Jump to content

Mattel has created gender neutral dolls


Dawning

Recommended Posts

This came out a couple of months ago, but I didn't find anything about it on the forum anywhere:

 

https://www.cosmopolitan.com/lifestyle/a29226225/mattel-gender-neutral-dolls-creatable-world/

 

At last, a doll that might be appropriate for a non-binary child! What do you think?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Aww, these dolls are adorable! I wish they existed when I was a kid, as they would have made me feel less alone as a nonbinary kid in a binary world. A literal binary world, I'm Greek and there's no (singular) "they" equivalent in my language.

 

Sadly, I don't think that they'll be sold in my country, as the reputation of nonbinary gender identities is either nonexistent, or negative. But I'm very glad that they exist nonetheless, and I do hope that they make nonbinary children everywhere feel understood and happy to see themselves in their dolls!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks, for the link!

 

I think this is needed; young kids in my area still ask about me, "Are you a boy or a girl?," so, obviously, they're still not being taught about nonbinary people, still only binary ones.

Link to post
Share on other sites
SherlockHomes

I think I saw TV ad for these the other day. They show boys and girls playing with them, which is nice.

Link to post
Share on other sites
RoseGoesToYale
22 minutes ago, Pan Ficto. (on hiatus?) said:

Aren't all dolls gender neutral?? They just have a flat bit where their genitals are meant to be lol

But even without anatomical correctness down there, figurines are still heavily designed around gender roles/stereotypes. Barbie is still super skinny, has vague bullet boobs, lipstick, and ten pounds of eye makeup. Ken still has wide shoulders, muscles, and a vague six pack.

 

What I like about these new dolls is they look more like actual human beings. Pretty average proportions, and you can't tell if they're wearing make up or not. Not all females wind up with huge hips or noticeable cleavage, not all males wind up super tall or muscular, and that's something all children need to see.

Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, RoseGoesToYule said:

But even without anatomical correctness down there, figurines are still heavily designed around gender roles/stereotypes. Barbie is still super skinny, has vague bullet boobs, lipstick, and ten pounds of eye makeup. Ken still has wide shoulders, muscles, and a vague six pack.

They stopped making a lot of them like that ages ago. Many of the barbies you get now don't have makeup, have a waist almost as wide as her hips, quite big thighs, and small breasts, and the guys look more like teen boys. I have two daughters lol so have had to buy a lot of dolls. It would be lying to kids to say some people don't have breasts or whatever (because it's something 50% of them are going to have to deal with anyway) so yeah, I just see this as a money-gran. Those dolls don't look any different than a lot of the dolls one buys these days, but maybe they weren't selling that well so they decided to claim they're gender neutral to appeal to an audience who otherwise would probably refuse to buy the exact same dolls :P

 

48 minutes ago, RoseGoesToYule said:

What I like about these new dolls is they look more like actual human beings. Pretty average proportions, and you can't tell if they're wearing make up or not. Not all females wind up with huge hips or noticeable cleavage, not all males wind up super tall or muscular, and that's something all children need to see.

Yeah that's been the norm for ages though. I mean, there were even posts on AVEN like 3 years ago about the range of 'average proportion' Barbies which is what you see a lot more of now. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

So basically, have clothing cover the legs = "male", expose the legs = "female"

 

Got it, I guess.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Janus the Fox
2 hours ago, Pan Ficto. (on hiatus?) said:

Aren't all dolls gender neutral?? They just have a flat bit where their genitals are meant to be lol

My same thoughts exactly, though I'm old enough 'Barbie and 'Action Man' existed, apart from no bulge, it's toys for kids, not quite having to know the Genital Gender stage of sexual development quite yet.  These dolls... well one is branded 'Doll' and the other 'Action Figure', already gendered in describing what those are and are unmistakably Male and Female otherwise.  The 80s and 90's where rough on gender different kids.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Philip027 said:

So basically, have clothing cover the legs = "male", expose the legs = "female"

 

Got it, I guess.

