Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Move Over Barbie, This Doll Gets Real About Anatomy

By Courtney E. Martin, Women's eNews. Posted December 13, 2006.


An increasingly popular doll with genitalia and pubic hair offers an alternative to Barbies for a gift that can educate about sexuality without damaging body image.
12132006story
Advertisement

Amamanta, Spanish for breastfeeding, is a blend of two words that mean love and protection.

It is also the name of a doll family whose members may appeal to holiday shoppers looking beyond the latest Barbie or Bratz doll for a present that's non-hazardous to body image and can also educate about how babies are made, born and nurtured.

Each 16-inch cloth adult Amamanta doll has genitals and pubic hair, and the mother doll features breasts that can be snapped onto the baby doll's mouth to help reinforce the importance of breastfeeding.

"I wish children to be happy and grow with the idea that sexuality is important and is part of our lives," says Margarita Maria Mesa Leal, owner of the company that makes the dolls. Leal hand sews dolls herself, in addition to employing 27 local women in Medellin, Colombia, all of them mothers.

Dolls aren't cheap; an individual can be purchased for $39 or a family for up to $199. Leal didn't go into the particulars of what she pays her workers, but she says these prices allow her to pay a living wage and use only high quality materials.

Doll Explains Pregnancy

Leal, a former industrial designer, began the project in 2001 as an instructional device for her small daughter.

She created a mother doll, complete with a baby in the belly and a vagina, to explain that she was pregnant to her daughter. Though only 3 years old, her daughter took to the concept immediately, requesting a father doll and a sister doll to go with the mother and baby, just like her family. A for-profit, small business was born along with her son.

Leal sold the dolls to various families and small businesses around Colombia, and eventually throughout South America. She also spent much of those early months making dolls for a local orphanage filled with children, many of whom had lost their parents in Medellin, a cauldron of drug cartel-related violence during the 1990s. The dolls were a great tool for educating the children, many of whom did not have basic knowledge of human anatomy or sexuality and some of whom had also been sexually assaulted while on the streets.

Leal soon realized that many of these supposed orphans, in fact, had mothers who were too poor to take care of them. She began employing this population, providing them with just the opportunity they needed to move out of poverty and reclaim their children.

When Raul Morales, a Bronx, N.Y.-based advertising entrepreneur, stumbled upon Leal's table at a doll trade show in 2002, he was immediately taken by the quality and ingenuity of the dolls, but even more by Leal's commitment to the women and children of Colombia. A South American immigrant himself, Leal's work reminded him of home.

Sought by Educators and Families

OneWorld, a small business Morales owns, became the U.S. mail order distributor for the dolls. Their clients include parents, expectant women, doulas, child psychologists, sex educators, hospitals and child advocacy organizations throughout the Americas. He projects that OneWorld, constituted by Morales and two part-time consultants, will make about $25,000 total North American sales in 2006; Leal sells about the same amount to South American clients directly.


