Mattel just launched gender inclusive doll line

[sailorstitch]

I want to get one of these sometime to support the line. But I would be beyond shocked if the Wal-Mart in my conservative small town stocked them.

Nobody is seeing them in any of the stores yet- as far as I know of- it makes me wonder if both Target and Walmart are offering them online only...

Or is it because they're too new? They've only been out, what, 2 weeks? 

[Zapper]

I wasn't demanding private parts, btw Just more options to change the bodytypes.

I have heard that toystores (and children's clothing stores) in Europe are nothing like what we see in the US.

Depends on the store. Most of the time the type of toy and the aggressive marketing color divides the isles on its own (opposed to the 70s were a lot of packaging for kids was yellow to attract the eye).

A big store here has very obvious "boy corners" and "girl corners". Like the walls suddenly become pink when you start looking for dolls but the large Rey from Star Wars dolls are in boy land.

Ah, well that's disappointing.  Same everywhere then.   I had read somewhere that Barbie (and therefore Mattel) is the one 100% responsible for the "PINK" isle for girls and for defining pink as the "girl" color. 

I think that's true for modern toys. But pink was decided to be the girl color a while ago.
Babies up until a certain age used to be dressed traditionally in white (and both sexes had the same clothes) but there is more money to be made when you can sell different clothes and different colors. Capitalism and gendering go hand in hand.

Also, pink used to be a masculine color because boys were thought of as strong and passionate (red=blood) while girls were associated with Virgin Mary (whose signature color is blue).

Btw I think these dolls raise another issue: they all look like boys in the Mattel style.
Mattel has been not just hyper-feminizing their adult female dolls for a while, they also did that to the kid dolls. That's how you ended up with Shelleys/Chelseas/Kellies that had eyes that looked like they were wearing eye makeup and lips that looked like lipstick. The Enchantimals and MH were even worse in that regard.

Their bodies were more shapely than the boys. Also their faceshapes could never be anything else than heart or oval. It was close to "sexy baby".

These new dolls are more natural looking and have more definition and that immediatly makes them look like EAH boys to me because I am used to doll girls having vapidly grinning faces with big eyelashes and barely a jaw bone

[Taffeta]

Part of what I like is just the absence of any packaging or design that screams THIS IS A GIRL TOY or THIS IS A BOY TOY - like hot pink with flowers and hearts- or BLUE with manly Machines and stuff.

I walked through Target just the other day and all of the toys in the girl "Pink Isles" vs the boy isles are very obnoxiously gendered.

I have heard that toystores (and children's clothing stores) in Europe are nothing like what we see in the US.

So for the UK it does depend on the store like brightrabbit said, but a designated toy store...they don't tend to label the aisles but there's a definite colour bias on some of them with the amount of pink packages. That said there are some areas of both the main toy stores where I live which could be aimed at any kid and nobody would blink.

When I was a kid it was very gendered but then it went through a phase of being much less so. And now it's back to gendered. Sister and I were talking about this going through the Argos catalogue, though, and the fact that although they're now listing stuff by age rather than gender, there are still a lot of gender hints in the photo adverts and the colouring/etc of the package/pages/layout. We still have a way to go.

Until the very end of the line I feel like G1 MLP was the least gendered, packaging wise, of all MLP - because it was predominately blue, green, white, etc - fields, sea, mountains, clouds. It was only right near the end over here that MLP packages became obnoxiously pink. But in that time frame where IMO there was less gendering in stores, G2 had blue packages...so draw your own conclusions about that.

[Carrehz]

Mattel has been not just hyper-feminizing their adult female dolls for a while, they also did that to the kid dolls. That's how you ended up with Shelleys/Chelseas/Kellies that had eyes that looked like they were wearing eye makeup and lips that looked like lipstick. The Enchantimals and MH were even worse in that regard.

yeah, as much as I love Enchantimals, I have to admit you're right here. I mean, look at this:

(pic is small, I'm just putting it under a spoiler cut since it's technically off-topic)

Spoiler

(excuse the clutter in the background)
visitors can't see pics , please register or login

Karina's meant to be younger (I assume?), but Scoots' face is much more youthful. The Enchantimals look like kids just fine when you put them amongst other Mattel dolls (i.e. MH), but when you put them next to other kid dolls.. they look a bit off.

to go back to the dolls being discussed here, yeah, they look more "boyish" than "androgynous" to me, too.

[Galactica]

Btw I think these dolls raise another issue: they all look like boys in the Mattel style.
Mattel has been not just hyper-feminizing their adult female dolls for a while, they also did that to the kid dolls. That's how you ended up with Shelleys/Chelseas/Kellies that had eyes that looked like they were wearing eye makeup and lips that looked like lipstick. The Enchantimals and MH were even worse in that regard.

Their bodies were more shapely than the boys. Also their faceshapes could never be anything else than heart or oval. It was close to "sexy baby".

