The toy aisles at most department stores used to be pretty well-designated between “girls’” (lots of dolls in pink packaging) and “boys’” (lots of cars and Legos). But those labels are changing as harmful stereotypes lessen and gender fluidity becomes more prevalent. Case in point: Mattel has released a new gender-neutral line of Creatable World dolls “designed to keep labels out and invite everyone in.”
TIME reports that these dolls, which retail for $29.99, all resemble a “slender 7-year-old with short hair.” But each is accompanied with a wig with long hair and a versatile wardrobe “befitting any fashion-conscious kid: hoodies, sneakers, graphic T-shirts in soothing greens and yellows, along with tutus and camo pants.” There are also various accessories in a variety of styles, giving the kids myriad options to dress the dolls in whatever gender-inclusive manner they wish.
Mattel’s Kim Culmone tells TIME in the above video, “It’s important that kids of all different types can see themselves reflected in culture and media and especially the toys they play with.”
TIME points out that by creating these new dolls “with this overt nod to trans and nonbinary identities,” Mattel “is betting on where it thinks the country is going.” After all, Target eliminated its “boys” and “girls” toy sections in 2015; last year, Mattel also replaced its “boys” and “girls” toy divisions for nongendered sections like “dolls” and “cars.” These non-binary designations also reflect the new identity definitions of the younger generations; TIME reports that according to a recent marketing poll, “81 percent of Gen Z-ers believe that a person shouldn’t be defined by gender.”
59 Comments
Whatever! Gender neutral or not, I’m, like, totally still making them talk like valley girls!
That voice is always appropriate for a fashion doll, but I think “kids from the Valley” would be fitting, given the context.
My dolls and figurines did a lot naughtier things that yours did.
But how will I know if my son is gay if he’s not picking out girl dolls to buy?
I don’t care if my action figure is a GI Joe or a GI Jill, they’re going to blow the shit out of that Dream Beach House.
$29.99 is kind of steep for a Barbie.That’s all I have to say about this.
“Math is hard!”
There’s something wrong with what mine says…(Pulls string)“My Spidey-sense is tingling! Anybody call for a webslinger?”
Now let’s forget all our troubles with a big bowl of strawberry ice cream.
Magic Earring Ken isn’t doing carbs this month.
Outstanding move! I love this level of inclusivity.
Agreed. I used to work in a toy store, and it pained me when I’d see parents slap their son for wanting a Barbie. Most of the kids still went for gender-conforming toys, but boys that want dolls and ponies and girls who want action figures should be entitled to do so– speaking as a kid who owned 50/50 action figures and dolls growing up.
Yeah. I feel like times are finally kinda changing. When I was a kid in the late 80s and 90s, the delineation between boys and girls was almost comical. Probably why I gravitated to LEGOs so much – especially being a creative. And in that they even had gendered stuff, but I will be damned if I didn’t get myself some Paridisa sets! I have loved sunset pastel colors ever since.
Even as someone who was never ‘super girly’ growing up, I probably would have dug the LEGO Friends, LEGO Elves, and LEGO Disney Princess stuff if they’d been around when I was a kid. I love the colors and details of those sets.
They should sell these along side the standard versions and see which ones kids pick. We already know the answer.
This one’s got a new hat!
You’re right, these are pretty self-evidently a lot more appealing to kids than a Barbie. Good point!
Why do you seem to think there needs to be a competition, as if there isn’t enough room on the shelves for all of the dolls? Nobody is expecting these to appeal to the mass consumer audience, but it is a great step forward that they’re willing to make them for the kids who might want them.
Stores prefer to stock up on stuff that sells well, in general.
If you knew the cost of shelf space you wouldn’t make that comment, look it up. Anything that doesn’t sell on that shelf will be eaten by the store itself, with penalties. That why A listers get the top shelf and D listers get the lowest bottom. It’s tough, but that’s how it is.
I feel like there should be a name like “the fallacy of democracy” for this thing right here, where if 80% of people are A and 20% are B, you seem to think the B people should never get anything they want.Not only is it bad politics, it’s bad business, since catering to an underserved niche minority is exactly how billion-dollar trends are created.
No, it’s not about democracy, that’s ridiculous. Barbie represents everything that is wrong with modern society, and if you want to have the toy your way, just manufacture it under another label. Why? Because of what Barbie represents. So create your design, make those dolls and sell them, but stop acting like a particular brand needs to serve the entire market, because this is not how it works.
Barbie represents everything that is wrong with modern society
This is the kind of thing where if you say it at a party, you become the one guy no one wants to talk to at the party.
