Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Ahtman wrote:
But I digress. I am shocked to see people on a gaming website that is probably 95%+ male use 'feminism' as a pejorative, and in such broad strokes.

I see very little evidence that it is being used as a pejorative by most posters in this thread. Maybe you should take that up with the individual posters instead of inferring that its because this site is overwhelmingly male.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 easysauce wrote:
the whole body image thing is silly,

if you can't look at a toy/comic/tvshow/movie actor/actress without thinking you have to look like that, then that is your own doing, not the object or fantasy.


all the ken dolls, warhammer dolls, gi joes, actors have ripped abs and steroid esque muscles, and while there is a problem with men trying to look that way through steroid abuse, that is not the fault of the inanimate objects or the fantasies on tv.

so while people abusing steroids, or being bulimic or anorexic to attain a body type is obviously harmful to them, they are the one making the choice.

it is antithetical to a free society to blame these things for individual's actions as it denies the individual's agency in decisions.

That's true (in theory) for adults but children haven't developed the skills for critical thinking that would enable them discriminate between fantasy and reality.

Otherwise we would let them smoke, vote, and drive cars, etc.

it is true for kids as well, they have not developed all the emotional baggage that makes adults see an issue where there is none.

they have not develop the severe jadedness and do not connect the fact that they are "supposed" to look a certain way until we adults start making a big deal about it.

They play with the toys because they are fun, and if anyone thinks that playing with a skinny doll is going to over power their little snowflakes individuality and coerce them into looking a certain way, then they still have options outside of changing how everyone else has to play with barbies.

Children have plenty of agency, they can figure stuff out, a doll is just a doll to them, not a role model, my he mans didnt make me want to do steroids any more then my sisters barbies made her want to be skinny.

Besides, they are going to have to get used to not looking like the <1% of super hot people who make up >99% of people in the media. They are still going to have to get used to dealing with peer pressure, which is by far the more powerful source of the impetus to be skinny.

heck if a plastic doll can convince a girl to be dangerously underweight, imagine what her peer group will get her to do?




even if there is a cause/effect between skinny dolls and kids with body image issues, then its as simple as not exposing your child to those particular dolls.

You can buy them a normal looking doll, even a chubby one like raggity anne or a cabbage patch doll. A normal doll will likely be obese/overweight since most people (in n america of course) are, is that a positive body image for children?

however getting shows closed down, or protesting them (which even peacefully really breaks through the 4th wall for kids)

*edit, and your examples, we let "kids" drive at 16, vote/smoke at 18, and drink at 21

which one of those ages is good for letting them play with barbies? would you say a 18 year old has no agency simply because we dont let them drink (in states)

it is a completely different thing to be trusted with your own imagination then to be trusted with a vehicle that can kill people, or to be tusted to moderate your intake of a deadly drug (smokes/booze)

 easysauce wrote:

it is antithetical to a free society to blame these things for individual's actions as it denies the individual's agency in decisions.

Individuals decided to create those things, and many other individuals have decided that they're appealing. Those are both choices grounded in agency. Well, maybe not the second one.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

I think it depends on just how skinny you mean, and whether or not it is healthy

It also depends on what healthy means.

Because, lets be honest, when heterosexual men are commenting on the physical appearance of women it generally means "Yeah, I would tap that." not "She appears to be the sort that is not engaging in activities which risk her premature death."

 dogma wrote:
It also depends on what healthy means.

Because, lets be honest, when heterosexual men are commenting on the physical appearance of women it generally means "Yeah, I would tap that." not "She appears to be the sort that is not engaging in activities which risk her premature death."

Feel free to speak for yourself.
When I say "Not a single one of those three ladies looks remotely healthy" I actually mean that from their appearance alone it looks like they may be putting their health at risk.

From my totally amateur, not-a-doctor perspective, only the leftmost one scares me health-wise. The middle and right ones might just be skinny people. I have known girls that looked like the one on the right naturally.

