Principia Discordia

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?

present!
what's my view on the matter to be?  :lol:

Your view should be something along the lines (I mena, if it isn't already) of "What the fuck are you talking about, Barbie has nothing to do with anything!"

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?

Hypothesis:  Barbie is both an effect of social engineering and media obsession of unnaturally (unhealthy?) thin and tall women of a particular body type and a cause of the general population's obsession over body image, though it is by no means the biggest cause.  Barbie may be one of the earliest contributors in a woman's life to obsessing over body image, however.

people notice they don't have the same proportions and eternal smile that barbie does (because hey, its vaguely humanoid looking), so they start to think they can't be happy unless KNOCKERSTALLORANGE

then they notice that the social norm is to want to come as close to barbie as they can, and they feel left out

responses to that are: sadness, anger, and rarely not giving a fuck about an intentionally idealized children's doll

Quote from: Elder Iptuous on June 21, 2012, 05:53:44 PM
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. 

Quote from: The Freeky of SCIENCE! on June 21, 2012, 05:40:18 PM
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.

Quote from: The Freeky of SCIENCE! on June 21, 2012, 05:57:03 PM

Quote from: Elder Iptuous on June 21, 2012, 05:53:44 PM
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.

Yeah, we need a devil's advocate.

Some lady had an idea a long time ago to make a doll that didn't look like a dimpled-knee toddler. It was a good idea but it got away from her. I mean, the direction it should have taken IMHO is more kinds of dolls to represent more kinds of people. Little kids aren't thinking about Paris Hilton when they get that first Barbie, they're playing out what they know and if they don't have a doll to represent grandpa, they'll use a bear or something. It's kind of weird to pound it into their heads that THIS ONE TYPE OF PERSON IS IMPORTANT ENOUGH TO RATE A BAZILLION DOLLS and nobody else is really represented much.

The only real backlash I've seen that went anyplace is Bratz, and those are just hip hop Barbies. My daughter preferred Bratz to those preppie Barbies, but it's the same shit.

All the devil's advocate I can muster is that Barbie gets scapegoated for something that's happening PRETTY MUCH EVERYWHERE YOU LOOK. That's why Britney and Miley have recording contracts. (I suspect the Disney Channel is doing a LOT more damage than Barbie.) Big Mama Thorton wouldn't have a prayer these days unless she could afford a fuckload of surgery.

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on June 21, 2012, 06:05:45 PM

Quote from: The Freeky of SCIENCE! on June 21, 2012, 05:57:03 PM

Quote from: Elder Iptuous on June 21, 2012, 05:53:44 PM
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.  :lol: 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!

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on June 21, 2012, 06:04:17 PM

Quote from: The Freeky of SCIENCE! on June 21, 2012, 05:40:18 PM
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.

Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on June 21, 2012, 06:10:48 PM

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on June 21, 2012, 06:05:45 PM

Quote from: The Freeky of SCIENCE! on June 21, 2012, 05:57:03 PM

Quote from: Elder Iptuous on June 21, 2012, 05:53:44 PM
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.  :lol: 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.

bratz dolls are going to establish the notion that hydrocephalic women are hawt.
then we'll see the true horrors of plastic surgery.

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on June 21, 2012, 06:05:45 PM

Quote from: The Freeky of SCIENCE! on June 21, 2012, 05:57:03 PM

Quote from: Elder Iptuous on June 21, 2012, 05:53:44 PM
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.

No, I know exactly what Barbie is.  The doll itself, like I said in the fluff thread, is a thing.  But, and this is another part of my hypothesis, it is a thing that people need, like they need air and water and nutrients.  People who are against this idealized and perfect body, and realize that this is an unattainable issue, need to point at something and call it evil, and they have chosen something they can't hurt, but it is a thing that hurts--or once did hurt--them.

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

Quote from: 00.dusk on June 21, 2012, 06:11:50 PM

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on June 21, 2012, 06:04:17 PM

Quote from: The Freeky of SCIENCE! on June 21, 2012, 05:40:18 PM
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.

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on June 21, 2012, 06:12:50 PM

Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on June 21, 2012, 06:10:48 PM

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on June 21, 2012, 06:05:45 PM

Quote from: The Freeky of SCIENCE! on June 21, 2012, 05:57:03 PM

Quote from: Elder Iptuous on June 21, 2012, 05:53:44 PM
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.  :lol: 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.

Quote from: Elder Iptuous on June 21, 2012, 06:16:58 PM
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.

Quote from: Elder Iptuous on June 21, 2012, 06:16:58 PM
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.

Quote from: The Freeky of SCIENCE! on June 21, 2012, 06:21:15 PM
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.

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on June 21, 2012, 06:17:06 PM

Quote from: 00.dusk on June 21, 2012, 06:11:50 PM

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on June 21, 2012, 06:04:17 PM

Quote from: The Freeky of SCIENCE! on June 21, 2012, 05:40:18 PM
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.

Quote from: Cain on June 21, 2012, 06:26:25 PM

Quote from: Elder Iptuous on June 21, 2012, 06:16:58 PM
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.

Quote from: 00.dusk on June 21, 2012, 06:30:14 PM

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on June 21, 2012, 06:17:06 PM

Quote from: 00.dusk on June 21, 2012, 06:11:50 PM

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on June 21, 2012, 06:04:17 PM

Quote from: The Freeky of SCIENCE! on June 21, 2012, 05:40:18 PM
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.

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?

Quote from: Elder Iptuous on June 21, 2012, 06:36:07 PM
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.

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on June 21, 2012, 06:29:02 PM

Quote from: The Freeky of SCIENCE! on June 21, 2012, 06:21:15 PM
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.

Quote from: The Freeky of SCIENCE! on June 21, 2012, 06:40:23 PM

Is it really the barbies you are offended by?

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

Quote from: The Freeky of SCIENCE! on June 21, 2012, 06:40:23 PM
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.

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on June 21, 2012, 06:39:44 PM

Quote from: Elder Iptuous on June 21, 2012, 06:36:07 PM
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. 

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?

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on June 21, 2012, 06:43:01 PM

Quote from: The Freeky of SCIENCE! on June 21, 2012, 06:40:23 PM

Is it really the barbies you are offended by?

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

Does it help you any that Barbie is a character toy?  It's more than just a doll now, there's movies and television shows and books about Barbie the character (who looks like her doll counterpart).

Quote

Quote from: The Freeky of SCIENCE! on June 21, 2012, 06:40:23 PM
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.

Yes, and I'm arguing just what you are.  But I think that Barbie dolls are a lesser contributor to this mess than that.

Quote from: The Freeky of SCIENCE! on June 21, 2012, 06:26:04 PM

Quote from: Elder Iptuous on June 21, 2012, 06:16:58 PM
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.

The body type under the clothes and frou-frou was generally like this:

(http://www.craftjr.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/printable-vintage-images-doll-231x300.gif)

China head and shoulders, forearms and lower legs. Cloth body, usually stuffed with sawdust. More realistic than barbie, proportion-wise, but generally weird.

BTW, did you know that the lady who invented barbie copied her fro a German pr0n comic?  :lulz:

Here's the first ever barbie ad. Note how it ends with a bride outfit:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h8-avPUxyno&feature=player_embedded

Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on June 21, 2012, 06:51:01 PM
Here's the first ever barbie ad. Note how it ends with a bride outfit:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h8-avPUxyno&feature=player_embedded

Not as creepy as the first Apple advert, however

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OYecfV3ubP8

Quote from: The Freeky of SCIENCE! on June 21, 2012, 06:48:45 PM

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on June 21, 2012, 06:43:01 PM

Quote from: The Freeky of SCIENCE! on June 21, 2012, 06:40:23 PM

Is it really the barbies you are offended by?

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

Does it help you any that Barbie is a character toy? 

No, because that's not what barbie is.  Barbie is a conditioning tool that society has been tricked into using on itself, same as GI joe and ken.

Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on June 21, 2012, 06:51:01 PM

Quote from: The Freeky of SCIENCE! on June 21, 2012, 06:26:04 PM

Quote from: Elder Iptuous on June 21, 2012, 06:16:58 PM
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.

The body type under the clothes and frou-frou was generally like this:

(http://www.craftjr.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/printable-vintage-images-doll-231x300.gif)

China head and shoulders, forearms and lower legs. Cloth body, usually stuffed with sawdust. More realistic than barbie, proportion-wise, but generally weird.

BTW, did you know that the lady who invented barbie copied her fro a German pr0n comic?  :lulz:

Here's the first ever barbie ad. Note how it ends with a bride outfit:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h8-avPUxyno&feature=player_embedded

I did know that.  :lulz:

Aiiiiiieeeee, I'm looking at that picture and everything looks so PAINFUL.  :horrormirth:  You got a link to that?

Quote from: Cain on June 21, 2012, 06:53:16 PM

Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on June 21, 2012, 06:51:01 PM
Here's the first ever barbie ad. Note how it ends with a bride outfit:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h8-avPUxyno&feature=player_embedded

Not as creepy as the first Apple advert, however

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OYecfV3ubP8

THA FUCK?  :horrormirth:

barbie is just a product that people want, made for the purpose of profit.
what evidence is there that it has nefarious purposes that you ascribe, Roger?

Quote from: Elder Iptuous on June 21, 2012, 06:57:30 PM
barbie is just a product that people want, made for the purpose of profit.
what evidence is there that it has nefarious purposes that you ascribe, Roger?

Other than the impossible figure, perfect teeth and perpetual SMILE, you mean?

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on June 21, 2012, 06:58:33 PM

Quote from: Elder Iptuous on June 21, 2012, 06:57:30 PM
barbie is just a product that people want, made for the purpose of profit.
what evidence is there that it has nefarious purposes that you ascribe, Roger?