These new dolls are more natural looking and have more definition and that immediatly makes them look like EAH boys to me because I am used to doll girls having vapidly grinning faces with big eyelashes and barely a jaw bone

[/quote]

Or is it because they're too new? They've only been out, what, 2 weeks?

[/quote]

You know, I don't think so- because when you click on one of the dolls to see the details, it says "not in stores".  That is not true for other items that are just out of stock.  It may be they are testing the market online and will put them in stores if they sell well. Probably there is some uncertainty about reception. 
Still, if there is no plan to put the dolls in stores- than that is a shame. There ARE kids who don't feel they fall comfortably within one gender or the other, and it would be nice for them to see dolls on the shelves like them.


And yes I agree Mattel has been hyperfeminizing their female and CHILD dolls for a while now- which is horrible.  Especially with the dolls that appear to have baby or toddler faces- I just can't even begin to understand that.  It's like the dolls/toys about feces... 

[Zapper]

Mattel has been not just hyper-feminizing their adult female dolls for a while, they also did that to the kid dolls. That's how you ended up with Shelleys/Chelseas/Kellies that had eyes that looked like they were wearing eye makeup and lips that looked like lipstick. The Enchantimals and MH were even worse in that regard.

yeah, as much as I love Enchantimals, I have to admit you're right here. I mean, look at this:

(pic is small, I'm just putting it under a spoiler cut since it's technically off-topic)

Spoiler

(excuse the clutter in the background)
visitors can't see pics , please register or login

Karina's meant to be younger (I assume?), but Scoots' face is much more youthful. The Enchantimals look like kids just fine when you put them amongst other Mattel dolls (i.e. MH), but when you put them next to other kid dolls.. they look a bit off.

to go back to the dolls being discussed here, yeah, they look more "boyish" than "androgynous" to me, too.

I'm a huge MH fan to this day but I am also an adult who can look at these designs from an outside perspective and I think its success really influenced how Mattel proceeded with the look of other girly doll lines. The scary thin but curvy bodies, long thin necks, crazy arched feet for heels that will give you foot and spine damage in the real world but look "cute" on a doll supposed to be 12.

Mattel's recent choices for Barbie Fashionistas were interesting/good (really need to get that Fashionista with a prostetic leg!) and now this seems like it's well intentioned, too. But I remain critical of them as a toy company. Their other doll lines look warped compared to Creatable World and as long as they don't change future toy lines this will be just an attempt at hopping on a current trend.

And yes, I realize other toy companies do that, too. I have a lot of mixed feelings about the LOL dolls by MGAE or even that Scootaloo you posted
Big eyes/big heads are a trend but I dare ask why is "stick body" and sexy clothes for babies a trend now?

[FlickaFriend]

I really like the look of Mattel's new gender neutral dolls and I have seen one IRL and I think it's great quality with lots of articulation.  It was the straight hair blond one and i thought it was genuinely gender-neutral and could be seen as a boy or a girl.

I@m interested that some of you find it still problematic, or is it just that the existence of these dolls in the Mattel line highlights the over sexualised/feminised appearance of all the othe rMattel dolls?

Off-topic now (sorry mods, do move to a new thread if appropriate), but what would you say was a good doll line that doesn't hyper-feminise/sexualise girls?  I love Monster High and have just got into collecting them, but I agree they are a bit disturbing with their extreme bodies and make-up aimed at little girls.  My 7 year-old daughter loves them too.  I talk to her a lot about how unrealistic their bodies are and how high heels are really painful and unhealthy in real life, and how there's more to life than just fashion...  actually I think MH is quite good for not being completely fashion-obsessed, and I like the narrative back-story and character development a lot, plus the diversity in other ways (not body type obviously!)

Despite my misgivings, MH are so imaginative in concept and execution, and I love the 'edge' they have. I don't like "pretty-pretty" dolls. I also don't think there's anything necessarily wrong with make-up. MH dolls are meant to be teenagers and goodness knows I plastered it on when I was 15!

My daughter has Lottie dolls as well, which are cute and not sexualised at all, but even they have a bit of a 'make-up' look on the girl Lottie dolls (dark eyelashes, bright pink lips) whereas the boys in the Lottie line don't have eyelashes or coloured lips. The manufacturers make a big deal about how the doll is based on real dimensions of a 7-year old child, but IRL girls don't actually have bigger eyelashes or pinker lips than boys... Plus the Lotties are all perfectly pretty, button-nosed, huge-eyed, symmetrical faced. so I'm not sure it's fair to levy that criticism at MH if dolls like Lottie are seen as completely healthy in terms of promoting positive body image, as they too are unrealistic in lots of ways.

Also, this is going to sound weird, but I even find the animation and artwork for G4 MLP to be kind of sexualised in a strange sort of way? The way they swing their hips as they clip-clop around on their hooves, those huge eyes and enormous eyelashes... Is it just me???