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: dolls, anatomy

Courtney E. Martin is a writer, teacher and filmmaker living in Brooklyn. "Perfect Girls, Starving Daughters: The Frightening New Normalcy of Hating Your Body," her first book, which will be published on Simon and Schuster's Free Press in spring of 2007. You can read more about Courtney's work at www.courtneyemartin.com.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
real
Posted by: rsaxto on Dec 13, 2006 12:34 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The sooner young kids get real the happier, healthier, safer and more sane they will be. Teach unto others as you would have taught unto you.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: real Posted by: ryazbeck
» RE: real Posted by: rsaxto
» RE: real Posted by: willymack
» RE: real Posted by: richholland
The baby won't let go...The snap is stuck.
Posted by: kepstein7777 on Dec 13, 2006 2:52 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If this really takes off in the States, the Bible Thumpers will be all over it, which will be good for business.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Reflects the sickness of baby boomers
Posted by: ddsharper on Dec 13, 2006 3:37 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Why not let kids be kids for a change? There is an obsession, wiithin the adult community, with sexual orientation, sexual organs and the like. It's the baby boomers, who themselves were spared the details of adulthood until they'd appropriately had a chance to experience the freedoms inherent in childhood- at least in America. Since the 70s, that freedom is increasingly being snatched away by freaks,narcissists and closet pedophiles hiding behind dolls. Bible thumpers aren't the only ones who will object. What's the point? Kids don't NEED to be thinking of sex. If they live to be ninety, let them have at least 13 free years of being a kid. Sheesh. Perverts.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Don't pin it on the boomers Posted by: vangogh69
Anatomically Correct?
Posted by: marxalot on Dec 13, 2006 4:21 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
But my goodness look at them. They are malformed, ugly, artless things. Anyone who thinks this is an effective alternative to the Barbie phenomenon is deluded.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Anatomically Correct? Posted by: HeroesAll
» Heh... Posted by: kepstein7777
» RE: Anatomically Correct? Posted by: Roger Király
» RE: Anatomically Correct? Posted by: Lillith
» RE: Anatomically Correct? Posted by: harris
» RE: Anatomically Correct? Posted by: oregoncharles
all well and good...
Posted by: xenacat on Dec 13, 2006 5:03 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
except that not only are the things completely ugly, but are apparently used to indoctrinate very little girls into the joys of mommahood. As if we need ANY more of that....Barbie is a caricature of female sexuality and so is this thing in an opposite way. I'm all for a doll that is a little more realistic than good ol' Barbie, but for Christ's sake - genitalia and pregnancy models for girls barely out of diapers?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: all well and good... Posted by: HeroesAll
» RE: all well and good... Posted by: xenacat
» RE: all well and good... Posted by: Rebcamuse
» RE: all well and good... Posted by: MatthewSavage
This is SO MUCH more important than universal healthcare
Posted by: emmanuel_goldstein_fights_fake_lefties on Dec 13, 2006 5:16 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
the fakeLeft has been set up by the nonprofits established by the plutocrats in order to distract the Left from real issues that matter to real people.

Want some evidence? The article above is from an outfit called Women's Enews. Go to here from the link in the article above and you can find the following text in the "About Us" page of Women's Enews:


Women's eNews has been widely tapped by other media from coast to coast and around the globe, from such leading media outlets as The New York Times, PBS, The Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, the Chicago Tribune, the New York Daily News, the San Francisco Chronicle, the Buffalo News, San Jose Mercury, the Birmingham News, the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, the Spokane Spokesman-Leader, NPR and MSNBC



So you see that the mainstream corporate media is very eager to print articles from this perspective. It's not like this area is neglected by the overclass. The overclass LOVES this sort of politically oriented writing that slants towards race and gender politics.

And more text from that link:


We receive financial support from ... the Carnegie Corporation of New York, the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation, the Barbara Lee Family Foundation, The Open Society Institute, The Rockefeller Family Fund, Helena Rubinstein Foundation, The Sister Fund and Starry Night Fund of Tides Foundation and Working Assets.


Carnegie? Rockefeller? The plutocrats started the nonprofits as a way to mold and evolve a New Breeed of Leftism, a fakeLeftism, one that diverted economic leftism into race and gender leftism. And they fund nonprofits like Women's Enews and ALternet and The Nation because those outfits act as overclass propaganda dissemination devices.
So now you are starting to see I hope that the plutocrats still rule us even after we have broken our chains of indentured and chattel slavery. They rule us through our hardwired tendency to be able to be indoctrinated by our leaders in order that we may form a cohesive tribe. The overclass parastizes us using propaganda and fakeLeftism.
See more here:
Dr Joan Roelofs' book on nonprofits and the Mask of Pluralism is excerpted here.

Daniel Brandt has written on how the Ruling Elite created multiculturalism and gender politics to rule us here and here.

WHo brings the evidence here? Me or the fakeLeftists? Think about that!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: This is SO MUCH more important than universal healthcare Posted by: emmanuel_goldstein_fights_fake_lefties
» RE: This is SO MUCH more important than universal healthcare Posted by: emmanuel_goldstein_fights_fake_lefties
» One-Note Song Posted by: churchofone
» I have shot my ideological seed into your fertile mind so often... Posted by: emmanuel_goldstein_fights_fake_lefties
» Oh, golly gee! Posted by: aerdrie
Mixed Feelings
Posted by: Jesse on Dec 13, 2006 5:54 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I have to say I go back and forth on this.

On the one hand there is a crying need for kids to be educated about sexuality and related topics, and the ignorance is bliss school just doesn't work.

