Barbie promoting gender confusion?

WorldNetDaily ^ | 1/3/06 | WorldNetDaily

[wagglebee]

A third gender choice available to young participants of a poll on the Barbie doll website was changed after initially offering children the options of "I am a Girl," "I am a Boy," and "I don't know" – eliciting charges that Mattel, the company that owns Barbie, is intentionally promoting gender confusing among kids.

Barbie poll's original options.

Apparently due to the criticism, the third gender option has now been changed to "I don't want to say."

Concerned Women for America, or CWA, believes by including the "I don't know" choice the company was promoting the homosexual agenda.

"It's the idea that well, maybe people aren't born a particular biological sex, or they are but that shouldn't determine their gender identity," Robert Knight, director of CWA's Culture & Family Institute, told the Christian Post. "And that's a very big component of the homosexual activist agenda now."

Knight pointed out the homosexual movement now goes by the acronym GLBT – for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered – and sometimes adds Q for "questioning youth."

"In other words, any kid who's not sure about who he is, he's fair game to try to persuade to have same sex acts," said Knight.

CWA has posted a screen shot of the original poll's options on its website. The poll question itself asked about what activities the respondents participate in during January.

Knight also questioned Barbie's emphasis on material things and physical appearance.

"Some critics have said the Barbie dolls really have convinced American girls that the materialistic way of life is the way to go," he told the newssite. "You have to have the hot cars, and the tropical scene. And Barbie has the perfect figure and the perfect outfits.

"It's really steering girls away from the idea of womanhood as predominantly – in terms of Christians – serving the Lord, getting married, having kids, building a home. You don't see any of that with Barbie – it's all about things."

Left-wing blog Big Brass Blog ridiculed the suggestion that Barbie had an agenda by including the "I Don't Know" option.

Under the heading "Now this is just beyond silly," poster the Green Knight writes:

"I'm not sure why 'I don't know' is there; it might be just a programming mistake, or it might be a reflection of the fact that, yeah, sometimes really young kids might not have thought about it too much yet, but this mostly invisible drop-down item in an obscure section of a web page is not evidence of anything. It's certainly not a promotion of anything, other than, well, Barbie.

"And yet … CWA honestly think that this is some nefarious plot to indoctrinate 4-year-old girls into homosexuality and transsexual surgery. Yes, that's what they really think."

Mattel flatly denies any effort to purposely encourage gender confusion with the poll.

"Whenever we ask a child's gender, we provide her/him with three different answers: 'girl,' 'boy' and 'I don't want to say,'"explained Lauren Bruksch, a company spokeswoman. "Barbie.com always provides children with a neutral or non-response option."

Continued Bruksch: "In this particular case it was an innocent mistake; it should have read 'I don't want to say' as it does now. To suggest anything otherwise is ridiculous and irresponsible."

The spokeswoman said the answer "I don't know" is built into the sample answers of the rotating poll, and the fact it was not corrected before going live was an "unfortunate mistake."

[reagan_fanatic]

[Paloma_55]

Pat is one funny guy..err..girl...errr...


Actually, I can't imagine how they could make a movie out of what barely survived being funny on TV for more than 2 minutes.

On a side note, I know a gal who looks like Pat. She is married and has kids but definitely wears the pants in her family.

I suspect that she and her husband found a way to solve the masculine-female, feminine-male element of society without getting into sodomy.

[right-wingin_It]

Anywyas, 4 year olds shouldn't be watching television unsupervised, and they should not be on the internet AT ALL. The poll is whack.

[netmilsmom]

My husband has total distain for Barbie.com, Mylittlepony.com etc. He won't allow our girls on them because they are giant commercials.
We buy the CD-ROMS and let them play to their hearts content.

[netmilsmom]

And BTW, if a boy has a pee-pee and doesn't know he is a boy, he needs some help other than on Barbie.com.

[DBeers]

Hmmm sounds like a CWA over-reaction. But then I guess they have to keep the base energized...

et tu? Do you have to keep the base deenergized? LOL

[Melas]

BS. The "I don't know" was an obvious out for those who didn't want to give their gender. This whole thing is much ado about absolutely nothing.