Other than the impossible figure, perfect teeth and perpetual SMILE, you mean?

yes.

Quote from: Elder Iptuous on June 21, 2012, 06:59:02 PM

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on June 21, 2012, 06:58:33 PM

Quote from: Elder Iptuous on June 21, 2012, 06:57:30 PM
barbie is just a product that people want, made for the purpose of profit.
what evidence is there that it has nefarious purposes that you ascribe, Roger?

Other than the impossible figure, perfect teeth and perpetual SMILE, you mean?

yes.

No.  The prosecution rests.

Wait.  Scratch that.  I say that all toys are and have always been training aids.

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on June 21, 2012, 06:58:33 PM

Quote from: Elder Iptuous on June 21, 2012, 06:57:30 PM
barbie is just a product that people want, made for the purpose of profit.
what evidence is there that it has nefarious purposes that you ascribe, Roger?

Other than the impossible figure, perfect teeth and perpetual SMILE, you mean?

That first-ever barbie ad?

Mickey Mouse Club.

DISNEY. Nuff said.

 :lol:
in light of the evidence, the defense recuses itself from the case.


maginally related...
have any of you guys checked out the 'Japanese Ball Jointed Doll' scene?  i stumbled onto it, and some of those dolls are pretty slick.  if i had a daughter, i'd get/make her one of those instead of the barbie, or bratz, or whatever.

http://0-search.proquest.com.library2.pima.edu/docview/420871677/13775B773023E5BDCF4/1?accountid=13194

Can anyone see this article?  It's an announcement of Computer Engineer Barbie.

Quote from: Elder Iptuous on June 21, 2012, 07:08:01 PM
:lol:
in light of the evidence, the defense recuses itself from the case.


maginally related...
have any of you guys checked out the 'Japanese Ball Jointed Doll' scene?  i stumbled onto it, and some of those dolls are pretty slick.  if i had a daughter, i'd get/make her one of those instead of the barbie, or bratz, or whatever.

When my daughter was very small, she wanted barbies.  I thought about it and decided that her having a few common frames of reference with her peers outweighed the negatives involved.  I spent years encouraging her to think and speak for herself, and things like barbie fell by the wayside by age 8 or so.  And not just the dolls, which go away eventually anyway, but the whole mindset.  She still wears a uniform (you really can't NOT at 16), but at least her uniform is "nonconformity for its own sake", which should, I expect, evolve into "I don't need any particular uniform".

Quote from: The Freeky of SCIENCE! on June 21, 2012, 07:10:39 PM
http://0-search.proquest.com.library2.pima.edu/docview/420871677/13775B773023E5BDCF4/1?accountid=13194

Can anyone see this article?  It's an announcement of Computer Engineer Barbie.

What's the date on it?

Because it's only been a couple of decades since "Math is Hard" barbie.

can't see, Freeky.  is it an actual mattel production?
i seem to recall a lab coat scientist barbie at some point.  don't know if it was an official release though...

Quote from: Elder Iptuous on June 21, 2012, 07:13:30 PM
can't see, Freeky.  is it an actual mattel production?
i seem to recall a lab coat scientist barbie at some point.  don't know if it was an official release though...

Yeah, it's an official product.  It'd have to be anyway, because of that lawsuit Mattel won back in the 90's.

Here's the text anyway:

QuoteWhen Mattel Inc. asked Betty Shanahan whether computer engineer Barbie should don a lab coat, she told the toy-maker absolutely not.

"In my 24 years in the industry, I never once wore a lab coat," said Shanahan, CEO of the Chicago-based Society of Women Engineers and a former computer hardware designer.

Well, then what should she wear? "Contemporary clothes," she told Mattel marketers. "Something fun. Something casual."

And voila, there is Barbie, sporting black leggings, pink glasses and a tailored vest over a T-shirt decorated with computer code -- a string of 0s and 1s that, when translated, spells "Barbie." The Wall Street Journal declared Barbie was "getting her geek on."

And Shanahan and the society are a big reason why. Shanahan and her marketing director, Brian Knier, blasted an e-mail to the society's 20,000 members, asking them to vote at Barbie.com for the next "I Can Be ... " career doll. Computer engineer Barbie quickly overtook anchorwoman, environmentalist, surgeon and architect Barbie over four weeks of voting.

Mattel then contacted Shanahan to see if the society wanted to partner with them on the doll's development.

"After I got Mattel's message, I sent a voice mail back and I don't know how many superlatives I used to say how excited we are that this is happening," she said. "Little girls don't hear the word 'engineer,' never mind think of it as a career option."

Shanahan imagined the doll as a software developer and suggested Mattel place Barbie in front of a large computer monitor in a cubicle. Mattel went with a bright pink laptop and Bluetooth device.

"I would see on blogs, 'What's with the pink laptop?' " Shanahan said. "But then in the comments, I would see, 'Oh, my mom has a pink laptop. Oh, I would love to have a pink laptop.' ... Motorola's pink Razr flew off of the shelves."

The society hopes the doll generates interest among girls in a field woefully lacking in women and that Mattel will launch an online feature with its planned fall release, showing how computer engineers build the equipment used by baby-doctor Barbie and racecar-driver Barbie, etc.

"The challenge of portraying a computer engineer is that they are often a step away from the end user of the product," Shanahan said. "I'd really like to see a connection between all of these other careers Barbie has out there and what a computer engineer does."

aaahhh. hahah.
saw these on the wiki site:
vintage barbie book "how to lose weight"
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0f/How_to_lose_weight.JPG)
back of book, stating, "DONT EAT!"
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3e/How_to_lose_weight_II.JPG)
Barbie scale permanently set at 110 lb.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/1/1b/Barbie_bathroom_scale.jpg)

interesting, Freeky.
it also seems that they've changed the waist away from ridiculously impossible:
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0d/Barbieswaistwidens.jpg)
(although i'd argue that the newer one is probably more in line with contemporary idealization.  corsets aren't in fashion these days)

Quote from: Elder Iptuous on June 21, 2012, 07:21:51 PM
interesting, Freeky.
it also seems that they've changed the waist away from ridiculously impossible:
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0d/Barbieswaistwidens.jpg)
(although i'd argue that the newer one is probably more in line with contemporary idealization.  corsets aren't in fashion these days)

Even the new one requires - for the vast majority of people - that two ribs be removed.

Oh dude, talk about creepy Barbie the character product body image shenangians:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Reiff9nPXWo

CHILDREN IN A WORKOUT VIDEO.  A WORKOUT VIDEO FOR CHILDREN. 

Quote from: The Freeky of SCIENCE! on June 21, 2012, 07:26:53 PM
Oh dude, talk about creepy Barbie the character product body image shenangians:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Reiff9nPXWo

CHILDREN IN A WORKOUT VIDEO.  A WORKOUT VIDEO FOR CHILDREN.

I see no problem with a workout video for children, in and of itself.  Hell, I applaud it...depending, of course, what the end result is supposed to be.

Freeky, I got that pic from an image search, and when I went to the site, it was just a big spammy craft site.

Youtube video, lots of dolls in this one. Truly creepy and a lot of them have actual human hair:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n-uW7Ek1wxY&feature=relmfu

Quote from: Elder Iptuous on June 21, 2012, 07:08:01 PM
:lol:
in light of the evidence, the defense recuses itself from the case.


maginally related...
have any of you guys checked out the 'Japanese Ball Jointed Doll' scene?  i stumbled onto it, and some of those dolls are pretty slick.  if i had a daughter, i'd get/make her one of those instead of the barbie, or bratz, or whatever.

Uhh...same thing:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ojYBcMFkdfY

Quote from: Elder Iptuous on June 21, 2012, 07:21:51 PM
interesting, Freeky.
it also seems that they've changed the waist away from ridiculously impossible:
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0d/Barbieswaistwidens.jpg)
(although i'd argue that the newer one is probably more in line with contemporary idealization.  corsets aren't in fashion these days)

Uhhh
http://www.corset-story.com/

Quote from: Elder Iptuous on June 21, 2012, 07:21:51 PM
(although i'd argue that the newer one is probably more in line with contemporary idealization.  corsets aren't in fashion these days)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-18409752

QuoteCorset sales are booming, part of a massive trend for body shaping underwear, but the peaks and troughs of demand tell a story about feminism and body image over the past 200 years.

Beyonce, Lady Gaga, Madonna, Miley Cyrus - there's quite a list of performers with a history of taking to the stage in a corset.

But sales figures suggest ordinary people are turning to one of the greatest symbols of the Victorian era. Corsets are making a comeback.

Rigby & Peller, the Queen's brassiere-maker, says sales of traditional corsets in May were 45% up on 2011.

Ebay has reported a 185% rise in the number of corsets being sold over the last three months, with 1,900 listed over the period. It says most corsets are bought in the UK (40%), the US (34%) and Australia (8.6%).

huh.
i knew they were popular in the ren faire crowd, and the steam punk crowd.
i wonder if they could become mainstream again...

also, cant see youtubes behind nannywall, Anna. :(

Quote from: Elder Iptuous on June 21, 2012, 07:44:00 PM
huh.
i knew they were popular in the ren faire crowd, and the steam punk crowd.
i wonder if they could become mainstream again...

also, cant see youtubes behind nannywall, Anna. :(

Why go to all the trouble to lose weight, when you can mash all your internal organs?

i think you gotta be fairly slim to begin with for them to work properly based on my experience at the ren faires...  :lol:

Fuck.  I gotta go to class, but I'll be back in a few hours.