On the other I remember the first birds and bees discussions my parents had and I thought it was a deliberate attempt to embarass me :-) and remember it as generally ham-handed and clunky. Partly because my parents tried to be a little too mature, and too 'technical' if I may use the term. But I was a social misfit with a whopping case of Asperger's syndrome anyway :-) so maybe that was the problem.

I don't think such discussions must be either-or. I do think there is such a thing as age-appropriate. We needn't get into everything from birth control to orgasm with a five-year-old, though I think a frank discussion of the fact that babies grow inside their mothers is a good thing (and maybe leave it at that for a while).

Like many things, I must say I don't know the answer.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Dear Crusty Posted by: ezilla
» RE: Dear Crusty Posted by: crusty
» birds and bees embarassment Posted by: Iconoclast421
» RE: birds and bees embarassment Posted by: vangogh69
good idea for the children of liberals
Posted by: dikaiosyne on Dec 13, 2006 6:43 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Just the sort of toys to turn our young female children (and some male children as well) into young sluts. 16 inch plastic Barbie tarts to show our little girls how to be real live teenage tarts when they get to those ages. I am wondering though....do they supply little shavers with the dolls so little girls can turn them into "baldies"? Maybe the new Ken dolls can come with an erection and little video cams so little girls can make their own porn flicks. Perfect toys for liberal children.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» This takes the cake... Posted by: tweedster
» Just like the preachers' kids, eh? Posted by: GrittyKitty99
Have you seen this?
Posted by: bookie on Dec 13, 2006 7:22 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The barbie makeup head I've seen advertised. The face would be more appropriate as a blow up doll for adults.

http://www.toysrus.com/product/index.jsp?productId=2328048

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Unfortunately I have. Posted by: ezilla
Get over Barbie!
Posted by: LeighPerson on Dec 13, 2006 8:06 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What is it with this country? The people obsessing about Barbie and women shaped like her are those who make dolls like this second one while claiming they don't "ruin body image". The ones with body image problems are these overweight women who slam every thin woman every chance the get. Jealous? If you weren't, you wouldn't obsess with this. The more you obsess, the more you prove I'm right.

The "realistic" doll looks like a Hermaphrodite. You think THIS is attractive?

Slender women ARE “real” woman and we expect to be treated as such, not demeaned and ridiculed because YOU are the ones with the low self-esteem. I was born with a you-know-what and I am an adult woman. That alone makes me a "real" woman, whether or not that fits to your selfish specifications or shallow opinion.

You think you’re more of a “real” woman because you’re a size 14 or above? Globs of fat rolls are NOT curves and being overweight does NOT make you more of a woman than me. So cool it with the attitude.

You complain about curves, but when these same women you treat like dirt get implants and wear too tight clothes to make themselves look curvier, it’s STILL not good enough for you. You should be jumping for joy, but you just keep right on complaining.

Half the American population is overweight while half of those overweight are obese. You call THAT healthy? Maybe if half this country wasn’t so fat with so many health problems that it triggers, maybe some of these women wouldn’t look so thin to you.

The more overweight you are, the greater the chances for diabetes, enlarged heart, hypertension, high blood pressure. All of these shorten your lifespan. What does being thin trigger? Absolutely nothing. Not a single, solitary health problem is caused from being slender.

It’s time for these anti-Barbie hypocrites to look in the mirror. I am sick of being treated like dirt simply because your people can’t handle my body type. Your low self esteem is YOUR problem and YOUR responsibility. You fix it yourself and stop blaming YOUR problems on some stupid doll! You sound like a bunch of Bush worshippers blaming everybody else for their prejudices. It’s time to look in the mirror, ladies. If you can’t handle my body type, that’s just plain tough.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» What the....??? Posted by: Tombo
» RE: Get over Barbie! Posted by: Iconoclast421
» RE: Get over Barbie! Posted by: ezilla
» RE: Get over Barbie! Posted by: babs
» RE: Get over Barbie! Posted by: realmuzik
» RE: Get over Barbie! Posted by: hardrockgeology
About the only good thing to say about the "new" doll...
Posted by: ABetterFuture on Dec 13, 2006 8:23 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...is that it does not continue to promote the skin cancer industry as healthy, youthful, and vibrant.

