Comments (15)

• hebe

  Well, what's wrong with what he said? I agree with him on the Barbie influence - of course, to suggest that there should be legislation to deal with Barbies... it's just absurd.
  

  Published: March 21, 2009 4:24 AM

• Barb

  What's next,,a ban on what the girls wear and watch on TV? If they think banning Barbie is going to help, they are even sicker than I thought. This is not encouraging, property rights aside, what about personal responsibility, anyone??

  Published: March 21, 2009 7:07 AM

• ProudCapitalist

  Bueaty is in demand. It is a valuable quality which of course is worth considering when making trade-offs about what to make with ones time (such as painting the nails or commenting on the internet...)

  I can't tell what's best for everyone at any time. But I have noticed that humans seem to have a better quality of life, the more beautiful they are.

  Published: March 21, 2009 10:23 AM

• bummer

  Seriously, Mr. Eldridge makes a good point about the commercialization of female beauty, or anorexia, or self esteem or whatever the hell he is talking about. What he and other political dunces do not understand is that the only effective methods of cultural reform are through persuasion. Persuasion is difficult, I know, but political legislation does not work. Remember Prohibition?

  Published: March 21, 2009 5:00 PM

• SB

  Don't little girls in West Virginia have parents? As a girl, I was denied a certain curvaceous doll, and when I had my own daughter, she was denied it, too. However, the market being what it is, an enterprising soul, who must have noticed there were conscientious parents prowling the toy stores, brought out a brilliant rival in the form of a schoolgirl doll with an age-appropriate body type. This doll has a wonderful wardrobe, accessories, and parents don't need legislators to do their child-rearing for them--only a good marketing department.

  Published: March 21, 2009 5:16 PM

• Tim

  You know what would be a better way to make girls care more about their "emotional and mental development" than physical beauty? Force them to wear a full body burka.

  Why not? People have no right to choose their physical appearance over other things. Since beauty promotes sin, it should be banned. Society would be free from vice if everyone in it was collectively hideous.

  Published: March 21, 2009 5:21 PM

• JD

  I guess the Pageant Lobby paid off the Do-Gooders to get them off their backs for the time being?

  Mattel, you better step up.

  Let the market step up, and see if a "200+lb Pear Shaped" Barbie sells. It's not like men are buying this stuff. Besides "Bratz Dolls" are much more of a menance than sweet innocent Barbie. I really don't know anymore. Parents need not apply,.... the "State" will do it better for you.

  Any diversion they can fathom, to keep the masses occupied, while they bleed folks of their earnings from the bottom all the way to the top at the Central Bank.

  Published: March 21, 2009 7:43 PM

• eric lansing

  we're all gonna die

  Published: March 21, 2009 9:24 PM

• rob

  My limited experience runs completely counter to Mr. Eldridge's assumptions about Barbie's influence.

  When I was a kid I played with my neighbor and my cousins with their Barbie's (I played with my Planet of The Apes and GI Joe dolls). These girls always had their Barbies as doctors or scientists and, by gum, they kept up with GI Joe in the adventure department, dispatching bad guys with all the precision of an Angelina Jolie super-assassin.
  My girls did the same with their Barbies when playing with the neighbor boy (WWF and Justice League dolls in his case). And no, I offered no input on how they played - they just did what they wanted.

  I'm sure there are girls who imagine their Barbies as strutting super-models, but I've not met one.

  Published: March 22, 2009 7:39 AM

• Jaycephus

  "dolls that promote or influence girls to place an undue importance on physical beauty to the detriment of their intellectual and emotional development"

  So, what Eldrige is really saying is that little girls shouldn't believe they can be intelligent with a well-rounded personality AND beautiful at the same time?

  So should little boys not be allowed to play with GI Joes, super heroes, Star Wars figures, etc. for a host of similar illogical fears??

  Published: March 22, 2009 9:44 AM

• JD

  The real troubling thing is that Eldrige didn't mention the anything of the tall, dark, & handsome Ken doll, that also gives young girls a false sense of reality, when they.... under the bell shaped curve, will more than likely end up with short, ugly, dumb, and poor.

  We must not just focus on the feminine side. Both sides are equally corrosive to society. Barf!

  Can't wait until the State starts issuing the Peasant Collection of dolls, short, deformed, malnurished, hopeless, etc. You know something right out of Monty Python's "Holy Grail".

  Wait a minute that may soon be a reality.

  Published: March 22, 2009 1:03 PM

• bearing01

  What ever happened to this being a free country?

  Published: March 22, 2009 6:28 PM

• Jaycephus

  I brought this up with my wife this morning, and she replied that she was very self-concious about appearance, clothing, and making herself look pretty as a very young girl. THEN she got a Barbie. The point is that she was the way she was, and wanted a Barbie and played with it a lot because it FULLFILLED those impulses. The Barbie didn't create them.

  bearing01, what country have YOU been living in for the last two decades. ;)

  Tim, nice suggestion on the burka. Given how silent the feminists have been on Middle Eastern treatment of women, perhaps they would welcome the new level of equality burkas would bring: all women would be equally unappealing. Burka Barbie!

  ;)

  Jay

  Published: March 22, 2009 9:21 PM

• David Spellman

  It is interesting that the discussion immediately devolved to considering whether Barbie unduly affects girls well-being. The real point is that legislating morality is not the proper function of government. The fact that people choose to debate the merits of the action rather than attack the premise for taking action readily exposes why we live in an incipient authoritarian state.

  If the People believe the government can and ought to ban Barbie dolls, then the People have reached the point where the governors can do just about anything they please. The fact that a legislator believes it is right and proper to advocate banning Barbie reveals the mentality of our government--they believe they are entitled and authorized to control any aspect of our lives. Government is going after dolls, junk food, low hanging trousers, and song lyrics because they have run out of more meaningful freedoms to take away from us. Surely this signals the death of all freedom.

  The Founding Fathers must be rolling their graves--rolling with laughter at the useless nanny state we have become!

  Published: March 23, 2009 12:02 PM

• Krabe

  I am not american, so I don't follow what the argument put forward in this post is.

  1) The title of post is confusing. The legislation (bill) is being introduced House (Senate?) in West Wirginia. What does Houston have to do with anything?
  2) Not sure what you pointing out, yes, she want to limit influence, and yes, she got standing ovation. So where is the conflict?
  3) Who said nanny state is growing? I guess everbody is saying this, is there somebody who said otherwise?
  4) What does owning property have to do with anything.

  Published: March 24, 2009 6:03 AM