Bratz dolls to be banned after holidays

Post Reply New Topic

for some reason dolls these days stand for everything i'm against, when will they bloody learn?

I don't care for the Bratz dolls myself, but I don't think that my disapproval is grounds for banning them. I'm far more concerned about the ramifications that this ruling might have on intellectual property laws than I am about what affect a line of dolls has on young girls. They just seem like the latest scapegoat for people who don't want to take responsibility for their parenting, it's much easier to blame a doll than to actually teach your children about what is age appropriate and why.

what a bunch of garbage.

sure the dolls were that too, but, copyright infringement? what a load of crap..

Agreed.

most people wantt o be more like their idols and most young girls are naive enough to believe barbieand bratz are beautiful, meaning they too need to dress like sluts and have an eleven inch waist otherwise they wont be as popular as the other girls who vomit after every meal and sleep with anyone male.

Thank goodness they are to banned, they were ugly and nasty looking things.

But does that justify government intervention? What the people who are posting in this thread seem to be missing is that the Bratz dolls were wildly successful, and that is in fact the source of the lawsuit. Mattel couldn't beat their competition fairly, so they turned to the government to quash their rival for them, and that sticks in my craw. The dolls obviously filled a market niche that wasn't being filled before, and if the Bratz ban sticks, someone else will create a similar doll to fill it. Nobody would be suing anybody if the dolls hadn't been a smash hit, and that tells us that little girls wanted a doll like this before the dolls were on the market, and that the dolls are more a symptom than a cause of young girls acting in an age inappropriate way.

People have tried marketing dolls with realistic measurements that weren't as glamorous as Barbie, and they've all been flops, children don't want to play with them and they gather dust on the shelves. I think the whole concept of certain toys influencing a child's interests and attitude is flawed to begin with, for a personal example I was not allowed to play with toy guns as a child, and look at how well that worked out. Ultimately, I remain convinced that it comes down to parents trying to sidestep responsibility for their children, since blaming a toy, movie, video game or other "influence" is so much easier than self examination.

Sluts existed before Bratz, and will exist after them.

Baby dolls aren't slu*ty looking or some other dolls I've come across. Not all of come off as something you'd see hookas look like where they're dressed down to show a guy their stuff with so much makeup....

In brief though, as for the quote above the poster...that's a good example of capitalism.

What's disturbing to me is not the fact that they exist but the immense demand for them among the public.

Especially those Baby Bratz. They look like something that would be sold on a website for paedophiles - and would probably not be the most popular item.

Why is it that kids all over the place want these dolls? And why do their parents choose to buy them for them?

Finally! Thank you so much!

Bratz dolls are so horrid that they needed to be banned.

Lets just clarify something. This is not a leap forwards for morality. The only thing that has occurred is that the company producing Bratz must desist from their production and sale, post Christmas.They have incurred damages and are appealing the case.

Nowhere does it state that the creation of dolls of dubious morality is banned. Mattel, if they wish, could produce the line again. If they own the rights, they may well, as it is a clear money maker. There is nothing preventing other manufacturers from producing dolls of a similar nature, so long as they do not infringe the copyright. Dolls in thongs have not been outlawed. MGA just arent allowed to make them any more. Though its fair to say they could easily produce a very similar line with little remodelling.

I recall a line in the UK called "Cindy".. or possibly "Sindy"... who had better proportions, shorter legs, and flat feet. Otherwise, it was Barbie by another name. Go and look at toy shops. There are plenty of variants on Barbie that are not Barbie. Look how many "construction block" ranges there are that are clearly Lego.

People here seem to think this is the end for dolls like this.. it so is not. This is just more cynical corporate number-crunching. The only reason they left it 'til after Christmas is because they knew that they would generate huge amounts of bad media attention by ruining Christmas for millions of children. Cynical money-making activity, NOT moral retribution.

To be precise it was her long term friend Midge, who came with a husband and some form of bizarre removable foetus event. And high heels....

They do a Wonder Woman Barbie.. well known fetish icon that she is. Or the Scarlet Macaw Barbie.. and if she isnt a sex icon then I dont know what is.... Or Medusa Barbie. I'm trying to persuade Lady Macbeth to buy that dress as I type. Or the Can Can dancer Barbie, with skirt and nylons just like you would find in any seedy Parisien nightclub. She "celebrates the allure of french nightlife."Maybe she can be in a lineup with "Showgirl Barbie".

Or theres the Hard Rock Cafe Barbie in goth ensemble, complete with Guitar and Fishnets. The only difference between her and a Brat is a SMALLER HEAD.. which is still, to scale, freakishly oversized.

There is a tattoo Barbie which had great sales, and despite complaints, was kept by Mattel. Though they did drop the pierced line.

Barbie herself was created based on another doll, Lilli, star of a german cartoon-strip. Ironically, Barbie was a less sexed-up and sexualised reworking of the Lilli doll: Lilli even had nipples. Her producers were forced to halt sales after Mattel bought the rights to the doll. On her release, Barbie was condemned for being "scary, sleazy and spellbinding".

Its worth noting that Mattel are born again bastards when it comes to intimidation and seeking out money loss, or misuse of their intellectual property. They have at times threatened ISPs over copyright infringement by that ISPs users. They threatened to sue a chain of restaurants for being called "Barbies"... They took Aqua to court for the "Barbie Girl" song, and failed. They failed to prevent Barbies use in parodies and other art. They sued a Chinese models website for being called China Barbie.

This reader waits avidly the day Mattel sue Australia for their use of the name to describe outside cooking gatherings, and also the Third Reich for its use of the term in conjunction with "Klaus".....

My point is.. and I think Hard Rock Barbie makes it for me... Mattel are not purveyors of morality, and are not working in your childrens best interests, or anything ofthe sort.

Yes, I've seen the pregnant barbie but I didn't exactly see it as slu*ty since it had baby stuff with it like a baby shower.

Most kids are interested in where babies come from including my niece they just don't all know how they're conceived.....

http://www.barbiecollector.com/shop/pro ... ?sku=N3245

I just found super sassy Red Riding Hood Barbie....

That reminds me of those halloween costumes they sell as lingerie.

And it's off to grandma's house with fishnet stockings....hillarious.