But it if you like it, then raise you kids however you want to. My question: How does "Privates Barbie" help with important things like geometry, English, and science?

My $.02. You're entitled to yours.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Ooops. Posted by: ABetterFuture
» It must be a slow day at Townhall.com Posted by: GrittyKitty99
This one is truly funny!
Posted by: aburritt on Dec 13, 2006 9:30 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Well, I thought I got the best laugh of the week from the saved day-one comments to Tom DeLay's new blog. After reading this story, and the ensuing comments by Alternet readers, I'm not sure about that any more.

Listen up folks: The key word here, if you are really interested in what the child needs/wants, is "age appropriate." (I think I saw that written somewhere above in the comments amidst all the nonsense written by the totally confused adult ideologues.)
No, a 2 yr old is not the same as a 4 year old, who is not the same as a 6 yr old who is not the same as an 8 yr old who is not the same as a 10 yr old who is not the same as a 12 yr old who is not the same as a 14 yr old who is not the same as a 16 yr old who is not the same as a 18 yr old who is not the same as a 20 yr old.
If you're not around children of different ages to learn this for yourselves, consider checking out a book on child development at your library and actually trying to read it. It gets SO tiring to hear earnest adults prattle on and on about what ideological framework they deem important to indoctrinate their kids with, when they are really so totally clueless when it comes to the subject they are weighing in on.
Read most of the above comments, for example, and you will find that what is important to most of the writers is not what the children need and want, but what they, the adults, need and want. (Or, in this case, really only think they need and want.) So you want to try and convince small families in wealthy industrialized countries to have more babies? OK, roll out the ugly lump of plastic with the pubic hair (yup, this is "reality" for these 6 yr olds) and the baby coming out the vagina (ditto). If anyone can come up with a more amusing example than so many "progressives" hotly defending a tool designed to indoctrinate young children into become baby-producing machines, hopefully as soon as they reach puberty, then I'd like to hear it!

If you are genuinely worried (as opposed to being a clueless ideologue) about messages that young kids are getting in our society, then go kill your beloved TV set (don't forget the video games) and let your kids go play. That would be a much better alternative to shelling out more money for some ridiculous plastic piece of ideological indoctrination from the "Six Billion Is Not Enough" crew.

None of this is to say, however, that you shouldn’t go ahead and buy this doll if you want - the amusement value for the neighbors/friends/family will be easily worth the money you'll spend. And ten years from now, these things will undoubtedly be collectors items at kitsch parties around the world, which will help justify the initial cost even more.

Here's a salute to capitalism and yuppie progressives: The entertainment value they produce when they work together just never ends!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Ha!
Posted by: morticia on Dec 13, 2006 10:04 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This reminds me of the time I came home from the third grade and found that my older bro and his pal had glued "pubic hair" on my dollies and arranged them in naughty positions!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Ha! Posted by: Plexius
» RE: Ha! Posted by: morticia
I am disturbed for different reasons
Posted by: ladyoracle on Dec 13, 2006 10:16 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Why does the mother doll come with a pregnancy? Her body isn't sexual, it's functional. It;s degrading to women to have the mother doll nothing but an incubator and feeding post for the infant. Where is the doctor or accountant mother?

Please. And why are all these doll families so traditional? I think neocons would be buying the dolls by the dozen to teach why homosexuality and homosexual families are "unnatural."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» ABSOLUTELY! Posted by: dkstwin
Well, all things considered...
Posted by: vangogh69 on Dec 13, 2006 11:08 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Is this really the most pressing of issues facing the USA as of now? Or the world? I mean, body consciousness is important but seems like a slightly trivial thing to post as a main article on this website. Then again, maybe I'm the odd one.

My opinion on this is it's good to have dolls adequately reflect the anatomical reality of the human body. We really need to stop with this genital-phobic thing we have going in this society. It reminds me of when Janet Jackson had that "wardrobe malfunction" a couple years back. Everyone made a big deal about her tit and "protecting the children and all that," as if:
1) Children didn't come from mothers who have brests.
2) Children don't have siblings who have brests.
3) Children don't have fathers (and mothers) who have seen and enjoy looking at brests.
4) Female anatomy is somehow inappropriate for "the family."
5) The Superbowl is the highest achievement of mankind to ever have been and it cannot be defiled by deviancy!

