December 12, 2006, - 2:04 pm
By Debbie Schlussel
Hillary Clinton wouldn’t let Chelsea have one (no, not a mirror). And hundreds of thousands of feminists constantly speak out against Barbie. (I had several as a kid–“Superstar Barbie” was my favorite.)
It’s no big deal to them that there are far worse dolls, like Bratz. And that one toy company recently scrapped plans to make stripper dolls aimed at six-year-olds. They’re dead set against Barbie, mostly because Barbie is thin (and also because she’s feminine).
It’s not like Barbie (full name: Barbara Millicent Roberts) made anyone anorexic. Has the thin Barbie even made a dent in the ever-increasing obese population of American women? Hardly.
Despite all the opposition and villification of Barbie, the doll is the TOP TOY for girls, this holiday season, according to the National REtail Federation (TMX Elmo is tops for boys). Sales of Barbie have been up, this year, for the first time in several years. I think it’s a backlash against feminism and the butchification/masculinization of women, and Mattel’s abandonment of silly Barbie-broke-up-with-Ken-and-is-an-independent-woman stories. (If only Mattel could get the hint and stop turning Ken into a girlie-man.)
Sales of the Rosie O’Donnell doll–not doing too well. The Hillary doll. Ditto.
And BTW, for our readers who may need some holiday shopping tips for kids, here are a couple of hints:
These are for GIRLS (NOT boys) . . .
These are for BOYS (NOT girls) . . .
I hate these liberals and feminazis who insist on giving their boys effeminate gifts and their girls masculine ones. Way to mess up your kid and cause him/her to grow up to be just like this person . . .
Tags: Barbara Millicent Roberts, Debbie Schlussel Hillary Clinton, Mattel, National Retail Federation