Barbie to appear in Sports Illustrated's Swimsuit Edition

[Gravekeeper]

no worries. though a room full of dolls and discussion on their traits is.. sadly.. most of my hobby nights online.
there's actually someone i talked to on a forum before that had a comprehensive, picture list of almost every doll out there. i just can't find the damn links anymore, it got so buried.

Best one I found that I was using for images ( you found it a few posts later ) was the one that had the history of the body's evolution.

(though, sadly, if you ever did want that debate, give me a few more years and i'll probably have a bigger 1/6 collection... though be fucked if i ever try and drag that with me on a train. maybe i'll send them with my inlaws next time they head out to your coast to see the broinlaw. j/k :P)

I think I still have a bag of old GI Joes somewhere. I had a big figure/model phase in my early twenties. Now I would be content if I could just find a little Drossel figure for my desk without paying $200 for it to Amazon.

[Gravekeeper]

huh. well i'm not sure what age group you are in, i'm around the 30 mark. and i remember her being marketed as the gal that can do anything, and that had tons of friends she got along with because of it.

I remember her being marketed as essentially living the ideal dream. The tons of friends were there just because hey, its the ideal dream. The fashion aspects always got more air time than her career endeavours. Unless those endeavours could be cute and/or fabulous.

Such as the tragic saga of veterinarian Barbie. Who even now isn't allowed to be called veterinarian Barbie. If you recall "Pet Doctor Barbie". She's worked her way up to Kitty Care Vet Barbie but that seems to be as close as she's going to get. Also, Kitty Care Vet Barbie inexplicably has a slide that deposits new born kittens into a basket. Kitty Care Vet Barbie is being investigated by the SPCA. >.>

legos were more fun lmfao)

Here, we agree.

[siead_lietrathua]

Heh, I was one or two more posts away from saying the same thing. We're just going in a circle. I don't think we were ever quite on the same page to successfully discuss this to begin with. We're both, unsuccessfully, attempting to describe the intricacies of objects neither of us can really show each other. We would have to be in the same room with a wide assortment of dolls in what would be a rather dubious sounding forum of debate.

I apologize for any frustration caused.

no worries. though a room full of dolls and discussion on their traits is.. sadly.. most of my hobby nights online.
there's actually someone i talked to on a forum before that had a comprehensive, picture list of almost every doll out there. i just can't find the damn links anymore, it got so buried.

(though, sadly, if you ever did want that debate, give me a few more years and i'll probably have a bigger 1/6 collection... though be fucked if i ever try and drag that with me on a train. maybe i'll send them with my inlaws next time they head out to your coast to see the broinlaw. j/k :P)

and yeah.. oldschool everything used to be better. look at the lines of things like easybake over. they used to be in a mix of colours. now it's a pink and purple pukefest.
ikea shit it awesome though. my niece has a kitchen and toolbench, both in reds, blues and wood colours. nice to see them both in a generic colour pallet.
(also, omfg you have not seen a toddler move so fast as when she saw she had her own tools just like daddy.)

[Gravekeeper]

gravekeeper: i give up. this back and forth has gotten pointless.

Heh, I was one or two more posts away from saying the same thing. We're just going in a circle. I don't think we were ever quite on the same page to successfully discuss this to begin with. We're both, unsuccessfully, attempting to describe the intricacies of objects neither of us can really show each other. We would have to be in the same room with a wide assortment of dolls in what would be a rather dubious sounding forum of debate.

I apologize for any frustration caused.

the only thing i will respond to is the price thing again. next time you're in a store compare the joints on the cheapest GI Joe and the cheapest barbie you can find. you will see how many less the barbie has.

Truth be told they're just as shitty or shittier if you look at same size figures at the bottom rung. I was a kind of surprised given the 90's figures and the modern smaller figures. Its never a good thing when the ability to stand up is listed as a feature on the box. >.>

And while in the recent lines and movies they've been trying to emphasize those character traits, those aren't the traits I remember being portrayed growing up. It was her perfection being sold. And, to me at least, that's a dangerous fantasy to be selling in the long run. Especially paired with other media.

