Thank you, Shannon. YES, there IS a system that exists. And this system is not "Darwinian" (and hence the natural progression of things). The system of global capitalism, in which a few people control most of the world's resources is a system which usually induces a conformity of desires to create markets to which to sell their product--rather than the "Darwinian" sytem of evolution which is a system of diversity. Seth, I think you stated very clearly what goes on in this system. Only, I feel that you've stated it as something inevitable and natural. One must undertand that capitalism has only existed for about 250 years in a similar form to today's system. In the scope of the hundreds of thousands of years during which humans have used other economic systems, this is small potatoes and obviously a product of a specific, colonizing culture.
     It seems that many of you have realized (albeit in different words), that you have been colonized. You have been trained as a consumer from a very early age. I know it tends to make you feel utterly abused, but, the things that you want: a nice car, makeup, a boyfriend without so many pimples--these desires have been created for you. COmpanies are trying to create new markets for new products. But, it takes some training to make you want the new Silverado pickup. It has many of the same features as other Chevys, and it should get you where you want to go, just like a beater. But you have to be trained to know why you should want the new model. This training cannot be acheived in one commercial for the pickup truck, but has been acheived over the course of your life. Beginning with Barbies and Joes, and continuing to now. It is NOT a natural or inevitable thing that you want these products. Your childhood mind has been colonized with innumerable billboards, to the point that it seems everything must be bought or sold.

The article about losing 20 lbs, getting a guy and losing your self esteem....how could a magazine such as ym, which has the ability to influence and educate so many young women nationally, deny that something like date rape happens? They don't even give it a name,. they just said that the writer made 'a big mistake'. I would be interested to see how many people wrote in editorials about this response, if any. Among many disturbing rape statistics, the one that bothers me the most is this: 9 out of 10 women who are raped every year on college campuses say nothing about their assault. They're ashamed, embarassed, or think that since they were drunk that it is their fault. This is a misconception that ym reinforces in the column mentioned withyin this reading. When women don't know that they have options and that there is help, they're not going to go and get it. And furthermore, when a magazine tells them that they made a mistake and to 'be more careful', it makes the occurence one to be embarrassed about. This bit of information really really upset me while I was reading. YM is supposed to stand for young and modern, but yet they don't offer guidance and counseling to young women with real life questions who ask for help.

<<--I think that Katie raises an excellent point about the type of "diversity" on shows like "Saved By the Bell." Why didn't most girls want to be Jessie? Is it just a coincidence that the smart girl was also annoying? Or that Velma, the smart girl on Scooby Doo, is also dorky-looking? What messages does this send about girls who are more interested in being smart than in being beautiful?>>

Just as the pretty girls in television shows are portrayed dating the football captain and being cheerleaders, the smart kids are portrayed as dorky. They are both stereotypes that we have in the media. Thinking back on my experiences in garde and elementary school, the smart kids were always referred to as dorks, just because they wanted to better themselves by learning. This is an example of medie induced notions working their way into our daily lives. No one wants to be the ood kid out at school, especially in the teen years when al one wants is acceptance. I'm sure tons of people, girls and boys, neglected their studies because it wasn't 'cool' to study.

Wow ... this has been a pretty busy place! And so many good debates/conversations to track. I'm impressed with how much work you've managed on such little notice. Here are some thoughts in response to some of your messages:

--I think we should start thinking about the female body as a rhetorical space which is written upon in portrayals of it in advertising, the media, etc. In what ways does the female body tend to be used to convey particular kinds of messages?

--It's tough to say whether or not the absence of Barbie's anatomy has an "effect" on kids until we see what happens with an anatomically-correct doll. What concerns me about the absence of genitalia on the doll is that it seems to be obliterating this "detail" of her existence while focusing in on her as a real person in so many other details ... fingernail polish, hairbrushes, cell phones, etc. And the erasure/silencing of what actually makes the doll female is a little disturbing to me ... she can be a woman in all of these other ways, but not by having a vagina or functional breasts ... the things which most concretely identify her as a woman.

-- About Liz's observations in Message 20: I think you're right: we are trained to see concern for dieting, obsession with calories/weight as feminine concerns ... "Of course you're worried about your hips: you're a woman and all women are worried about their hips." Someone else pointed out that being overweight is unhealthy, which is true, as is being underweight and (worst of all) wild fluctuations in weight caused by dieting and gaining, dieting and gaining.