Quote from: Elder Iptuous on June 21, 2012, 07:44:00 PM
huh.
i knew they were popular in the ren faire crowd, and the steam punk crowd.
i wonder if they could become mainstream again...

also, cant see youtubes behind nannywall, Anna. :(

The youtube was a makeup tutorial. Some blonde giving instructions in fake Asian-accented baby talk about how to fix your makeup like a ball joint doll. Contact lenses, the works.

I don't have a problem with corsets if somebody wants to play dress-up for a night out. A few hours here and there might be ok.

What would be fucked is if this becomes expected. "Don't show up for work uncorseted", etc.

i can't see that happening. i'd be impressed if it became de rigueur for a night out on the town.

i'd seen some pics of people (girls and boys) dressed and made up like BJDs.  creepy but interesting.

The OTHER side of this coin is that there are apparently millions of people, in America at least, who have absolutely no concern for how they look. See: Wal-Mart, etc.

I may be a reincarnated douchebag from the Victorian era, but I am seriously annoyed by people who will go out in public dirty, stinky, wearing sweatpants and stained shirts, just completely unaware or unconcerned with their personal presentation. Men and women. FFS. Have some fucking class. Wear a god damn suit. Put on a belt. How about a hat? Stop grazing on grease pellets 24 hours a day like some kind of god damned champion hog working up for a weight contest.

So, back on topic: Barbie dolls might contribute to body image and self-esteem problems, but god dammit we can't just completely ignore body image. Some things just aren't attractive, and we shouldn't pretend it's OK to be ugly and filthy, either.

</2 cents>

Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on June 21, 2012, 06:06:06 PM
Yeah, we need a devil's advocate.

Kay. Barbie plays as much a role for developing little snooty, high-class fashionistas obsessed about their weight and figure as the game Operation plays on incompetent doctors.

1. It's just a doll. It may be an idealized doll of astoundingly stupid proportions, but it's still just a doll. Boys that play with GI Joe don't all become obsessed with guns that shoot plastic, flame shaped projectiles. Little girls playing with blocks don't all become construction workers. Kids take away what they put in, and they put in what you give them. If you give them a piece of plastic shaped into painful social conditioning (debatable to begin with) and fail to instruct them on how the world actually work you can't damn well blame the plastic. That's the parent's deal.

2. No one is forcing you to be purchase barbie dolls for your children, America. You could purchase any damn doll you want, this is America not N. Korea where every doll is Kim Jung Ill RIP. Just because Americans are stupid doesn't mean it's a toys company's fault that women have a collective unhealthy view of their bodies.

BAM.

Quote from: Elder Iptuous on June 21, 2012, 07:47:20 PM
i think you gotta be fairly slim to begin with for them to work properly based on my experience at the ren faires...  :lol:

:lulz:

They work ok for people who are a little bit chubby. Think Mae West, or actual Victorians. The ideal then was big butt, big legs, just nip your waist in to, like, 18".  :x

This one doesn't seem to be corseted, but you get the idea.
(http://www.photomuse.org/media/database/00122.jpg)

Big people, no. But rennies are almost always an example of what not to do.  :lol:

she looks good. (although i'd change the hair)

Quote from: Elder Iptuous on June 21, 2012, 06:13:25 PM
bratz dolls are going to establish the notion that hydrocephalic women are hawt.
then we'll see the true horrors of plastic surgery.

Somebody should probably do a Rule 34 check on this.

:surprisingly absent cringe emote:

Quote from: Elder Iptuous on June 21, 2012, 08:14:52 PM
she looks good. (although i'd change the hair)

She does, actually. She's not obese, she's hourglass. She looks healthy.

That's something else that irks me, there only seems to be room for ONE ideal at any given time. From this to flappers to pin-ups to Twiggy to toned to skinny-with-silicone-tits, but there's only ever one that everybody's expected to try to conform to.

according to who?
if one is trying to impress fashion gurus, perhaps it's one, but if you're trying to impress a mate then there's a butt for every seat, as my used car salesman uncle used to say...
i mean, i know what you're saying, but i don't know how much stock to put in it.

Quote from: Elder Iptuous on June 21, 2012, 08:33:47 PM
according to who?
if one is trying to impress fashion gurus, perhaps it's one, but if you're trying to impress a mate then there's a butt for every seat, as my used car salesman uncle used to say...
i mean, i know what you're saying, but i don't know how much stock to put in it.

Guys are easy and they tend to like variety anyway.  :lulz:

I was thinking more in terms of how you look in your clothes, things like that. Waistlines rise and fall, etc.

Quote from: Alty on June 21, 2012, 08:09:34 PM

Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on June 21, 2012, 06:06:06 PM
Yeah, we need a devil's advocate.

Kay. Barbie plays as much a role for developing little snooty, high-class fashionistas obsessed about their weight and figure as the game Operation plays on incompetent doctors.

1. It's just a doll. It may be an idealized doll of astoundingly stupid proportions, but it's still just a doll. Boys that play with GI Joe don't all become obsessed with guns that shoot plastic, flame shaped projectiles. Little girls playing with blocks don't all become construction workers. Kids take away what they put in, and they put in what you give them. If you give them a piece of plastic shaped into painful social conditioning (debatable to begin with) and fail to instruct them on how the world actually work you can't damn well blame the plastic. That's the parent's deal.

2. No one is forcing you to be purchase barbie dolls for your children, America. You could purchase any damn doll you want, this is America not N. Korea where every doll is Kim Jung Ill RIP. Just because Americans are stupid doesn't mean it's a toys company's fault that women have a collective unhealthy view of their bodies.

BAM.

Either you are very good at that, or that's your real opinion, in which case my entire seven page essay has been killed even before I've written it.  :horrormirth:

Quote from: The Freeky of SCIENCE! on June 21, 2012, 10:11:13 PM

Quote from: Alty on June 21, 2012, 08:09:34 PM

Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on June 21, 2012, 06:06:06 PM
Yeah, we need a devil's advocate.

Kay. Barbie plays as much a role for developing little snooty, high-class fashionistas obsessed about their weight and figure as the game Operation plays on incompetent doctors.

1. It's just a doll. It may be an idealized doll of astoundingly stupid proportions, but it's still just a doll. Boys that play with GI Joe don't all become obsessed with guns that shoot plastic, flame shaped projectiles. Little girls playing with blocks don't all become construction workers. Kids take away what they put in, and they put in what you give them. If you give them a piece of plastic shaped into painful social conditioning (debatable to begin with) and fail to instruct them on how the world actually work you can't damn well blame the plastic. That's the parent's deal.

2. No one is forcing you to be purchase barbie dolls for your children, America. You could purchase any damn doll you want, this is America not N. Korea where every doll is Kim Jung Ill RIP. Just because Americans are stupid doesn't mean it's a toys company's fault that women have a collective unhealthy view of their bodies.

BAM.

Either you are very good at that, or that's your real opinion, in which case my entire seven page essay has been killed even before I've written it.  :horrormirth:

It's a little bit of both. I don't think of it in absolutes. My sister played with barbie and she's got a huge ass, belches much, much louder than I can, and doesn't give a fuck what anyone thinks. But the important thing is I can argue those points for a very long time. The more important thing is that it doesn't kill your essay. You just have to frame it to counter these points from the beginning.

Quote from: Alty on June 21, 2012, 10:20:30 PM

Quote from: The Freeky of SCIENCE! on June 21, 2012, 10:11:13 PM

Quote from: Alty on June 21, 2012, 08:09:34 PM

Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on June 21, 2012, 06:06:06 PM
Yeah, we need a devil's advocate.

Kay. Barbie plays as much a role for developing little snooty, high-class fashionistas obsessed about their weight and figure as the game Operation plays on incompetent doctors.

1. It's just a doll. It may be an idealized doll of astoundingly stupid proportions, but it's still just a doll. Boys that play with GI Joe don't all become obsessed with guns that shoot plastic, flame shaped projectiles. Little girls playing with blocks don't all become construction workers. Kids take away what they put in, and they put in what you give them. If you give them a piece of plastic shaped into painful social conditioning (debatable to begin with) and fail to instruct them on how the world actually work you can't damn well blame the plastic. That's the parent's deal.

2. No one is forcing you to be purchase barbie dolls for your children, America. You could purchase any damn doll you want, this is America not N. Korea where every doll is Kim Jung Ill RIP. Just because Americans are stupid doesn't mean it's a toys company's fault that women have a collective unhealthy view of their bodies.

BAM.

Either you are very good at that, or that's your real opinion, in which case my entire seven page essay has been killed even before I've written it.  :horrormirth:

It's a little bit of both. I don't think of it in absolutes. My sister played with barbie and she's got a huge ass, belches much, much louder than I can, and doesn't give a fuck what anyone thinks. But the important thing is I can argue those points for a very long time. The more important thing is that it doesn't kill your essay. You just have to frame it to counter these points from the beginning.

It took me a few seconds to rebut your arguments, but I can do it.  I was already arguing that barbie dolls are only a minor component of that, and are more a reinforcement of subliminal messages and subtext of media than an end-all be-all source of all this horrible shit.

Quote from: Alty on June 21, 2012, 10:20:30 PM
2. No one is forcing you to be purchase barbie dolls for your children, America. You could purchase any damn doll you want, this is America not N. Korea where every doll is Kim Jung Ill RIP. Just because Americans are stupid doesn't mean it's a toys company's fault that women have a collective unhealthy view of their bodies.

BAM.

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on June 21, 2012, 07:11:33 PM
When my daughter was very small, she wanted barbies.  I thought about it and decided that her having a few common frames of reference with her peers outweighed the negatives involved.  I spent years encouraging her to think and speak for herself, and things like barbie fell by the wayside by age 8 or so.  And not just the dolls, which go away eventually anyway, but the whole mindset.  She still wears a uniform (you really can't NOT at 16), but at least her uniform is "nonconformity for its own sake", which should, I expect, evolve into "I don't need any particular uniform".

