That's clearly not the point of this entire post and why it's been posted where it has. Have you read the article? This isn't about what you're talking about.

Geez. I wonder why they didn't include all the other ones...

Computer Engineer Barbie of 2010 was great. It included a backstory of accidentally getting a virus on her sister's computer as Barbie admits she knows nothing about computers, is just a designer, and relies on boys at her school to help. Of course the laptop was pink.

There's so, so, so many of these all the way up to now... Oreo Barbie, the Doll's of the World collection, the sleepover ones that have apparel that says "Don't Eat" on it.

If it's not clear now, Mattel relies on making Barbies that will make money at the time. So girls can be happy other girls manufactured dolls for them in factories in a country known as "Oriental". This is the point of the post.

All you've done is link their public-facing marketing material which implies it works.

How could someone's mind possibly extract that from anything I've said, or are you just trying to be a troll?

What does that have to do with what I was saying?

In the context of what I was saying, everything. If you were just sprinkling random facts to random comments, then nothing. Because what you said had nothing to do with what I said. Maybe you were just responding to the wrong comment all along, haven't realised yet, and have gotten confused.