented, and I am not?

    Posted 07 Oct 2009 at 5:52 pm ¶

17. Joy wrote:

    “Do black children even want dolls that look like them?”

    Um, seriously? Or does this question have a deeper meaning that I’m missing? YES, black children want to play with a person who at least resembles them (and yes more variety should have been given to skin color and hair types, but come on, obviously a step in the right direction). Not saying they ONLY want to play with them, but it must be nice to have some variety (some that looks sorta like you!).

    I remember wanting to play with black dolls. Of course my parents only bought me two dolls ever: a black baby because I was Mary in a Christmas play and “Cami goes to College” – a barbie-like doll that actually did have kinky hair – and college books.

    I think we should look at this as one step in the right direction and encourage other women to get out there and design dolls that represent the full range of black women and other WOCs as well. I think I would like my daughter to play with dolls that look like herself as well as others.

    @Emma – does your comment mean they have more black American Girl dolls? I remember reading those catalogs cover to cover since I couldn’t have an actual doll. Gotta love Felicity & Addy

    Posted 07 Oct 2009 at 6:54 pm ¶

18. Ruchama wrote:

    does your comment mean they have more black American Girl dolls?

    There’s now a Latina doll and a Native American doll. (Both of them with pretty interesting choices of setting — the Native American one, Kaya, is in the Northwest before Europeans got there, and the Latina one, Josefina, lives on land that would eventually become part of the US but was at that time part of Mexico.) They also recently introduced dolls of each character’s best friend, and one of those is Asian (Chinese, I think.) They also have “Girl of Today,” a different doll each year, and I think one of them a few years ago was Indian.

    Posted 07 Oct 2009 at 8:40 pm ¶

19. Greg wrote:

    @Ryan Barret: “Historically, Barbie has defined beauty. I don’t condone that, but it’s a fact. So perhaps, if Black girls see a reflection of themselves in the spotlight this will start a positive change in the inherent definition of ‘beauty’.”

    This seems somehow backwards. Instead of merely not condoning Barbie as a standard of beauty, shouldn’t we be actively combating such ridiculous (and racist) standards? In fact, shouldn’t we be encouraging our kids to engage in activities that focus less on (idealized standards of) beauty and more on substance? I suppose this just depends on your own personal values, though. Furthermore, I’d argue that there is no inherent definition of “beauty” — at best, “beauty” for most people is nothing more than conformity to normative standards of superficial representation, something I’d actively teach my kids to scorn.

    Posted 07 Oct 2009 at 9:29 pm ¶

20. honeybrown1976 wrote:

    No, you’re not going to get every hue (that’s impossible). But, it’s a start.

    I am Trichelle’s color. Am I not black enough? My hair’s not kinky. Am I not black enough? We’re not monolithic.

    Posted 07 Oct 2009 at 9:54 pm ¶

21. Dolls of Color wrote:

    These dolls are better than having absolutely no representation at all from Mattel but even the doll collecting community are quite skeptical and disappointed somewhat in these offerings from the giant corporation. It shows a great deal of laziness actually…

    Posted 07 Oct 2009 at 11:06 pm ¶

22. ashlynn wrote:

    This is EXACTLY what I was talking about in the previous PoC/acting post. Why would a young girl of color NOT want to see herself in doll form? How much brainwashing has gone on that someone would actually believe that brown girls don’t like brown dolls? Or that PoC models and actors/actresses don’t go to castings? Minorities in low income areas don’t want healthy food options?

    When I was a child, I hardly ever wanted a white Barbie doll. I also found the Hispanic and Black dolls far more intriguing and exiting to have because they looked like ME. Or at least, more so like me than blond-haired, blue eyed Barbie. True enough, only white Barbie gets to be the star of the show and her PoC friends only get to tag along in the convertible, but even when white Barbies lined the toy store walls, I would take the time to sift through the shelves to find at least one Black or Hispanic Barbie(usually at the back, hmm). Somewhere along the line, the myth that PoC don’t want to see themselves accurately represented needs to be shattered, for real.

    Also, regarding “authenticity”, for many Black and Hispanic girls, that shape is hardly authentic. I won’t even get into that, though- nooo, let’s not EVEN go there right now.

    Posted 07 Oct 2009 at 11:36 pm ¶

23. ashlynn wrote:

    Copy and paste fail: the first half of my comment is in response to this:

    “Do black children even want dolls that look like them?”

    Proceed.

    Posted 07 Oct 2009 at 11:37 pm ¶

24. Tami wrote:

    My basic point in this post was this:

    These dolls are a step forward and it’s great to see an African American woman with the power to design a product for a multi-national company.

