I think this is a false-cause fallacy. Parents have a huge influence on what
children think of themselves and their possibilities. Girls who choose Mr.
Potato Head are already thinking outside the box. Girls who are into Barbies
may have parents who encourage traditional female roles, and thus traditional
toys. I seriously doubt that playing with a Barbie in a lab setting puts new
paradigms into little girls' minds.
Seriously? My mom bought me and my sister the very first Barbie produced. I
wanted to be an astronaut and ended up doing lots of amazing things and my
sister owns her own business. Barbie is a toy. I did not get or lose my self
image from a doll. I had fun pretending,(something kids don't do much of
anymore), made clothes for her, and designed treehouses and elevators for her. I
didn't notice or compare her figure to mine. She was after all, a plastic
toy. It never crossed my mind. Perhaps we should let kids play on their own and
not inflict our adult "sensibilities" on them.
I disagree, Barbie did everything! She was an astronaut,race-car driver, chef
etc. You name it she did it!
Life isn't about a career. It's about being happy. Barbie doesn't
teach girls good practices for being happy.
This whole sort of article feeds into the hobby-parent mentality of wanting to
do "everything perfect" so that little kiddo ends up baggage free. Just
another reason to scare parents away from letting their children have a normal
childhood. Every little thing their prescious hobby-child does must be
scrutinized, right, to make sure little Junior gets ahead of those other, more
limited kids that play with dolls. Yes, parents can have an impact on their
kids, but it isn't the barbie doll that makes them uninspired...Never
do psychologiest prove themselves more a waste of space than when they do these
sorts of ridiculous parental paranoia witchhunts...
Please tell me three things:1- This was NOT a "study" paid
for by us taxpayers.2- This is really satire from The Onion, or
something, not a serious "news story."3. Is there actually
a publication called "Sex Roles?" If so, it must have some extreme
This is another case of flawed scientific research that wouldn't even stand
up as a contender at the third grade science fair. There are too many variables
at work with the experiment including parenting and what sorts of careers the
I played with Barbie as a kid. The main thing I did with her was design clothes
from my mom's fabric scraps. It was fun, but other than that she
didn't seem very useful. No matter how she came dressed, to my young mind
it was only a new fashion, not a new occupation. As a mom I steared
away from Barbie. She just struck me as a toy with little depth and with so
many other cool toys to pick from not really worth it. According to
educational psychology kids play and pretend for a reason. By exploring and
dreaming they begin to develope attitudes and ideas about the adult world and
their place in it. It is an important developmental stage worth some
consideration. I do not believe girls who play with Barbies are
doomed to a limited life, but it does assist in shaping their perceptions of
women's possibilities, and no matter how Barbie is dressed or what
accessories accompany her she still speaks loudly to a limited role.
This might be the dumbest study I've ever read.
This study was done in the name of science? What a shame. Gives science a bad
name.I think the researchers of this study still need to learn one
principle lesson of statistical analysis: There is a huge difference between
statistical significance and practical/relevant significance. This study has no
relevant significance whatsoever. Claiming statistical significance
does not mean it is gospel. Give me a break.
They are trotting out this again? They tried this study years ago. It fell
through then too. Boys normally play with boy things, girls play with girl
things. A little thing they need to be introduced to called normal.
I wouldn't blame it all on Barbie, it is the whole Hollywood and TV movies
are kids are subjected to every single day. It makes a lot of kids feel it you
don't have that sexy look, you are worthless. Even the commercials.
That might be the most ridiculous "science" ever. Let a small sample
play with toys for ten minutes, then do a survey? Then ignore all possible
variables, and say the three toys affected kids development.No
wonder our society is in such trouble, with so-called science like that.
The final statement is wrong. Lammily has raised 410% of what he sought--he has
raised about $400,000 and getting more each day! I pre-ordered 2 Lammilys for
my girls. I am SO glad that there will finally be a normal looking girl doll on
the scene. Barbie is harmful, no doubt about it! The swiftness with which
Lammily raised his money shows there is a tremendous desire for a health
alternative to Barbie.
And as for boys who play with Barbies, we all know how that turns out.
If you give a boy a football to enjoy for a while, wait a FEW minutes to ask
what he wants to be when he grows up, would you be surprised if he says he wants
to be in the NFL? Interview women CEO's, nurses, accountants,
engineers and ask what their favorite toys as girls to see if they played with
Barbie. If they are under 60 years old, nearly every woman played with Barbie.
All my sons played with footballs, basketballs, baseballs and planned on being
professional athletes. Get real and publish real news. This study is useless
and your editors knew it was useless too!