Fuck it, I'll put you assknockers in my annotated bibliography. BARBIE TALK!

[Elder Iptuous]

what were the dimensions of the victorian era dolls? (not the child dolls, but the adult ones)
they seem similarly idealized...

[The Good Reverend Roger]

QUESTION: What role does Barbie play in poor self esteem and body image in women?

I think we might need someone to play devil's advocate, where the fuck is Ippie?

Barbie is an effect that has partially become a cause.  It was marketed as a stepford wives version of America, because in the 40s and 50s, everyone wanted their daughters to grow up to be stepford wives.  It's been driving the "perfect 1950s female ideal" ever since, a monster that is indeed our national, reversed "portrait of Dorian Grey".  Barbie is unchanging; the nation has become obese and sour.

Given that I've never thought of Barbie at all beyond the obvious impact on body image in young girls, this was as much of a nasty wakeup call as a crowbar to the sternum. Shortness of breath and CERTAINTY that there is internal bleeding included.

It's insane how steeped our culture is in the 40s and 50s.  We relive WW2 vicariously over and over and over. We focus on 1950s ideals. The 1950s is our "golden age of prosperity". And yet if you really look back, those fuckers didn't have so much that makes our current ... i dunno what the term would be, so I'll just coin the word "infoclimate" -- that makes our current infoclimate possible. And the parts of the time period that our culture glorifies are always the most deeply unsettling ones.

The funniest part is, of course, that the 1950s never happened.

At least not the way it was portrayed.  Alcoholism, domestic violence, child abuse were the order of the day.  The 1950s had the highest rate of juvenile delinquincy in our history, and the second-highest rate of "unplanned" pregnancies (ie, out of wedlock) in our history (the 1920s were the highest).  Racial tensions reached their zenith in that era, as well.

The 1950-1960 decade was also a time of crushing conformity.  Wearing a different hat or a different cut of suit could mean losing your job.  Pictures of people waiting for the train in those days looks like something right out of a Twilight Zone episode. 

Of course, to the wartime generation, conformity was considered a good thing.

[Freeky]

oh....
hmmm. that's pretty extreme given the ubiquity of the barbie doll in our culture...
perhaps i could just go with the position that it a bit overstated?

As long as you are against the idea that Barbie makes women want to get plastic surgery and lipo and so on, yeah.

You're eating the menu.  Barbie is the symbol of what women are told to be.  A demonstration model, if you will.  It is no more a cause than is Cosmopolitan magazine.  If society didn't already want these things, none of them would sell.

Seven replies went up while I was typing and I just kept hitting 'post' before I looked at them.  This one stands out.

And yes, she's a Stepford Wife. Of course now she has CAREERS like DOCTOR and ROCKSTAR but it's the same shit. A STEPFORD WIFE WHO MAKES A FUCKTON OF MONEY!

Let me know when they have "mechanic barbie" or "garbage man barbie".

It also occurs to me that we've been capitalizing "barbie", which is in itself offensive.

I don't think it is, it's the proper name of a product. 

Shit, to a lot of people, barbie is more than either a toy or a manifestation of some nebulous social illness.  To them, Barbie is a symbol of imagination given a real form, a way to play out their real desires and mitigate some of the hopeless drudgery of their grey, dull lives.

[Freeky]

what were the dimensions of the victorian era dolls? (not the child dolls, but the adult ones)
they seem similarly idealized...

Did they have dolls back then?    I mean, that's a stupid question, I know even as I type it, but Barbie has only been around since the fifties. 

Also, Victorian era was known and noted for their bizarre fashion trends like the corset.  I mean like a real corset, the kind that fucks up your anatomy.

[Cain]

what were the dimensions of the victorian era dolls? (not the child dolls, but the adult ones)
they seem similarly idealized...

Yeah, but the Victorians were almost equally image conscious and weirdly sexual intrusive (yet prudish) as 1950s America.

Hell, the Victorians were in many ways the role-model for 1950s America, despite the fact the Victorians did not exist in the sense that the 1950s Americans thought they did (much in the way the 1950s did not exist as it is thought to: see TGRR's post above).

To be sure, the Victorians focused on slightly different things...more emphasis was placed on the hips, for childbearing, than the bust, the preferred skin colour was pale and clear, because it was indicative of an upper class lifestyle and not having to work outside or in a factory.  But while elements of the content changed, the form was remarkably similar.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

I don't think it is, it's the proper name of a product. 

It is a thing.  It is not a proper noun.  Proper nouns are for people and places.  The company that makes barbie should be capitalized (Hasbro?), but not a representation of a person.

I realize that I am flying in the face of my sacred English language, but there are some higher standards.

[00.dusk]

QUESTION: What role does Barbie play in poor self esteem and body image in women?