    These dolls don’t represent much of a step forward in terms of broadening the Eurocentric beauty ideal.

    Black Americans are not a monolith and thus tagging three dolls with the label “authentic” is a marketing fail.

    People who love young, black children still have a larger problem to face–the one highlighted by the similar results in “doll tests” done nearly 50 years apart. Too often, studies show that black children STILL attribute negative qualities to dolls (and people) who look like them.

    Let’s be happy for these new dolls, while also being clear-eyed about what they do and do not represent.

    Posted 08 Oct 2009 at 6:51 am ¶

25. bdsista wrote:

    About 9 years ago, I raised all kinds of hell with the American Girl company because my stepdaughter who is Phillipina, Black and Japanese had NO dolls that were Asian and represented her. I got her a MyTwinn doll which is custom made based upon a photo and a lock of hair you send in. They also have girl/doll outfits and was very pleased with the results. Being a big Barbie fan (played with em until almost high school) and collector, I would have loved to see a Barbie with locs or twists, but I think they got the features right and that’s a major jump for a company that has taken eras to be fully inclusive. So if they don’t issue another doll, maybe one of the designers will create one and have her hair be natural. I will add that I never internalized Barbie’s shape because she was a doll and hard plastic.

    Posted 08 Oct 2009 at 9:00 am ¶

26. TierListE wrote:

    Once again, I am very worried about the “real black women have non-black features too” meme that keeps popping up during black representations. I think the point is being missed in a dangerous direction.

    We can keep searching until we find a black-identified woman that has red hair, fair skin and green/blue eyes. And though she is perfectly legitimate to identify as such, because she is black, it would certainly, certainly be problematic if we start using her features ONLY, or even USUALLY, for positive physicality for people of African dessent. Because in the end of the day, straight hair, light skin, and narrow features are already given a thumbs up.

    I’m dark, but I have (besides relaxed hair) thinner nose/mouth than average. I would object to my face and hair being over-represented even though I am obviously black since I don’t want society saying you’re cool as long as you don’t look offensibly black.

    But of course that doesn’t mean non-African featured black women/people shouldn’t be shown period (my mom side of the family, you know, exists), I just don’t believe we have enought variability yet, nor full acceptance of African features.

    Posted 08 Oct 2009 at 10:26 am ¶

27. Ryan Barrett wrote:

    @Greg
    Sure, it’s a noble fight, but little girls are always going to want to express their imagination through roll playing with dolls. Kinda like playing house. I actually think that’s a healthy way of getting a kid’s mind goin. And if a girl picks up a doll, and it’s a Barbie, and there are several Black options on the shelf, well, I see that as a step forward.

    Posted 08 Oct 2009 at 11:38 am ¶

28. Aris wrote:

    Thank you, TierListE! I was going to say the same thing.

    Posted 08 Oct 2009 at 1:08 pm ¶

29. Kate wrote:

    Ryan: “Sure, it’s a noble fight, but little girls are always going to want to express their imagination through roll playing with dolls. Kinda like playing house.”

    Did you ever stop to think that maybe, just maybe, the reason so many little girls play with dolls and role-play house is because they have been socialized to? Childhood play is a way in which gender roles are taught to children (play kitchens for girls, play bbq sets/lawnmowers for boys). That sort of “role playing” isn’t authentic or natural, no matter how willing you are to stretch the definition of that word, but the direct result of socialization.

    and i know that when i was a girl i didnt care much for my dolls. i had them, of course, because i was a girl and people would always give me them for presents. but i usually cut their hair off and then threw them in the back of my closet.

    Posted 08 Oct 2009 at 1:08 pm ¶

30. Kara wrote:

    True Story: I might have to get the Kara doll just because it bears my name. That in itself is rare.

    Posted 08 Oct 2009 at 2:22 pm ¶

31. Joy wrote:

    “I will add that I never internalized Barbie’s shape because she was a doll and hard plastic.”

    Right – isn’t bashing dolls as damaging girls self image a bit much? Shouldn’t parents be able to teach their daughters positive self-image and self-esteem through other means? I don’t think dolls alone will give a girl a bad self image in the whole scheme of childhood and all the other positive things parents are doing for their kids. (It would be way easier to say, not let her watch tv! LOL – that’s where the real skinny folks are No offense to any skinny folks.)

    Posted 08 Oct 2009 at 2:37 pm ¶

32. Ryan Barrett wrote:

    @Kate –
    Perhaps. But then again, I roll-played with everything from My Little Ponies to Lego men to fire trucks – and everything in between. I think it’s all healthy and natural. And sure, dolls, too. I think it’s all healthy.