Barbie as a character is pretty recent, yeah. She's always been the ideal and even with her recent characterization she still has all of that. Note the use of the word "Dream" in everything. It's the Dreamhouse or the Fairy Princess Castle, etc. Even her bathroom is the Glam Shower apparently.

Even the dolls aimed at "inspiring" girls ( IE the ones with jobs ) Barbie is still depicted as being concerned about how she looks while doing said job than doing said actual job. Not even astronaut Barbie is safe anymore. Its bad when the 1965 version of a given Barbie looks more progressive than the current one. -.-

Thanks to checking the current Barbie product lines I am now aware that Mattel thinks "Fab-a-cadabra" is a word. Thank you magician Barbie.

I am also now aware of the human tragedy that is the Stacie doll. That thing should be crawling out of an open grave. >.>

[Kheldarson]

I'm probably a bit younger then. And Barbie was used for storytelling too for me. And I would still give her to any daughters I may have (think Mom still has mine at her house). I just recall my response to her commercials always being 'this is what is supposed to be perfect is'.

What I really want, with this and the other thread, is to see a recognition from our media of the messages they send and a willingness to shape that message to something that is truly more empowering and accepting of women by celebrating all our shapes and walks of life.

[siead_lietrathua]

And while in the recent lines and movies they've been trying to emphasize those character traits, those aren't the traits I remember being portrayed growing up. It was her perfection being sold. And, to me at least, that's a dangerous fantasy to be selling in the long run. Especially paired with other media.

huh. well i'm not sure what age group you are in, i'm around the 30 mark. and i remember her being marketed as the gal that can do anything, and that had tons of friends she got along with because of it. i have a friend that, then and now, is an avid collector of barbie sets. and i remember rock band equipment, space suits, jungle adventures, and yeah the fashion shows too. then again, that's how we chose to play with the toys, as objects of storytelling. we also were older before being allowed to play with them.
( i only had a handful of generic ones myself. they usually ended up the shaved head, decapitated kind. legos were more fun lmfao)

[Kheldarson]

i get where your coming from. and i'm not saying it's all on the parents. i'm saying parents have the ability to control their kids in their own home. if you limit the exposure to things to be only what they run into outside the home, instead of having them live in an enviroment saturated with the images, it does reduce the impact. if you don't buy the shit, the kids will be absorbing the images less.

Yes and no. They still have schools and friends and other relatives. My own home was fairly limited in media exposure and it still had an effect.

and you said yourself, you didn't want to be barbie because of her appearance. you wanted to be barbie because of her having friends. that was the desire. granted, seeing that she is pretty and pretty girls make friends is there. she's also depicted as friendly, smart, and overwhelmingly kind. if barbie was a she-bitch that had harpy friends would you have still wanted to emulate her?

Your question at the end is mostly a red herring. She wouldn't sell being depicted as that. Ergo, she wouldn't be on market to be emulated.

And while in the recent lines and movies they've been trying to emphasize those character traits, those aren't the traits I remember being portrayed growing up. It was her perfection being sold. And, to me at least, that's a dangerous fantasy to be selling in the long run. Especially paired with other media.

[siead_lietrathua]

i get where your coming from. and i'm not saying it's all on the parents. i'm saying parents have the ability to control their kids in their own home. if you limit the exposure to things to be only what they run into outside the home, instead of having them live in an enviroment saturated with the images, it does reduce the impact. if you don't buy the shit, the kids will be absorbing the images less.

and you said yourself, you didn't want to be barbie because of her appearance. you wanted to be barbie because of her having friends. that was the desire. granted, seeing that she is pretty and pretty girls make friends is there. she's also depicted as friendly, smart, and overwhelmingly kind. if barbie was a she-bitch that had harpy friends would you have still wanted to emulate her?

