• Feeling isolated? You're not alone.

    Join 20,000+ people who understand exactly how your day went. Whether you're newly diagnosed, self-identified, or supporting someone you love – this is a space where you don't have to explain yourself.

    Join the Conversation → It's free, anonymous, and supportive.

    As a member, you'll get:

    • A community that actually gets it – no judgment, no explanations needed
    • Private forums for sensitive topics (hidden from search engines)
    • Real-time chat with others who share your experiences
    • Your own blog to document your journey

    You've found your people. Create your free account

First autistic Barbie doll launched with sensory-sensitive features

Back in 90s the media began to be more sensitive about minorities. Gay people got more representation both in movies and in tv: In tv-shows "compulsory quota homosexuals" ended up being stereotypical nasal-toned "fags" with an unapologetic raunchy humor and girlish behavior, a mixture of people to be laughed at, and to be laughed with. It took until the 21th century when such minorities began increasingly being expressed as normal human beings without exaggerated stereotypical features. I'll take that it is just a phase: First the existence is recognized, then the acceptance of their human nature follows. Autism is inch by inch following the same development cycle.

They aren't interested in autistic customers other than the cash they have to purchase their products.
Yep. But I take a pragmatic approach: Does it matter what handful of board members think if their product can change thinking of thousands of people? Assuming that the new product really works in that sense...
 
Last edited:
Yep. But I take a pragmatic approach: Does it matter what handful of board members think if their product can change thinking of thousands of people? Assuming that the new product really works in that sense...

Sounds fine in principle, but I just don't see the limited demographics of toy products being at the forefront of profoundly changing society's perception of a neurological minority.
 
Last edited:
Sounds fine in principle, but I just don't see the limited demographics of toy products being at the forefront of profoundly changing society's perception of a neurological minority.

Perhaps it'll make a small difference only, like you say, but even a small step is a step in the right direction.
 
Sounds fine in principle, but I just don't see the limited demographics of toy products being at the forefront of profoundly changing society's perception of a three percent+ minority.
Not the point... It is still better than nothing, small streams here and there make big rivers, and so on. I'll put it this way: You wouldn't want to prevent them doing this only because you think that it is not for the right reasons...
 
Last edited:
Not the point... It is still better than nothing, small streams here and there, and so on. I'll put it this way: You wouldn't want to prevent them doing this only because you think that it is not for the right reasons...
Yeah this reminds me when people tell me that being vegan wont help all animals. Helping all animals isn't the point, t he point is helping as much as you can. This is similar in the way that if some kids and parents will now learn about autism because of Barbie dolls - it's a win!
 
Not the point... It is still better than nothing, small streams here and there make big rivers, and so on. I'll put it this way: You wouldn't want to prevent them doing this only because you think that it is not for the right reasons...

It's not a matter of prevention. Just a foregone conclusion. That success in sales is the ultimate goal. Not to change society's perception. And when sales or fad purchasing wane, so will your optimism.

Nothing wrong with the idea. It's just that realistically we need a more robust catalyst for social change and acceptance than a child's doll.

Despite all kinds of ethnic-based dolls on the market, have they tangibly advanced the civil rights of various minorities in the US? -No.
 
Last edited:
I've just seen The Daily Tism post a savage satire news article about the new Autistic Barbie. It says to recreate your least favorite autistic child moments, such as hiding under the school library table at lunchtime and crying at party balloons, and it says that Playground Bully Barbie can't wait to play with her and can't wait to give Autistic Barbie a swirlie with her toilet that really flushes.

In my case it would be a group of Middle School Bully Kens who can't wait to throw rocks at me when they see me walk by wearing a Garfield sweatshirt.
 
I think moves like this towards inclusivity for the autistic community, can only be a good thing.

https://www.independent.co.uk/tv/news/autistic-barbie-doll-mattel-video-b2898705.html
I think there are people out there who will enjoy this doll and I am happy they have a choice they see themselves in. I remember what a big deal it was for a friend's daughter to have a Chinese barbie as the family is of that ethnicity. Kids have the right to see themselves in their toys. Adults too.

I would rather see those who are unhappy with this doll arguing in favour of having another one that is inclusive to them as well, rather than denying someone else a toy they like because they are personally affronted.
 
Last edited:
Just a foregone conclusion. That success in sales is the ultimate goal. Not to change society's perception. And when sales or fad purchasing wane, so will your optimism.
I didn't think of optimism here, just your negativism about Mattel's motives. You are still missing the point. It still shouldn't matter why they have launched the autistic barbie. It should matter if it has any potential of doing any good. Even if it actually does not, it is still better than nothing. As a gesture and recognition, instead ignoring, so to say. No big bang of world change is even imagined here. So why to complain about the motives instead the doll itself? As much as you don't see an autistic barbie changing anyone's attitudes, I don't see how Mattel's motives and the doll's potential effects are related.

Realistically we need a more robust catalyst for social change than a child's doll.
Agree on that.
 
Last edited:
It's just that realistically we need a more robust catalyst for social change and acceptance than a child's doll
Young children are still learning the world, it's too much to ask them to change it in their early stages. If a new or different toy helps them fit in better or feel like they are more welcome in society, that's okay.
 
Young children are still learning the world, it's too much to ask them to change it in their early stages. If a new or different toy helps them fit in better or feel like they are more welcome in society, that's okay.

Sure. I have no objection to such possibilities, merely attempting to point out how fleeting such a product can be in the market. Especially if the target market is relatively small. In this case much of anything appealing to autistic persons translates into limited demand.

Where behind closed doors the public relations element may potentially be their priority over sales. Especially if and when the appearance of goodwill is translated into shareholder equity, apart from the usual promises of quarterly returns. Would make particular sense given this corporation is a midcap investment on the stock market. More volatility, more abstract strategies to lure shareholders and tantalize consumers, even if a small segment of them.
 
Matel: /makes an autistic doll/
Autistics: yay woo
Judge: doom and gloom, investments, stock market, shareholders, consumerism.

Like... what :D
 

It's not doom and gloom at all. Just a matter of understanding business fundamentals tied to a publicly-traded corporations. One with a published track record of both good and bad happenings.

A publicly-traded corporation is always going to be loyal first and foremost to their investors and the shareholder equity they bring to a corporation's bottom line. Second, to enhance the same bottom line through profitability beyond research and development costs.

Using capital to make capital. A business and their shareholders in search of profits- not a charity paying a morally perceived debt to society or any societal minority. So when consumers think they are doing us all a huge favor, that's just plain sad. Unless you too are a shareholder and make the most of it. And if you work for such entities, just know you're just an expendable asset.

It's still "business as usual". Love it, hate it...but it will still be here tomorrow. With midcaps like this always pressured into creating new gimmicks to attract shareholders in the least amount of time possible. And in the process, tantalize a few consumers.

The truth may not "set you free", but sometimes it pays to know who- and what you are dealing with.
 
Last edited:

New Threads

Top Bottom