Nobody is forcing anybody to purchase barbies, but barbie is so metasticized that the only way to totally keep the barbie thing out is to refuse your kids no matter what and actively discourage everybody you know from giving barbies as gifts. Then barbie is FORBIDDENFORBIDDENFORBIDDEN and your kid grows up hating you because you're a fanatic who made her feel like a freak since ALL HER FRIENDS HAD BARBIES and she rebels for the rest of her life by emulating stupid barbie shit with a vengeance.

I think TGRR handled it the right way. Just get the kid a damn barbie and hope some of the stuff you told them sinks in.

She's been glamorous
She's been glorious
She's told us that math is hard.
Now, for the first time ever

Its Overweight Barbie!
That's right Overweight Barbie!

She's spent too long in front of her Barbie TV!
and too much time in that Barbie Kitchen!

Now take Overweight Barbie to the local greasy spoon with Beerbelly Ken!

With the all new "Split the Bill" accessories!

She's too big for her Barbie Car, so buy the new Barbie Minivan!

(Beerbelly Ken, Stretch Pants and Crane sold seperately.)

Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on June 21, 2012, 10:47:19 PM

Quote from: Alty on June 21, 2012, 10:20:30 PM
2. No one is forcing you to be purchase barbie dolls for your children, America. You could purchase any damn doll you want, this is America not N. Korea where every doll is Kim Jung Ill RIP. Just because Americans are stupid doesn't mean it's a toys company's fault that women have a collective unhealthy view of their bodies.

BAM.

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on June 21, 2012, 07:11:33 PM
When my daughter was very small, she wanted barbies.  I thought about it and decided that her having a few common frames of reference with her peers outweighed the negatives involved.  I spent years encouraging her to think and speak for herself, and things like barbie fell by the wayside by age 8 or so.  And not just the dolls, which go away eventually anyway, but the whole mindset.  She still wears a uniform (you really can't NOT at 16), but at least her uniform is "nonconformity for its own sake", which should, I expect, evolve into "I don't need any particular uniform".

Nobody is forcing anybody to purchase barbies, but barbie is so metasticized that the only way to totally keep the barbie thing out is to refuse your kids no matter what and actively discourage everybody you know from giving barbies as gifts. Then barbie is FORBIDDENFORBIDDENFORBIDDEN and your kid grows up hating you because you're a fanatic who made her feel like a freak since ALL HER FRIENDS HAD BARBIES and she rebels for the rest of her life by emulating stupid barbie shit with a vengeance.

I think TGRR handled it the right way. Just get the kid a damn barbie and hope some of the stuff you told them sinks in.

If you think it outweighs the consequences. If that feeling of FORBIDDEN becomes so important than perhaps the child needs more stimulus in their life. If all her friends jumped off a bridge...
Of course a bridge is no comparison.
Barbies are not nearly as bad as a fall from a bridge, or war, or so many other things. Again, they're just dolls.


:evil:

Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on June 21, 2012, 10:48:56 PM
She's been glamorous
She's been glorious
She's told us that math is hard.
Now, for the first time ever

Its Overweight Barbie!
That's right Overweight Barbie!

She's spent too long in front of her Barbie TV!
and too much time in that Barbie Kitchen!

Now take Overweight Barbie to the local greasy spoon with Beerbelly Ken!

With the all new "Split the Bill" accessories!

She's too big for her Barbie Car, so buy the new Barbie Minivan!

(Beerbelly Ken, Stretch Pants and Crane sold seperately.)

Oldie, but couldn't resist

(http://www.jemjabella.co.uk/junk/BarbieWhiteTrash.jpg)

Quote from: Alty on June 21, 2012, 10:55:00 PM

Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on June 21, 2012, 10:47:19 PM

Quote from: Alty on June 21, 2012, 10:20:30 PM
2. No one is forcing you to be purchase barbie dolls for your children, America. You could purchase any damn doll you want, this is America not N. Korea where every doll is Kim Jung Ill RIP. Just because Americans are stupid doesn't mean it's a toys company's fault that women have a collective unhealthy view of their bodies.

BAM.

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on June 21, 2012, 07:11:33 PM
When my daughter was very small, she wanted barbies.  I thought about it and decided that her having a few common frames of reference with her peers outweighed the negatives involved.  I spent years encouraging her to think and speak for herself, and things like barbie fell by the wayside by age 8 or so.  And not just the dolls, which go away eventually anyway, but the whole mindset.  She still wears a uniform (you really can't NOT at 16), but at least her uniform is "nonconformity for its own sake", which should, I expect, evolve into "I don't need any particular uniform".

Nobody is forcing anybody to purchase barbies, but barbie is so metasticized that the only way to totally keep the barbie thing out is to refuse your kids no matter what and actively discourage everybody you know from giving barbies as gifts. Then barbie is FORBIDDENFORBIDDENFORBIDDEN and your kid grows up hating you because you're a fanatic who made her feel like a freak since ALL HER FRIENDS HAD BARBIES and she rebels for the rest of her life by emulating stupid barbie shit with a vengeance.

I think TGRR handled it the right way. Just get the kid a damn barbie and hope some of the stuff you told them sinks in.

If you think it outweighs the consequences. If that feeling of FORBIDDEN becomes so important than perhaps the child needs more stimulus in their life. If all her friends jumped off a bridge...
Of course a bridge is no comparison.
Barbies are not nearly as bad as a fall from a bridge, or war, or so many other things. Again, they're just dolls.


:evil:

You FUCK.  :lulz:

OK, try this:

Barbie is a mascot for a fucked up paradigm. You wouldn't give other things that had fucked up ideas attached to them to a kid, like Gacy clown pictures.

Barbie is just plastic, but so is a dildo...WOULD YOU GIVE A KID A DILDO?

Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on June 21, 2012, 11:03:19 PM

Quote from: Alty on June 21, 2012, 10:55:00 PM

Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on June 21, 2012, 10:47:19 PM

Quote from: Alty on June 21, 2012, 10:20:30 PM
2. No one is forcing you to be purchase barbie dolls for your children, America. You could purchase any damn doll you want, this is America not N. Korea where every doll is Kim Jung Ill RIP. Just because Americans are stupid doesn't mean it's a toys company's fault that women have a collective unhealthy view of their bodies.

BAM.

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on June 21, 2012, 07:11:33 PM
When my daughter was very small, she wanted barbies.  I thought about it and decided that her having a few common frames of reference with her peers outweighed the negatives involved.  I spent years encouraging her to think and speak for herself, and things like barbie fell by the wayside by age 8 or so.  And not just the dolls, which go away eventually anyway, but the whole mindset.  She still wears a uniform (you really can't NOT at 16), but at least her uniform is "nonconformity for its own sake", which should, I expect, evolve into "I don't need any particular uniform".

Nobody is forcing anybody to purchase barbies, but barbie is so metasticized that the only way to totally keep the barbie thing out is to refuse your kids no matter what and actively discourage everybody you know from giving barbies as gifts. Then barbie is FORBIDDENFORBIDDENFORBIDDEN and your kid grows up hating you because you're a fanatic who made her feel like a freak since ALL HER FRIENDS HAD BARBIES and she rebels for the rest of her life by emulating stupid barbie shit with a vengeance.

I think TGRR handled it the right way. Just get the kid a damn barbie and hope some of the stuff you told them sinks in.

If you think it outweighs the consequences. If that feeling of FORBIDDEN becomes so important than perhaps the child needs more stimulus in their life. If all her friends jumped off a bridge...
Of course a bridge is no comparison.
Barbies are not nearly as bad as a fall from a bridge, or war, or so many other things. Again, they're just dolls.


:evil:

You FUCK.  :lulz:

OK, try this:

Barbie is a mascot for a fucked up paradigm. You wouldn't give other things that had fucked up ideas attached to them to a kid, like Gacy clown pictures.

Barbie is just plastic, but so is a dildo...WOULD YOU GIVE A KID A DILDO?

Who the fucks buys plastic dildos?

Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on June 21, 2012, 11:03:19 PM

Quote from: Alty on June 21, 2012, 10:55:00 PM

Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on June 21, 2012, 10:47:19 PM

Quote from: Alty on June 21, 2012, 10:20:30 PM
2. No one is forcing you to be purchase barbie dolls for your children, America. You could purchase any damn doll you want, this is America not N. Korea where every doll is Kim Jung Ill RIP. Just because Americans are stupid doesn't mean it's a toys company's fault that women have a collective unhealthy view of their bodies.

BAM.

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on June 21, 2012, 07:11:33 PM
When my daughter was very small, she wanted barbies.  I thought about it and decided that her having a few common frames of reference with her peers outweighed the negatives involved.  I spent years encouraging her to think and speak for herself, and things like barbie fell by the wayside by age 8 or so.  And not just the dolls, which go away eventually anyway, but the whole mindset.  She still wears a uniform (you really can't NOT at 16), but at least her uniform is "nonconformity for its own sake", which should, I expect, evolve into "I don't need any particular uniform".

Nobody is forcing anybody to purchase barbies, but barbie is so metasticized that the only way to totally keep the barbie thing out is to refuse your kids no matter what and actively discourage everybody you know from giving barbies as gifts. Then barbie is FORBIDDENFORBIDDENFORBIDDEN and your kid grows up hating you because you're a fanatic who made her feel like a freak since ALL HER FRIENDS HAD BARBIES and she rebels for the rest of her life by emulating stupid barbie shit with a vengeance.