[Kheldarson]

Kheldarson:

i'm not saying that images don't affect kids. i'm saying we can't blame JUST the images. a doll is JUST a doll, a drawing is JUST a drawing. any influence we take from it is how people REACT to those dolls and drawings. is it really that barbie is skinny, or is it that the doll is skinny, and mom hates not being skinny, and aunt celia says how she wants to look like this girl that looks like barbie on the TV and grandma teases me for chubby baby fat.... etcetc! it's not JUST the doll.

we cannot negate parental and personal responsibility to teach the difference between fantasy and reality, between ideal body images and those that are unrealistic. parent's jobs is to limit, explain and teach about things like body image. when we cry out against something in media we don't like and how it may fuck up kids, often parental influence is ignored. and it's freaking crap.

really. it feels like i'm bashing against a brick wall in both the other thread and this one, where ya'll keep saying "media bad" and i keep saying "you can't blame just media, parents are a more important part of the problem" and getting met with "media bad!"

And I didn't say the parents didn't have a responsibility. In fact, I even said that parents should control what media comes into the house! You're the one who keeps shoving it ALL on the parents and saying media isn't the issue.

Well both are. You keep presenting one extreme; let me present the other.

I wanted to be Barbie. Not because of my mom (who, yes, showed me weight issues through her own weight struggle but only addressed my weight with me once), but because Barbie had friends. She had loads of friends! And when you're a lonely middle/ high schooler, seeing the pretty girls have all the friends in school, and on TV, and even in your play, that sends a message. And that wasn't something my mom could fix or keep me from seeing and internalizing. Because even if she limited my TV time, you still see it in the stores, in the covers of magazines and books, in what your peers talk about.

So, yes, parenting is important. But it can only counterbalance so much. That's where the discussion of media comes in. And that's why, as ridiculous as Barbie being in SI is, it's also disconcerting. It's outright declaring her look a desired sexual look by placing her among other desired sexual looks. That sends a message.

[siead_lietrathua]

Kheldarson:

i'm not saying that images don't affect kids. i'm saying we can't blame JUST the images. a doll is JUST a doll, a drawing is JUST a drawing. any influence we take from it is how people REACT to those dolls and drawings. is it really that barbie is skinny, or is it that the doll is skinny, and mom hates not being skinny, and aunt celia says how she wants to look like this girl that looks like barbie on the TV and grandma teases me for chubby baby fat.... etcetc! it's not JUST the doll.

we cannot negate parental and personal responsibility to teach the difference between fantasy and reality, between ideal body images and those that are unrealistic. parent's jobs is to limit, explain and teach about things like body image. when we cry out against something in media we don't like and how it may fuck up kids, often parental influence is ignored. and it's freaking crap.

really. it feels like i'm bashing against a brick wall in both the other thread and this one, where ya'll keep saying "media bad" and i keep saying "you can't blame just media, parents are a more important part of the problem" and getting met with "media bad!"

gravekeeper: i give up. this back and forth has gotten pointless. i can reiterate over and over how needing to bulk up a doll while keeping it from essentially smacking itself would require better, and possibly ugly looking joints, and you won't see why that's an issue with a fashion doll, why you don't want fashion dolls looking like GI Joes. so i give up. you win, you're right. whatever. it's not worth the headache.
the only thing i will respond to is the price thing again. next time you're in a store compare the joints on the cheapest GI Joe and the cheapest barbie you can find. you will see how many less the barbie has.

[Gravekeeper]

there's a diffrence between engaging in a topic and starting one. i said that "you brought kids and body shape into it though... before that it was about the doll being in SI"

Its not starting a new topic, it's IN the article from the op. I brought it up and said it would be easy to fix and has been fixed in other dolls, and you tried to defend it. First by dismissing them as just dolls and second by trying to argue there was major technical limitations. The latter of which is a moot point in the face of more realistic dolls that were made specifically because of Barbie's unrealistic image.

So, again, I don't understand why you are defending this nor moving the onus to the parents.

walmart.ca has the beach-set barbies starting at 5 bucks, and the mariposa style line at around 10 bucks. the career dolls at around 16 and it goes up from there. i also checked prices. i also said nothing about GI Joe's pricing, i said that "barbies are low-range for what you can buy in a store" the only stuff cheaper are the generics.