I agree that the left most one looks the most unhealthy (as in "they do not look healthy", not "I wouldn't tap that" ), but the other two give me cause for concern also.

Is there a "Sandwich Maker Barbie"?

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

Feel free to speak for yourself.

I'm speaking from my experience as a heterosexual male who has dealt with numerous heterosexual males over the course of my 27 years being a heterosexual male.

Also, I wasn't countermanding anything you said, so I'm not sure why you decided to get defensive below.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

When I say "Not a single one of those three ladies looks remotely healthy" I actually mean that from their appearance alone it looks like they may be putting their health at risk.

So what would you argue that "health" is?

 Rented Tritium wrote:
From my totally amateur, not-a-doctor perspective, only the leftmost one scares me health-wise. The middle and right ones might just be skinny people. I have known girls that looked like the one on the right naturally.

It depends on height, weight, and circumstance.

The term "healthy" is a really vague one.

"Not Dead Looking" would be my definition.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 dogma wrote:
It also depends on what healthy means.

Because, lets be honest, when heterosexual men are commenting on the physical appearance of women it generally means "Yeah, I would tap that." not "She appears to be the sort that is not engaging in activities which risk her premature death."

Feel free to speak for yourself.
When I say "Not a single one of those three ladies looks remotely healthy" I actually mean that from their appearance alone it looks like they may be putting their health at risk.

Agreed. Having a daughter might put a different spin on this as well.

 dogma wrote:
I'm speaking from my experience as a heterosexual male who has dealt with numerous heterosexual males over the course of my 27 years being a heterosexual male.

Also, I wasn't countermanding anything you said, so I'm not sure why you decided to get defensive below.

When you make sweeping statements like that when quoting someone else, and not making it clear that you are basing your opinion of heterosexual males on anecdotal evidence please do not be surprised if people react contrary to your opinion

 dogma wrote:
So what would you argue that "health" is?

What health is, or what the appearance of health is?
For me health is generally being free from injury and disease (physical and/or mental) and not engaging in practices that are detrimental to your body.

Having a body more commonly seen in famine ravaged areas generally does not give the appearance of being in good health

 SlaveToDorkness wrote:
Is there a "Sandwich Maker Barbie"?

No but there is a set with a sink, a chain and no slippers.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

When you make sweeping statements like that when quoting someone else, and not making it clear that you are basing your opinion of heterosexual males on anecdotal evidence please do not be surprised if people react contrary to your opinion

I used the word "generally", and didn't make any comment to the effect that I was attempting to speak objectively regarding what heterosexual males tend to mean.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

Having a body more commonly seen in famine ravaged areas generally does not give the appearance of being in good health

I see women that look like the last two in the picture you posted all the time, and Chicago is hardly a famine ravaged area.

 dogma wrote:

I used the word "generally", and didn't make any comment to the effect that I was attempting to speak objectively regarding what heterosexual males tend to mean.

If you're speaking in general terms there shouldn't be any reason to quote someone then Especially not when passing on your wealth of personal experinece

 dogma wrote:
I see women that look like the last two in the picture you posted all the time, and Chicago is hardly a famine ravaged area.

Really? I've seen if, if any like that in Chicago. We must not be visiting the same areas
Doesn't take away from the lady on the left of the picture though, which is the one that I believed the discussion had centered around, maybe next time I'll be clearer for you

Do men really care that much? I certainly don't have a defined "type". I think the extremes of weight are usually what repels people. There's a lot of wiggle room between anorexic and obese.

Personality and presentation count for more imho.

 Medium of Death wrote:
Do men really care that much? I certainly don't have a defined "type". I think the extremes of weight are usually what repels people. There's a lot of wiggle room between anorexic and obese.

Personality and presentation count for more imho.

This judgement shouldn't be determined by what men want anway.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

If you're speaking in general terms there shouldn't be any reason to quote someone then Especially not when passing on your wealth of personal experinece

Well, aside from creating discussion.