    Posted 08 Oct 2009 at 3:08 pm ¶

33. Summer wrote:

    When I look back upon the Barbie phase of my childhood, I wonder what my predominantly white friends thought when they saw all my barbies were black. Except for maybe one outdated white one I received from a Secret Santa exchange during Girl Scouts. Some of them would just go along with it, but I remember some would choose the white one, despite her blonde was half teal (I colored it with a marker) and half her face rubbed off from something (rubbing alcohol? nail polish remover?). I always thought of it odd they would choose her, since in my mind all the others were far better than that one.As I think about it more I often used the older white Barbies for my experiment (cutting hair, etc)

    I’m pretty sure I’m far younger than most racialicous writers, readers, and commenters, but I do agree on the dols being a step forward, though not too wide a step. But for the industry, thats somewhat to be expected. I’m pretty grateful that my parents and the people around me gave me primarily black dolls (i did have a few that were hispanic and asian). It gave me a greater sense that how I looked was acceptable.

    Posted 08 Oct 2009 at 6:26 pm ¶

34. Emma wrote:

    @Joy–Like Ruchama said, they’re branching out, but white is still their default. Their choice of setting is interesting, too–all the dolls of color (DoC?) have been from the 19th century or earlier. Though they’ve made a few more 20th century (30s and 60s) girls since we were kids, they’ve all been white. Although quick googling tells me there’s a brand new one from 1914, and she’s Jewish.

    They have “Just Like You” dolls, too, which come in an impressively diverse range. Amusingly enough, I have a white friend who couldn’t find one that looked like her–she’s pale with very dark hair. She ended up with an Asian one.

    Posted 08 Oct 2009 at 6:31 pm ¶

35. Ruchama wrote:

    The page of options of the American Girl “Just Like You” dolls is a bit creepy: http://store.americangirl.com/agshop/html/thumbnail.jsf/saleGroupId/127/pageNo/1/clickType/viewall/method/pagination/uniqueId/86/nodeId/11/webMenuId/5/sortOrder/Default/filters/Default A few things I noticed there: all the options have longish hair. The few that are labeled “short hair” actually have hair a bit past their shoulders. They don’t seem to be actually trying to make dolls that represent specific ethnicities — it looks like the face molds are all the same, except for one that looks like it might have slightly different eyes to look Asianish. There are way more straight hair options than curly hair options. Two of the dark skinned dolls and one of the medium skinned dolls have “textured” hair, which basically looks like someone took a tiny crimping iron to the regular straight hair. 27 options with light skin, 8 with medium skin, 8 with dark skin. And the dark skin option doesn’t look very dark from the photos — it’s difficult to tell from the website, but I think the dark skin dolls are lighter than the color they use for Addy.

    Posted 08 Oct 2009 at 8:50 pm ¶

36. A. wrote:

    I have to second Ryan on this one.

    Even though Barbie dolls have a horribly skewed definition of beauty in a Eurocentric culture, and that the implications here are not right, particularly in regards to “authentic” or “not authentic”, as well as a whole host of issues, we will be able to socialize our children how we wish. BUT – they still ultimately live in a racist and sexist society and little black girls WILL want to have dolls and things to play with that they may feel looks close enough to them. They’re going to feel it anyway, whether they play with little Barbie dolls or not.

    I was raised where I could play with all kinds of toys and was taught things of substance over how things look. Even so – as a child, I STILL wanted to play with Barbie dolls and Disney Princesses and other such things. Little girls still want to be able to do things that other little girls do because they don’t want to feel rejected. This is absolutely a step in the right direction, especially when most of us are seeing that black women are rarely, if ever, acknowledged in anything but pejoratively.

    I’m thinking of a better way of wording this – as my brain is broke right now – but I don’t find it right that adult cynicism is being applied to a child’s toy.

    Posted 09 Oct 2009 at 12:21 am ¶

37. RCHOUDH wrote:

    Barbie has so many negative connotations attached to it, race being just one of them. I’ve never bought Barbie like dolls for my daughter to play with (the only doll like that she owns was a Disney Cinderella one gifted to her by a relative and that one’s usually kept over at my parent’s house). I’m resistant to these dolls mainly because of the sexualized message they give out towards little girls (here’s how you should grow up to look and behave like). Race just complicates this message further.

    Posted 09 Oct 2009 at 3:25 am ¶

38. S.J. wrote:

    Um, how is this groundbreaking? The black dolls from the 80’s and 90’s were more varied, I think. They just kind of disappeared and this is a sad replacement.

    On another note, I have modeling and puppetmaking experience and I totally get on a practical level why doll’s hair tends to be long/straight.