--On the question of who controls the media, I'd say it is the top 5-6 companies who control a very large majority of our media sources, and it is the government which plays a very large role in shaping our senses of what's acceptable and what's not (look to changing views on Iraq and Afghanistan and Israel over the last two years for more obvious proof of this), and it is the consumers who watch the TV programs and buy the products advertised during them. I think all of this leads to recognizing that the social and political climate of our country is controlled by a SYSTEM.

--I think that Katie raises an excellent point about the type of "diversity" on shows like "Saved By the Bell." Why didn't most girls want to be Jessie? Is it just a coincidence that the smart girl was also annoying? Or that Velma, the smart girl on Scooby Doo, is also dorky-looking? What messages does this send about girls who are more interested in being smart than in being beautiful?

--"Does a little girl really even want to play with a perfectly proportioned doll?" If not, why not? Once we realize that many little girls idolize Barbie and fantasize about being her, why can't we use Barbie's power along these lines to inspire girls to be something more attainable? Yes, Barbie and 95% of TV shows are marketed to a mostly white audience, but why doesn't the variety here reflect the real diversity of the consumers they are reaching? It seems to me that "Barbie" isn't the problem so much as not having many alternatives to the "Barbie" image (in TV, film, music, literature, advertising, etc.) is ... and this is why I think the problem is larger than just "Barbie" or "media" or "advertising."

--And to McKibben's comment (#31), I say, "Right on!" Thinking about what women can do to resist the dominant system is the obvious next step ... and it's what we'll be doing for the rest of the quarter ... seeing how women have taken rhetorical control of their own bodies again.

Great job on this discussion board, everyone. Feel free to keep posting here throughout the weekend, if you're so inclined. And check out the links Laura included in her messages (18 & 19) ... spooky, but not all that surprising stuff.

oh my gosh, had to comment on the Extreme Makeover show as well. show's like that are ridiculous. people watch them and see perfecly normal people like themselves get "glamified" and then wish they could have a transformation like that themselves. not only is it unhealthy for people to wish they could look different and not be happy just being themselves, but the things they do and the money that is spend on Extreme Makeover is huge - and normal people don't have all these options. I just think shows like this are bad because they put so much emphasis on looks, and CHANGING your looks to be BETTER. i just think its stupid.

I truely did not believe how owning a barbie can impact the life of a young child. Growing up, I owned many barbies, had the dream house, and all of the clothing to go with each barbie. I'm embarassed to say, that I even had a "barbie party" for my 7th b-day, which everyone brought their favorite barbie doll, we played "barbie" related games, and every single girl at the party tried to dress up like barbie. This vivid memory has remained with me my whole life, but I never realized what an impression "barbie" can make on how women view what they should look like and be. It saddens me to think that some women try to mold themselves into the image of a barbie doll. Why do people try to change who they are? Will there ever be a time where we can break down judgemental barriers of the "perfect image" and be happy with who we are?

I have also seen the Extreme Makeover television show and I strongly believe that people should not have to feel like their outer beauty needs to be modified to make themselves feel more accepted by society. I agree with Valerie it would definitely boost your self esteem if you had a "makeover" which would create a whole new look, but what really matters is how a person's inner beauty is perceived by others. We should try to focus more on an individuals personality rather than the outer exterior of a specific person. Why do you think society is accustomed to the idea that beauty is more important than what's on the inside? How can we change societal views on this?

in regards to the makeover topic, i think that i have to agree with valerie that makeovers and alterations to oneself can be a booster for a short time. and i find that it is no surprise that people pay money to make themselves beautiful by society's standards. beauty is surely not a bad thing, but when you only consider one exclusive ideal beauty, you are missing out on alot. side note: isn't that what art is...a love of beauty. certainly there are many different forms of beauty in the art world, as there should be in appearance. where we go wrong is only comforming to one type of look. it seems to me like that would be like excluding yourself to merely classic art, while forgetting about abstract, baroque and many others.

    Laura, I agree with you about being able to change people's exterior with a makeover. I do not however agree with the fact that its some way to change their self-esteem, because I know for me it would be a self-esteem booster but only for a short while. Getting a makeover for me would not completly make me change my entire self it would just make me look a little different. I do admit that getting made over is a lot of fun at times, but it is not always neccesary to do and who knows it could change someone's life positively. Did you ever think about that?

