deowll says:

Okay I vote for trolls, ogres, the hulk, goblins, hobbits, satyr, fauns, and fairies.

That ought to get the little tikes used to people that look different.

MikeN says:

If you criticize this, then it means you are a racist.

bobbo, how irrelevant can the rich be says:

Simply truth is that use of any “doll” teaches the kiddies that human beings can be put under the control of “bigger” people.

You can’t avoid socialization==everything we do and don’t do has meaning, imparts meaning, and influences kiddies under its purview.

I like a new program I just heard about: PERMA. Its not based on dolls:

http://positivepsychologynews.com/news/category/fields/schools

DamnDirtyApe says:

What I way more worrisome and obnoxious is a clause in those guidelines that prohibits any child over 2 from being given whole milk without a note from a doctor!

That is fucked up in so many ways. Saturated fats and cholesterol is an essential component of human health and development. Human brains are two thirds fat for fuck’s sake. Young bodies need an assortment of saturated and unsaturated fats to develop correctly. Whole milk is a great way for kids to get some fats.

The government has been pushing low fat diets full of Gov subsidized sugars and grains down people’s throats for 35+ years now and all they have to show for it is a nation of obese diabetic kids on Adderall.

If misguided adults want to fuck up their health trying to tank their Cholesterol levels into the ground that’s their own business, but leave kids out of this nonsense.

So while the doll thing is annoying, its ultimately harmless, whereas nanny state gov intrusion into every aspect of our personal health decisions is a far, far worse thing.

BigBoyBC says:

my experience with day care centers, they’re usually happy just to have toys for the kids. Their dolls are usually reflective of the races of the kids they serve. If the day care center has all one race and the kids are a different race, that the fault of the people running the center. A new rule, should there need to be one, should express the need for the center to ensure that dolls be reflective of their kids race, but nothing more specific.

Also, what about Adam and Steve dolls, can’t forget the GLBTQI (Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgender, Questioning, Intersexed)

David says:

It’s another stupid government law. People take their kids to Day Care Centers that treat their kids well. They look at things like toys and dolls. If they don’t have the race or a doll that they feel will please their child, they tell them to get a doll of their race, et or go somewhere else.

Dallas says:

We need a modern GI Joe and Ken Doll

chuck says:

Everyone knows Barbie is a lesbian.

Animby says:

“…most children always pick up the white doll anyway…”

As Bobbo would say, “easy peasy.” We’ll just pass regulations requiring the kids to exchange dolls every hour. Any of those little bastards that show a preference for a particular ethnicity will be removed from obviously racist parents and raised by the State.

# 10 “GLBTQI” The acronym keeps growing. And it’s not very memorable. Why don’t we just call them “aberrants” or “deviants” or “other”? I’m not saying this to be discriminatory. In biology gender has only one purpose: to team up with a suitable opposite gender and reproduce. With the possible exception of “bi”* that mandate is not met by any of these aberrants.

* I once read an interesting paper in some journal or another that made a very convincing case that bisexuals always show a preference for the gender of their sexual partner and it is usually of the same gender.

god says:

None of all the 19th Century white-only minds here appear to have noticed they’re now in the minority in America.

Keep up the noise, guys. You can expect to be treated the same way you have always treated the previous minorities.

foobar says:

Chuck, every little girl wants a lesbian Barbie for Christmas.

Animby says:

Simple solution. Dolls must be bought from cooperating vendors in lots of 100. Each lot will contain
72 white dolls,
12 black dolls,
6 Asian dolls,
9 mixed race dolls,
and 2 Native American dolls.

Sexual distributions becomes more problematic. Although in a normal biological incidence shows slightly more males than females, we can say half of all the dolls would be malevolent men and half should be wonderful women.

Blondes, red haired and brunettes? No problem except for that pesky Caucasian group. Everyone else pretty uniformly has brunette hair colorization.

God help us if they decide we have to portray sexual identity, too!
E.g. Approximately 4% of American natives claim homosexual orientation. That means one of those 2 dolls will have to have a gay foot.

Now on to political and religious affiliations…

[Question: I guess we need to represent another major sector of the population, too. Those with body modifications. Are tattoos included? Are pierced ears a body mod? How about circumcisions?]

Ben-in-the-woods says:

Sorry, did you think the Daily Mail was a credible news source?

GregAllen says:

>> BigBoyBC
>> A new rule, should there need to be one, should express the need for the center to ensure that dolls be reflective of their kids race, but nothing more specific.

Nice, practical, suggestion. (except that even an all-white school should have diversity in it’s learning materials).

I agree with the spirit of this regulation.

It is very important that learning materials (dolls, books, videos, etc) not just be white.

And, make no mistake, this happens. I’ve heard many stories by minorities about how they never saw themselves represented in their education. It’s better than it used to be — in some places, anyway.

Dallas says:

The Pope doll is covered with a simple change of dress and red shoes