because boys don’t play with dolls. everyone knows that.
tons out there, they’re called women
I know of a guy who played with dolls as a kid. He died of AIDS about 15 years ago.
Because market demand for them is very small.
Because boys would just wreck them. Duh...
This is the same type of feminist who writes articles asking where have all the real men gone?
This one should come with a warning sign on her forehead so that men can run in the opposite direction when they see her coming.
The toy market is consumer-driven. If boys wanted dolls, they’d be on the shelves.
In 1976, Kenner made a deal with an unknown filmmaker to make dolls based on his upcoming movie. The movie was a hit and dolls for boys (called ‘action figures’ by Hasbro in the 60s with their ‘GI Joe’ line of dolls for boys’) became a staple of boys toys from then til now, a time period of 40 years.
So apparently this woman hasn’t spent anytime around American men or boys in the last 40 years if she thinks there aren’t enough “dolls for boys”.
I had G. I. Joes, Big Jims, and little plastic army men when I was a kid. They’re available ... they’re just called “action figures” not “dolls”.
They’re called “toy soldiers”, f@ggot.
There ya go. I played with these all the time when I was a kid. Never had a GI Joe, always considered them a little girly, kinda like a Barbie Doll for boys.
More generally, there aren’t more “dolls” for boys because there aren’t many boys asking for dolls. The toy companies are probably among the most profit-driven of any industry. If there’s a buck to be had, they’ll do whatever they have to to get it. If there were money to be made producing traditional dolls for boys, they’d already be on the shelves. Boys just don’t play with dolls the way girls do.
For a boy, the vast majority of the time, a doll is a way for him to tell a story; it’s a prop or a representation of a character. To a girl, the doll is more often the subject of play; she interacts with the doll directly, as though it were a playmate or sibling.
Sure, girls still engage in storytelling using dolls and other toys, but the story serves as the framework for interaction with the toy, rather than the toy serving as a vehicle for conveying the action of the story.
While anecdotal, I see this with my daughter. She has several dolls of various kinds, including some Star Wars figures, stuffed toys, Barbies etc. In her play, the dolls mainly interact socially, and she is an active character in the story. When I was a kid, I also had Star Wars figures, but for me, the figures were there to act out some adventure, and I never inserted myself as a character that could interact directly with the figures.
Somewhere out there, there’s an article that expands on this, where girls given a toy (sometimes not even an anthropomorphic one) will treat it as a character she can interact with, such as making a “bed” for a dump truck. While a boy in the same experiment might turn an obviously-anthropomorphic toy into a tool or other object, such as pretending a Barbie doll is a gun.
We had dolls. Captured from our sisters. They were melted, shot with bbguns, or blown up with fire crackers.
(slinks away)
Seriously though, I used to play with my Sister's Barbie's all the time, after taking off their head, dipping them in Mud and Having fight my Godzilla Toys.
I had GI Joe and Star Wars action figures along with some Transformers and even Go-Bots (if anyone remembers those). I remember in the 80s they advertised this awful looking doll called My Buddy, and it was marketed to boys. We just laughed at it.