I think TGRR handled it the right way. Just get the kid a damn barbie and hope some of the stuff you told them sinks in.

If you think it outweighs the consequences. If that feeling of FORBIDDEN becomes so important than perhaps the child needs more stimulus in their life. If all her friends jumped off a bridge...
Of course a bridge is no comparison.
Barbies are not nearly as bad as a fall from a bridge, or war, or so many other things. Again, they're just dolls.


:evil:

You FUCK.  :lulz:

OK, try this:

Barbie is a mascot for a fucked up paradigm. You wouldn't give other things that had fucked up ideas attached to them to a kid, like Gacy clown pictures.

Barbie is just plastic, but so is a dildo...WOULD YOU GIVE A KID A DILDO?

You're right, I wouldn't.
Thus, Barbie doesn't really have an effect on my life. Not really a big deal, you know?
Certainly not as bad for a child to play with as a dildo.

Also, what PD said.

Quote from: Placid Dingo on June 21, 2012, 11:06:35 PM

Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on June 21, 2012, 11:03:19 PM

Quote from: Alty on June 21, 2012, 10:55:00 PM

Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on June 21, 2012, 10:47:19 PM

Quote from: Alty on June 21, 2012, 10:20:30 PM
2. No one is forcing you to be purchase barbie dolls for your children, America. You could purchase any damn doll you want, this is America not N. Korea where every doll is Kim Jung Ill RIP. Just because Americans are stupid doesn't mean it's a toys company's fault that women have a collective unhealthy view of their bodies.

BAM.

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on June 21, 2012, 07:11:33 PM
When my daughter was very small, she wanted barbies.  I thought about it and decided that her having a few common frames of reference with her peers outweighed the negatives involved.  I spent years encouraging her to think and speak for herself, and things like barbie fell by the wayside by age 8 or so.  And not just the dolls, which go away eventually anyway, but the whole mindset.  She still wears a uniform (you really can't NOT at 16), but at least her uniform is "nonconformity for its own sake", which should, I expect, evolve into "I don't need any particular uniform".

Nobody is forcing anybody to purchase barbies, but barbie is so metasticized that the only way to totally keep the barbie thing out is to refuse your kids no matter what and actively discourage everybody you know from giving barbies as gifts. Then barbie is FORBIDDENFORBIDDENFORBIDDEN and your kid grows up hating you because you're a fanatic who made her feel like a freak since ALL HER FRIENDS HAD BARBIES and she rebels for the rest of her life by emulating stupid barbie shit with a vengeance.

I think TGRR handled it the right way. Just get the kid a damn barbie and hope some of the stuff you told them sinks in.

If you think it outweighs the consequences. If that feeling of FORBIDDEN becomes so important than perhaps the child needs more stimulus in their life. If all her friends jumped off a bridge...
Of course a bridge is no comparison.
Barbies are not nearly as bad as a fall from a bridge, or war, or so many other things. Again, they're just dolls.


:evil:

You FUCK.  :lulz:

OK, try this:

Barbie is a mascot for a fucked up paradigm. You wouldn't give other things that had fucked up ideas attached to them to a kid, like Gacy clown pictures.

Barbie is just plastic, but so is a dildo...WOULD YOU GIVE A KID A DILDO?

Who the fucks buys plastic dildos?

OK, rubber.

Cut me some slack, I could've said "your mom".  :lol:

It's bad for a kid to play with a dildo?

(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/21Xfdmll%2BdL._SL500_AA300_.jpg)

Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on June 21, 2012, 11:10:56 PM
It's bad for a kid to play with a dildo?

(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/21Xfdmll%2BdL._SL500_AA300_.jpg)

:horrormirth: :horrormirth: :horrormirth:

Quote from: Alty on June 21, 2012, 08:09:34 PM

Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on June 21, 2012, 06:06:06 PM
Yeah, we need a devil's advocate.

Kay. Barbie plays as much a role for developing little snooty, high-class fashionistas obsessed about their weight and figure as the game Operation plays on incompetent doctors.

Okay, Mr. Smarty Pance. 

I say that is a false equivocation.  NOBODY is advocating that malpracticing doctors are desirable, but so many sources are either subtly or overtly supporting this body type as ideal.

Quote1. It's just a doll. It may be an idealized doll of astoundingly stupid proportions, but it's still just a doll. Boys that play with GI Joe don't all become obsessed with guns that shoot plastic, flame shaped projectiles. Little girls playing with blocks don't all become construction workers. Kids take away what they put in, and they put in what you give them. If you give them a piece of plastic shaped into painful social conditioning (debatable to begin with) and fail to instruct them on how the world actually work you can't damn well blame the plastic. That's the parent's deal.

I'm going to counter the bolded argument and say that is exactly what little boys do.  Boys are obsessed with guns in general, and the more explosive a gun and its ammunition is the better.  In my experience. 

I have heard other personal stories where men say they've played with barbie dolls, though.  So no, not all boys do, but a great many do.

As for the underlined, construction jobs are not a traditional woman's job.  Drawing on the "Why is feminism a bad word?" thread and the arguments provided (I'm not sure there were links to evidence, I forget) about women having lower income overall and especially in male dominated workplaces, and I saw somewhere here a link to something where the hiring of women since the economic collapse had dropped to one percent, I'm going to say that women just don't apply for those jobs generally speaking.  Thanks to Title IX, there are obviously women in construction, but not very many.

Quote2. No one is forcing you to be purchase barbie dolls for your children, America. You could purchase any damn doll you want, this is America not N. Korea where every doll is Kim Jung Ill RIP. Just because Americans are stupid doesn't mean it's a toys company's fault that women have a collective unhealthy view of their bodies.

BAM.

Kids do.  Kids want what they see on the teevee because that's what all their friends have and also SHINY LOOK AT THOSE KIDS HAVING FUN LOOOOOOOK!, and kids are beastly little things.  If there is one who is different from the rest of the pack, that one gets ostracized, even over something as stupid as a doll.  That's a monkey brain thing, though.

A gal I used to know had one of those. :lulz:

Quote from: Elder Iptuous on June 21, 2012, 06:36:07 PM
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?

Little girls don't idealize it (until they're taught to). Adults do and adults shaped that doll from the get-go. I think, if it were not for the enculturation that teaches that "fat" is wrong and "thin, freakish proportions you have no possibility of attaining" are right, that little girls probably wouldn't care what the damn doll looked like (check out rag dolls, for example). And I think that barbie's mass appeal - that it's everywhere and every little girl has to have one to have a common frame of reference - helps with that enculturation and the absorption of the fucked up body expectations we have of women.

Exactly, Garbo.  It isn't the doll itself, that is just a thing that adults pointed at when they realized how hurt they had been and how damaged they had become. 

I think it does have its own brand of bad signal, because there was this little girl in Barbie Nation who said that even though being pretty isn't important, if you aren't pretty you won't have friends. 

Quote from: The Freeky of SCIENCE! on June 21, 2012, 11:36:04 PM

Quote from: Alty on June 21, 2012, 08:09:34 PM

Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on June 21, 2012, 06:06:06 PM
Yeah, we need a devil's advocate.

Kay. Barbie plays as much a role for developing little snooty, high-class fashionistas obsessed about their weight and figure as the game Operation plays on incompetent doctors.

Okay, Mr. Smarty Pance. 

I say that is a false equivocation.  NOBODY is advocating that malpracticing doctors are desirable, but so many sources are either subtly or overtly supporting this body type as ideal.

Quote1. It's just a doll. It may be an idealized doll of astoundingly stupid proportions, but it's still just a doll. Boys that play with GI Joe don't all become obsessed with guns that shoot plastic, flame shaped projectiles. Little girls playing with blocks don't all become construction workers. Kids take away what they put in, and they put in what you give them. If you give them a piece of plastic shaped into painful social conditioning (debatable to begin with) and fail to instruct them on how the world actually work you can't damn well blame the plastic. That's the parent's deal.

1.I'm going to counter the bolded argument and say that is exactly what little boys do.  Boys are obsessed with guns in general, and the more explosive a gun and its ammunition is the better.  In my experience. 

I have heard other personal stories where men say they've played with barbie dolls, though.  So no, not all boys do, but a great many do.

As for the underlined, construction jobs are not a traditional woman's job.  Drawing on the "Why is feminism a bad word?" thread and the arguments provided (I'm not sure there were links to evidence, I forget) about women having lower income overall and especially in male dominated workplaces, and I saw somewhere here a link to something where the hiring of women since the economic collapse had dropped to one percent, I'm going to say that women just don't apply for those jobs generally speaking.  Thanks to Title IX, there are obviously women in construction, but not very many.

Quote2. No one is forcing you to be purchase barbie dolls for your children, America. You could purchase any damn doll you want, this is America not N. Korea where every doll is Kim Jung Ill RIP. Just because Americans are stupid doesn't mean it's a toys company's fault that women have a collective unhealthy view of their bodies.

BAM.

2. Kids do.  Kids want what they see on the teevee because that's what all their friends have and also SHINY LOOK AT THOSE KIDS HAVING FUN LOOOOOOOK!, and kids are beastly little things.  If there is one who is different from the rest of the pack, that one gets ostracized, even over something as stupid as a doll.  That's a monkey brain thing, though.

1. Ah, but those GI Joe toys don't have actual explosions, they're plastic. Barbie's shape is her primary feature. Those other kind of toys focus on projectile gun thingies, that's their primary feature. Even if it wasn't you could say the projectiles are more akin to Barbie's clothes, which depend on her form. If little boys should want to use real guns they have the resources to use them in a safe fashion. Meanwhile, if girls grow up to be women who want real clothes they have to recognize that, much like the guns, these are real and they can't be considered in the same way. That's, again, the parents job to do.

