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.

    I agree with what Jessica commented on with the government and media. I do however have one thing to say about it. I do think that we should sensor certain things but at the same time not everything can be sensored. Think back to a time when you first saw something that you were not supposed to see because it was thought of as being"nauty" or unappropriate to be seeing. You didn't want to run and ask your parents about what you saw so instead you asked your friends and peers. I think that the media helps to influence our reactions and how we come to learn about things both positive and negative and that this issue will never change.

Just to commment on the government's role in media; the government is what is Protecting Freedom Of Speech, amendment number one. This is why we can say what we want here on this message board even. Back to a comment I made earlier, that if we censored everything potentially harmful or offensive, there would be nothing left! The government has nothing to do with what a particular network chooses to air, as long as it is within certain broad guidelines. What controls what a network chooses to show are their own "morals", ie. not alienating their viewing audience. It is not the government's moral decision because they can't, that would be censorship, which is illegal. The government did not sit down and say, Will can not have a boyfriend, and that networks are limited to one homosexual couple per year. Once again, thinking for ourselves would tell one to switch the channel or turn the television off and don't blame outside forces for what one is capable of changing. Networks air what gets ratings. They don't force one to like what they show, but in turn they show what the population has responded favorably to, through rating charts. I don't agree with everything that is on tv, but I also realize that it's there because someone thought it was a good idea, and it must be working. Advertising is far from subliminal, I think, it is right in your faces, telling you what they want you to know. So take it for what it's worth. Just something to think about from another perspective.

Katie, you bring up a good point, everyone on that show are placed into very specific categories. But has anyone ever thought about the fact that TV shows and movies always have that one token minority character? In Saved By the Bell's case, it's Lisa. She is pretty much the only African American you will see on that show. Same goes for movies like Clueless (on which we could have plenty of other convos about the Barbie image). At the high school in that movie, there are pretty much only 2 Black people, who happen to be dating each other. I have noticed this a lot in the entertainment industry, has anyone else?

Going along with the tv theme..... I'm sitting here watching Saved By The Bell. A childhood favorite, I still enojy watching it everyday in reruns from 12-1. I started thinking about how the show always seemed so PC, but really it just places people into very exclusive catagories. You know, if you're a girl, you're either smart, fashionable or popular. If you're a boy, you're either funny, a jock or a nerd. And along with each of these catagorizations comes a whole way of life, how you should act, who you should date, and what you should expect from your friends.
Of course, when I was younger I always wanted to be like Kelly, the popular one, because she was the "coolest". Why didn't I want to be Jessie, the smart one? Or Lisa, the fashionable one? I think Jessie's character was writen to be a little on the annoying side. Or maybe I was just subject to society's pressure to be popular. What do you guys think? Did anyone feel the same way?

Katie brought up a good point. We can't lay all the blame at the feet of the media. While what we see is filtered through the media, because there had to be a medium for brainwashing, there is someone else behind it. The government controls what we know and what we see. This goes for politics and for more frivolous material. That's why there aren't more homosexual couples on TV. And that's why Will doesn't have a boyfriend on Will and Grace and why the only lesbian on day time television was raped, is pregnant and her girlfriend is going to attempt suicide. Our government uses media to give us the information, messages and images that they want to promote. It is our less than subtle form of brainwashing we use to promote our causes and dampen down opposition.

I was watching Extreme Makeover last night (the show where people COMPLETELY change their looks with plastic surgery) and all I could think of was this class and how we could talk about this show for hours. There were two cases: a man trying to impress a girl at his work, and a set of twins, one much prettier (whatever "prettier" is) than the other and the other twin wanted to look more like her. Throughout the whole show, the commentator kept referring to the twin as "the ugly duckling" or saying "now she won't have to be the ugly twin!" and it made me sick. I know that making themselves over may make them feel better themselves, but it proved to me how much appearances are important. This kind of goes along with Bethany's comments on "the shell" that you make for yourself, but in this case, it's not just clothes or a look, it's your actual flesh that you are changing. I don't know about anyone else, but I could never do that to myself. These people were completely different when they were done with their surgeries. It's all a little freaky to me.

