The stigmas are reinforced primarily by the choices of the parents, not the toymakers. I’m not against hijab barbie, but I don’t think it is helpful for parents to continue to make choices that mean their children need hijab barbie to feel included.
True enough. I’d have no problems if my children (who are no longer of doll-playing age, really) played with anatomically correct naked dolls. Hell, they might even already be doing just that. That’s where my patch-kits have been going…
1 Like
I read that as “macaroni art projects” at first and on consideration I think it fits a little better.
1 Like
I wasn’t suggesting it was. However, in my view, any religionally-required symbol is a signal of repression and anti-modern ideas. If the hijab is worn as a religious symbol, I’d not exclude it from that symbolism. If it’s worn becasue someone thinks it looks good, or suits their bone structure, or even if simply because it accords with their secular view of modesty, then great. I mean, I wear pants when in public. But not becasue jesus told me too, and especially not because I fear the wrath of an evangelical nutjob (or my partner).
1 Like
I am fine with people wearing whatever garments they want if it is their individual, revocable choice. It shouldn’t be a cultural, societal, or religious imposition. I am particularly weary of those that punish non-conformity or apostasy with shunning or even with the death penalty.
4 Likes
I would include a couple of exceptions to “individual, revocable choice” mostly tied to safety or sanitation. I would want to see those exceptions applied consistently, though.
- If you’re involved in a profession where your attire could be the difference between causing injury or death to another, I’m okay with some regulations as long as those regulations are relevant to preventing harm.
Examples (of very different severity) include food service personnel and surgeons. You want to make me a sandwich or take out my appendix, I want you at the very least to wear gloves. But if my surgeon wanted to wear a hijab, a Speedo, or even a full biohazard containment suit, as long as it doesn’t interfere with the surgery that’s fine by me. [Though I would be a bit concerned by the last of those options.]
- A variant on the previous point is if your attire could be the difference between causing injury or death to yourself. Construction workers, you may or may not like wearing a hard hat, but you ought to wear it regardless. And if OSHA wants to impose a requirement that you do, that sounds fair to me.
- If you have been tried and convicted of a crime and sentenced to prison, your choice of clothing (an orange jumpsuit) may be made by the authorities. You may not like it, but if it makes you more conspicuous should you escape that’s their choice. It’s a decision in the interest of public safety.
- In my opinion, a store’s “No Shoes / No Shirt / No Service” policy falls into that same safety/sanitation category. You can walk around barefoot in public, but I’d be okay if a store kept you out or kicked you out if you tried to enter without shoes on.
3 Likes
It is unfortunate how many who preach anti-theism confuse or conflate other faiths with Christianity.
That’s there is some old school patriarchy. Really old.
I’m not confusing nor conflating anything. “jesus” was chosen at random. I could have put any god/prophet/seer/mystic/shaman/priest/cleric/mullah/nun. None of this nonsense makes any more sense than any of the other nonsense. All religious beliefs and other evidence-free beliefs (homeopathy, anti-vax, feng shui etc) are equally and utterly absurd. The religions themselves are a complex and long-standing social construct, and the followers themselves are not (in general) to be criticised for being psychologically conditioned, mostly as children, into truly believing the absurdities. The success of religions depends entirely on their ability to perform this psychological conditioning, and the ones that do it best are the ones that are most successful. It is also not a coincidence that successful religions (measured by numbers of followers) have typically encouraged (if not demanded) high birth rates.
2 Likes
Neat. I think it’s also interesting that its a fencing doll. At the Con this weekend they had a fencing competition at the other side of the hall. I wanted to check it out but the kiddo was tired.
I wondered, since you can buy just clothes for Barbie did anyone make a hijab before this? Even if it was from a third party? You would think with like a billion Muslims some one would have, allowing to dress any Barbie or Barbie knock off in it.
3 Likes
Without even really looking, I can pretty much assure you that someone must have; Etsy is too much of thing, filled with niche-markets that are generally underserved.
Before Mattel wisely stepped up their diversity game, that was where one went for more authentically ethnic-looking dolls and just repaints in general:
Sure enough:
ETA:
Edited to correct ‘homophone fail.’
13 Likes
Don’t forget the popcorn necklaces too.
That might be your ideal world, but why do you think it’s better for children to be raised outside of the cultural context of their families? How do you expect that to work, exactly?
So what do you think should be done? The only other option for not indoctrinating children, is to not let religious people reproduce or to take away their children. And BTW, religious groups are not the only ones indoctrinating children, we all reinforce our cultural beliefs through our children - it’s unavoidable, because we have to raise them to be able to function within the world, and work within the ideological structures they live in.
Franz Fanon, is that you? 
I’m just arguing that it’s not just religious, it’s more cultural, because it’s not like prayers or abstaining from pork or going to Friday prayers, it’s a major point of interpretation, that includes situations where the state is mandating head covering (Saudi Arabia, Iran), the culture encourages it (Kuwait, Dubai, parts of Lebanon, etc), or people make that judgement for themselves (Indonesia, Turkey, in Western countries with Islamic populations). Plenty of women make the choice to feel closer to their family or culture (especially in places where they can no longer be within that culture or with their family).
The burka ban was very specifically aimed at Muslim women.
7 Likes
I was talking more about @Medievalist concerns, which he thought it was odd given the roots of the original Barbie, taken from a German doll that was a call girl.
I totally understand why they made the doll (their new inclusivity push).
2 Likes
It’s an interesting history, that I wasn’t aware of, so I’m glad you did bring it up. I’m sure there is a very nice dissertation on the history of German and American cultural exchanges during the Cold War waiting to be written on this topic. I myself would like to know more.
5 Likes
It will be a required purchase if you buy one of these…
1 Like
Might be better suited to their talent level, actually. Macrame isn’t simple.
1 Like
I’m religious and my children don’t share my faith. My parents are Christian, but I’m not.
I was brought up Methodist. I brought my kids up in the Unitarian Universalist church, which stresses “a free and independent search for meaning” as a base principle. Atheists and secular humanists are welcome there.
2 Likes
Ah yes. Ken Jong-Un.
2 Likes
They can (theoretically) be raised largely within the cultural context without telling them fairy tales as facts. They can taught the cultural history and norms of their ancestors without telling them that sky fairies are real. They can be dressed in traditional or culturally defining clothing without telling them they will go to hell for impure thoughts. They can be instructed and guided in culturally and societally consistent morals without claiming that an ancient, corrupted and imperfectly translated text overrides modern laws. They can taught to be proud of their culture without being told that those that don’t follow a particular faith are evil. The history of the religion can be taught without requiring faith. The morals implicit in the culture must be able to be justified on the basis of their benefits, not on the basis of dubious (ridiculous) religious authority. I could go on, but there is absolutely no imperative to tie religious beliefs to a cultural heritage.
I don’t see it would work, though. That’s the thing with religions. They exist because they are impervious to logic. This is by definition. Faith, if you will.
If I was one to take offence (which I am not), I might claim offence to your implication that religion is required for cultural context, and that I am therefore uncultured in some sense. Nice thing is, that even if did take offence, being non-religious, I am extremely unlikely to kill people as a consequence.
That’s a pretty crazy extrapolation. But yeah, it might be true. There might be nothing that can be done to prevent parents (in good faith) convincing their children of idiotic falsehoods. I’d promote the separation of church and state. I’d insist on religion in schools being taught in a fact-based fashion. That is the history, psychology, sociology benefits and dangers of religion without for one second pretending any of the fairy tales are real.
Well yes, of course, but there is something especially insidious when those cultural beliefs cross over into evidence-free and self-righteous religion. The unthinkable can be justified.
1 Like
