Prompted by my finding the "Anatomically Incorrect Barbies"-thread.^^
What do you think?
Posted by PanaceaSanans (Member # 13395) on :
That is, do you think it is a problem that the dolls our kids usually play with are painted to look so "slutty" by comparison? Do you think anything would change if dolls were made to look like these repainted ones?
I had not been aware that doll's make-up was overdone this way until I found this before/after comparison. As a child I did think they were beautiful... But what kind of ideal is this? Do we unconsciously help in "brain-washing" our kids to media standards? Of course, once they are exposed to "the media", that influence will be given either way...
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
I really find the made-over ones much more lovely. Not trying to be PC, but I'd rather play with them, myself.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote: According to Mattel, Barbie will now come in four body types and seven skin tones, with 22 eye colors and 24 hairstyles.
About fricking time I say!
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
I played with a lot of Barbies as a kid, and I think a variety of hair and skin colors is a great idea. Most of what kids do with Barbies is make up stories, and different varieties will allow for different characters instead of ten of the same blonde. It was the late 80s, early 90s, so we had dolls with wild eyeshadow, earrings and hair textures that helped us know which doll was which.
I was told Barbie being tall and skinny was going to make me hate my body, but honestly little kids don't notice that stuff.
I sold off all our Barbie stuff at a yard sale (my older sister was not happy, to say the least), but I question how much compatibility the new dolls will have with old clothes or even each other's. Not being able to fit every skirt over curvy Barbie's butt (the rubber legs made the two pairs of pants a nightmare-- note none of the Barbies in the CNN article have them-- there's a reason!), while a realistic life lesson for what happens to some girls' bodies post-puberty, every Barbie being able to share clothes with every other Barbie is part of the point (Skipper and Stacey could never wear her clothes).
The Bratz line, whose makeup the Tree Change dolls are covering, were actually one of the things that dethroned Barbie. I was out of the Barbie stage of my life by then. I guess they were "cooler", and to kids, who don't really get the concept of natural makeup (or know what, um, porn, is), they appear "grown up". Sure, I like the Tree Change dolls because they look like friendly kids, but these dolls are selling the idea of growing up to children.
Posted by PanaceaSanans (Member # 13395) on :
quote:Originally posted by theamazeeaz: It was the late 80s, early 90s, so we had dolls with wild eyeshadow, earrings and hair textures that helped us know which doll was which.
I was told Barbie being tall and skinny was going to make me hate my body, but honestly little kids don't notice that stuff.
... to kids, who don't really get the concept of natural makeup (or know what, um, porn, is), they appear "grown up".
I've come to partly agree with you on that. I never thought they looked slutty at the time either. (Although that might be exactly the problem: The illusion of normality - and thus necessity - of heavy make-up and skinny type...)
From 8 years onward, I grew to love ElfQuest (still do). And those elves are portrayed with striking looks. They are so beautiful, even though their bodies are as unnaturally proportioned as Barbies', and if I saw a human girl dressed like that or with make-up like that, I admit I would nowadays think "slutty". They were the picture of perfection to me. I never attempted to equal them in looks, but I would imagine them, and then myself among them, and be grossed out by the image of myself. Which merely proves that I am overly sensitive and self-critical and insecure, but it is true nonetheless.