My initial statement was an addendum to the point you made, and an attempt to begin a civil discussion regarding the nature of health and the standards heterosexual males apply to women. I spoke generally regarding my experience with heterosexual men and how they use the word "healthy" regarding women.

I'm not sure why you seem to find it offensive that I quoted your post.

 Rented Tritium wrote:

 Medium of Death wrote:
Do men really care that much? I certainly don't have a defined "type". I think the extremes of weight are usually what repels people. There's a lot of wiggle room between anorexic and obese.

Personality and presentation count for more imho.

This judgement shouldn't be determined by what men want anway.

I guess what I was trying to say, albeit in a pigheaded man way, was that I don't get why the ladies are so fussed about body image. Men are quite laid back beasts, to an extent.

 dogma wrote:
Well, aside from creating discussion.

My initial statement was an addendum to the point you made, and an attempt to begin a civil discussion regarding the nature of health and the standards heterosexual males apply to women. I spoke generally regarding my experience with heterosexual men and how they use the word "healthy" regarding women.

I'm not sure why you seem to find it offensive that I quoted your post.

My words did not need an addendum, nor did they need you to attempt to contradict my actual point concerning the health of the ladies by saying "lets be honest, when heterosexual men are commenting on the physical appearance of women it generally means "Yeah, I would tap that." not "She appears to be the sort that is not engaging in activities which risk her premature death."". Using my words as a peg to hang your own opinion on, especially when they seem to imply an improper motive for my concern about the health of the ladies (especially the one on the left) is what I object to. If you were solely interested in creating discussion there was no need to quote what I had said, thus giving the appearance of directing your sentiments towards me and appearing to cast aspersions on what I had plainly said.

Its not always what you say, but how you choose to say it. And in this instance you gave the very firm impression that I was saying would not bang, instead of she does not look healthy

You can take from that what you will and move on, or we can continue this distracting aside.

Actually you'll drop that now -- it's your bugbear here -- or not post here at all.

 Medium of Death wrote:
I guess what I was trying to say, albeit in a pigheaded man way, was that I don't get why the ladies are so fussed about body image. Men are quite laid back beasts, to an extent.

Only in your heads. Men judge women harshly on appearance all the time. People on this very forum judge women off of our appearances all the time. People in this very thread, including yourself, judge women off of our appearances. Yes, including the men. Or even especially the men...

And when a woman doesn't stand up to that judgement, they are treated harshly and cruelly for it, viciously mocked by men. Men seem to love mocking the physical appearance of women whose personalities or political beliefs that they don't agree with-- and it's almost inevitably the first way that they think of to attack a woman. Even when a woman is running/nominated for a position as high as a governor, presidential candidate, or supreme court justice, she is inevitably judged by her appearance where a man would not be-- and usually, this judging is done by men.

I'm sure this idea will piss some people off, but it's a phenomenon I've seen all too often, both online and off.

As for Barbie, I don't like it. Never did. I liked building things as a girl, from k'nex (working and powered) carousels to lego skyscraper cities-- even to this day that's reflected by my enjoyment in various games like Minecraft, Reus, or the RTS genre (such games as Supreme Commander where you build massive, interconnected bases, for example). Furthermore, there is no official feminist position on Barbies-- some see Barbie as being a vast improvement (she's often depicted as a highly trained professional, as people have mentioned several times in this thread) over most other lines, while others still believe that Barbie has a negative effect on little girls.

People who think that every feminist is exactly the same and all have the same concerns or ideas are the second most ignorant sort (the first most ignorant sort being the kind of... person... who calls people "Feminazi"). My own opinions on the topic are mixed. Barbie, as a product line, has its problems. But it also has good sides, as well. The situation is more complex than a single sentence can really do justice to, and it's not an issue that I feel comfortable going too deeply on, aside from what explanation I've offered in this post.



Edit: Furthermore, I'd like to note that feminism in Germany is a very, very different movement than feminism elsewhere, dealing with differing cultures and all that. I couldn't begin to explain their opinions when I don't entirely understand them myself, but from what I gather, they focus on different aspects of womens' rights than is usual in the USA. Someone more familiar with the movement would be better here...

