Monday, March 10, 2008

Teaching What, Exactly?

I once worked as a customer service rep for Barbie Collectibles, a division of Mattel. During my employment, Mattel came out with "Teacher Barbie". She was a pretty thing, as they all are, wearing a short, pouffy skirt, white blouse, sensible red shoes and matching red tie. Sounds like the picture of pure-fection, doesn't she?

Well, except that Mattel Elementary failed to do a pysch evaluation on "Miss Thang" and when the public found out that Teacher Barbie was standing before her class (two pupils were included in the box) without. wearing. panties. the public went all, "Oh no, you didn't!" on Mattel.

We got a lot of calls. A LOT. People were - and I'm not kidding here - outraged that Mattel would put Barbie in front of two kids, wearing a short skirt but without her personals. Mattel quickly pulled the tramp doll from the store shelves and she was later replaced with a more respectable version. New Teacher Barbie was now wearing painted on panties. You know, the non-removable kind. Mattel was not taking any chances. I even remember this story hitting the newspapers and morning shows.


But what I want to know is - where is the outrage over this:

Are you kidding me? Julia Roberts was dressed more conservatively in Pretty Woman! If you look closely at the one on the left, you can see through her skirt! If it's not bad enough that it's the size of a band-aid (a Barbie-sized band-aid, no less), you can see through it, too?!

Ugh. I think I just threw-up a little in my mouth.

This Barbie is definetly teaching the kids something but I don't think I like what it is. Questionable Reputation Barbie is moderately priced at $14.99. But is that hourly?


Madame Queen said...

Those are Barbies!?! Yikes. I did a post a while back about the My Scene Barbie that McDonalds was giving out with Happy Meals. She looked like hooker. I even wrote a letter to McDonalds about it.

What exactly is her "scene" anyway? The corner of Sunset and Vine?

Anonymous said...

You are judging by the way they are dressed. That does not make them bad girls. How young people dress is not always what they are inside.

Anonymous said...

They are dolls ......there are lots of Barbie Dolls out there for every type of little girl. Buy the one right for your little girl! Mine happen to like those outfits. It's funnnn....... Look at "HANNAH MONTANA".

Amanda said...

There is no way "anonymous" is serious because no self-respecting mother who cares about the images her daughter absorbs as normal and acceptable would actually give those to her daughter. But thanks for the laugh!

And how young people dress may not be what they are inside but it sure is an excellent representation of what they think of themselves. And girls who dress like that think of themselves as worthless and undeserving of respect from men. But, hey, it's all in "fun" right? *rolleyes*

Anonymous said...

Those are not Barbie Dolls. They are knock offs. Check with Barbie.
You may have attacked the wrong company.

Good read though.

Jenni said...

Okay, what is up with the anonymouses defending the depravity that has seduced the toy makers? This is outrageous that ANYONE would consider these "toys" ( I use that term loosely )acceptable for their daughter(s)! When I was a girl, I didn't play with Barbies. My mom thought that they placed unrealistic expectations of body image on girls. I mean, really, who looks that way unless they have a little plastic in them?
I have two boys and a baby girl. My husband and I are very particular in what we allow our kids to watch, listen or participate in. As parents it is our job to set the standard. Society obviously has none.
And to the anonymous who said those are not Barbies, you might want to check. I believe that Amanda was the one who worked at Mattel...