Exactly, but the point I was making was the toys you play with do not shape you in such a complete, top-to-bottom manner. They are just dolls.

2. I answered this mostly in response Anna's post. There's always something kids will find if they want to reject you. How can you protect them from everything? Which is worse, the rejection from peers or a life-long fixation with female form? If the latter stance is possible in your position then you have a choice to make. Barbie does not.

Quote from: Alty on June 21, 2012, 11:58:06 PM
They are just dolls.

And Fox News is just a TV station.  Can't hurt anyone.   :lulz:

Quote from: Alty on June 21, 2012, 11:58:06 PM

Quote from: The Freeky of SCIENCE! on June 21, 2012, 11:36:04 PM

Quote from: Alty on June 21, 2012, 08:09:34 PM

Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on June 21, 2012, 06:06:06 PM
Yeah, we need a devil's advocate.

Kay. Barbie plays as much a role for developing little snooty, high-class fashionistas obsessed about their weight and figure as the game Operation plays on incompetent doctors.

Okay, Mr. Smarty Pance. 

I say that is a false equivocation.  NOBODY is advocating that malpracticing doctors are desirable, but so many sources are either subtly or overtly supporting this body type as ideal.

Quote1. It's just a doll. It may be an idealized doll of astoundingly stupid proportions, but it's still just a doll. Boys that play with GI Joe don't all become obsessed with guns that shoot plastic, flame shaped projectiles. Little girls playing with blocks don't all become construction workers. Kids take away what they put in, and they put in what you give them. If you give them a piece of plastic shaped into painful social conditioning (debatable to begin with) and fail to instruct them on how the world actually work you can't damn well blame the plastic. That's the parent's deal.

1.I'm going to counter the bolded argument and say that is exactly what little boys do.  Boys are obsessed with guns in general, and the more explosive a gun and its ammunition is the better.  In my experience. 

I have heard other personal stories where men say they've played with barbie dolls, though.  So no, not all boys do, but a great many do.

As for the underlined, construction jobs are not a traditional woman's job.  Drawing on the "Why is feminism a bad word?" thread and the arguments provided (I'm not sure there were links to evidence, I forget) about women having lower income overall and especially in male dominated workplaces, and I saw somewhere here a link to something where the hiring of women since the economic collapse had dropped to one percent, I'm going to say that women just don't apply for those jobs generally speaking.  Thanks to Title IX, there are obviously women in construction, but not very many.

Quote2. No one is forcing you to be purchase barbie dolls for your children, America. You could purchase any damn doll you want, this is America not N. Korea where every doll is Kim Jung Ill RIP. Just because Americans are stupid doesn't mean it's a toys company's fault that women have a collective unhealthy view of their bodies.

BAM.

2. Kids do.  Kids want what they see on the teevee because that's what all their friends have and also SHINY LOOK AT THOSE KIDS HAVING FUN LOOOOOOOK!, and kids are beastly little things.  If there is one who is different from the rest of the pack, that one gets ostracized, even over something as stupid as a doll.  That's a monkey brain thing, though.

1. Ah, but those GI Joe toys don't have actual explosions, they're plastic. Barbie's shape is her primary feature. Those other kind of toys focus on projectile gun thingies, that's their primary feature. Even if it wasn't you could say the projectiles are more akin to Barbie's clothes, which depend on her form. If little boys should want to use real guns they have the resources to use them in a safe fashion. Meanwhile, if girls grow up to be women who want real clothes they have to recognize that, much like the guns, these are real and they can't be considered in the same way. That's, again, the parents job to do.

Exactly, but the point I was making was the toys you play with do not shape you in such a complete, top-to-bottom manner. They are just dolls.

2. I answered this mostly in response Anna's post. There's always something kids will find if they want to reject you. How can you protect them from everything? Which is worse, the rejection from peers or a life-long fixation with female form? If the latter stance is possible in your position then you have a choice to make. Barbie does not.

Yeah, they're just dolls.  But there are people out there who were deeply damaged because they couldn't make themselves look like barbie dolls.  I think that is related to other issues, though.  Your sister seems to have been fine, but there are others who became anorexic and bulemic.  So maybe it's a matter of they had to start out that way?

By "start out that way," I mean that that seed of madness was already there, but maybe not formed up.  I'm talking like, neurological disorders and stuff, which sometimes don't kick in until puberty.  Or, if you like, it can be environmental factors: a kid at the bottom of the food chain gets picked on all the time, doesn't get to play because they are marked as the "outsider," and so they figure if they try to be like what everyone wants them to be hard enough, they'll be part of the group and make friends and be popular.

Yeah, I'm all tapped out. I could definitely keep going but not without sacrificing some brain cells.

:lulz:  Don't do that. You did a good job, anyway.

so....
is there moral culpability in mattel's manufacturing of barbie dolls?

oh... and incidentally i just realized that gi joe probably isn't the best analog to barbie, since many men actually can have that physique...
but, i was a big HE-MAN fan when i was a kiddo. (another mattel product)
now there's an unattainable goal of masculinity!

Back in the early 90's, Barbie saved Mattel's ASS.  They had been going broke, and the woman who invented Barbie got canned because she hid the evidence to keep stock prices high.  It became Mattel's flagship, and whatever it might have been up until then, after that point it became nothing except another product of The Machine.  Mattel has less culpability (except for the "Math is Hard!" Barbie fiasco) than the consumers do, and as Alty pointed out, those consumers are mostly the parents, because they are the ultimate buyers and it really is their job to mitigate some of the damage that being exposed to this crap can do.

Note I said "can do," not "does."

Quote from: Elder Iptuous on June 22, 2012, 01:37:58 AM
so....
is there moral culpability in mattel's manufacturing of barbie dolls?

*uses John Stuart Mills' festering skull as a magig 8 ball*

No.

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on June 22, 2012, 03:22:24 AM

Quote from: Elder Iptuous on June 22, 2012, 01:37:58 AM
so....
is there moral culpability in mattel's manufacturing of barbie dolls?

*uses John Stuart Mills' festering skull as a magig 8 ball*

No.

I disagree that they have no culpability at all.  :/  I'm not sure what you're saying, because I don't know who that guy is.

Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on June 21, 2012, 07:30:24 PM
Freeky, I got that pic from an image search, and when I went to the site, it was just a big spammy craft site.

Youtube video, lots of dolls in this one. Truly creepy and a lot of them have actual human hair:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n-uW7Ek1wxY&feature=relmfu

Quote from: Elder Iptuous on June 21, 2012, 07:08:01 PM
:lol:
in light of the evidence, the defense recuses itself from the case.


maginally related...
have any of you guys checked out the 'Japanese Ball Jointed Doll' scene?  i stumbled onto it, and some of those dolls are pretty slick.  if i had a daughter, i'd get/make her one of those instead of the barbie, or bratz, or whatever.

Uhh...same thing:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ojYBcMFkdfY

Quote from: Elder Iptuous on June 21, 2012, 07:21:51 PM
interesting, Freeky.
it also seems that they've changed the waist away from ridiculously impossible:
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0d/Barbieswaistwidens.jpg)
(although i'd argue that the newer one is probably more in line with contemporary idealization.  corsets aren't in fashion these days)

Uhhh
http://www.corset-story.com/

Uh, this might be where I have to confess that I kind of love corsets.

?

Quote from: PROFOUNDLY RETARDED CHARLIE MANSON on June 22, 2012, 05:54:29 AM

Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on June 21, 2012, 07:30:24 PM
Freeky, I got that pic from an image search, and when I went to the site, it was just a big spammy craft site.

Youtube video, lots of dolls in this one. Truly creepy and a lot of them have actual human hair:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n-uW7Ek1wxY&feature=relmfu

Quote from: Elder Iptuous on June 21, 2012, 07:08:01 PM
:lol:
in light of the evidence, the defense recuses itself from the case.


maginally related...
have any of you guys checked out the 'Japanese Ball Jointed Doll' scene?  i stumbled onto it, and some of those dolls are pretty slick.  if i had a daughter, i'd get/make her one of those instead of the barbie, or bratz, or whatever.

Uhh...same thing:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ojYBcMFkdfY

Quote from: Elder Iptuous on June 21, 2012, 07:21:51 PM
interesting, Freeky.
it also seems that they've changed the waist away from ridiculously impossible:
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0d/Barbieswaistwidens.jpg)
(although i'd argue that the newer one is probably more in line with contemporary idealization.  corsets aren't in fashion these days)

Uhhh
http://www.corset-story.com/

Uh, this might be where I have to confess that I kind of love corsets.

They are hawt as fuck.  :lol:

For fun, though. I don't want to see it turn into a thing where people required to wear them to work.

Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on June 22, 2012, 07:04:39 AM

Quote from: PROFOUNDLY RETARDED CHARLIE MANSON on June 22, 2012, 05:54:29 AM

Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on June 21, 2012, 07:30:24 PM
Freeky, I got that pic from an image search, and when I went to the site, it was just a big spammy craft site.

Youtube video, lots of dolls in this one. Truly creepy and a lot of them have actual human hair:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n-uW7Ek1wxY&feature=relmfu

Quote from: Elder Iptuous on June 21, 2012, 07:08:01 PM
:lol:
in light of the evidence, the defense recuses itself from the case.


maginally related...
have any of you guys checked out the 'Japanese Ball Jointed Doll' scene?  i stumbled onto it, and some of those dolls are pretty slick.  if i had a daughter, i'd get/make her one of those instead of the barbie, or bratz, or whatever.