I think we might need someone to play devil's advocate, where the fuck is Ippie?

Barbie is an effect that has partially become a cause.  It was marketed as a stepford wives version of America, because in the 40s and 50s, everyone wanted their daughters to grow up to be stepford wives.  It's been driving the "perfect 1950s female ideal" ever since, a monster that is indeed our national, reversed "portrait of Dorian Grey".  Barbie is unchanging; the nation has become obese and sour.

Given that I've never thought of Barbie at all beyond the obvious impact on body image in young girls, this was as much of a nasty wakeup call as a crowbar to the sternum. Shortness of breath and CERTAINTY that there is internal bleeding included.

It's insane how steeped our culture is in the 40s and 50s.  We relive WW2 vicariously over and over and over. We focus on 1950s ideals. The 1950s is our "golden age of prosperity". And yet if you really look back, those fuckers didn't have so much that makes our current ... i dunno what the term would be, so I'll just coin the word "infoclimate" -- that makes our current infoclimate possible. And the parts of the time period that our culture glorifies are always the most deeply unsettling ones.

The funniest part is, of course, that the 1950s never happened.

At least not the way it was portrayed.  Alcoholism, domestic violence, child abuse were the order of the day.  The 1950s had the highest rate of juvenile delinquincy in our history, and the second-highest rate of "unplanned" pregnancies (ie, out of wedlock) in our history (the 1920s were the highest).  Racial tensions reached their zenith in that era, as well.

The 1950-1960 decade was also a time of crushing conformity.  Wearing a different hat or a different cut of suit could mean losing your job.  Pictures of people waiting for the train in those days looks like something right out of a Twilight Zone episode. 

Of course, to the wartime generation, conformity was considered a good thing.

Oh, you're absolutely right. Which, yeah, is fucking hilarious. We're selling ourselves a bullshit alternate history and we're BUYING IT FROM OURSELVES LIKE NOBODY'S FUCKING BUSINESS.

That's really fucking sad. Our culture has been reduced to literally deluding itself. The people who try and sell me this shit about the 50s being amazing grew the fuck up (I mean 20-30 or so, not teenage years) in it -- they either are lying to me directly or they believe their own shit. I'm not sure which should make me more angry.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

what were the dimensions of the victorian era dolls? (not the child dolls, but the adult ones)
they seem similarly idealized...

Yeah, but the Victorians were almost equally image conscious and weirdly sexual intrusive (yet prudish) as 1950s America.

Hell, the Victorians were in many ways the role-model for 1950s America, despite the fact the Victorians did not exist in the sense that the 1950s Americans thought they did (much in the way the 1950s did not exist as it is thought to: see TGRR's post above).

To be sure, the Victorians focused on slightly different things...more emphasis was placed on the hips, for childbearing, than the bust, the preferred skin colour was pale and clear, because it was indicative of an upper class lifestyle and not having to work outside or in a factory.  But while elements of the content changed, the form was remarkably similar.

Correct.  It was also a major faux pas to smile or laugh in public or while courting.  A miserable time, indeed...For the rich, it was almost idyllic, but for the other 99%, the Victorian age was the worst time to be alive in Europe's history.  People had it better in the dark ages.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

QUESTION: What role does Barbie play in poor self esteem and body image in women?

I think we might need someone to play devil's advocate, where the fuck is Ippie?

Barbie is an effect that has partially become a cause.  It was marketed as a stepford wives version of America, because in the 40s and 50s, everyone wanted their daughters to grow up to be stepford wives.  It's been driving the "perfect 1950s female ideal" ever since, a monster that is indeed our national, reversed "portrait of Dorian Grey".  Barbie is unchanging; the nation has become obese and sour.

Given that I've never thought of Barbie at all beyond the obvious impact on body image in young girls, this was as much of a nasty wakeup call as a crowbar to the sternum. Shortness of breath and CERTAINTY that there is internal bleeding included.

It's insane how steeped our culture is in the 40s and 50s.  We relive WW2 vicariously over and over and over. We focus on 1950s ideals. The 1950s is our "golden age of prosperity". And yet if you really look back, those fuckers didn't have so much that makes our current ... i dunno what the term would be, so I'll just coin the word "infoclimate" -- that makes our current infoclimate possible. And the parts of the time period that our culture glorifies are always the most deeply unsettling ones.

The funniest part is, of course, that the 1950s never happened.

At least not the way it was portrayed.  Alcoholism, domestic violence, child abuse were the order of the day.  The 1950s had the highest rate of juvenile delinquincy in our history, and the second-highest rate of "unplanned" pregnancies (ie, out of wedlock) in our history (the 1920s were the highest).  Racial tensions reached their zenith in that era, as well.

