TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

  • Subreddits

      Popular

    • /r/askTRP
    • /r/TheRedPill
    • /r/MarriedRedPill
    • /r/MensRights
    • /r/MGTOW
    • /r/PurplePillDebate
    • /r/WhereAreAllTheGoodMen
    • Other

    • /r/AllPillDebate
    • /r/AlreadyRed
    • /r/altTRP
    • /r/AntiFeminists
    • /r/askFDS
    • /r/askMRP
    • /r/askRPC
    • /r/becomeaman
    • /r/BlackPillScience
    • /r/Chadfish
    • /r/Divorce_Men
    • /r/EverydayMisandry
    • /r/ExRedPill
    • /r/FemaleDatingStrategy
    • /r/FeminismStopsWhen
    • /r/GEOTRP
    • /r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates
    • /r/MalePsychology
    • /r/Male_Studies
    • /r/MenSupportMen
    • /r/MGTOW2
    • /r/MuslimRedPill
    • /r/newTRP
    • /r/PussyPass
    • /r/PussyPassDenied
    • /r/RedPillBooks
    • /r/RedPillParenting
    • /r/RedPillWives
    • /r/RedPillWomen
    • /r/RedPillWorkplace
    • /r/RPChristians
    • /r/seduction
    • /r/ThankTRP
    • /r/TheRedPillStories
    • /r/trpGAME
    • /r/TRPOffTopic
    • /r/TrueBlackPillMGTOW
    • /r/WhereAllTheGoodMenAre
  • Blogs

      Popular

    • Dalrock
    • Heartiste
    • Illimitable Men
    • Return of Kings
    • Rian Stone
    • The Rational Male
    • Woujo
    • Other

    • Artful Prudence
    • A Voice for Men
    • Alpha Game
    • Black Label Logic
    • Caleb Jones
    • Captain Capitalism
    • Corporate Machiavelli
    • Days of Game
    • Deep Strength
    • Dicipres
    • Donal Graeme
    • Female Misogynist
    • Free Northerner
    • Gaming My Wife
    • Good Looking Loser
    • Hawaiian Libertarian
    • In Mala Fide
    • KillToParty
    • Kill Your Inner Loser
    • Krauser PUA
    • LaidNYC
    • Married Man Sex Life
    • NO MA'AM
    • Omega Virgin Revolt
    • Pook's Mill
    • Random Xpat Rantings
    • Red Pill Theory
    • Red Pill Wifery
    • RedPillDad
    • RedPillDoctor
    • Seasons of Tumult and Discord
    • Sigma Frame
    • The Feminine Woman
    • The Futurist
    • The Masculine Principle
    • The Modern Man
    • The New Modern Man
    • The Obsidian Files
    • The Power Moves
    • The Private Man
    • The Red Pill Room
    • The Red Quest
    • The Rules Revisited
    • The Spearhead
    • Troy Francis
    • Wintery Knight
    • Young Man Red Pill
  • Books
  • Dictionary
  • @TRParchive
  • Please help TheRedArchive stay alive

A petition to have Mattel make diverse Ken dolls to match the new diverse Barbies. Mattel: We want a short, fat, bald Ken!!!!

jason-funk

January 30, 2016
288 upvotes
/r/MensRights
https://www.change.org/p/mattel-we-want-a-short-fat-bald-ken-have-mattel-add-diversity-to-it-s-ken-dolls
Download the post

Want to save the post for offline use on your device? Choose one of the download options below:

PDF TXT EPUB
Share
Share Tweet Reddit Email
Post Information
Title A petition to have Mattel make diverse Ken dolls to match the new diverse Barbies. Mattel: We want a short, fat, bald Ken!!!!
Author

jason-funk

Upvotes 288
Comments 65
Date January 30, 2016 4:53 PM UTC
(10 years ago)
Subreddit Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/43etme/a_petition_to_have_mattel_make_diverse_ken_dolls/
Archive Link https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/a-petition-to-have-mattel-make-diverse-ken-dolls.957346
https://theredarchive.com/post/957346

Comments

[+][deleted] 10 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]thatlowdowndirty47 22 points23 points24 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Rofl.

[–][deleted] 10 points11 points12 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Par for the double standards course.

[–]TracyMorganFreeman 3 points4 points5 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

If it weren't for double standards feminists wouldn't have any.

[–]darwinsaves 6 points7 points8 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

They are feminist. By definition they are assholes.

If you are not an egalitarian, fuck you. Bring on the sjw downvotes please.

[–][deleted] 13 points14 points15 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

how about a Ken with erectile dysfunction?

[–]Mitschu 4 points5 points6 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I hate how my brain goes there.