We definetely don’t go to the same parties, if you even go to parties…
Do you buy a lot of dolls or just pay attention to little girls?
seems like you do both
Does OP buy dolls? You think you’re funny?
I was asking you if you buy a lot of dolls that’s fine. The other one well that’s questionable.
No you weren’t. You know exactly what you were doing.
Every transexual I’ve ever met has just been a Barbie in Ken’s clothes!Thank you for clearing this up, Mattel.
FWIW, Target eschewing “boys” and “girls” toy sections seems like a move to save money on marketing. Now they don’t have to publish separate Boys’ Toys / Girls’ toys features in the upcoming Christmas print flyers.But you can still walk into any Target anywhere and immediately spot the girl toys aisle – it’s bright pink.
How does it save money? There’s still the same amount of product. If anything, switching had upfront costs that just trudging along doing the same thing did not.
If I recall correctly Ken has been gender neutral since 1961.
The eyes and lips still look like girls to me – even with short hair. But that one in the shorts would make a killer base for a Captain Marvel doll.
This oughta satisfy the dads who yell at their sons for playing with girls toys.
How will I know what pronoun to use?!?!??!
They, them, their. It’s been established it’s fine.
Just because they look gender neutral doesn’t mean that they don’t identify as a male or female. Shouldn’t you ask the doll? I think you’re being insensitive here!. Wow, You need to get woke.
Change is hard and minorly inconvenient, let’s just lash out instead.
who’s lashing out? If a doll that looks gender neutral but identifies as a male, you’re going to call him “they”? In this instance, it’s pretty clear the doll wants to be called “he”
If you read the article the doll, as is, from it’s creators is gender neutral. Therefore they, them, their would be appropriate. The child that gets it can make any decision they want after that.
You need to ask the doll to be sure. What about the doll’s feelings? You are really inconsiderate. It’s very easy. You just ask “Which pronoun? He she, or they?”. I did just that with my trans (former) niece. I said “He, she, or they?” They said “They”. From then on, I refer to them as “they” and they are happy. It just takes basic communication skills.
thanx.
This is literally a blantant desperate attempt at making cash. Their biggest moneymaker in years, Monster High, is fucking dead because they killed it, and Barbie is nowhere as big as it used to be. They’ve been trying to make up for it for years, and they decided to jump on the “trend” of trying to get their product sold via “progressive” means.
You’re right, total cash grab. I miss the days when toy companies manufactured and sold toys for reasons other than to attain cash. Like… I dunno, vengeance? Demented toy lust?
“Shouldn’t we just give all the cool accessories away with the original action figure?”“But we’d make more money selling them separately.”“Damnit, Johnason, is money all you care about? That’s not what business is about! You’re fired!”
Turning the toys into an army, only to be thwarted by Robin Williams?
You’re being a smartass, because you know exactly what I fucking meant.
Yeah, I think we all did.
Of course they’re trying to make money, they’re a business. And if their old products aren’t selling, they’ll try new products they think will sell. But in the process of doing so, in this case, they’re also offering a product that will be affirming to trans, gender-nonconforming, nonbinary kids, or kids of those adults, or just any kid who wants to play without concepts of gender pre-packaged. Their decision may be motivated by profit – again, no duh, they’re a business – but they’ve decided to make a decision that has positive effects for an underserved section of society. What exactly is the complaint here?
uh, Monster High is literally the doll brand that killed Barbie’s market share. Pretty sure they’re two opposing companies, there, but, yeah. Cash Grab from Barbie the Monster Co!
Nope. Both by Mattel. And while Monster High did kill off Barbie, Mattel themselves killed off Monster High with increasingly stupid decisions.
The biggest issue with this is for all of us younger brothers who used to make Barbie drive her pink car off of things or otherwise assault them. Now that’s just a hate crime.
I mean, they make Transformers, and Voltron, and Jedi Masters and shit… so might as well add to the stuff that doesn’t exist in the real world
These are very cool dolls, and something I’d feel very good about buying for my young nieces/nephews.
Said this over on io9, but are there actually people who have hideous hairdos like the one doll 2nd from the right?
These still tacitly body shame, though.
“slender 7-year-old with short hair.”
I’m sure the right-wingers over at Breitbart will accept this with open, caring, non-judgmental and loving arms, and embrace the direction “New America” is going in the future.Also:
Does it really feel like we’re moving in a more inclusive, loving, caring, kind, nonjudgmental direction in America?
Just asking for a friend
“Does it really feel like we’re moving in a more inclusive, loving, caring, kind, nonjudgmental direction in America?”In a word, no. We’re just spreading the hate and judgement to different sectors of society.