Contrary to what most of us would have expected, March wasn't all about the financial sector. Rather, there was also a concerted effort to highlight the evils of one famous little doll. That's right. I am referring to Delegate Jeff Eldridge's, by now famous, effort to ban Barbie from West Virginia. To this effect he actually introduced a bill on March 9; titled HB2918, the bill seems to target Barbie and her peers as main cause of the low self-esteem of girls across the nation.

Excerpt:

It shall be unlawful in the state to sell "Barbie" dolls and other similar dolls that promote or influence girls to place an undue importance on physical beauty to the detriment of their intellectual and emotional development.

It is an utterly absurd claim! Firstly, how can you pinpoint Barbie (and co.) as the negative nannies who warp children's socialization process? Of all the cartoons, comics, toys and influences out there, this 50 year old doll is one of the tamest, not to mention uplifting, influences around. Little girls are encouraged to dress up the blonde dolls as a number of role models; in fact, this is one of the few instances where girls are taught that there is no such thing as a glass ceiling in the job industry. Surely, like any other post-tween out bemoaning the lost innocence of a by-gone era, you cringe and balk at the modern music and cartoons that are currently aimed at your little ones? Surely, Barbie looks mellow and mild compared to the various cool-to-follow celebrities cough strumpets cough who strut their way of life cough wares cough at the young ones? Am I only one who is mortified with the so-called acceptable role models, some of whom, incidentally, may or may not rhyme with Santana?

Secondly, if intellectual and emotional development are the keywords for the day, perhaps we could make a few gestures in that direction? This effectively means focusing on positive reinforcement as opposed to veering towards wholesale negative reinforcement. What would that involve? I suppose we could do a number of things. We could start to highlight the delights of getting an education; boost little girls' confidence and encourage them to try jobs that were previously male-dominated occupations; and tell little girls to ignore preconceived gender roles and be true to their ideals. After all, why couldn't this gentleman push for incentives that will reap positive attitudes?

By the way, while we are on the topic of personal growth and gender re-definition, might I point out that the Barbie dolls have always encouraged little ones to do just that? With dolls mimicking variety of professions from astronaut to the presidency, Barbie has always aimed high. On that note, if we were to ban Barbies for good, what kind of dolls would little girls be left with? Baby dolls complete with little playhouse that comes with dishwasher, oven and tea set? I'm not saying that toys have to be either the homemaker or the working mom. On the contrary, I'm just saying that it would be nice for the girls to know, from a very young age, there there are many choices in life.

On the note of correct influences in our formative years, did you know that the concerned gentleman (read: Eldridge) was pushing for one more interesting bill? Word on the street is that Delegate Jeff Eldridge wants to introduce Ultimate Fighting. The following excerpt speaks for itself:

While Ultimate Fighters go at it in a cage with very few rules, the combat sport isn't as dangerous as a lot of people think, according to Eldridge.