Saturday July 11, 2009, 6:45 pm
"The pale, unsightly plaything, which has a plastic torso scaled to the proportions of a 5-foot-4, 179-pound woman in her mid-30s, is being touted as the first toy expressly intended to raise the sense of physical and emotional self-worth in preteen females.

"While we still value our classic Barbie franchise, we understand the need for dolls that offer an alternative body image," Mattel CEO Robert Eckert said. "And that's why we've created Plain Pamela. She's drab, she's dumpy, she's nothing to write home about, and she's going to make the girls of America feel like beauty queens."

Read more at site..

Saturday July 11, 2009, 6:51 pm
Anything from "The Onion" should clearly be marked 'Satire' (which it is) - both in the tags, and in parenthesis after the headline....unless you enjoy poking some of the gullible creatures on the board with a sharp stick just for fun ;-)

Saturday July 11, 2009, 7:06 pm
Oh no..I forgot..My bad..Second story I messed up tonight..Maybe time to call it a night..
And no..I do not enjoy poking anyone..ever..

Thanks Little D..

Saturday July 11, 2009, 7:30 pm
THAr good idea thank dee

Saturday July 11, 2009, 11:49 pm
Tx Dee

Monday July 13, 2009, 8:28 am
Don't we wish it were so,Mattell still has a lot of forgiveness coming for the creation of Barbee the beautiful queen of consumerism and the basic plans for the M-16 rifle.

Monday July 13, 2009, 1:01 pm
I betcha that this doll won't fly for long. We're a nation that can get its head turned by a pretty face. How do you think Palin has gotten as far as she has? Do you think that if she were godawful plain or homely, she would have been tapped for VP?
Nada chance!
Nope.
I'll be surprised if Plain Pamela lasts a season. (But then, I've been surprised before. ;)

Monday July 13, 2009, 4:54 pm
This satire is too real-seeming. Somebody is bound to get sued. Mattel will call it illegal use of trademark and defamation of character or some such thing. I don't think that it makes its point well either.

Monday July 13, 2009, 5:17 pm
Well, nice try, but what are they going to do to the Britneys, Montanas, Lohans, Hiltons.... and the other billion of their kind?
Sorry to say, but Plain Pamela is ONE against them all....

The problem is not dolls. The problem is the parents who fail to construct a healthy self-esteem on their daughters. And if that means shutting the TV off, well one's gotta do what one's gotta do.

Don't blame the dolls. Blame the parents who prefer their daughters to entertain themselves with TV or fake-looking dolls, than actually separate the time to spend time with them and make them feel valuable.

Monday July 13, 2009, 5:24 pm
And... quoting: "and she's going to make the girls of America feel like beauty queens."

No girl needs to feel like a beauty queen! Why? Is beauty that important? More important than being a person of good? More important than having a loving, caring family??

Now Mattel is giving mixed lines in here..... So, you make a doll that is not pretty, just for the "ugly" girl playing with it will feel she's "prettier"... Again, self-esteem, must not be based on beauty concept................

PEOPLE>>>>>>>>>>!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Monday July 13, 2009, 9:20 pm
quote:[Again, self-esteem, must not be based on beauty concept................ ]
YES.Ms.Damaris C. I totally agree with you 200%!!!

Tuesday July 14, 2009, 1:38 am
Good one Dee! Onion does it again. I like the idea of a Palin doll though, perhaps one we could stick bullets in??

Tuesday July 14, 2009, 11:51 am
I cant believe Mattel would tout an ugly doll and foolishly expect it to make a child feel better about themselves. What if that child is not beautiful but plain?? The wording in the ads make it clear that being plain is not desirable or acceptible... the ads themselves say this Plain Doll.... is ugly. It says its dumpy and drab and true maybe in contrast a child might think she is better than this doll.... being better than another less fortunate person is a positive trait we want to entrust to our kids?? This is a stupid ridiculous and wrong headed stunt!

Tuesday July 14, 2009, 12:44 pm
Would any clear thinking, loving, caring parents REALLY want their daughters to have this doll? Would they think it could assuage feelings of inadequacy or of being, OMG, plain looking?

Or would it send the message: "Yes, you're ugly ... but look, here's someone as ugly or uglier than you. Now, be happy. Dress her in terrible clothes. Put breakouts on her face. Make her even worse off and worse looking than you. That should make you feel LOTS better about yourself."

I mean, damn, but there's a LOT of goofy thinking going on. Have we really descended that far into what Steve Allen once called "DUMBTH"?

IMO, there is no greater gift we can give to our children than unconditional love and a deep feeling of their own good worth. Everything else that is good follows from that.

Tuesday July 14, 2009, 3:25 pm
Mattel ought to be sued and those that came up with and support this insulting doll should be fired! They just don't get it! It's not about having a bust size 10x larger than the average or a waist that is 1/4 the size of the average, its not about wearing dumpy clothing to make someone else feel good about themselves - its about being proud of who you are and reflecting that in your appearance however you choose to look; its not about wearing oversized ratty clothing and purposely indicating that you have weird skin growths to try to make some little girl feel good about herself. Something this backward will obviously have the reverse effect; it could cause the little girls of the world to do like the boys have been doing and wear their pants grotches at their knees instead of where they belong; it could make them not care about how they present themselves. I'm not saying go out and spend $500 per month on makeup and $10K per month on new clothing - use what you have and make yourself neat in appearance since first appearance does make all the difference. I used to have incredible measurements, was gorgeious (both inside and out) but unfortunately the age and time taught me to me the timid girl and I was treated like a piece of arm candy/like a piece of meat - now, well we won't go there - it all depends on how I feel from day to day - lets just say I'm a highly educated and independant female; actually, its doesn't matter how I look as long as I express myself with dignity and pride. I think they should fire the whole lot of those ignoramisses at Mattel and get some people in there with some sense of morality and proper judgement. The little people of the world (boys or girls) need dolls that they can respect and look up to. They need dolls that reflect good values and acceptance of people in general.

Tuesday July 14, 2009, 3:28 pm
Cool, then they can sell breast implants, tummy tucks and weight watchers play sets!

Tuesday July 14, 2009, 3:57 pm
You cannot currently send a star to Damaris because you have done so within the last week.

Wednesday July 15, 2009, 12:53 am
i'm just fed up with dolls of any kind (pretty or ugly)being pushed at girls along with all toys of a "housework" nature.to me it starts the brainwashing that women should not expect to do anything but stay at home and not bother with a career in a "man's" type of job.oh yes and while i'm on my soapbox,giving toy guns,knives etc.to boys is also i'm sure very unwise.

Thursday July 16, 2009, 4:43 am
Ladies I agree entirely with each one of you,that doll is not going to change the way people see each other. And Polly and Damaris it couldn't be said any better.Kudos to you both!