Naked ass accessory less on clearance Barbie, yes, I see that. I can't really compare anything to that because there is no beach party Snake Eyes ( Although there should be ). >.>

You've been directly comparing action figures and fashion dolls as part of your argument, so yes that's going to lead to comparing the costs involved. Because again, your argument was that there are technical limitations involved. My argument is that the limitations are negligible and moot in the face of the severe problem.

i think it was an anniversary thing. and barbies from the 90's had worse bodies than now, so when you mentioned the pyramid on a stick back on page 2 i figured you were talking about the 90's barbie. which makes sense, that's the one you and i probably grew up with. if we wanna talk about 2000's and up barbies, they have changed her body quite a lot from the triangle on a stick.

I was referring to 90s Barbie, yes. I also pointed out the 2000 and up Barbie's linked a picture of the more modern bodies. So way ahead of you there. -.-

"it's a big reason as to why decent action figures boast a zillion articulation points. you need them to compensate for the muscles of the figure"

and as I pointed out, the only additional articulation points a modern quality GI Joe has over Fashionista Barbie are basically double knee joints and ball joint ankles for wider stances. Otherwise they're built on the same articulation points. In fact GI Joe has been borrowing a few pointers from Barbie in that regard by adding a ball jointed torso and wrists.

So thats is not a "zillion" and the only one you could argue is compensating for bulk is the double knee joint. However, you likewise pointed out double knee joints are an issue on thin dolls as well. So that's also kind of moot.

second post on the joint issue:
"and i never said ball joints didn't make motion better.... i said that you need thin limbs for a decent range of motion, or add in extra joints."
"when you get to torso joints, it gets even more tricky. if you don't have a slimmer middle piece than the waist and bust joint it can limit posing quite a bit"

and as I pointed out, you don't have to add extra joints. Range of motion may suffer a bit, but that's realistic if you compare a bodybuilder to yoga teacher Barbie. Its also a really small price to pay to reduce Barbie's impact on a child's development.

"fashinonistas have a shoulder, elbow, wrist. and those are set up as post-and-ball. any extra motion of the post in the socket is what seems to give them a greater range, but it's flawed because they can't bend their elbow as much, the arm itself gets in the way. "

Are you referring to the 90 degree angle on a ball joint? Is that what this is about? That's hard to overcome in general. Even with a vinyl/wire you're putting undo stress on the joints. Its certainly not a limitation a little girl is going to give a shit about on her Barbie doll though.

"GI Joes with the limited articulation you posted are also shitty as fuck posers and have the odd triangle-shape torso, like a barbie. you are validating what i'm saying. that the more joints the chunkier (and wonkier) things are made, the less joints the skinnier. "

and as I said before, I did not post any GI Joes. >.>

i aso don't get this distinction you made between a ball and a hinge joint back on page 2.

I apologize for not using the correct terminology then. I was referring to to a joint like the old GI Joe knee joints. Where its basically just two sticks connected by a nail for lack of a better visual. So it can only sit and spin, but not rotate in the socket. So to speak.

to your second post:

I will refer you to Khelderson there so I don't just retread the same territory.

[Kheldarson]

seriously, i just don't get it. for a parent to argue that barbie made their kid have low self esteem is, to me, the exact same thing as blaming Mc Donalds for making your kid fat. Who's the one buying all the kids meals?

There's a major difference here. With McDonald's, their commercials don't make you fat. In fact, beyond possibly creating a craving, their commercials do nothing. Only buying and consuming their food causes an effect.

Barbie, and other forms of media, do not need an active consumption to have an effect. Turn on a TV: she, and the idea of what makes a woman perfect, is there. Look at a magazine in line at the store? There it is. Walking through a toy aisle? Yep. And let's not forget: SI and/or Mattel was advertising this issue on a billboard in Time Square.

