I've never heard of the Barbie franchise <i>not</i> fucking it up. <i>"Math is tough"</i> Barbie was more than two decades ago; the adults designing current Barbie products were likely playing with the Barbie products of that era, yet it seems like nothing was learned.<p>At this point I think it is safe to say that Mattel honestly does not care how many people Barbie offends. They probably have sales numbers and market research that back up their approach. I can't imagine they would feel comfortable continuing down this path otherwise.
OK, I'm confused by all the vitriol.<p>Barbie, a game DESIGNER, is going to enlist a couple of code monkeys to implement her design. Remind me again what's wrong with this?<p>Barbie, your typical computer-savvy geek, keeps a flash drive with her backed up files. Remind me again what's wrong or unusual about this? So what if it's heart shaped?<p>Barbie accidentally infects her sister's computer after being careless with her USB drive. Umm, yeah. Been there, done that, lesson learned. Once again, what exactly is wrong here?<p>OH NOES! Her sister hit her with a pillow! How misogynistic! Maybe she should have used a crowbar? Or maybe, you know, she actually TRUSTS that Barbie can fix it, which is why she's not freaking out?<p>And it even gets worse! Her two friends help out as she tells them what needs to be done (hook the drive up to another computer and copy the files). How shameful that her friends are male! Naturally, if she doesn't do everything by herself she's not a full person. Time saving is obviously evil.<p>Sorry, but I just don't buy this critique.
I understand the issues they present in the article and don't disagree, but if you look at it from another angle, that book describes a scenario that plays out regardless of sex, I've seen plenty of times people who are in positions that don't know what to do, get help from others and take credit. In a way this book is describing what hard working individuals (male AND female) go through when they do the work and others take the credit, and in fact it's encouraging it. I'll admit, the book is rough (this comment solely based on what I read/saw on the link that is here).
Cached content in case it doesn't load: <a href="http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:MjsZEYTwdacJ:pamie.com/2014/11/barbie-fucks-it-up-again/" rel="nofollow">http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:MjsZEYT...</a>
My daughter once broke the "family computer" trying to install "Barbie Dress Designer". In the late '90s, we had a relatively high-end computer with a reasonable hard drive but the kids had <i>A LOT</i> of software. When the installer told her there wasn't enough hard-drive space, she went looking for applications they didn't use and since "we never play win98", she deleted that folder. The computer was soon upgraded to WinXP and the kids had were provided with unprivileged accounts.<p>This unfortunate Barbie story has a happy ending ... my kids developed a fearlessness when using computers which is precisely what I'd hoped. Next spring my daughter will finish a combined undergrad/masters degree in Biology (she's a molecular geneticist) and switch universities for a doctorate program. She's had no problem understanding the general logic concepts involved in computer programming including a rigorous course in bioinformatics (using Python).<p>So how do we go from Barbie to CS? I'd say skip the Barbie completely, but if that won't work in your household, then temper it with equal time on nerdy pursuits. And if you ever run into the "Barbie Dress Designer" software? Buy stock in hot pink Inkject cartridges ... it will empty them at an amazing rate.
Wow that is so lame, I wonder if the author [1] of the book is a real person. Basically the author sends the message that all Barbie will ever be good for is design and sending the 'hard stuff' out to the boys to get done.<p>[1] <a href="http://www.randomhouse.com/kids/catalog/author.pperl?authorid=160068" rel="nofollow">http://www.randomhouse.com/kids/catalog/author.pperl?authori...</a>
well we killed pamie.com, (or was it Brian & Steven), so content reposted over at tumblr <a href="http://pamiedotcom.tumblr.com/post/102960377050/barbie-fucks-it-up-again" rel="nofollow">http://pamiedotcom.tumblr.com/post/102960377050/barbie-fucks...</a>
And you wonder why only 20% of programmers are female.<p>EDIT: Love the Amazon reviews:
<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Actress-Computer-Engineer-Barbie-Pictureback/dp/0449816192" rel="nofollow">http://www.amazon.com/Actress-Computer-Engineer-Barbie-Pictu...</a>
This looks like a decent alternative: <a href="http://www.helloruby.com/" rel="nofollow">http://www.helloruby.com/</a> but it's a year off
Dear men. The book says "Barbie is a computer engineer". Please read the title again, it says "computer engineer", not "game designer". So Barbie is a computer engineer that doesn't know how to code. If that's not sexist, I don't know what is. That this submission gets flagged by HN users just makes me sad.
This post was killed by user flags, but since the thread is reasonable and people are reposting the story, we'll reopen it so discussion can continue.