Uhh...same thing:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ojYBcMFkdfY

Quote from: Elder Iptuous on June 21, 2012, 07:21:51 PM
interesting, Freeky.
it also seems that they've changed the waist away from ridiculously impossible:
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0d/Barbieswaistwidens.jpg)
(although i'd argue that the newer one is probably more in line with contemporary idealization.  corsets aren't in fashion these days)

Uhhh
http://www.corset-story.com/

Uh, this might be where I have to confess that I kind of love corsets.

They are hawt as fuck.  :lol:

For fun, though. I don't want to see it turn into a thing where people required to wear them to work.

FUCK NO. I LIKE THEM FOR THE VERY OPPOSITE REASON.

Oh look, I was still in allcaps mode.

No, i like them because of different reasons, probably close to the same reasons that male CEOs like to be stepped on and whipped by smart women.

Quote from: PROFOUNDLY RETARDED CHARLIE MANSON on June 22, 2012, 07:11:44 AM

Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on June 22, 2012, 07:04:39 AM

Quote from: PROFOUNDLY RETARDED CHARLIE MANSON on June 22, 2012, 05:54:29 AM

Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on June 21, 2012, 07:30:24 PM
Freeky, I got that pic from an image search, and when I went to the site, it was just a big spammy craft site.

Youtube video, lots of dolls in this one. Truly creepy and a lot of them have actual human hair:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n-uW7Ek1wxY&feature=relmfu

Quote from: Elder Iptuous on June 21, 2012, 07:08:01 PM
:lol:
in light of the evidence, the defense recuses itself from the case.


maginally related...
have any of you guys checked out the 'Japanese Ball Jointed Doll' scene?  i stumbled onto it, and some of those dolls are pretty slick.  if i had a daughter, i'd get/make her one of those instead of the barbie, or bratz, or whatever.

Uhh...same thing:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ojYBcMFkdfY

Quote from: Elder Iptuous on June 21, 2012, 07:21:51 PM
interesting, Freeky.
it also seems that they've changed the waist away from ridiculously impossible:
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0d/Barbieswaistwidens.jpg)
(although i'd argue that the newer one is probably more in line with contemporary idealization.  corsets aren't in fashion these days)

Uhhh
http://www.corset-story.com/

Uh, this might be where I have to confess that I kind of love corsets.

They are hawt as fuck.  :lol:

For fun, though. I don't want to see it turn into a thing where people required to wear them to work.

FUCK NO. I LIKE THEM FOR THE VERY OPPOSITE REASON.

Oh look, I was still in allcaps mode.

No, i like them because of different reasons, probably close to the same reasons that male CEOs like to be stepped on and whipped by smart women.

Wouldn't that come under "fun"?  :lol:

Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on June 21, 2012, 11:41:52 PM
it's everywhere and every little girl has to have one to have a common frame of reference

I thought this was an important point... That the mass-production nature of a conglomerate toy company twists a common culture into a global experience rather than an individualistic one... as a thought experiement, if all toys were hand-made and produced by small, local stores, the common culture would be different from place to place, region to region. There would be no universal conception of what a girl's doll "should" look like, which would make any conformity to body type possibly occur much later in life.

However, this appears to me as an "unintended consequence" on the part of Mattel.  Their goal wasn't to twist young girls' minds into a false idea of femininity... They just wanted to corner the market on doll sales (and did, for a generation or more).  As a result, there is only a single reference point for the concept of "girl's doll", and that reference point is bad signal.

What I found really interesting in a brow-furrowing sort of way was that Barbie's creator considers(ed?) boobs to be the paramount sign of femininity.  It's sort of a distressing emphasis on the body rather than just feeling it, and now that I'm thinking about it I can't tell if maybe she was trying to put that signal out there, or if she was already tricked into believing it, or what. 

That's nothing new.

(http://portal.bentonvillek12.org/kimwilliams/Prehistoric/Venus%20of%20Willendorf.JPG)

And with the addition of clothes, boobs are the primary visual biological gender indicator.

The 22-inch non-corseted waist, on the other hand, that varies (see above image).

Why is her head a brain?

And you have a point.  Nothing new there.

Quote from: The Freeky of SCIENCE! on June 22, 2012, 04:48:00 PM
Why is her head a brain?

And you have a point.  Nothing new there.

perhaps cavemen realized that the brain is the biggest erogenous zone.
or perhaps it is an example of extreme trepannation.
or perhaps she has ringlets for hair.

I just assume Venus figurines are weird. *shrug*

Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on June 22, 2012, 01:50:45 PM

Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on June 21, 2012, 11:41:52 PM
it's everywhere and every little girl has to have one to have a common frame of reference

I thought this was an important point... That the mass-production nature of a conglomerate toy company twists a common culture into a global experience rather than an individualistic one... as a thought experiement, if all toys were hand-made and produced by small, local stores, the common culture would be different from place to place, region to region. There would be no universal conception of what a girl's doll "should" look like, which would make any conformity to body type possibly occur much later in life.

However, this appears to me as an "unintended consequence" on the part of Mattel.  Their goal wasn't to twist young girls' minds into a false idea of femininity... They just wanted to corner the market on doll sales (and did, for a generation or more).  As a result, there is only a single reference point for the concept of "girl's doll", and that reference point is bad signal.

Certainly.

Quote from: The Freeky of SCIENCE! on June 22, 2012, 04:41:18 PM
What I found really interesting in a brow-furrowing sort of way was that Barbie's creator considers(ed?) boobs to be the paramount sign of femininity.  It's sort of a distressing emphasis on the body rather than just feeling it, and now that I'm thinking about it I can't tell if maybe she was trying to put that signal out there, or if she was already tricked into believing it, or what. 

As LMNO said, they stick out as the most obvious sign of female sex (followed, I suppose, by hip to waist), and they're pretty easy to add to a doll.

Quote from: The Freeky of SCIENCE! on June 21, 2012, 05:40:18 PM
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?

You rang? 


None.  Barbie is just a toy.  A young girl who has body issues because of a doll is a young girl who has parents who aren't paying attention.

To be very clear, I'm not suggesting kids don't ever have thoughts that "gee I want to look like Barbie", ever.  But if a Mom and/or Dad picks up on that and talks to their kids about it, most kids are going to be alright.  But I think it is too easy to just blame a toy.  There are deeper issues that get ignored when you just focus on a toy.

"NEVER MIND HOW THE WHOLE WORLD SEES ME, MOM AND DAD TALKED TO ME AND THEY THINK I LOOK GOOD! AND THEY'RE LIKE, RILLY, RILLY OBJECTIVE ABOUT STUFF LIKE HOW THEIR KIDS LOOK!"

FFS, RWHN, that's bad. Even for you.

That's a different question.  I'm answering the question about the impact of Barbie on girls' self-image.  A doll, by itself should not have an impact if a kid has parents who are tuned in and talking to their kids.

I'm somewhere in the middle on this issue, probably leaning slightly more towards "just a doll" than "devious imprinter of unrealistic body image goals", but I think that you're vastly overlooking the realities of how much weight peer pressure carries.

Yes, peer pressure is an issue, the doll is not.  The doll may be a tool for peer or societal pressure, but that is the issue, the individuals wielding the tool and the lack of voices providing correction.

Quote from: The Bad Reverend What's-His-Name! on June 23, 2012, 01:35:32 AM
Yes, peer pressure is an issue, the doll is not.  The doll may be a tool for peer or societal pressure, but that is the issue, the individuals wielding the tool and the lack of voices providing correction.

:lulz:

I agree with this.

Quote from: The Bad Reverend What's-His-Name! on June 23, 2012, 01:35:32 AM
Yes, peer pressure is an issue, the doll is not.  The doll may be a tool for peer or societal pressure, but that is the issue, the individuals wielding the tool and the lack of voices providing correction.

yeah, OK, I'd have to say I agree with that assessment.

What some people really need is to exploit things, in order to feel any humanity at all.

It's not just the doll. It's fetishizing Barbie's lifestyle (upper class frivolity is A OK!).

(http://s9.thisnext.com/media/largest_dimension/4A095790.jpg)

(http://ia700804.us.archive.org/zipview.php?zip=/7/items/olcovers267/olcovers267-L.zip&file=2672787-L.jpg)

http://blog.netrobe.com/2011/03/barbies-closet/


Remember Ben Mack's warnings: Branding is the attempt to forge a pre-existing relationship between you ("the audience") and the target "branded good(s)" before you encounter the target "branded good(s)" in the wild (i.e. the general "marketplace"). In this case, the "branded good(s)" are actually a lifestyle/philosophy... namely that of Ayn Rand... "Fuck 'em, I've got mine. And it's so much better than yours." Barbie and related mass-consumption toys teach that mass consumption is great! So when the child encounters it "in the wild" they are faster at rationalizing why it fine (don't they "deserve the good life..."). It's very much tied to the current myth of the "American Dream" that gets recycled and resold by the corporations again and again.

Thing is, I generally equate barbie dolls with sources of mana like the omphalos, given the proper contraceptive and such, all kinds of things are possible when we share our dreams together freely.

Hey, Telarus:

UNLIMITED DATA!  :horrormirth: :horrormirth: :horrormirth:

Excellent point. Barbie says "BEING A PIG IS GLAMOROUS!"  :x

Quote from: The Bad Reverend What's-His-Name! on June 23, 2012, 01:35:32 AM
Yes, peer pressure is an issue, the doll is not.  The doll may be a tool for peer or societal pressure, but that is the issue, the individuals wielding the tool and the lack of voices providing correction.

Very well said, RWHN!

Quote from: Elder Iptuous on June 22, 2012, 08:53:31 PM

Quote from: The Freeky of SCIENCE! on June 22, 2012, 04:48:00 PM
Why is her head a brain?

