This is just so wrong, on so many levels:

There are plenty of books about her for toddlers as well. I have complicated feelings about this, and by complicated I would say not entirely negative, but there's a certain shallowness to the idolization of Frida as a symbol and not a person that bugs me.

blacbird said:

It isn't just that she's being project here as a symbol. She's being projected here as a BARBIE clone.

caw

Click to expand...

Not to mention that she was a communist, yet now her image (such that it is) is being attached to one of the most commercialized and materialistic toys in existence.

I dunno, probably not a good hill to die on, but reading Tanya Lee Stone's The Good, the Bad, and the Barbie kinda made me question some of my Barbie assumptions. There's a ton of baggage. I sort of think Mattel's trying to do better (out of social awareness or a desire for profit, I'll let others be the judge). I sort of feel good about the plus-sized Barbie, and the new series Frida is a part of features lots of different women with different hair and skin tones, plus lots of neat outfits that show a wide range of types of self-expression

So I dunno, my head is spinning over this too, but I don't know if I agree that 'it's bad because it Barbie'. I also don't disagree. And I'm sure I'm gonna get killed over this.

I'd like to know the price-point on these dolls: are they intended for children or for adult collectors? Because, laudable as the 'Inspiring Women' idea is, how many kids of an age for Barbie are going to know who half of these women are? There are 17 of them - it could become a game 'Name the Barbie'.
I think Mattel was just looking for something new: they've done women of different countries, princesses, brides, etc. and figured "We'll do famous women in general, and tie it to 'Women's Day'"
Actually, Frida Kahlo came off well. She's got a solemn expression and, if not a uni-brow, at least a thick eyebrow. I could tell who she was meant to be.
Most of the rest have the Barbie/Stepford smile. Once they are out of their identifying outfit, who's going to care?

They're meant to be inspiring toys for girls, made to resemble real-world women, rather than the usual generic Barbie-careers. Each one comes with a booklet about the woman (or, apparently "SHEro") to give some context.

The first three depicting Earhart, Kahlo, and Johnson are US$29.99 each. Somewhere between overpriced plaything and collectable.

Not hugely expensive, but if you just want a doll for a kid, there are cheaper Barbies. And, even if it's on the packaging, how many kids are going to care about the history, unless the parents explain it?
Because, in play, the carefully set hair is going to become bedraggled, and let's all imagine these women in contemporary Barbie clothes.
So, probably a collector's doll, or the kind of toy that's 'too good to play with', and sits in it's box on a shelf.
Which is a shame, because looking at them, not as icons, they're a varied and attractive group of dolls. Slightly less Stepford than most Barbies. And on different body-types, what caught my eye was seriously tall Japanese volley-ball player.
Okay, I confess to being a little tempted myself. But only for research purposes.

frimble3 said:

Okay, I confess to being a little tempted myself. But only for research purposes.

Click to expand...

I'd play with 'em, ok? I admitted it!

Erm, I've played with a few Barbies too. Evidence:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N_wV4O2Yk98

If I could imagine being a young person given a doll who was famous, I would read the documents included. I do agree that they are intended for collectors though, which I have been.

I applaud Mattel's efforts to honor women who have made a difference in a real way. (I don't know all the implications, and I can see why a relative might take offense.) I also appreciate the more diverse body types of late, but I have a question: Where is the "dad-bod" Ken? That's one I would collect, LOL!!!

Anyway, my link . . . if you want to see some stop-animated Barbies do terrible things and also receive them, it might be right up your alley. Think Robot Chicken for a music video.

My avatar is a photoshopped version of the doll playing me in the video.

It's a very good video.

DarienW said:

I applaud Mattel's efforts to honor women who have made a difference in a real way. (I don't know all the implications, and I can see why a relative might take offense.) I also appreciate the more diverse body types of late, but I have a question: Where is the "dad-bod" Ken? That's one I would collect, LOL!!!

Click to expand...

They don't have a "dad bod" but the current lineup of Ken dolls comes in three different body shapes: original, broad, and slim. The "broad" model has a larger hip/shoulder width than the original and slim, and about the only difference I could tell between original and slim was THE HEADS ARE TOO BIG ON THE SLIM MODELS.

BenPanced said:

They don't have a "dad bod" but the current lineup of Ken dolls comes in three different body shapes: original, broad, and slim. The "broad" model has a larger hip/shoulder width than the original and slim, and about the only difference I could tell between original and slim was THE HEADS ARE TOO BIG ON THE SLIM MODELS.

Click to expand...

Oooh! I didn't know Ken came in different bodies! Some of the heads do look a little too big on the slim bodies, but others look okay (did I mention that I didn't know Kens had different facial expressions, as well?)
The only problem is making sure you can get clothes to fit the 'broad' Ken. Perhaps, if they stick around, there will be clothes patterns, as well.
Back in the day, there was only one Ken, and he had only one function - arm-candy for Barbie. And there was Alan, his even dopier pal. Presumably so that Midge wouldn't be all alone on date-night.
The local store only sold Alan. Fortunately, I didn't know that Barbie was supposed to be a teenager. I got the old pre-smiley Barbie, with the blonde bubble-cut. More cranky step-mother than teen-age fashion model. So she ran the ranch, and depending on the day, Alan was side-kick or villain.