The 1950-1960 decade was also a time of crushing conformity.  Wearing a different hat or a different cut of suit could mean losing your job.  Pictures of people waiting for the train in those days looks like something right out of a Twilight Zone episode. 

Of course, to the wartime generation, conformity was considered a good thing.

Oh, you're absolutely right. Which, yeah, is fucking hilarious. We're selling ourselves a bullshit alternate history and we're BUYING IT FROM OURSELVES LIKE NOBODY'S FUCKING BUSINESS.

That's really fucking sad. Our culture has been reduced to literally deluding itself. The people who try and sell me this shit about the 50s being amazing grew the fuck up (I mean 20-30 or so, not teenage years) in it -- they either are lying to me directly or they believe their own shit. I'm not sure which should make me more angry.

The entire conservative element in America worships the 1950s, because they believe that everyone SHUT UP and did what they were supposed to do.

Funny thing is, as Hunter S Thompson put it, "The 1950s forced people into a jello-mold conformity that created so many rejects that it became fashionable to be one."  This is probably the best example of what I call "LMNO's Principle" that exists...The imposition of order creates a corresponding and slightly greater amount of disorder."  There's also a Discordian term for it, and some guy named Isaac Newton wrote a law about it or some shit.

[Elder Iptuous]

just wanted to point out that it's nothing new.
people have had idealized versions of the human form that are unattainable by the vast majority forever.
(which, of course, is a changing thing. but it's never the average form)

also, i wonder if barbie would look significantly different if it was made to the average man's concept of the "perfect female" form rather than what, apparently, little girls idealize. I'm thinking it would. and i'm thinking it wouldn't be as malproportioned.

also, why wouldn't you capitalize her name?  barbie doesn't mean 'doll', it means 'a doll named Barbie', as in Barbara, right?

[The Good Reverend Roger]

just wanted to point out that it's nothing new.
people have had idealized versions of the human form that are unattainable by the vast majority forever.
(which, of course, is a changing thing. but it's never the average form)

also, i wonder if barbie would look significantly different if it was made to the average man's concept of the "perfect female" form rather than what, apparently, little girls idealize. I'm thinking it would. and i'm thinking it wouldn't be as malproportioned.

also, why wouldn't you capitalize her name?  barbie doesn't mean 'doll', it means 'a doll named Barbie', as in Barbara, right?

1.  The deliberate marketing of a social norm, as opposed to simple peer pressure, came into being with barbie.

2.  I don't care what it's named.  It is a thing, not a person or a place or an entity.

[Freeky]

I don't think it is, it's the proper name of a product. 

It is a thing.  It is not a proper noun.  Proper nouns are for people and places.  The company that makes barbie should be capitalized (Hasbro?), but not a representation of a person.

Mattel.

Is it really the barbies you are offended by?  Barbie was created to be an adult doll for children.  A doll with anatomy, so that little girls wouldn't be so ashamed when their own anatomy started filling in.  I'm pulling this from an interview with the creator of the doll and ex-CEO of Mattel, but I feel like this isn't just talking up a product so more would get sold.  She had a lot of opposition to the doll even getting made, let alone selling it to the children of a generation of prudish and repressed parents.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Is it really the barbies you are offended by?

No.  I am offended by people granting things the same status as people.

Barbie was created to be an adult doll for children.  A doll with anatomy, so that little girls wouldn't be so ashamed when their own anatomy started filling in.

But try marketing one with a realistic body.  A little bit of fat around the waist, maybe shorter, maybe not ALL legs, etc.

They would gather dust on the shelves, because people aren't buying a doll for their children, they're buying an image.

Same thing with GI Joe and/or Ken.  Lots of muscle, and perfect teeth.

[Freeky]

just wanted to point out that it's nothing new.
people have had idealized versions of the human form that are unattainable by the vast majority forever.
(which, of course, is a changing thing. but it's never the average form)

also, i wonder if barbie would look significantly different if it was made to the average man's concept of the "perfect female" form rather than what, apparently, little girls idealize. I'm thinking it would. and i'm thinking it wouldn't be as malproportioned.

also, why wouldn't you capitalize her name?  barbie doesn't mean 'doll', it means 'a doll named Barbie', as in Barbara, right?

1.  The deliberate marketing of a social norm, as opposed to simple peer pressure, came into being with barbie.

I reject this.  Barbie didn't appear out of a vacuum.  Look at the women in television, advertising, and movies prior to then; they all look just like what we are supposed to think women are supposed to look like. 

[Elder Iptuous]

Roger, do you think that they made barbie to push a social norm, rather than to give what was wanted (so as to maximize profit)?
i'm not sure i'm following what you're saying.

and why did you capitalize g.i. joe?