This is completely parallel to the point being made, but am I the only one who feels that this photo is shopped? The angle of the car compared to the girl is just... weird. Or maybe it's the lack of proper shadow definition. Idk.
Either way, epic fail. When are we going to get girls playing with G.I. Joe barbie?
That's exactly why I'm blaming the ad designer. I could probably shop that better. I can't link the ad in context, but they put the weird shadowing on the background of the page. (it's like under barbie and the girl, but not on the car at all. I think in a different context, the products would less creepy, and even show cased better.
I'm not against Barbie in general. Some aspects of the whole barbie culture are kinda cool, and there are some, albeit vague, attempts at feminism and diversified race issues, but you're right. In general kids need cooler, more affordable toys to play with than "barbie fashionista" which is what that line is. :/
Oh I don't mind barbie at all. XD There are issues, such as this and the job thing you mentioned, but I don't see any reason to attack the whole line. I still remember Teacher barbie and Doctor barbie. But my Human Sexuality prof. did bring up a good point about toys and sexism in modern culture--the whole "barbie = girls toy, guns and cars = boys toys" aspect. And one job Barbie hasn't had, to my knowledge anyway and I'm not going to go looking it up right now, is as a soldier or construction worker. AKA, a "guy's" job.
Comments 3
Either way, epic fail. When are we going to get girls playing with G.I. Joe barbie?
Reply
I'm not against Barbie in general. Some aspects of the whole barbie culture are kinda cool, and there are some, albeit vague, attempts at feminism and diversified race issues, but you're right. In general kids need cooler, more affordable toys to play with than "barbie fashionista" which is what that line is. :/
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment