Comment by Jana on February 5, 2013 at 11:43pm

Ella is for children with cancer too, is she not?

I think it is dangerous to say that there is a "real" representation of hair loss, from either alopecia or cancer treatment. There are simply choices in how we individually represent ourselves.

That said if Mattel did not consult with NAAF, one wonders if they consulted with community at all, or simply responded in a limited fashion to the demand for this doll.

There is certainly a politic to the bald barbie, not the least of which is that she is not for sale in stores. Many children will not get to enjoy an Ella. But the excited posts I have seen to date on social media, far outweigh this politic. : )

Comment by Craig on February 5, 2013 at 11:46pm

Hmmmm, tough one. But how many people on alopecia world have most of their pics with a wig on? It would be hypocritical for many people to complain about the doll.

Comment by kittspin1 on February 6, 2013 at 12:01am

well i think that yes it should have been packaged without it's wig, but simply so that children could see that it was bald like they may or may not be, before opening it and to make it obvious for her intended purpose, to show little girls that even barbie can get what they have, I know that for my daughter i would want her to be able to tell what she was getting...she loves her baby dolls and they are all bald not on purpose though it just happened that way! and she loves babies right now!

Comment by JeffreySF on February 6, 2013 at 12:05am

My personal opinion is that Ella should be packaged without the wig on.
Why? I saw Ella and the first thing I thought was it doesn't look like alopecia to me. What's the point Mattel is going with here?

Comment by Mary on February 6, 2013 at 12:10am

I feel very strongly that this doll should have been packaged without the wig. No surprise to those of you who know me, right? But, I think it's pointless as packaged.

Comment by kahlediva on February 6, 2013 at 12:37am

What is Mattel getting out of this anyway? Cheap PR (which is tax-deductible)? Perhaps a nice tax write off? Perhaps they meant not to make any profits on this at al, so as to off set their other taxable income? Why do such Alopecia "dolls" or other pseudo roll-models always have to be shared with cancer patients? AA is not cancer. I think we all agree that there is nothing worse than being looked at and treated as if one has cancer nad then having to console people that you are actually not going to die. I wish for more "teachable moments". MAtell and the NAaf have missed their moments here. It seems that Mattel totally missed the mark. I agree with the others that can not be ignored that this doll is not even available on the market. I hope that NAAF doesn't allow their good name to be associated with this. IF Matell wanted to do something for people with AA, then they would have done it the right way. No huge company does anything without having spent lots of time, money and effort into the planing. And that includes PR-research and focus groups, etc. All I can say is they didn't invite any of us to their feed-back sessions that are done pre-prodution. The only impression that this doll makes on me is that it reminds me of who it was not meant for.

Comment by Jana on February 6, 2013 at 12:48am

Did you not follow the bald barbie movement on Facebook? Its focus is for BOTH children with cancer and alopecia. Hair loss. And it is this movement - arguably - that brought the response from Mattel. Some of the dolls will be given out in hospitals, which is the cancer focus. And NAAF was the other vein re: alopecia.

The news coverage of the release of bald Bratz dolls in stores made it pretty clear that kids without hairloss where not interested in a bald doll. Yes, Mattel is in the business of making money. And yes, Mattel responded to the push for a bald barbie within this vein. Let's face it, we are a small percentage of the population, so an alopecian barbie is just not going to be an exclusive reality. Not saying we should take what is tossed to us, but the women behind this campaign worked long and hard and it is making a lot of kids very happy. My favorite story in that regard is a little girl with alopecia who is named Ella too, and was ecstatic that Ella the barbie has a pink wig. Cannot really argue with that kind of happiness, even if you can see the politic behind all of this, and wish for a more overt public statement about alopecia. : )

Comment by Jana on February 6, 2013 at 12:54am

Here is the movement that brought this doll about - and others - for further context: https://www.facebook.com/BeautifulandBaldBarbie?fref=ts

Comment by Kelci on February 6, 2013 at 1:23am

I'm going to copy and paste my comment from my own facebook page where I shared NAAF's link. ..."Couldn't they have put the wig on the side with the other wig? It's a false representation of the fact that we are bald, partially bald, or patchy. Also they aren't selling them in stores which is where the recognition would come from - if they plan to release in stores then disregard this part but based on the information released by NAAF it's limited supply and not sold in stores. SPREAD THE WORD about ALOPECIA and attach a POSITIVE message to it. It's there, it is REAL. Don't hide it with limited supply and present it with a full head of hair. This makes me feel like Mattel is embarrassed by the idea of bald barbies. After such a big push for them to create a bald barbie this is what they market? Mattel, please embrace the fact that Alopecia makes us BALD, PATCHY, and EVERYTHING in between. With or without our wigs. Yes, I understand that some people are more comfortable in their wigs but if we are trying to not only find a cure but encourage a positive self image, this is two steps back. This is in no way a negative comment on all of the hard work that NAAF and thousands of others put into finding a cure to Alopecia. I commend and thank you for EVERYTHING that you do. Many apologies if anyone sees it as such."

Comment by Dena on February 6, 2013 at 1:35am

I think I was most bothered by the fact that it wasn't going to be available in stores. This means it is only available to a small number of kids who are lucky to be picked. And what about kids who have parents who are bald. Maybe they would like to have the opportunity to have a doll that looks like Mom or Dad. My daughter has a bald Bratz Doll that we bought at Toys R Us. The Bratz Doll didn't have a wig and came with a hat, but it was next to the doll as an accessory. My daughter had never been a big doll fan before getting this doll, but was really excited to get one that was bald like her. There are also bald American Girl Dolls available for the public. I realize that they are probably not big sellers in stores, but you think Mattel could have offered it for sale online. I did fill out the form to recieve one, but haven't said anything to my daughter. I debating on taking the doll out of the packaging before giving it to her. Maybe I am being a little sensitive. I have never been a big fan of Barbie's image anyway. I would have just liked it if the wig was presented as an accessory instead.

Comment

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• …
• 6
• Next ›
• Page