I mean, come on people! I think the sooner kids see tits, ass, cocks, and balls, the better: then maybe we won't be so repressed as a society and instead of channeling out time and energy into destructive things we can make things better for everyone.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Well, all things considered... Posted by: tristansmum35
I think....
Posted by: morticia on Dec 13, 2006 12:15 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
....it would make a good VooDoo doll.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: I think.... Posted by: Plexius
» RE: I think.... Posted by: morticia
» RE: I think.... Posted by: Plexius
» RE: I think.... Posted by: morticia
» RE: I think.... Posted by: Plexius
» RE: I think.... Posted by: gellero
» RE: I think.... Posted by: morticia
» RE: I think.... Posted by: Plexius
» RE: I think.... Posted by: morticia
» RE: J'espere epinard... Posted by: Plexius
» RE: I think.... Posted by: Plexius
» Et je ne suis pas..... Posted by: morticia
» RE: Mais, non, bubele,... Posted by: Plexius
» RE: Mais, non, bubele,... Posted by: morticia
» RE: Enfin... Posted by: Plexius
» Ow..... Posted by: morticia
» Well now.... Posted by: dkstwin
Whatever happened to the Rosie O'Donnell Barbie??
Posted by: realmuzik on Dec 13, 2006 2:13 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
When Rosie O'Donnell had her talk show she had a "Barbie Doll" model of herself that she sold to her fans to help raise money for her For All Kids Foundation. The doll looked just like her and had a "normal," "healthy" body-type. I am saddened that Mattell did not continue producing more dolls such-as. Would rather see more of them than this particular example. I'm all for DIY toys, but they can be better.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Rethinking 'emanuel...' But
Posted by: ekipnrut on Dec 13, 2006 2:37 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
First off...I read the article as describing an attempt to merely
provide an element of Human reproductive biology knowledge
(instruction) to toddlers and on up in age.
Interpreting the article through the lens of a jaundiced libidinous adult eye is, frankly... silliness. A clever mom could take the anatomically correct dolls and perhaps some photos of animals and their babies and have a wonderful discussion involving both 'animals' and motherhood..two favorite topics of little girls. As I think about it...what exactly do some of you
think is the state of awareness of little FARM girls or boys??
What planet are some of you people mouth breathing on??
There are more wonders in science with which to nurture a
child's healthy imagination and mental growth than in
hyper saccharine fantasy and/or artificial death/violence
desensitizing video games.
As for the anorexia/bulemia ,binge/purge , plus+ size/rail thin
battle lines that have somehow managed to connect THAT
issue with the dolls....this is sooooo sad...

Finally I did want to remark that the post of ' emanuel_...'
aka....'one note'...attacker of faux liberals...you know who....
has a reference that is spot fucking on.
The article by Dr. Terpstra.
Somit's thesis..we are all natual born fascists..is a bit more
problematic for me...when words like 'social' and Darwinism
get in close proximity...I reach for my Glock.
(figuratively speaking... :))
But say what you will about 'emanuel' or moi for that matter....
Nevertheless Terpstra nails the MFs 5X5...Read her article.....

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

All I can say is...
Posted by: tristansmum35 on Dec 13, 2006 4:11 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I understand how some of you do not like these dolls, and yes, these dolls are not the most attractive but I see quite a few girls in this world aspire to look like barbie and they don't understand what it is to be a 'real' woman.. Most of these girls do not feel confident in who they are and when they see another girl who is maybe not the "ideal" of what our society sees beauty but is comfortable in her sexuality,they berate her; even though they are just as promiscuous as she might be. I have heard that Barbie was the great feministdoll of our time, Remember all the different barbies there has been..but she always still NEEDS Ken. I know Many women who can't be without a man, because they can't stand being alone in a room with themselves. I feel these dolls are more about education than about being attractive and getting a date or married. These dolls I feel are very crucial to educating children on anatomy and can help in explaining what sexual abuse is. If my mother had shown me what a bad touch and good touch was through dolls such as these... Maybe I would not have been a victim for as long as I had. one other thing, Kids don't judge beauty in a doll at three, My son is five and forms toy figures out of paper..he's 5. It's about time someone made dolls like these. If you don't like them don't buy them. I intend to.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Form over substance triumphs once again . . .
Posted by: MAD on Dec 13, 2006 4:16 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In what way is Alternet a near perfect reflection of our declining culture? Form over substance. Yesterday's marquis feature was a rather silly article that pitted city folks against their clearly inferior, rural counterparts. The day before that, Alternet breathed new life into a *sigh* terminally ill topic - 9/11 conspiracy theories and how they endanger the "Real Left" agenda.

