Your Garage Summer Reading Amazon Fashion Learn more nav_sap_plcc_ascpsc Jessy Lanza Father's Day Gift Guide 2016 Fire TV Stick Luxury Beauty Father's Day Gifts Amazon Cash Back Offer DrThorne DrThorne DrThorne  Amazon Echo  Echo Dot  Amazon Tap  Echo Dot  Amazon Tap  Amazon Echo Starting at $49.99 All-New Kindle Oasis UniOrlando Outdoor Recreation
Customer Discussions > Toys forum

Black Doll sells for $20 more than other dolls


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 301-325 of 338 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on Jun 3, 2012 4:12:03 AM PDT
DisplacedMic says:
Excellent post Nicole :-)
I think you summed that up perfectly.

Bigotry is a problem wherever it exists.
But buying a doll that looks somewhat like your kid isn't racism - otherwise why buy her a doll at all, just get her another stuffed animal.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 4, 2012 1:35:16 PM PDT
Keith says:
it's likely due to the general population of lil girls that play with dolls are white and for toy makers to make a black one increase production cost to have them painted and then packaging for the few runs that will produce one. It's my opinion so don't take it to seriously but that's what I think the reasoning is.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 7, 2012 2:15:15 AM PDT
Meribast says:
Do you see Asian-americans complaining about the lack of Asian dolls that don't promote stereotypes of Asians? No... we just accept it and go on. If its really that big of an issue, import your own from somewhere where they do make them as the norm and not the exception, or manufacture your own.

Same with television. We are type cast in certain roles and only certain actors get the roles even if they don't match (like a Japanese playing a Chinese...hey we all look alike to you...) and to play the asian gangster, the martial arts side kick, the laundry guy or the guy cooking your chinese/japanese food or some sort of tech geek or exchange student. Its not racism its just only a small minority cares about it and that's just the facts.

can it cause a disconnect for kids growing up to know they are not the norm? yes. is it reality? yes. life is not perfect for someone and if its not perfect for you, its even less perfect for someone else than you...

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 7, 2012 2:35:31 AM PDT
and being a white male, everyone thinks I just have it made, despite working as many as 68 hours a week some weeks just to make ends meet. we aren't even socially allowed to defend ourselves, hate thrown at us is fine, but even try to defend yourself and people call us racist for it.

Racism exists from all races towards all races, but the toy business is not interested in sticking it to anyone, they just want money, I just bought a figure at an anime con (was tempted to sell it as it goes for over double what I paid online, but my friend convinced me to open it) it is a character based off chinese myth, should the chinese be up in arms about how expensive this figure is? that online it is over $100? I'm sure the creators didn't hike up the cost to make any asians suffer... but maybe I'm wrong, maybe toy companies like mattel and hasbro are part of some evil racist organization who want to take all the minority's money through overpriced dolls... yep, that's gotta be it!

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 8, 2012 9:23:38 AM PDT
Kitty Berean says:
"I think you missed my point. I absolutely was referring to Amendment One. Bigotry isn't just about colour. You have every bit as much control over your sexual preference as you do over the amount of melanin in your skin."

I did get your point. I just wanted to make sure I understood you correctly. But my point is, to label defense of traditional marriage "bigotry" and "hat[red]" is subject to opinion. So is your implication that homosexuality is genetic. There has been no scientific proof of that, just conjecture from motivated activist political groups with a vested interest (and whom already had their minds made up going in), based on a few flawed, biased studies. To equate a voluntary sexual behavior (for we all have our own demons and moral temptations to face) with skin color (which clearly IS inherited) just cheapens the very real issue of racial discrimination and all the strides that people of color have made in America and around the world since the civil rights' movement of the '60's and prior.