So how do you keep your child from an image that's, well, everywhere?

if we have a horrible obese child, the parents are lambasted for giving the kid whatever and what volume of food they want. while the marketing is there, so is the understanding that it's the PARENTS that bought their kid enough food to feed a family.
but if we have a kid that thinks she's too fat, that's only the fault of marketing campaigns? parent's are now exempt from responsibility? it's all the same thing. they knew it was something that could effect their kid, or they saw the effect it was having on their kid, and still just gave the kid what it wanted.

Because, again, you don't have to actively purchase an image to have it affect you.

Should parents talk with their kids about body image and how media lies? Of course. Should they control what and how much media is brought into the house? Absolutely.

Can a parent be expected to be able to block every single image though? No. And that's where it becomes a larger issue. You mentioned in the PPG thread that your image issues came mostly from your mom. And, granted, that's a good portion of where it starts.

But our media reinforces that. It makes sales off of reminding women you're not perfect, but buy our shit and you will be! Barbie has a perfect life, so do all these celebrities who look almost like her! All you have to do is fit this one. Single. Image.

During teenage years, when you're already having issues and pulling away from your parents and their advice, that's a powerfully pervasive message.

[siead_lietrathua]

seriously, i just don't get it. for a parent to argue that barbie made their kid have low self esteem is, to me, the exact same thing as blaming Mc Donalds for making your kid fat. Who's the one buying all the kids meals?
if we have a horrible obese child, the parents are lambasted for giving the kid whatever and what volume of food they want. while the marketing is there, so is the understanding that it's the PARENTS that bought their kid enough food to feed a family.
but if we have a kid that thinks she's too fat, that's only the fault of marketing campaigns? parent's are now exempt from responsibility? it's all the same thing. they knew it was something that could effect their kid, or they saw the effect it was having on their kid, and still just gave the kid what it wanted.

i'm not just talking out of my ass. by the end of grade school i was morbidly obese, and my brother was smoking, drinking, and doing pot. because our parent's didn't act like parents, and let us take care of ourselves. so yeah, i know first hand how a lack of parenting can be more negative on kids than the influences around them.

[siead_lietrathua]

Thus that was the topic. You can't retroactively change the topic when you willingly engaged in it.

there's a diffrence between engaging in a topic and starting one. i said that "you brought kids and body shape into it though... before that it was about the doll being in SI"

Low range Barbies are around $16-20 on average. A GI Joe is around $8-10. I price checked before I opened my mouth. -.-

walmart.ca has the beach-set barbies starting at 5 bucks, and the mariposa style line at around 10 bucks. the career dolls at around 16 and it goes up from there. i also checked prices. i also said nothing about GI Joe's pricing, i said that "barbies are low-range for what you can buy in a store" the only stuff cheaper are the generics.

and Papa Munster is incredibly disturbing. Why does that exist? >.> ).

i think it was an anniversary thing. and barbies from the 90's had worse bodies than now, so when you mentioned the pyramid on a stick back on page 2 i figured you were talking about the 90's barbie. which makes sense, that's the one you and i probably grew up with. if we wanna talk about 2000's and up barbies, they have changed her body quite a lot from the triangle on a stick. http://thehairpin.com/2011/01/spot-t...d-2000s-barbie

What? You posted a 4 paragraph thesis with image references arguing that limbs had to be thin for ball joints otherwise range of motion would be grievously affected. Not that more joints = chunky. Less joints = skinny.

just gonna go back and quote myself form before. from my first post on the joint argument:
"i've seen this argument in the doll community before, with jointed dolls. wondering why they don't make chunky ones. the problem is, once you're dealing with joints, you have to keep the limbs thinner to allow a range of movement, or put in a friggton of joints to compensate."
"it's a big reason as to why decent action figures boast a zillion articulation points. you need them to compensate for the muscles of the figure"

second post on the joint issue:
"and i never said ball joints didn't make motion better.... i said that you need thin limbs for a decent range of motion, or add in extra joints."
"when you get to torso joints, it gets even more tricky. if you don't have a slimmer middle piece than the waist and bust joint it can limit posing quite a bit"

later post:
"male dolls have the same issue by the way. wither you need to sock in a ton of joints, or thin them out" (obv. that's supposed to be either but i didn't wanna be accused of altering the original text to fix a typo)
i also posted a link to a heavily jointed, and chunkier, male body to show that if you want them thicker you need to add more joints. here's the link again. http://www.volksusa.com/2227ne0009.html

later post:

"which, in short, is that thin wires need thin vinyl, and ball joints need thinning around the joint areas to allow limbs to fold back properly. "
"the black and red lines are where you would widen out the torso and limbs on one side, to make them more naturally proportioned. since the doll doesn't have the ability to lift it's arms or legs out to the side, the blue spots are where the dolls would rub against itself/ any clothes they wear."
"fashinonistas have a shoulder, elbow, wrist. and those are set up as post-and-ball. any extra motion of the post in the socket is what seems to give them a greater range, but it's flawed because they can't bend their elbow as much, the arm itself gets in the way. "

later post:
"GI Joes with the limited articulation you posted are also shitty as fuck posers and have the odd triangle-shape torso, like a barbie. you are validating what i'm saying. that the more joints the chunkier (and wonkier) things are made, the less joints the skinnier. "

i aso don't get this distinction you made between a ball and a hinge joint back on page 2. unless you'r dealing with a strung-elastic figure, all ball joints are hinge joints. you just don't see it, because instead of having the obvious metal post they use the plastic inside the ball to hinge the two pieces. it's only called ball joint because it looks like one once the post is hidden inside the arm casing. trust me, there is a world of people out there that rip off your head for referring to anything like a barbie as ball jointed.


to your second post:

DID I SAY that parents had to be a shield 100% of the damn time? no. don't put words in my mouth. i said:
"you regulate what TV your kid watches, don't use it as a babysitter. you regulate what your kids read. don't go handing them books and comics for teenagers. you regulate what toys they play with. if research shows that XYZ effects a kid's mentality in a certain age range, you don't buy it for them!

seriously, a parent controls a child's world until they hit school and beyond."

a parent DOES control their child's world. they pick what foods, toys and other come into their home. if they don't research things before giving a kid something, that IS their issue.
if a kid brings home something that you don't think is appropriate for them, then you TALK about it and explain why you don't want them to have it. if your teenage girl is reading magazines, and you see it's affecting her, explain to her why it's shit, and toss it. get them involved in something else, and explain to them why you are doing it.

is it really hard to say to your 3 year old "hey, i know you like this dolly, but i think you're a little too young. let's go look at another toy". or to your teen "hey, i see you've been getting a little down over the stuff in that magazine. let me show you some sites that explain how those ads are really fake" and then go look at the tons of articles out there on how photoshopping models leads to body image issues.

and again. "just cuz your kid asks for something doesn't mean you have to give it to them. (and just because it says 3+ on the box doesn't mean it's designed for them. it just means they won't kill themselves using it)"

[Gravekeeper]

if you really expect that only the dolls and toys and images and TV are to blame, ok. i prefer to ask why parents are letting their kids play with/ read/ watch things outside their age range.

Barbie IS their age range.

a three year old with barbies? an age where they will constantly be losing or breaking the pieces for them? wow. there are dolls actually ment for that age group.

It's marketed specifically at ages 3-6. It use to aim more for 3-9 but its been losing market share to stuff like Monster High which is marketed at ages 6-12.

You can't compare GTA, which is clearly labelled M with Barbie, who is clearly labeled ages 3 and up.

you regulate what TV your kid watches, don't use it as a babysitter. you regulate what your kids read. don't go handing them books and comics for teenagers. you regulate what toys they play with. if research shows that XYZ effects a kid's mentality in a certain age range, you don't buy it for them!

It affects teenagers as well. There are 10 times as many diet product ads in any given magazine aimed at teen girls. Also, you can't control your child's entire world until they're 21.

Blaming the parents is ass backwards. Yes, parents should monitor and discuss things with their child when it comes to important issues like this. But you can't have a multi-billionaire corporation specifically trying to hook your child 24/7 and excuse them of responsibility by saying the parent should be a 100% perfect shield between their children and society.