Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by Alex3917 4222 days ago
You're correct. And if your daughter wants the toy, then I guess that's understandable.

But my point is that by design Barbie as a character is shallow, anti-intellectual, materialistic, snobbish, etc. I guess my assumption is that most parents who buy their kids the toy actually want that as a role model for their kids, and that this is inherently at odds with a toy that encourages kids to go into STEM or whatever.

2 comments

Three things.

First, the "character" you infer from Barbie isn't fixed in stone, or some universal truth. It's a kid's toy, it isn't going anywhere, and the way we react to it imprints on children. So don't dismiss efforts to change its connotations.

Second, be very careful when you dismiss "Barbie as a character", because it is awfully, scarily easy to end up dismissing attributes of women instead of just what you don't like about the character. Just for instance, it's easy to single out elements of "materialism" that stick out to you because you don't care about (I don't know, say) clothes, without giving equal time to shit guys are (as a demo) materialistic about, like (I don't know, say) cars, or FPS games.

Finally: my guess is that virtually none of the parents who allow their kids to have Barbie dolls are thinking exactly what you think they're thinking. I think you've forgotten about the fundamental attribution error.

Not really. Do you think parents who buy their kid a teddy bear want them to be grow up as a bear?

I think you're overthinking it. Kids will play the way the want, and get what they want. Just trying to make them eat mushroom is hard enough; you're unlikely to influence your kid's opinion on computer science by buying or not buying Barbie dolls.

That said, the book in question is definitely cringe-worthy.