"Mechanically, that shouldn't be a challenge. Just a little button on the back that you push in, and it winches the wire supporting the penis model up from a multisegmented limp dick to a straightened erection. He'd have to be a shower not a grower, but that's okay. Now, for some dolls, pushing in the button would lock it consistently, but for randomly chosen others there'd be a rotating cylinder, sorta like a revolver, that clicks through with each button press, with different "chambers" pulling the wire to different levels of tautness. Then you have one of them be completely open, no tension, "can't get it up", four of them be varying stages of erection, and the last chamber the "huzzah, finally!" click that locks it in place. Hell, some don't even lock it in place, you have to hold the button down the whole time, a metaphor for the struggle for some men to maintain an erection. And hell, if you really want to show off the diversity of penis sizes and make a "don't judge based upon first impressions", include some telescoping action during the transition from limp to hard, but only on a small percentage of dolls. Yeah, get on it Mattel, this is feasible from an enginee... oh wait, Robo was making a joke."

[–]roharareddit 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

That's what the soon to be available Mattel Dildo is for.

[–]192873982 76 points77 points78 points 10 years ago (25 children) | Copy Link

We shouldn't mimic feminists stupid actions, that won't help us.

[–][deleted] 32 points33 points34 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I'm pretty sure the petition is meant as a meninist-style joke.

[–]jojotmagnifficent 7 points8 points9 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I disagree, using your opponents own arguments by taking them to their logical extremes and doing stupid shit with it is one of the best ways of proving someones argument is retarded. You just let them tear down their own argument while they argue how retarded "your" argument is.

[+][deleted] 10 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]lolbience 14 points15 points16 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

... the idea should be to allow companies to decide what they want to sell, and to allow customers to purchase what they want to buy. As someone who does not buy their product, the last thing I would want is to misrepresent myself as a potential customer and force quotas on them.

[–]btmims 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Except nobody out there makes short, fat, balding men dolls for little girls. How will we know how they (the consumers/parents/little girls) will react until they do it?!

[–]192873982 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind.

I agree with you that the petition would be some kind of equality, but it's honestly unneccessary here.

The fat barby dolls will not sell and therefore they will stop creating them. But if I'm wrong and they do sell well, the manufacturer might think "hey, maybe a fat ken would sell too" and actually try it out.

That means such an action wouldn't have any positive effect on you. Actually it would make us look like children reacting angry and stubborn.

[+][deleted] 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]192873982 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I don't think she shouldn't be able to get such a doll, we just shouldn't force companies to produce them. If the demand is high enough, someone will produce them anyway.

[–]expert02 5 points6 points7 points 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind.

In which case we'll quickly perfect cybernetic eyes. I fail to see the problem.

[–]192873982 8 points9 points10 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

I fail to see the problem.

Because we haven't perfected the cybernetic eyes yet.

[–]Vandechoz 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

You'd think /u/expert02 would have seen that response coming...er, wait, I guess not.

[–]expert02 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

So we'll be creating cybernetic eye research and manufacturing jobs. Everybody wins. And maybe, just maybe, we can make eyes so good that they can see right through bullshit.

[–]Deansdale 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

This isn't about an imaginary moral high ground. When a group of idiots does stupid things the solution is not to mimic them, but to undo their stupidity. When the KKK lynched blacks the solution was not to lynch whites as well, you know...

[–]jimmywiddle 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

exactly, taking the moral high ground only works when people are intelligent enough to ignore those that are taking the low ground.

We sadly and quite depressingly regularly see that feminists taking the low ground are being listened to.

So for us to remain taking the high ground means that we will not be listened to and our actions will have little effect.

Essentially thats why our society is taking a turn for the worse, because idiotic rubbish run by feminists is being taken seriously these days, no matter how dumb and emotional those proposals are.

We have to influence both the dumb shit they do and maintain a view on the more strategic objectives.

[–]Lurker_IV -5 points-4 points-3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

The only eyes getting hurt are the feminists hitting themselves in the eye with this stupid shit.

This is the part where we point and laugh at them while singing, "Stop hitting yourself! Stop hitting yourself! Stop hitting yourself!" This is not the part where we copy them to seem 'cool'.

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago* (8 children) | Copy Link

Why is it stupid not to want Barbie's to look like real people? That's what they're supposed to be, so who're they hurting?

[–]192873982 3 points4 points5 points 10 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

It's not stupid to want them to look like real people, it's stupid to demand it.

There are a lot of puppets who don't have real human proportions, I'm even tempted to say most.

If the customers like dolls with real proportions, the company that produces them will succeed. If the customers like unrealistic dolls, realistic dolls won't succeed. I see no need to complain.

