Comment

Comment by Katie B on February 6, 2013 at 6:39am

Well I for one hate all barbie dolls and alike - they show no representation of real humans in any way shape of form!!

That aside. I think this is quite a good thing. I never would have even thought of a doll (horrible unhuman like things that they are!) being released without hair - wigged or wigless.

And I totally understand why it might not be in store - stores have to use their space carefully and will only stock things best sellers and things that have high market appeal - as nice and as balanced as it might be to stock this along side their best sellers thats not a business decision. I dont know a huge amount about the background here - but wasnt there mention they could be selling this online?

At the end of the day this is a kids toy - and I dont think everything has to come with a massive explanation or motive. For kids (bald or un-bald) i tend to think this sort of toy should be about 'normalising' something. 'Oh look Ellas hairs come off' 'yes dear - some peoples hair comes off' .... (start discussion if its required)

Comment by Carmen Dayhoff on February 6, 2013 at 6:02am

I think Mattel is embarrassed to even be involved in making a bald Barbie. I think they don't rally care about the kids Bald Ella represents. I always lived Barbies as a kid but thankfully my daughter has never wanted them because I think after all this I would have boycotted buying them. I really like the bald Proxie doll and am saticified with their involvement and willingness to be multi cultured. Though saying that, Ella IS cute. And I am happy for the kids that will get to enjoy her through NAAF.

Comment by JeffreySF on February 6, 2013 at 2:09am

Let the controversy begin...Does Ella come with an accessory kit sold separately? One sold with needles, lotions and potions?

Comment by TallGuy on February 6, 2013 at 1:58am

If the doll was packaged bald, folks would complain that she's white...or there is no bald ken....or that her features are unrealistic...or her hair is pink...

There is no contreversy here... when I went through this, there was just nothing out there... so having a prop that folks can share with their kids is great, and kudos to Mattel for putting it out there...

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 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 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 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 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 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.

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 3
• 4
• 5
• 6
• Next ›
• Page