Edited by author 09-19-2003 10:41 AM
I think that sometimes people don't realize that there is a system in place here. Call it patriarchy, call it capitalism, call it the media, but there is a whole network of people, things, businesses, governments, etc that work together to create what we see, do, feel every day. Some of us are smart enough to consciously pick out the negative messages that we see and work against them or at least disregard them. But, to most people, these messages are subconscious. Most people are not looking at ads, news stories, or tv shows to pick out what is "wrong." But the messages conveyed in this mediums sink into our brains, teaching us whether we want to be taught or not. You also have to think about the world we live in that would allow such nasty images to be made public. One example of this system working is in the judicial system. There, you can be charged with assult for punching someone in a fight and you will most likely get in trouble. But if that person happens to be your spouse, very little, if anything at all, will happen to you. What kind of a message does this send? This is not something that only happens in one case. This is universal. Why does our government think this is fair? I think it's b/c of the system that is in place trying to tell us what to think. Good for you if you aren't paying attention, but realize that other people are getting the message even if they don't mean to.

  Though it seems easy to focus on negative images that we think we are supposedly sent, sometimes we need to sit back and think of why these images are being broadcast in the first place. Advertisers have been taught that sex sells, this is no big mysetery. If what were sexy were overweight, or maybe green hair, or purple skin, that is what we would see. The flip side of this would be that overweight is not necessaily healthy and neither is dying your skin. Not too long ago it was considered unattractive to be thin, beecause it meant you were poor and could not afford food. A little after that the ideal body shape consisted of a lack of visual butt or breasts. The advertising we see is not the problem. It is our ability to think for ourselves and take things at face value. If one is to let a simple ad interfere with their daily life, then there is a bigger problem at stake. It is much too easy to blame what is around you, rather than your own way of controlling your mind and body.
  The issue of Barbie strikes me in the same way. The doll is sold because it makes money, it is a toy, nothing else. In the era it was first produced, blonde and thin was attractive, so why not market it. If we were to eliminate every image, toy, and prose that was potentially offensive, demeaning, and harmful due to a person's history, race, sexual preference, etc. then none of these things would even be able to exist. Media exists because people are easily influenced, and media will continue to exploit this no matter how hard one fights against it. Therefore, maybe a different route should be taken; instead of focusing on how negative one thinks they are being portrayed, promote education, independence, and self-awareness.

so, i was watching tv today, and there was a rerun of "the king of queens" on. there were about five different female characters in the show, and every single one of them made some comment about her weight or her figure. i was so disgusted! the plot had nothing to do with dieting or anything like that, so why did they feel the need to include dialogue that turned these beautiful female characters into whiny, image-obsessed crash dieters? it hit me really hard and i realized the message that we are being sent. "women worry about their weight all the time, that's just the way it is. if you don't worry about your weight, then there's something wrong with you." i personally care very little about gaining or losing weight. sure, i would like to drop a few pounds in some places and put on a few more in other places, but that doesn't stop me from eating brownies and cheese fries.

i also saw a commercial that featured a bunch of women shopping for clothes and being really really frustrated. they were saying things like "what's wrong with this mirror?" and "she's only a mannequin, so why do i hate her?" at first, it seemed like it was highlighting how difficult it is for women to shop for clothes because of all the pressure that is put on us to have perfect bodies. but in the end, it was a commercial for special k, trying to get women to go on that stupid "eat nothing but special k for two weeks and then be the hottest girl on the beach" diet. sick. i realized then why i hardly ever watch tv. it's degrading and demeaning, and messages like the ones i received today disgust me.

i could not help but say something about the nature of the commercials and the tv show that i saw. the other women who i was watching tv with had not even noticed the negative messages they were being sent. however, they agreed with what i was saying. it just takes someone to point things out once, and then all of the negativity toward women in the media starts to jump out at you.

While you're at it, go to this website and leave a response on their posting board:
http://www.stripclubnews.com/news/comments.php?id=113
(Sorry, I just got really worked up about this!)

Go here and tell me that this isn't the most ridiculous thing you've ever read:
http://www.cnn.com/2003/EDUCATION/09/09/of....tuition/index.html

I didn't realize how stereotypical Ms. Gilman's Barbies were until it was brought up in class. I think this is because the Barbie that we all know and love/d is a stereotype also...I know everyone's told or heard at least one dumb blond joke. Perhaps the Klaus Barbies are pretty awful stereotypes, but it's because of them that we were able to understand Ms. Gilman's intent.
As for the anatomically correct Barbie, I'm with Carrie. The only Barbies I owned as a little girl were given to me by others on my birthday. My parents didn't buy them for me, but neither did they condone the ones that I did own. They were hard to assimilate into my sister's and my community of dolls, which mostly consisted of stuffed animals who had specific names and personal histories. Barbies tended to filter down to the bottom of the wicker basket where we kept all of our dolls. I knew that Barbie was incomplete, and I knew this because I was encouraged to ask ANY question of my parents throughout my childhood. They didn't keep secrets from me. Responsibility lies with parents to educate their children regarding the innacurate anatomy of their Barbies, should the children bring it up. Or even if they don't.