[–][deleted] -4 points-3 points-2 points 10 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

"Vote with your wallet" is tossed out at any suggestion that big brands should change their business practices. It's a nice sentiment, but that's not how the world works.

It's especially silly in this instance - Barbie is the biggest brand of children's doll, and has billions in advertising behind it. Those are the dolls that little girls will ask for. Some other company might produce a realistic doll, but if that company isn't paying for that doll to have a TV show and movies on top of being plastered all over ad breaks and billboards, then it doesn't really bear comparison.

[–]192873982 3 points4 points5 points 10 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

but that's not how the world works.

Actually that's exactly how the world works.

Barbie is the biggest brand of children's doll ... Those are the dolls that little girls will ask for.

And maybe it has become the biggest brand exactly because it is the way it is. Wouldn't it be very unfair to demand that they change? Wouldn't that be like forcing coca cola to change their recipe? The only reason to force coca cola to change their recipe would be, if it was somehow dangerous. The same should apply to the barby dolls too.

Freedom of market unless it damages the people, that's how it should be.

[–]Corn-Tortilla 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I read an article the other day about why Mattel changed Barbie. Their sales dropped off substantially. They made the change as a response to the market. It remains to be seen whether the change will help them regain market share. There are complications, such as having to negotiate more shelf space and whether little girls will like the new barbies.

[–]192873982 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I'm abslutely okay with that. That's what a company is supposed to do, optimize their products according to what people will buy, which is equal to what people want.

Of course they can only guess, and maybe little girls will like the new dolls, but it doesn't really matter for me. I'm okay as long as companies are not forced into producing unneccessary shit by SJW and similar clowns.

[–][deleted] -5 points-4 points-3 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Actually that's exactly how the world works

You can't rely on companies to do the right thing, and you can't rely on consumers to support them if and when they do. This isn't thin phones or buggy games, this is a response to a world-wide body image crisis for kids and teens - Anorexia and Bulimia numbers don't lie.

unless it damages the people,

This is literally the reason that people asked Mattel to make this change. The old Barbie was a completely absurd normalisation of unattainable physical attributes; whereas He-man or (muscle-bound superhero) is also unrealistic, they aren't presented to be.

[–]192873982 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

You can't rely on companies to do the right thing

That's absolutely correct. BUT you can rely on companies to do the right thing, if it's at the same time the best way for them to make money.

response to a world-wide body image crisis for kids and teens

That crisis is not really serious where I live, almost no problems here. But let's assume there is this body image crisis.

Anorexia and Bulimia numbers don't lie.

Now that's where I want to have sources from you. I don't need numbers for anorexia and bulimia, I trust you with that, but I want to see a number that makes it likely that barby actually influences the body image. It would make much more sense to me that real people (e.g. in TV, but also elsewhere) influence the body image of kids much, much more. Wouldn't it then be at least inefficient to blame barby, when banning too thin people on TV would be much easier to do, since it would be just a policy, instead of having to stop and change lots of production machines?

The old Barbie was a completely absurd normalisation of unattainable physical attributes;

I agree, but doesn't that apply to almost all dolls? And many comics, and many games?

Should we adopt the "problematic" notion of feminists? Because that's what we just do, we call barby essentially problematic.

Does that also mean we should force matel to give barby less glamorous clothes, because it makes girls think then can easily own a shitload of nice dresses, which leads to depts?

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I disagree, I don't think unrealistic dolls are dangerous, they are merely dolls.

Else we could argue that we should ban Arnold Schwarzenegger movies, because the misrepresent the male body? or something

[–][deleted] 8 points9 points10 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

He should also be poor.

[–]redditorriot 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

A poor homeless vet with prostate cancer.

[–]5th_Law_of_Robotics 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

But then no one would want him.

Oh...

[–]Archibald_Andino 9 points10 points11 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

The point isn't about Ken (no one gives a fuck) vs. exposing, yet again, the hypocrisy and double standards with regard to the "body image" nonsense you hear from feminists. Constant barrage that "real women have curves", the media and advertising are hostile towards women, etc, etc. Yet, these same women are completely silent if the shoe is on the other foot, you'll never hear them say "real men have love handles" and so on. Every male model for a fashion ad, a cologne ad, romance cover, a fitness product, is a ripped bodybuilder-type which they happily "objectify" Magic Mike style. Which is fine, but they need to own and acknowledge their hypocrisy and their demanding of special coddling and privileges and not true equality.

[–]skee_ 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I think you're missing an important point.

