>>7363075>It's about increasingly plummeting quality and ironically homogenizing the line when trying to make it more diverse.This guy gets it.
>The fashions don't fit anymore because they all have to fit the fat dollExactly. It was bad enough finding cloths for pre-2000 Barbies thanks to feminist who fought to have Mattel reduce Barbies bust size and widen her waist, without having to also worry about fat Barbie clothing being thrown into the mix. I love collecting 80s, and 90s Barbie dolls, and there's nothing worse than finding an 80s doll that's in great shape, but is naked. Modern Barbie dresses won't fasten in the back because modern Barbie clothing are made for dolls with a much smaller bust sizes.
>the dolls don't articulateThis is a major problem. I collect dolls not mannequins, and fashionista dolls are basically mannequin dolls, but hey, it's ok because at least they are diverse, right? right?
> the fashions don't layer or have any sense of quality.This pisses me off almost as much as molded on pants.
>This has a reasonably easy solution - offer your cheap Fashionistas line, and offer a slightly more expensive line that is more traditionally Barbie.Bingo. Let the fats keep their shit fashionista doll line, but still produce legit quality Barbie dolls.
>Flat footed Disney/Barbie dolls that teach girls they can't wear heels, look feminine, or try at all, isn't fixing the issue.No, it's not, and yet Disney Store refused to give princess dolls heals for almost a decade despite the fact that dolls had pointed feet, and once had beautiful high heals for all of them. Most of the reviews on the Disney Store website bitched about wanting the dolls to have heals for nearly a decade. So what was progressive Disney's solution to their complaints? If you guessed going back to giving the dolls high heels you'd be wrong. They just doubled down on their "progressive" views and just gave all the princess dolls ugly un-flattering flat feet.