Jennifer- I agree with you as well. I really enjoyed the past two readings we had. As funny as I found the other Barbies the writer listed (dinner roll barbie etc) I still found that to be stereotypical in itself. I agree that Barbies should have more diversity and that their bodies are completely unrealistic. Yet, I played with barbies when I was little. Even though they did not have detailed genitals it did not affect me in anyway. I knew what the anatomy of a male and female human was. I did not need my Barbies to be equipped with every body part. Barbies were used for my imagination and simply just play. I don't think it is necessary for Barbies to have pubic hair and nipples. If parents are open with their children then there should be no confusion.

Hi everyone, Just popped in to post a quick message ... Barbie Nation is the name of the book about the history and legacy of Barbie that I mentioned in class on Wednesday evening. It is where I learned about the manufacturing history of the doll, among other things. A really entertaining and critical read, if you're interested.

I'll be back to repond to some of your messages tonight ...

John, I think it's interesting that you mention barbie nazis looking at where the barbie doll originated. I find it very disturbing that a former sex doll is being used as the first doll that most girls every play with. I also find it disturbing to think about the fact that the Barbie doll might have been originally used as a way to spread Aryan (?) message around and make it more popular. Little girls want to BE this doll, as shown by katie, and it is pushing forth an ideal that isn't achievable for little girls like myself who have dark skin, sark eyes and dark hair. I remember getting really upset over my lack of blonde hair and spending hours wishing I could have it.

Bethany: YES I AGREE!!! As a psych major, I know that people make judgements about others in a split-second kind of way. The way you present yourself on the outside is a good way to try and influence that snap judgement that others will make about you. Maybe even make them want to get to know you by your personality. You made a great point. Unfortunetly, I think some people don't understand that their outward apperance is just that, something on the outside. They also don't get that they should still cultivate what's on the inside.

in response to beckie's post on the body being used as a rhetorical space, i agree completely. i feel that one of the quickest and easiest ways to make a statement is through what you wear or do to the outside of your body. what is really important about people is what is on their inside, but that is not what people see first. i have approached many people (and made many close friends) by being interested and/or attracted by something in their appearance. for instance, the person could be wearing a shirt with the name of a band i like on it, or they might have a really unique piece of jewlery on, or maybe they are sporting a patch or button on their bookbag that tells me something they are interested in....the list can go on forever. maybe this is why i don't view makeup etc. as such a terrible thing if used with the right intentions. i see cloths, makeup, hair dye, etc, all as ways to express yourself as an individual and to create a "shell" that you feel you best belong in.
do u guys agree/disagree???

hermaphraditic dolls: you can't construct the figure of a human in plastic and not dismiss a certain type of people. obviously. but there a millions of barbies, why not make them more diverse? nice and good and i agree, but what about siamese twins or people born with 12 toes or albinos? toy makers will always be leaving somebody unrepresented. mass production has its problems, but i'm not going to blame any of my insecurities or deficincies on a decision maker at matel.
Still those barbie nazis are part of an enormous chain of influencing imagery that really should be stopped. another d-day perhaps.

  I have to say that I really enjoyed the readings. I liked the Barbie one because it put forth several ideas that I never thought about. The one thing that scared me the most was when I thought about my twin girl cousins who live in Indianapolis. They will both turn 15 on Christmas day. When they were younger they loved barbies. Every year when my extended family got together on Christmas the majority of their gifts were something or other barbie related or make-up or hair or clothes related. No one really knew what else to buy young girls, especially ones that lived so far from everyone else.
  I liked barbies when I was little, but they never really affected me the way this article talked about. (It was more of something to do with my friends when they came over, not so much something I did cause I thought it was cool.) I think it was because I had so many other interests and I just preferred playing with my brother's Ninja Turtles more than my Barbies. But I worry now that my cousins, as they have just started their freshman year of highschool will be more effected by roles of the media, and magazines and the portrayl of Barbie, and it might have a seriously negative effect on their lives. I just wish I could take back all of the presents my parents, grandparents and aunts and uncles bought them.

In response to Dianne's last post: I totally get you. Why should there be a taboo? But in light of the insecurities we just talked about in class in repect to barbies; what sort of effect could you forsee if we were to standardize and plasticize genitals and nipples as well. I could see some even more intense insecurities emerging from that. What do you think?