Barbie dolls are for girls and maybe 1% of boys who like to play with barbie dolls. Girls don't want a fat short bald Ken in the same way that boys don't want fat blue-haired ball-breaking feminists in their video games.

The "double standard" issue with men's rights is fine, and if this is a "meninist" satire then more power to you, but overall it's just silly. Girls have to worry about self-esteem. Boys have to worry about severe violations of their human rights.

[–]redditorriot 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

...boys don't want fat blue-haired ball-breaking feminists in their video games.

Lol.

Actually, depending on the game...

[–]mcavvacm 6 points7 points8 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Who in their right mind would buy a short, fat, bald Kent for a positive reason?

[–]garglemesh42 18 points19 points20 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

The same people that would buy a fat barbie for a positive reason.

Right, guys?

... guys?

[–]Mitschu 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

But, but, but... muh special pleading!

[–]brainhack3r 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I bet we won't find a poor ken ...

[–]Funcuz 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Just a quick question : Does any kid in the world actually want to play with a short, fat, balding Ken ?

I'm sure all the girls are lining up to get their fat assed, small busted, "rotund" Barbies with green hair, seven tramp stamps, and any number of self-inflicted scars but maybe what's going on here is that ideologues are trying to force their views onto people who would have it better if they realized they had a choice.

I get the idea here guys but can we try and remember that we're trying to fight this kind of stupidity, not endorse it ?

[–]jojotmagnifficent 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Ya know the stupidest thing about this whole barbie debacle? The Barbie line has had dolls of various ethnicities for a LONG time (like 50 years kind of long). It's pretty much always been diverse. Having a "Fat" doll and a "badly dyed hair" doll are really the only new things (hell, they might have even had a "punk rocker" barbie int he 80's with the died hair for all I know).

This whole thing is just a desperate attempt from Mattel to rescue the failing toy line, despite the fact the only people asking for it are young adults and 20somethings who will NEVER buy one of these dolls anyway. Children don't give a fuck, playing candy crush on mommies iPad is way more engaging to them. THAT is why their sales are falling, not a lack of diversity. They simply need to acknowledge that their market has shrunk unrecoverably and either evolve their business model or fade into obscurity.

[–]v573v 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Elsa is scaring Mattel. Sales dropped 16% in 2014.

Dont be surprised when the new movie comes out "journalists" complain that disney's Elsa toy line is not diverse enough not like Barbie - so choosing a doll will be a political statement - who wants to be viewed as a racist? Better choose Barbie.

[–]jojotmagnifficent 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

As in the character from Frozen? There is literally nothing that Mattel can do to stop that, Frozen is a hype juggernaut for pre-pubecent girls and nothing will stop that. Well, I guess they could secure the licensing rights to produce the toys for Disney, although I doubt they could pull that off as Disney has invested a bunch in it's own toy manufacturing recently. They can play the racist angle all they want, but at the end of the day some 5 year old girl isn't going to give a fuck and if mummy buys something other than Elsa then mummy is dead to the child and will NEVER be forgiven. 5 year olds don't give a fuck about this stuff, they just say what the "grown ups" want to hear when asked in front of cameras.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I want to see a Paul Elam "Ken".

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

At least give Ken some junk so he's not a eunuch.

[–]aokusman 7 points8 points9 points 10 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Mattel should make what they want. This is stupid.

[+][deleted] 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[+][deleted] 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]Hydris 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I think it's a doll marketed to little girls and you should lighten up.

[–]Imnotmrabut 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Don't forget, Ken should also come in "Veteran", with removable limbs and sanity.

[–]LoxodonNG 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

This is hilarious! I want a Ken that looks like Matt Lucas (British comedian). :D

[–]DrDoSoLittle 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Wow, I sincerely do not want to buy Danny Devito Ken.

[–]IK_DOE_EEN_GOK 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Ummmm why? I dont want to be the fuck face who complains about "body image" and shit...

[–]Th0rz669 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

This?

[–]5th_Law_of_Robotics 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

That's different. The barbie body type is not attainable for most women. Whereas with some effort most men can be tall and have a full head of hair.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

with some effort most men can be tall

really?

[–]5th_Law_of_Robotics 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Really.

/s

[–]cum_penibus 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

He should be unemployed too

[–]ShitXChromosomes -2 points-1 points0 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

No point. Barbie is the star. Ken is only bought as an accessory to Barbie, much like real life where men are bought (married) as an accessory to women...

[–]xCAPTAINxTEXASx -1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Is this real? If it is, it's just stupid. How about no?

[–]fullhalf -1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

also make him middle class making 60k a year.

Browse all authors
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

© TheRedArchive 2026. All rights reserved.
created by /u/dream-hunter