I voted for Amendment One and I'd do it again in a heartbeat. But the bottom line is, your original assertion was off-topic as well as emotionally and politically-charged. Kids at this age (at least the younger ones which are relevant to this discussion) are not aware of nor concerned about issues such as whom adults are or are not legally acknowledged to have sex with, unless they have been exposed to something inappropriate (pornography, sexual abuse; kindergarten "sex ed" in schools, etc.). Neither will you see them pairing off two Kens or two Barbies to play "house," unless they've been similarly indoctrinated in some way. But even the youngest child is aware of differences in skin color among people and their reactions can range from mild curiosity to confusion or possible feelings of inferiority; and so this is a relevant issue for them as relating to the toy industry.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 8, 2012 1:30:04 PM PDT
Homosexuality is a choice? We really still are at that point? Who would choose to be ridiculed, beaten, treated as less than heterosexuals, the list goes on and on.

My dad was gay, he tried to live that perfect expected hetero life with my mom. By the end they were both miserable... If you are gay, you are gay, you can hide it, but you won't be happy...

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 9, 2012 8:04:42 AM PDT
DisplacedMic says:
It's all subject to opinion. What man thinks himself wrong let alone a bigot?

My implication wasn't that homosexuality is genetic - at all. my implication was that nothing i've written in this thread has suggested i don't believe discrimination exists. I just do not believe it's relevant to the pricing of a toy. As it were, of course homosexuality has genetic and environmental roots. Why on Earth would ANYONE choose to be gay? Did you choose to be heterosexual? I sure didn't.
There are scores of scientific papers published that suggest that there is a genetic component to sexuality. Data that are far more useful than your anecdotal and unsubstantiated claim that you won't "see [children] pairing off two Kens or two Barbies to play "house," unless they've been similarly indoctrinated in some way."

Children see skin colour the same way they see hair colour. You think " even the youngest child" can have "feelings of inferiority" over skin colour? I think that's highly unlikely.

If bringing up Amendment One struck you as politically or emotionally charged then perhaps you should look to your own intelectual and cognitive dissonance over the issue.
If you are against gay marriage, don't get gay married. Amending the constitution to specifically target and discriminate against a specific group is based on hatred and bigotry, pure and simple. You are free to have your opinion on the issue, but to try and regulate how other people live their lives is tyranny.

The question isn't "should we allow gays to marry" the question is "why is government even involved in who we marry to begin with?"

"Defense of traditional marriage?" That implies an attack. How does two men getting married to each other affect your own marriage let alone attack it?

I'm married because my wife said yes, not because some bureaucrat gave us his blessings.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 9, 2012 1:00:37 PM PDT
And, hey, if you want to get technical, "traditional marriage" was destroyed when government said polygamy was illegal... Maybe we need polygamy barbie, it'll be a 4 pack, 1 ken and 3 barbies...

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 9, 2012 3:11:40 PM PDT
DisplacedMic says:
yes - that's exactly right. polygamy is another example of government overstepping its scope.

There are no shortage of arguments against polygamy.
However there is no logical argument for preventing the practice by law.

That's an important distinction. I do not believe you should cheat on your spouse, but I would never support legislation that would make it a crime to do so.

One of the arguments people like to use in support of keeping polygamy illegal is that the practice creates a "culture of crime" in that other crimes that certainly are not victimless can thrive: physical and sexual abuse, physical and sexual child abuse and any number of other crimes. The tragic irony is that the fact remains that it is not the practice of polygamy itself that helps propagate these crimes but rather the practice of making it illegal.

Same with prostitution, or recreational drugs.
Making X victimless behaviour a crime to prevent victim creating behaviour Y makes no sense. Just make Y.

Keeping prostitution illegal drives it underground and allows things like sex trafficking or involuntary prostitution to propagate more freely.
The same with drugs.

Drink driving is illegal as it does violate the rights of others - but neither drinking nor driving are illegal on their own nor do they violate anyone's rights.

Either way - this has nothing to do with this thread's topic, i just don't understand how people can be so illogical on this issue.

Someone else getting married does not affect the sanctity of your marriage.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 9, 2012 9:29:43 PM PDT
Kitty Berean says:
To @MarkHenryKern:

What does polygamy have to do with traditional marriage?

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 10, 2012 6:26:55 AM PDT
If you want to know about traditional marriage, read the bible. A man was allowed to marry as many women as he was financially able to care for. Thus "traditional marriage" is polygamist...

