From: lowry@watson.ibm.com (Andy Lowry)
Subject: Re: BARBIE DOES IT AGAIN!!!!
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 19:15:31 GMT
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
	<LOWRY.92Oct4152902@rotor.watson.ibm.com>
	<1992Oct6.170330.15191@b8.b8.ingr.com>
Organization: IBM T.J. Watson Research Center

In article <1992Oct6.170330.15191@b8.b8.ingr.com> larry@b8.b8.ingr.com (Larry Billings) writes:
 > In article <LOWRY.92Oct4152902@rotor.watson.ibm.com>, lowry@watson.ibm.com (Andy Lowry) writes:
 > > The problem I have with what the doll says is not that it's
 > > unrealistic or unreasonable, but that it reinforces some existing
 > > stereotypes that are damaging to women (and to society in
 > > general).
 > I've never been aware that it was a stereotype that women can't do
 > math.  My math classes (oh so long ago) major competition for
 > numero-uno was a female.  We both ageraged over 100 points every
 > semester (you recieved 10 points for class participation), and we
 > switched places often.  BTW number 3 was always a female.

Good for you!  It's a pretty prevalent stereotype, so you must have
been raised in an exemplary environment.  I've also had my share of
female math whiz classmates, but I also went to an engineering school
with a very small percentage of female students, and took several
advanced math classes with a total of *zero* female classmates.  In my
profession there's an obvious imbalance.  Women are not
expected/encouraged/whatever by our society to enter technical fields,
as far as I can tell.

 > But, this is not really the point I was going to make.  We are
 > talking about a doll here, nothing more, nothing less.  The social
 > impact a doll has on the masses has to be very small.  Perhaps,
 > they should make a Ken doll that agrees that it is hard for him
 > also.
 > 
 > > So when Barbie says "Math is hard," you need to think, not just about
 > > whether it represents a reasonable situation, but whether it's going
 > 
 > No, you need to think "It's a doll, not reality".
 [other similar remarks removed]

Yes, you're right, it's a doll.  Nobody said this Mattel toy is going
to ruin the world or anything like that.  But if Mattel is going to
make a talking Barbie, and my daughter's going to want one and play
with it (she's not old enough yet to *need* it, but I'm sure that time
will come :-), I'd like it to not say this sort of thing.  Remember,
we're not just talking about a doll, we're also talking about young
children playing with the doll.  If anybody's going to give more
import to a doll's utterances than they deserve, it's a child.  Of
course, making Barbie say only innocuous things is not going to shield
my daughter from bad stereotypes, and most of the responsibility for
balancing such influences rests with me and my wife, and not with
Mattel.  But I don't see any harm in trying to convince Mattel that
they aren't helping matters any by reinforcing the general buzz of
stereotypes that surround us.

I don't suppose you'd be as accepting of a Barbie doll that utters
blatantly racist remarks.  But it'd still be just a doll, and there
certainly are racist young women out there so there'd be nothing
unrealistic about such a doll.  Yes, we may be talking about different
levels of offensiveness, but that may depend on your viewpoint.  I
just don't understand why Mattel wouldn't limit Barbie's repertoire to
completely innocuous phrases.
--
Andy Lowry, lowry@watson.ibm.com, (914) 784-7925
IBM Research, P.O. Box 704, Yorktown Heights, NY  10598
Newsgroups: misc.kids