I really liked what shannon said about studies of how barbies are used by children (could you post the author on here?). It made me think about how my sister and I used to play. We were extremely creative. My parents hated GI Joes, and I think they had their reservations about Barbies as well. We HAD to have them, though, cause everybody else in class had one. I had to by all my war toys with my allowance money, but my sister got some barbie gifts, I remember. My parents were reluctant, but when we got the toys and were actually playing with them, we weren't strict at all about society's standards of how to play. We would combine GI Joes and Barbies in our play. My sister's kitchen set smelled like artificial vanilla, but the stove was cool, the way it came apart in little bits. We played some version of house with Dusty (in his desert combat gear) and Barbie, but the poor feller had to do a vault to kiss his wife goodbye for the day. (gawd this is long and pointless).
      I guess my point is that "nothing is good nor bad but thinking makes it so." barbie could be a really fucked up thing if you felt like you had to cut up your body to look like her, but for me and my sister, she was just another toy ( I think).

i wanted to comment again on what mckibben said in class about how sometimes kids draw genitals and nipples on their dolls because the dolls dont come w/ them. whats the point of keeping these realities from kids? i mean, we all have these parts, and i just dont get why kids arent supposed to see that. every child is curious about their bodies and those of others at some point, and eventually they discover, often on their own, what these parts look like on other people and what they are all about. so whats the point of making them feel ashamed about it? i remember doing that to one of the cabbage patch dolls i got for xmas one year, partly because i hated it and knew i didnt give a shit how badly i defaced it. but since when should drawing anatomical parts onto a doll that it should already have be defacing it? can someone help explain this to me??

the body as rhetorical space: I think we use our bodies to make statements more than we realize: by the clothes we wear, by our hairstyles, whether a woman chooses to wear make-up or not, whether a guy chooses to cut his hair or not. It's interesting to observe people crossing our culture's traditional gender lines with their bodies. For example, not that long ago, the only man who wore an earring in public was Mr. Clean. Now it's not uncommon to see a lot of men in public sporting an earring or two. Perhpas there'll come a day when neither sex will feel compelled to "other" themselves by following artificially established rules of how to make themselves look "nice" but will free to express themselves via their body image by what just comes naturally to them. If we could just resist the constant media barrage around us and convince ourselves that we really don't need to make ourselves look any better than we already are.

I enjoyed the readings too. I laughed reading the last part of the barbie article when she named all the barbies they should make. Alot of people would freak out if they made a barbie like one of those. I agree with what was said because girls want to become what they play with. Like when girls have the plastic high heels, jewelry, crown and all that goes with being a princess, they begin to believe taht they will become one. But i do have to say that i played with barbies when i was little but i never compared myself to them, that may have been because they all had blond hair. but i guess it depends on how you were raised

I heard one time, in an anti-barbie rant that if a woman were to bear the exact proportions of a barbie, she would have to walk on all fours. How completely gross is that?! ok, thought i'd throw that out there.
   I think the female body is definitely represented in a rhetorical context in almost all of the ads that I have seen. It's message is one of prescription, of telling us what to do and what not to do w/ our bodies, of telling us if we measure up or if weve got work to do. People have always used their bodies as a means of self-expression, but now more than ever, womens bodies are being used to literally keep a lid over all of us. our bodies control us in this society. when will women ever be truly free when we are bound by the limitations of our very own skin?

I agree with you Jennifer, I loved the writings. The Barbie one was especially insightful. I'm sure that people may deny playing with/loving Barbies when they were little, but I will say that I had one of the biggest collections on the block. And I did want to look just like her. I remember wanting that long blonde hair but more than anything I wanted that figure. Barbie was successful (ie. she had Ken, all the cars, the house, even the RV), what more could I want? I could be a princess one day and then a rock star the next, I felt like she had the perfect life. Little did I know that I would grow up to despise what she represented!
I loved the writer's suggestions for new barbies; it made it easy to think up your own. What new Barbies did everyone else think up?

I read the pieces that we were suppose to read and I really enjoyed both of the writings. I think that they helped me out with writing my paper and gave me some new opinions about the toys that we play with when we were younger and how it affects us today. I really enjoyed the different types of barbies that she thought of. I was even thinking of some others barbies that they should market. I also really enjoyed the other article. When I was younger I defintely bought every subscribtion to Seventeen and YM and didn't even think twice about how the articles were affecting me. But now I realize how distastful the magazines are.

Feel free to post responses to any of the material we read and view for class here. Some questions to get us going:

which texts do you find to be problematic and why?

in what ways do you see the body as a rhetorical space (one which conveys a message)? (note: the body can be made into a rhetorical space by the owner of the body or by others)

do you believe the female body is inscribed with a gender-specific value in popular media today?

do you feel implicated in any of the pieces we've read (as if the writer is hitting a little too close to home for you)?