Posted on Jun 10, 2012 5:25:51 PM PDT
People, STFU about supply and demand... That is not even a real economic argement. Some areas will simply charge more for ANY item, based on greed. I go from one OSH to another (or one of it's affiliates) in two neighboring towns, and I find the same item with two seperate price tags. Greed. And no, racism is not dead, no matter how many half-white presidents we elect.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 10, 2012 8:10:44 PM PDT
dude, NO ONE said racism was dead, only an idiot would think that... the point is it is a doll, not a political statement... they want the most they can get for it, if the black doll will go for more, it sells for more, if the blonde or brunette white doll will, same scenario. THIS isn't racism, that doesn't mean racism is dead, those are two totally different statements...

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 10, 2012 9:17:10 PM PDT
M. Piper says:
Black dolls are more collectible. They retain their resale value better.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 11, 2012 1:16:37 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jun 11, 2012 2:42:18 AM PDT
DisplacedMic says:
So what is the "real economic argement" then, professor?

I don't know what OSH stands for but if one place is charging more for any given item, how do you know that's "greed" and not just lack of communication or any one of a thousand variables that influence pricing? Just buy it from a the cheaper source then, what's the problem? Value is variable, so is price. Have you gotten so used to the big-vendor stores telling you what something is worth that you think a price tag is a constant?

If I see two different lemonade stands, one charging $0.25 and the other charging $0.50 are those kids charging $0.50 being greedy?

From what I can tell not a single person in this thread is arguing or even implying that "racism is dead."

Posted on Jun 11, 2012 6:33:30 AM PDT
I believe OSH is a hardware chain based on the west coast.

Posted on Jun 11, 2012 10:24:20 AM PDT
M. Piper says:
Is it reverse racism if a black vintage doll sells for almost $200 and the same doll, only white, sells for $30? Check out the Sad Eye Susies and the Soul Sister dolls from the 60s on ebay. It's supply and demand economics.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 11, 2012 4:07:37 PM PDT
DisplacedMic says:
Not to mention the fact that there's no such thing as "reverse racism" unless of course you're speaking of something like egalitarianism

Posted on Jun 14, 2012 5:45:49 AM PDT
locally Black dolls are always on clearance and much much cheaper. even not on clearance they are usually about 25% cheaper, I always thought that to be discriminatory but I guess its based on supply and demand.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 14, 2012 11:40:13 AM PDT
M. Piper says:
I'd say buy them as an investment.:)

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 14, 2012 12:00:55 PM PDT
DisplacedMic says:
I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not but yes - that is based on supply and demand.
how could that be discriminatory?

now, charging different colour people different prices for the same item would be discriminatory. How is it discrimination if you charge different prices for different artificially coloured pieces of plastic? Who exactly are they discriminating against, the dolls?

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 16, 2012 2:17:58 AM PDT
[Deleted by Amazon on Jun 16, 2012 11:43:09 AM PDT]

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 18, 2012 10:41:08 AM PDT
Kitty Berean says:
"If you want to know about traditional marriage, read the bible. A man was allowed to marry as many women as he was financially able to care for. Thus "traditional marriage" is polygamist..."

Ah, I see what you mean now. I have read it, thank you. We have to remember, though, that what the Bible *records* (history -- what some folks chose to do) and what it *teaches* (advocates) aren't always the same thing. Even in Biblical times, polygamy was the exception to the rule. For the ultimate concept of "traditional," we need to go back a little farther -- to Genesis chapter 2, where God established and defined the institution of marriage, saying, "Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife, and the *two* [not three, or four; or 700] shall be one flesh".
Note that is "wife" (singular), not "wives" (plural); nor did He say "spouse," which would be necessary to leave same-gender marriage up for speculation. In the New Testament, Jesus always referred to marriage in similar terms, never once acknowledging (let alone endorsing) a male+male or female+female marital union.

By the way, I was sorry to hear about your parents' relationship troubles. It must have been a stressful time for your family, regardless of any member's individual beliefs regarding homosexuality. I hope all involved were able to continue loving and caring for each other ('s highest and best) with no long-term estrangements.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 18, 2012 11:35:52 AM PDT
Kitty Berean says:
Reply to @DisplacedMic:

"My implication wasn't that homosexuality is genetic - at all..."