Megan, I'd never heard of the show Extreme Makeover. TLC's Makeover Story sounds like a lighter version...I have trouble swallowing shows like that. For many people, a makeover (or in EM's case, quite a major makeover) really can boost their self-esteem in the way that nothing else will. I think it's really unfortunate that some people feel the need to change their exterior in order to feel valuable. I forgot where I was trying to go with this...anyone have any comments? I also have a problem with the fact that the people chosen for these shows are already beautiful.

sorry i am coming in a little late in the game, but here are some of my thoughts about barbie and the roles she can play in young person's lives. first off, i had TONS of barbies when i was young. i enjoyed playing with them, they went shopping alot, but barbie also walked around the globe (literally, a globe in my sister's bedroom), travelling to different countries and meeting new people, creating new situations that only the imagination of a child can find. if a child's mind isn't already in the mode yearning for conformity, dolls and playing things such as barbie are merely tools that can help them create new and fascinating worlds. granted, it would be more healthy for young girls to be playing with more realistic plastic models of humans, but kids are kids, and they do not obsess over things such as vanity unless there is a presence of it in their lives to make those things seem important. barbie herself does not force young girls to think that looking like her is the only way to be.

but i must say, in my self-defense, that i am not a barbie fan. there are many many things i would change about her. and because so many girls who play with her seem to think of her as an ideal, it is worrisome that barbie is in so many girls' toy boxes. barbie sucks, but having a barbie doll does not automatically turn a young girl into a vain, dieting, hair-dying woman.

But Seth does have a point in comparing them b/c they are about what you idolize. Maybe that's the problem here. Not that companies make these magazines, but that people read them to get what image to idolize??

well hell, i guess you have a point, but look at all of the great musicians that are not model material- and rock! hello...meatloaf, barry white, biggie, the guy from blues traveler....so if youre talking about people to compare your body to, these guys arent all unhumanly proportioned and glistening as if straight from the tahitian coast...but youre not looking at their bodies as their talent in Rolling Stone, youre admiring their music. However, whats a models talent? i think the magazines are so totally different and what kind of food they provide for your brain are completely opposite.

As for the readings, I personally enjoyed the Teen Mags: How To Get A Guy, Drop 20 Pounds, and Lose Your Self-Esteem article more. The Klaus Barbi one was entertaining but I think it's more interesting that not only did a lot of girls play with Barbis when they were young, but now instead of playing with some shapely doll, they read fashion magazines with actual shapely women...with living dolls. And these magazines influence the mentalities of women so much more than a Barbi does. I think all this applies to men as well. I myself like to read magazines like Rolling Stone. But why? It's a magazine about music, yet you don't hear actual music from the magazine. It's because idolizing people like that is fun in a sense. Seeing and reading about these people allows me to almost live vicariously through them. I'll never be a rock star and have the perfect life, but I can imagine. And i think that's what fashion magazines do in a sense to women: create in their heads a figure to idolize, and consequently a figure that they want to be. Maybe i'm way off base. anyone?

I dont have internet at home, so i know i havent been here from the beginning of this little "posting-match"...but i do just want to say that its true what all of you are saying, but youre just stating how things are now. As we talk about our situation in this society in class, people get fired up and i think were all beginning to see with more critical eyes....so why simply take the attitude of "this is how it is, it aint gonna change..." That sucks. You may not see any possible way to change what we see on TV or how the toys our children will play with are made, but maybe the first step is understanding things could be different, and feeling powerless. Down people always find a way. I think as we learn more as a country about how our surroundings affect our psyche, things will begin to sway and people will begin to reject. maybe????

I completely agree with Jessica. You can't blame these companies and advertisers for what's popular in America today. They simply cater to the demands of the consumer market. Capitalism is a darwinian environment; these corporations respond to sales figures and supply-and-demand ideals. You can debate the morality of a toy like Barbi to exhaustion, but companies like Matel are more concerned with profit than with ethics. Look at how successful Barbi has been. Does anyone really believe an Anatomically Correct Barbi would sell as well as the Barbi we're used to? Does a little girl really even want to play with a perfectly proportioned doll? Where's the imagination involved? As a boy it's difficult for me to comment on a toy that I never played with, but I know I would never have wanted to play with an Anatomically Correct Super Hero action figure. TV shows like Saved by the Bell or movies like Clueless undeniably neglect minorities in their casting, but that's because the TV executives and movie producers are marketing this entertainment for a mostly white audience. Fairness and Morals aren't as big of a concern to them as ratings are.