And you have a point.  Nothing new there.

perhaps cavemen realized that the brain is the biggest erogenous zone.
or perhaps it is an example of extreme trepannation.
or perhaps she has ringlets for hair.

EUREKA!

I think I know.

He just wasn't any good at faces, so he made a bunch of decorative bumps.

He never practiced carving faces. Maybe he never really SAW faces.

That's why they make these:

(http://www.chargrilled.us/t-shirts/prodimages/imagegen.ashx?vpimageid=611&tstyle=f&tsize=medium&tcolour=Pink&tx=0&ty=-1&tw=-6&tb=False)

Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on June 23, 2012, 10:41:08 AM

Quote from: Elder Iptuous on June 22, 2012, 08:53:31 PM

Quote from: The Freeky of SCIENCE! on June 22, 2012, 04:48:00 PM
Why is her head a brain?

And you have a point.  Nothing new there.

perhaps cavemen realized that the brain is the biggest erogenous zone.
or perhaps it is an example of extreme trepannation.
or perhaps she has ringlets for hair.

EUREKA!

I think I know.

He just wasn't any good at faces, so he made a bunch of decorative bumps.

He never practiced carving faces. Maybe he never really SAW faces.

That's why they make these:

(http://www.chargrilled.us/t-shirts/prodimages/imagegen.ashx?vpimageid=611&tstyle=f&tsize=medium&tcolour=Pink&tx=0&ty=-1&tw=-6&tb=False)

I want one. In Royal Blue.

Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on June 21, 2012, 08:26:51 PM

Quote from: Elder Iptuous on June 21, 2012, 08:14:52 PM
she looks good. (although i'd change the hair)

She does, actually. She's not obese, she's hourglass. She looks healthy.

That's something else that irks me, there only seems to be room for ONE ideal at any given time. From this to flappers to pin-ups to Twiggy to toned to skinny-with-silicone-tits, but there's only ever one that everybody's expected to try to conform to.

She looks like someone who has spent most of her adult years wearing a corset during waking hours.

Quote from: PROFOUNDLY RETARDED CHARLIE MANSON on June 23, 2012, 10:29:54 PM

Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on June 21, 2012, 08:26:51 PM

Quote from: Elder Iptuous on June 21, 2012, 08:14:52 PM
she looks good. (although i'd change the hair)

She does, actually. She's not obese, she's hourglass. She looks healthy.

That's something else that irks me, there only seems to be room for ONE ideal at any given time. From this to flappers to pin-ups to Twiggy to toned to skinny-with-silicone-tits, but there's only ever one that everybody's expected to try to conform to.

She looks like someone who has spent most of her adult years wearing a corset during waking hours.

Ugh. Now that you mention that, I can see how it's possible that some things shifted internally, ribs and lungs squashed, organs pushed down, etc.

I still think she looks good. I have rotten conditioning.  :sad:

Quote from: Telarus on June 23, 2012, 08:56:09 AM
It's not just the doll. It's fetishizing Barbie's lifestyle (upper class frivolity is A OK!).

(http://s9.thisnext.com/media/largest_dimension/4A095790.jpg)

(http://ia700804.us.archive.org/zipview.php?zip=/7/items/olcovers267/olcovers267-L.zip&file=2672787-L.jpg)

http://blog.netrobe.com/2011/03/barbies-closet/


Remember Ben Mack's warnings: Branding is the attempt to forge a pre-existing relationship between you ("the audience") and the target "branded good(s)" before you encounter the target "branded good(s)" in the wild (i.e. the general "marketplace"). In this case, the "branded good(s)" are actually a lifestyle/philosophy... namely that of Ayn Rand... "Fuck 'em, I've got mine. And it's so much better than yours." Barbie and related mass-consumption toys teach that mass consumption is great! So when the child encounters it "in the wild" they are faster at rationalizing why it fine (don't they "deserve the good life..."). It's very much tied to the current myth of the "American Dream" that gets recycled and resold by the corporations again and again.

SPOT FUCKING ON.

Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on June 23, 2012, 10:46:42 PM

Quote from: PROFOUNDLY RETARDED CHARLIE MANSON on June 23, 2012, 10:29:54 PM

Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on June 21, 2012, 08:26:51 PM

Quote from: Elder Iptuous on June 21, 2012, 08:14:52 PM
she looks good. (although i'd change the hair)

She does, actually. She's not obese, she's hourglass. She looks healthy.

That's something else that irks me, there only seems to be room for ONE ideal at any given time. From this to flappers to pin-ups to Twiggy to toned to skinny-with-silicone-tits, but there's only ever one that everybody's expected to try to conform to.

She looks like someone who has spent most of her adult years wearing a corset during waking hours.

Ugh. Now that you mention that, I can see how it's possible that some things shifted internally, ribs and lungs squashed, organs pushed down, etc.

I still think she looks good. I have rotten conditioning.  :sad:

She has a great figure, speaking as a member of a culture which idealizes the hourglass figure.

PAGANS OF THE FUTURE: UNNNNNNNGGGGGH (https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=395828867126135&set=a.164396256936065.30961.118974481478243&type=1)

QuoteThe Ancient Goddess Barbi: Historical Views from the Year 5000

In the year 5000, historians will seek to patch together traces of the past, to discover what life was like in today's current era. Here's one humorous view of what they might find:

We are proud to announce that archaeologists have made a major discovery explaining religious practice in the 1990's, over three thousand years ago! These discoveries help us better understand the myths and traditions which have been handed down over the years, and still survive today within the popular cult of the Goddess Barbi. This tradition is one of the fastest growing groups of modern-day Goddess worship.

Archaeologists have discovered that Barbi worship dates back to ancient times. Figures of the Goddess Barbi have been unearthed, preserved in nearly pristine state. It seems that ancient worshippers made their images of Barbi in a material known as plastic. It was known at the time that plastic did not decay to the elements over time and was nearly everlasting! Because of this, it is obvious to our research team that those items made of plastic were held in the highest regard by the ancient culture of the 1990's. They surely wanted to preserve these items for eternity!

Research shows that ancient priestesses of Barbi were initiated at a very young age. The initiation ceremony involved a complex litany which lasted several weeks, usually prior to the Winter Solstice. Young daughters would chant at length to their parents, repeating over and over the praises of Barbi, stating their desires for the Goddess to enter their lives. While these chants varied from priestess to priestess, the words "I Want" are common to many of the evocations. Later, after initiation, additional chants focused on a wide variety of magical tools and altar accessories used by the Goddess Barbi in Her temple.

Images of the Goddess Barbi show Her in many aspects. For example, She was portrayed as a Solar Deity in Her Malibu Barbi aspect. This explains the modern-day custom of Barbi worshippers donning colored glasses and anointing themselves with special protective lotions to celebrate the Summer Solstice! It is known that ancient religions sometimes masked their Deities within the Saints of ancient Catholicism. Researchers are certain this explains the name used for an ancient west coast village known as Santa Barbara, perhaps a Mecca for Barbi worshippers.

Each Barbi figurine also held strange numerical markings, $24.99. This explains the current custom where Barbi worshippers tattoo themselves with this number! It was obviously the number most sacred to the Goddess. The $ symbol was used in many ways by the ancient culture, and was considered both a scourge and salute to religious society.

It was also discovered that ancient Barbi had a consort known as Ken. Close examination of plastic Ken figures explain why today's modern Barbi worshippers allow only eunuchs to participate in religious rites, with no other males allowed. Since many fewer Ken figures were found, we can assume that the ancient Barbi worshippers were a matriarchal tradition.

Our team of linguistic researchers have determined through study of the ancient language that Ken was renowned in many parts of the world. This explains the origins of ancient places like Kenya, Kentucky and even the variation of Canada. An in-depth study of the Ken mythos also links Him to the ancient clan known as Kennedy. Note the amazing facial similarities! Stories surrounding this ancient Kennedy cult seem to be a unique mixture of the "slain God" stories (similar to the Egyptian Osiris) and the revelry of the Roman Bacchus. This seems to fit all three aspects of the Triple Kennedy myth.

Other research shows a related figure, an ancient warrior God known as GI Joe. Since GI Joe had no known female consort, and was also a eunuch, it is obvious that both Joe and Ken competed for the Goddess Barbi. One theory links this to the surviving Oak King/Holly King myths of earlier times.

Researchers also uncovered other mythical characters, known as Shakespeare, Einstein, Gandhi, and Ralph Nader. But since the ancient culture held these in much lower relative importance than Barbi, they obviously were mere minor demigods of the era. We are thrilled to have discovered these Old ways, since they shed light upon many unexplained traditions of today. We can use this clear view of history to put our present-day customs in perspective!

After this significant success in discovering the ancient Barbi myths, our archaeological efforts have been approved for additional funding to research the ancient Ninja Turtle myths as well. Since many plastic artifacts of the Ninja Turtles have been found in North America, perhaps they are linked to the ancient Native American cultures of Turtle Island? Only time will tell.

(http://27.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lcy0wnU05l1qbipv3o1_400.gif)

Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on June 26, 2012, 04:05:45 AM
(http://27.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lcy0wnU05l1qbipv3o1_400.gif)

:lulz: That's disturbing.

Holymaurymotherofgod is seriously the best site on tumblr. I have so many weird things from there.

Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on July 17, 2012, 10:14:25 PM
Holymaurymotherofgod is seriously the best site on tumblr. I have so many weird things from there.

CHECKING THIS OUT NOW!

FABULOUS BARBIE (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2189428/Introducing-drag-queen-Barbie-Mattel-models-latest-doll-cross-dressing-designer-fashion-label-The-Blonds.html)