You stated (and I quote): "You have every bit as much control over your sexual preference as you do over the amount of melanin in your skin." So what did that mean, if it was not that homosexuality was genetic -- and therefore those who were inclined towards a romantic/sexual relationship with a same gender person had no choice whatsoever but to act upon their feelings? (regardless of who might get injured in the process).

There are also studies indicating that some individuals may be genetically predisposed towards alcoholism. Does it follow, therefore, that they should be allowed -- encouraged, even -- to continue drinking to excess, regardless of how it affects their job, their finances, their health or their families? Or do we instead encourage them to seek and get help to change?

"Children see skin colour the same way they see hair colour. You think " even the youngest child" can have "feelings of inferiority" over skin colour? I think that's highly unlikely."

For an example... It's been many years ago I read this (and sorry, I no longer have the book or the author's name); but a Black minister (of a racially-mixed church) once reflected that a young boy (about maybe 4 years old) in his congregation wanted to be white.

His parents were perplexed. They explained to him that everyone in their family was black, that it was inherited (in 4-year-old terms that he could understand), and that it could not change, etc.; but he still persisted in his desire to be white.

Finally they figured out that it wasn't the color of the boy's skin that was really at issue; but rather that all the older kids he knew at church were Caucasian. He wanted to be *TALLER*; but equated height with *skin color,* rather than a person's age! They explained to him that as he got older, one day he would be a "big kid," too. "Well, *then* can I be white?" he replied. Somehow he still wasn't quite "getting it".

My point is that while very young children aren't born with racial prejudices or feelings of inferiority as an *inherited* characteristic; but they do internalize the attitudes and subtle messages they receive from those around them. Combine this with the fact that their natural perceptions of the way the world works (and the conclusions they make from what they observe) may not always be correct. They (depending on the environment they're brought up, and at what ages they're exposed to people of different nationalities and cultures) look around them and see people of various different shades of skin color and facial features. They know they're "different," but they don't know why. Someone has to explain it to them; and if that person (or persons) harbor feelings of racial prejudice, inferiority or resentment, then that can affect the way a child feels about himself and others.

"If bringing up Amendment One struck you as politically or emotionally charged then perhaps you should look to your own intelectual and cognitive dissonance over the issue."

I assure you there is none. When you referred to the recent vote in North Carolina as being an example that "hate" and "bigotry" were still alive and well, was it not intended as an indirectly-posed "challenge" to anyone who dared disagree with you? Your statement presumed (unsubstantiated) that yours was unquestionably the only logical, rational, morally-sound view to have on the matter, and that it was beyond debate. This regardless of the fact that over 60% of North Carolina residents obviously disagree with your beliefs.

"If you are against gay marriage, don't get gay married."

That's like saying if you don't approve of abortion, don't have one; or if you don't believe in legalized prostitution (which I believe you advocated in a later post), choose another profession in which to earn your own living. Never mind that both of them are cheapening the value of life and the integrity of marriage and families in society, in which we *all* have to live together.

"The question isn't "should we allow gays to marry" the question is "why is government even involved in who we marry to begin with?" '

That's because no man is an island, my friend. Government has a vested interest (say) in issues that impact the well-being of families and children.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 19, 2012 12:38:38 PM PDT
DisplacedMic says:
One could argue that abortion is different as if you define that fetus as being alive you have to recognize that it has rights.

Marriage between two consenting adults does not affect anyone but the two adults involved.
Same goes for prostitution.

You are right though -I suppose I did imply that homosexuality is genetic. what i should have said was that wasn't the point i was trying to make.

Obviously we'll never agree on this issue.
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


Recent discussions in the Toys forum (350 discussions)

 

This discussion

Discussion in:  Toys forum
Participants:  199
Total posts:  338
Initial post:  Nov 29, 2010
Latest post:  Feb 11, 2015

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 20 customers

Search Customer Discussions