    Kids enjoy styling and playing with their dolls’ hair. Shorter hair and kinky-textured hair *in miniature* can’t really be braided, twisted, played with, etc. the way it can when it’s on a person’s head. I’m not claiming that’s the ONLY reason why black Barbies weave up, but I think it is a factor.

    Our beauty standard doesn’t include waist-length hair but Barbie’s frequently is that long for our big clumsy kid fingers.

    Posted 09 Oct 2009 at 12:11 pm ¶

39. n wrote:

    @kate

    Kate wrote:

    “Did you ever stop to think that maybe, just maybe, the reason so many little girls play with dolls and role-play house is because they have been socialized to? Childhood play is a way in which gender roles are taught to children (play kitchens for girls, play bbq sets/lawnmowers for boys). That sort of “role playing” isn’t authentic or natural, no matter how willing you are to stretch the definition of that word, but the direct result of socialization.”

    I think its the reverse. The ratio of girls:boys who play with dolls is skewed NOT solely because girls are socialized TO play with dolls, but boys are socialized to NOT play with dolls.

    All male children I know enjoy playing with dolls when they are very young, most are taught not to.My brothers all had My Buddy dolls when they were small-4 and 5 or so, and liked them. When they got older they played with GI Joe and other dolls and heck, adult males play with and collect dolls. They collect them, pose them, play with them and even dress and decorate them. Except when they do it, they call them action figures or collectibles and not “DOLLS”.

    (My brothers, by the way, are parents and the primary caretakers of their kids and the ONLY babysitter I have ever used. I’d never connected that to my mother allowing them to be nurturing and caring for their dolls when they were kids until now.)

    I have daughters, one has no interest in dolls and never had. One has, without any bidding or prompting from outsiders (and I know this because I am not a tv watcher and my kids all spent their 1st 3 years pretty much at home with ME) become a TOTAL doll person. She didnt get it from me or her sister or brother, they are much older and neither like dolls. She just LIKES babies and girls and she dresses them, feeds them, swaddles them, rocks them to sleep and takes care of them.

    I’m not in favor of strict, or any, gender roles being pushed on a child. And I definitely don’t think female children should be steered away from other interests and toward dolls. But it is HUMAN to find humans and especially babies interesting and to want to nurture them. And some people are more naturally inclined to be nurturing than others, I don’t think dolls are bad for girls. I think they can be good for them AND for boys as well.

    Posted 09 Oct 2009 at 3:01 pm ¶

40. c.n.edaw wrote:

    N– OMG! The “My Buddy Doll” . Hadn’t thought about that in a long time. My little cousin had one and HE LOVED the heck out of that doll.

    And I think you make a valid point. My little cousin drug that doll everywhere until my uncle told him little boys have to stop playing with dolls before they get too old– he was like, 4.

    My brother played dolls with me behind closed doors for years (between the ages of about 3 and 5), as well as dress up. It wasn’t until someone (my dad and uncles) told him he shouldn’t, that he stopped…and of course he still played with dolls without me after that…G. I. Joe and Star Wars..and Transformers…which in my opinion are still dolls.

    In fact most of my brother’s agression toward my stuffed animals and Barbies (tearing off heads, beating them up, etc. ) didnt happen until he saw my dad doing that to my dalls during his attempts to play with me.

    Posted 11 Oct 2009 at 6:15 pm ¶

41. Leslie wrote:

    I have two daughters of Korean heritage and one of northern European (my heritage). I never bought Barbie because no one in my house, regardless of race, was ever going to look like her. Little girls can’t dress her. She has no sense of humor. She can’t stand on her own. We all know the drill. But…we continued to receive them as gifts (double the number when they came out with “Asian” Barbie). I threw them in a drawer (too hard to throw anything new away). One day, I found my perfect children altering the Barbies for fun. And it was! We deconstructed every stereotype they thought of over the next few years and practiced sewing, painting, tattooing, jewelry construction, hair design, etc etc. They became the most coveted gifts from my kids to their friends for years. Sometimes they made political statements, sometimes they were homages to the recipient. Now that’s what I burned my bra for in the 60-70’s. That’s what a toy is for.

    Posted 12 Oct 2009 at 3:24 pm ¶

42. Lady Kinnks wrote:

    I love reading your views. You are so right. It think its kind of ridiculous to put one designer to represent all things Black in a doll. These dolls are no way diverse representation of African-American culture. Oh well, at least they tried.

    http://www.kinnks.com/blog/index.php/site/comments/the_real_black_barbie/

    Posted 19 Oct 2009 at 12:39 pm ¶