It would appear that Emmanuel_Goldstein's_Cherry_Red_Cry0fan has finally convinced them that nothing remains but to give in and b-e-c-o-m-e "the Faux-Left".

Meanwhile, discussions about biofuels, drug legalization, and most importantly, the coming economic collapse compliments of China and the American super-consumer go largely unnoticed. I don't know if Alternet's numbers were lagging in the days leading up to the 9/11 piece, but sensationalism wins out over substance every time - here and in the homes of virtually every American. It is understandable if some feel that Barbie promotes an unhealthy body image, but is this really front page material or is Alternet just trying to garner a reputation as a "fun" site where they don't take themselves too seriously?

It's sad, but that is exactly how most people now perceive Americans. They're generally fun (maybe entertaining is a better choice of words) and don't take themselves or anything else too seriously except of course Britney Spear's pantyless antics and Brangelina's non-wedding. It appears that Ms. Spears could have benefitted from one of Leal's dolls, right Alternet?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

"Not a single, solitary health problem is caused from being slender."
Posted by: medstudgeek on Dec 13, 2006 4:26 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Obviously excess dieting can be dangerous...you can starve to death, obviously. And too much vomiting can be dangerous due to the loss of potassium (which actually comes out in your urine...it's complicated) causing arrhythmias.

That said the anorexia problem is minor in size compared to the obesity problem these days.

Not that I like this whole brutal looks competition. It's just like those awful athlete assholes in high school.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

My 6 year old says the doll is "not as pretty as Barbie".
Posted by: bichomau on Dec 13, 2006 5:30 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I don't think Mattel has to be worried! LOL

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

haha{crazy nuts in this world}
Posted by: Krain61 on Dec 13, 2006 6:43 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I think this is totally nuts! I think the ladie in Columbia was smoking or who know's what! But as for me I wouldn't dream of giving my kids something like that at that age..What we can't talk to our kids anymore..We need to teach them about there sexuality at age 3? That's ludicrist! Those of you who think this is a good idea..Smoke another one is all I got to say.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Get Real
Posted by: Gregor on Dec 13, 2006 7:41 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Barbie isn't about sex directly, it is about FASHION. Whoever heard of dressing a sexually correct doll? Duh!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Glad I read this article. I could never have imagined the objections raised.
Posted by: Sojourner on Dec 13, 2006 8:10 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Since the doll is a commercial item and markets are free, we shall see what the world thinks.

I hope the creators make more money than Bill Gates. It's been a long time since I've played with dolls (toys) and a long time since my kids were of the age to do the same. But I believe that since sexuality (of an age appropriate kind) starts for each of us at birth, anatomically correct dolls make sense to me.

The best we did for our kids was a picture book that made them the most popular kids in the neighborhood. I recall them giving sample readings to their playmates in the bushes.

Now at age 42 and 39 they are reasonably well-adjusted, and that's a surprise considering what my ex and I put them through. So anatomically correct picture books have not seemed to hurt them. I can never know if it helped them. I hope and expect the dolls to have similar consequences.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The doll
Posted by: MEL810 on Dec 13, 2006 8:23 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
looks like the flour dough projects I used to make when I was about eight and it looks like her mama was Sock Monkey and her daddy was the Pillsbury Dough Boy.
It may have genitalia and mammary glands, but realistic it ain't.
Do YOU know any real women that look like that? I hope not! LOL!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Barbie with a few subtle changes
Posted by: Logic's Edge on Dec 13, 2006 9:02 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
First of all, why do dolls need to be anatomically correct? I'm sure the girls already know what they have down there.

I don't think it would hurt to make Barbies that are a little broader across the hips though. That would bring them more into line with average human proportions.

I wonder if there is any relationship between playing with Barbie dolls and anorexia in young women. Maybe it's when they're four years old that they get a body image fixed in their mind