The point is that it's gender neutral, any of these outfits can be for a "boy" or a "girl" or neither. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Philip027 said:

So basically, have clothing cover the legs = "male", expose the legs = "female"

 

Got it, I guess.

Hi. If it helps, some purchasers/reviewers showed their own unboxing of the figurines. All figurines come packaged with a white/black tank top and shorts (this isn't seen from just looking at the outside of the box); although they're, technically, meant to be underclothes, I saw one reviewer decide to have their figurine wear the black undershorts as regular shorts.

 

A couple of the figurines do come with either a yellow or blue harem-like pants, with the calves, exposed.

 

So, these are options, where exposing the legs doesn't necessarily have to only equal "female."

Link to post
Share on other sites

I was just referring to the image provided on the link, where the exposed/not exposed leg was really the only consistent attribute that was being visibly pushed to try to "represent" male/female.

 

It just makes me wonder how necessary of a venture this really was.

 

Quote

The point is that it's gender neutral, any of these outfits can be for a "boy" or a "girl" or neither. 

So why show male/female "split images" wearing the different clothing (that, incidentally, either shows or doesn't show leg) if apparently none of it actually matters and any gender can wear anything they want?  How are these significantly different from any other sort of "dress up" doll?

 

The message being made here is very inconsistent.

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Philip027 said:

I was just referring to the image provided on the link, where the exposed/not exposed leg was really the only consistent attribute that was being visibly pushed to try to "represent" male/female.

 

It just makes me wonder how necessary of a venture this really was.

 

So why show male/female "split images" wearing the different clothing (that, incidentally, either shows or doesn't show leg) if apparently none of it actually matters and any gender can wear anything they want?  How are these significantly different from any other sort of "dress up" doll?

 

The message being made here is very inconsistent.

They are showing different combinations of clothes. In some of them, the doll has short, androgynous looking hair while wearing a skirt. It's not necessarily split images to look male or female. If you look at the actual boxes, the different combinations presented are actually a bit more gender neutral looking. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I felt it was pretty damn clear what was being presented as "male" and what was being presented as "female", but ehh.  Just my personal take on it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I like that as a result of them being able to be both male and female presenting, they'll have a more middle-ground body type. No more Barble who's missing ribs in order to be that skinny, or Ken built like a muscle-head. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Philip027 said:

...How are these significantly different from any other sort of "dress up" doll?...

From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creatable_World

 

Quote

Jump to searchCreatable World is the first line of

Jump to search

Creatable World is the first line of gender-neutral dolls produced by Mattel.

Creatable World dolls differ in design from other dolls produced by Mattel. The design of the doll is unique and is noticeably different from both Barbie and Ken; there are no curves or broad shoulders present on the dolls.[1] The doll does not have breasts like Barbie does, and has other features that do not display an obvious gender.[2]

In articles I read, Mattel talked to 250 families with kids of all types of genders, to have their input.

 

My guess would be that the fact that a kid could choose between short or long hair, the fact that it's marketed as gender neutral, and with the gender neutral body types makes the figurines different from others in the market.

 

Some parents mentioned in reviews that, normally, their kids' dolls are marketed as having a certain gender and a gendered name, so their child--some gender-nonconforming/nonbinary/genderfluid--liked having a doll that wasn't automatically gendered or with a stereotypical, binary body type.

Link to post
Share on other sites
DuranDuranfan
10 hours ago, Pan Ficto. (on hiatus?) said:

Aren't all dolls gender neutral?? They just have a flat bit where their genitals are meant to be lol

IKR? I take off Ken or GI Joe’s clothes and I’m sooooo disappointed!

Link to post
Share on other sites
Janus the Fox

I think that the dolls marketed as neutral, perhaps allows a child to build their on doll in their own image.  While the set has both gendered clothing, what goes to say that the company wouldn’t sell extra clothing for these dolls over time.  A child could build their own clothes for the doll Instead.  I have a sibling that did exactly that with existing dolls from the 90s-00s.

Link to post
Share on other sites
DarkStormyKnight

Definitely isn't perfect, but it's nice to see a step in a good direction!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...