Forget Barbie. Littleist Pet Shop is still da Bomb.

Technic was the best.

There's a problem in our culture(s) with women being treated as if nothing else we achieve counts unless we're sexually attractive to men. Does Barbie feed into that? Maybe. It doesn't seem like the main objection of the people in the OP - that seems to be that Barbie is just... vapid, in a word.

Whether that's true or not probably depends on which iteration of Barbie it is!

HiveFleetPlastic wrote:
Technic was the best.

There's a problem in our culture(s) with women being treated as if nothing else we achieve counts unless we're sexually attractive to men. Does Barbie feed into that? Maybe. It doesn't seem like the main objection of the people in the OP - that seems to be that Barbie is just... vapid, in a word.

Whether that's true or not probably depends on which iteration of Barbie it is!

I agree. Their thesis is... unclear.

Melessia, People judge everyone on appearence, including men and other men. No man is going to get elected if he has a neck beard and is 350 pounds.
PEople judge people with a glance.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Melessia, People judge everyone on appearence, including men and other men. No man is going to get elected if he has a neck beard and is 350 pounds.
PEople judge people with a glance.

Chris Christie got elected as governor of New Jersey and he's pretty fat (yes i know he doesn't have neck beard) that being said a lot of people have made fun of his weight which isn't very nice, that being said I think there is a higher expectation for women to be good looking than men.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Melessia, People judge everyone on appearence, including men and other men.

From the casual to the professional to even scientific fields, men are not judged as harshly on appearance as women.

A man is expected to look clean and professional. A woman is expected to look clean, professional, and attractive-- but not too attractive, because then she'll get fired for that, too, no matter how professionally she dresses and how clean she keeps herself. I wish I was joking. Women have been held back from promotions or even fired for being too attractive to their bosses, a problem that I have not seen men face. It's sad in more ways than one.

 Melissia wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Melessia, People judge everyone on appearence, including men and other men.

From the casual to the professional to even scientific fields, men are not judged as harshly on appearance as women.

A man is expected to look clean and professional. A woman is expected to look clean, professional, and attractive-- but not too attractive, because then she'll get fired for that, too, no matter how professionally she dresses and how clean she keeps herself. I wish I was joking. Women have been held back from promotions or even fired for being too attractive to their bosses, a problem that I have not seen men face. It's sad in more ways than one.

While all of this is true... I've seen it.

Why is it that the harshest critics of women's beauty is from other women?

At least that supports my anecdotal experience...

 whembly wrote:

 Melissia wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Melessia, People judge everyone on appearence, including men and other men.

From the casual to the professional to even scientific fields, men are not judged as harshly on appearance as women.

A man is expected to look clean and professional. A woman is expected to look clean, professional, and attractive-- but not too attractive, because then she'll get fired for that, too, no matter how professionally she dresses and how clean she keeps herself. I wish I was joking. Women have been held back from promotions or even fired for being too attractive to their bosses, a problem that I have not seen men face. It's sad in more ways than one.

While all of this is true... I've seen it.

Why is it that the harshest critics of women's beauty is from other women?

At least that supports my anecdotal experience...

Yeah, aren't the majority of human resources people women? Like I seem to remember reading a cracked article (can't find it though) on arbitrary things that decrease your odds of getting hired (like being too short, attractive, etc) and I seem to remember there being some source on female

human resources are less likely to hire attractive women (I think the reason is they viewed that having a physically attractive women would increase competition with the other women or something) although this could be pure bs.

 whembly wrote:
Why is it that the harshest critics of women's beauty is from other women?

That doesn't support my anecdotal experience...

Men are fething vicious about the appearance of a woman they don't like.

Although I should note, the HR department IS one of the top ten paying jobs for women, at least according to Forbes (for what little that rag's word is worth), so that may very well explain it.