Johnny Guitar starring Barbie Roberts.

The only clothes I could find for Ken either didn't give a description on which model they went with or were out of stock. Or both. And on the pages specifically listed for clothing, there wasn't anything for Ken so I'm guessing if you didn't get the gift sets with multiple dolls, you don't get any more clothes for Ken or you have to look around at your local stores.

And dig this set: Barbie is wearing FLATS.

frimble3 said:

, I didn't know that Barbie was supposed to be a teenager.

Click to expand...

Barbie is supposed to be a teenager?!!!

How did I never know that? Barbie has been around my whole life. Sure, I was more of an MLP fan as a kid, but there were loads of Barbie commercials and some of my friends were into Barbie, so I got plenty of exposure.

...although come to think of it, just the list of careers she has would make me assume she was older. No way teenage Barbie would be an MD. Doogie Howser had that market cornered.

I guess she's the doll equivalent of "Grease."

No official age was really announced when the doll was first introduced, beyond "teen-aged fashion model" according to Wikipedia. Which can mean anything, considering her rather adult appearance.

I don't see a problem. I grew up with Barbies, who were female action figures to me and my friends. They went sailing in the tub. They rode horses (well, stuffed animals) in rodeos. They climbed mountains (nearby furniture). They safaried across the lawn. I'm sure Frida would have fit right in.

BenPanced said:

Johnny Guitar starring Barbie Roberts.

The only clothes I could find for Ken either didn't give a description on which model they went with or were out of stock. Or both. And on the pages specifically listed for clothing, there wasn't anything for Ken so I'm guessing if you didn't get the gift sets with multiple dolls, you don't get any more clothes for Ken or you have to look around at your local stores.

And dig this set: Barbie is wearing FLATS.

Click to expand...

Still teeny little feet, but yes, flats. I remember when 'Francie' ( gentle ingénue to my kinda tough looking Barbie) was the closest to flat-worthy feet.

*For clothes for Ken, you might try E-Bay or Etsy. Either the clothes for 1/6 scale 'action figures', or people either selling 2nd hand Ken clothes, or making new ones. A lot of the action figure stuff (think 'G.I. Joe) are made for the very muscular, which might work with the 'broad' Ken.

Twick said:

I don't see a problem. I grew up with Barbies, who were female action figures to me and my friends. They went sailing in the tub. They rode horses (well, stuffed animals) in rodeos. They climbed mountains (nearby furniture). They safaried across the lawn. I'm sure Frida would have fit right in.

Click to expand...

My Barbies had horses. Actually, they rustled Jane West's horses, and abandoned her in the spare clothes box. The only downside was that Barbie could not sit on a horse with any decorum or stability.
They also did time-travel - Barbie in a clean hanky for a 'Greco-Roman' robe, and Ken occasionally donned (had wrapped around him) tin-foil armour.

I had tons of Breyer horses and toy animals. I wasn't so big on human dolls. When I needed someone to ride the horses, small, stuffed cats sufficed. My cousin and I did make paper dolls sometimes.

Roxxsmom said:

I had tons of Breyer horses and toy animals. I wasn't so big on human dolls. When I needed someone to ride the horses, small, stuffed cats sufficed. My cousin and I did make paper dolls sometimes.

Click to expand...

The sibling was a huge horse/Breyer fan, so I had some as spillover. We both also, between us, at one point had almost every My Little Pony in the 1980's, including the baby ponies and birthflower ponies you had to send in "horseshoe points" off the package for. We also had Barbies and Barbie knock-offs, but nothing on the scale of an obsession/collection; they existed mostly to take care of the horses - Barbie sucked at riding Breyers because of her ridiculously poor leg jointing, or utter lack thereof - or have pets. (Also had Barbie's dog Beauty and her cat with the velcro paws, Fluffy...) Oh, and to demonstrate seatbelt awareness when we stuck them in our toy cars and ran them down the hill in the woods... Those things really should've come with seatbelts, BTW. (As for odd clothing, Ken sometimes got stuck wearing a sort of sock toga, 'cause for some reason he never had as many wardrobe options.) It was the stuffed animals and MLPs who went to war, went to space, built castles, had diverse personalities, and had most of the big adventures.

As for this... I can see where some people are having legitimate issues, though part of me thinks we should maybe step back a bit and see how it works in the "wild" before automatically stomping it down. This is more awareness and effort than I recall seeing all growing up, on the diversity front and the non-traditional role front. Even as a marketing move, it's an awareness that the market exists. Yeah, it could use some tweaking, and maybe their choices of figures and interpretations of those figures might need retooling, but do we risk throwing the baby out with the bathwater by jumping on things like this right out of the gate?

Exactly. It's a step in the right direction that should be encouraged. For all the adult criticisms of Barbie, children have wanted her from the beginning - stern face, stiff body, and all.
As far as I can see, the only problem with the new range of body types is that the clothes are less interchangeable. The 'standard' body shape made things so simple.
And I want a snowboarder, and a soccer player, and a volleyball player, and an aviator, and a writer. And that's only today.

I thought it was meant to be ironic. Since, you know, a major capitalist icon like Barbie and Mattel would sell a doll of a communist.