[Melas]

Anyone with a room temperature IQ would have figured out that's exactly what was meant in the first place.

[gondramB]

I found a federal law, the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act of 1998 that prohibits collection of personally identifiable data from children under the age of 13 without verifiable parental consent, but gender is not on list of data they cannnot collect.

http://www.ftc.gov/ogc/coppa1.htm

So it looks like they are in the clear....

>>(8) PERSONAL INFORMATION.—The term "personal information" means individually identifiable information about an individual collected online, including—

(A) a first and last name;

(B) a home or other physical address including street name and name of a city or town;

(C) an e-mail address;

(D) a telephone number;

(E) a Social Security number;

(F) any other identifier that the Commission determines permits the physical or online contacting of a specific individual; or

(G) information concerning the child or the parents of that child that the website collects online from the child and combines with an identifier described in this paragraph.
<<

[gondramB]

"et tu? Do you have to keep the base deenergized? LOL"


Not that I have any influence... but if I did I wouldn't deenergize the CWA base but I would encourage them to focus on cases of actual child exploitation

[gondramB]

"
I am four years old and don't know if I am a boy or a girl!?!?

How many 4 year olds qualify for that? .0001% "

First of all, how many four year olds are able to read and surf well enough to get to that question and answer it?

Secondly there are lots of people who don't like answering personal questions so an "I don't know choice" is traditional.

[little jeremiah]

Homosexual Agenda Ping.

They are eager to get the next generation totally under their control. In CA, IIRC, it is now the law that every kid in school gets to say which SEX (NOT GENDER, FOOLS!) they are. So Tom can wear a dress and demand to be called "Tomasina" and use the girls' bathroom. It's insanity.

Freepmail me and DirtyHarryY2K if you want on/off this pinglist.

[gidget7]

Innocent mistake?? Silly to question it?? I don't THINK so. That's what they say everytime they advance the agenda. Every single time.

[gidget7]

And that, my fellow freeper, is exactly how they have gotten the agenda as far as they have. Way too many of us saying "it's much ado about nothing."

Read "Marketing of Evil"

[John O]

or it might be a reflection of the fact that, yeah, sometimes really young kids might not have thought about it too much yet,

total absolute hogwash. Whether they are a boy or a girl is a matter of extreme importance to little kids. My daughter (5 now) was keenly aware of it as early as two.

By the way, Humans don't have genders we have sexes

[Paloma_55]

Paloma << I am four years old and don't know if I am a boy or a girl!?!?

How many 4 year olds qualify for that? .0001% >>

Godram < First of all, how many four year olds are able to read and surf well enough to get to that question and answer it?

Secondly there are lots of people who don't like answering personal questions so an "I don't know choice" is traditional. >

OK. So suppose the kid is 9, online and hits this question?

The question could have been better stated as "Decline to state".

The fact is, there is a HUGE effort to get children confused on their gender identity and sexual preference. Why?

Simple. For every 100 people, there are 47 males that can pair up with one of the 50 females that are all heterosexual.

For the remaining 2 homo females, the choice is really thin. For the one homo male, he has to seek out a homo from a different hundred.

In other words, they are simply trying to increase the pool of likely candidates. < aka recruitment >

[NEW YORKCITYGOPMAN]

I think a founding member of NAMBLA or certainly one of the early members.

[wagglebee]

vBS. The "I don't know" was an obvious out for those who didn't want to give their gender. This whole thing is much ado about absolutely nothing.

Can you please list for me one single reason why somebody would be hesitant to give their gender on the official Barbie website? Keep in mind that most of those who go to this site are (we should assume) either young girls or collectors, either way I can't imagine why they would not want to have their gender known.

[rzeznikj at stout]

Any boy at a Barbie website should be checking I don't know.

Good Point!!

But it begs the question: "What are boys doing on the Barbie doll website to begin with?"

[AlaninSA]

The poll questions are regionally biased, too. In January...my kids are playing in the back yard wearing shorts.