As the creative adult needs to toy with ideas, the child, to form his ideas, needs toys—and plenty of leisure and scope to play with them as he likes, and not just the way adults think proper. This is why he must be given this freedom for his play to be successful and truly serve him well. – Bruno Bettelheim
At this time of year it’s difficult to avoid thinking of toys, even if one is a childless adult; stores devote much greater space to them than usual, Christmas displays and illustrations feature them prominently and even seasonal songs often mention them. Modern middle-class American children, showered as they are with toys on every conceivable occasion (or even just to shut them up in stores), cannot conceive of what toys meant to us old folks when we were kids; as late as the 1970s most middle-class children got toys only at Christmas and birthdays, and (as depicted in the wonderful movie A Christmas Story) the process of obtaining a much-desired toy could become a sort of miniature Grail quest. It’s likely that this is one of the culprits behind modern parents’ perhaps-misguided generosity, and judging by their irrational behavior it seems that obsession with toys has grown into a full-fledged neurosis among many adults of my generation and the Baby Boomers who preceded us.
Take Barbie, for example. My column of one year ago today explained her origin as a gold-digging German secretary who later became a doxy, and commented on the absurd controversies sick-minded adults have projected onto her:
…like any attractive woman who dares to be sexual, Barbie has inflamed the passions of losers everywhere. People with a lot of free time and more math skills than sense have published complicated calculations showing that at 1/6 scale, Barbie would be 5’9” tall, with measurements of 36”-18”-33” and a weight of 110#. University Central Hospital in Helsinki, Finland actually announced that Barbie lacks the 17 to 22 percent body fat required for a woman to menstruate; it’s good to know that the Finns are so healthy that University Hospital has nothing more important to do than theorize on the menstrual irregularities of plastic dolls. Most of this nonsense is based on the ludicrous notion that little girls have such a highly-developed sense of proportion that they can actually perform these ratios in their little heads without the help of calculators, neofeminists or bored Finnish doctors…[in 1992] middle-class feminists with no actual problems started spinning their heads around and foaming at the mouth because ONE of the 270 possible phrases “Teen Talk Barbie” might say was “Math class is tough!” Apparently, these women were concerned that the phrase would magically leach math skills from the brains of young girls and thereby render them unable to calculate the proportions and body mass index of dolls.
The neofeminists’ real problem with Barbie has nothing to do with her figure or academic credentials; they hate her because she is unashamedly sexual, just as they hate all women who are unashamedly sexual. The campaign to suppress or neuter Barbie derives from the same repressions and insecurities as the campaign to ban porn and abolish prostitution; neofeminists are uncomfortable with any sexual depiction or function of women, even tiny plastic women. The oft-repeated rhetoric that Barbie “causes little girls to develop unrealistic expectations” (one wonders what caused those same unrealistic expectations in the millennia preceding 1959, but we’ll let that go for now) is a cover for their real fear, that Barbie might help young girls to see themselves as sexual beings rather than androgynous eunuchs.
Nearly every new version of Barbie which comes out spawns another brouhaha, and this year is no exception: back in October a limited-edition Barbie intended for adult collectors ignited a furor among the easily-upset because she had pink hair and (hide the children, Prunella!) tattoos! Moralists anxious to predict the downfall of Western civilization were not discouraged by the fact that this was not actually a child’s toy, and social-engineering-crazed feminists went the other way with inane statements like “I much prefer tattoos to unrealistic proportions and the message that the most important thing is to be pretty and get a boy. Good for you Mattel for making a doll a little more like the rest of us.” Because, you know, it’s important that all toys be strictly realistic (after all, we wouldn’t want to promote imagination or anything), and certainly most of “us” have pink hair and huge tats on our upper torsos. How about this for a novel idea: why don’t adults STFU about kids’ toys unless they’re actually dangerous or something? If you don’t want to get a toy for your kid, don’t. It’s a doll, people; get over it.
But it isn’t just Barbie who inspires frighteningly obsessive behavior in deranged adults; one Swedish preschool micromanages the color and placement of toys, and a school in Toronto recently banned balls. Meanwhile, the EU (you know, that organization which bankrolled “end demand” ads despite the fact that prostitution is legal in most of its member nations) ruled that children under eight must be supervised when blowing up balloons and declared blowout noisemakers “unsuitable” for kids under 14. Obviously, a lot of this is just part of the modern obsession with “safety”, but that doesn’t explain the twisted need to employ toys as brainwashing tools intended to turn children into whatever adults want them to be rather than letting them develop as strong, self-reliant individuals through the magic of unstructured, self-directed play.
Odd, Maggie, I can’t see what in the least is sexual about her. If she had lifelike genitals and Ken’s genitals were a fit, then sure. I think she has more to do with the fashion industry than anything else.
I came across a small study about girls and Barbie dolls. The little monsters decapitated Barbie, put her in the microwave, and so on. The assertion that Barbi is responsible for anorexia is patent nonsense.
Especially because anorexia isn’t caused by girls trying to be more attractive, but rather less. It’s strongly linked with incest or other childhood sexual abuse, or else the various anxieties of teen life, and by dieting until the tits and butt go flat and menses stop the girl is trying to regress to a pre-sexual time before her troubles started. Considering that it’s a denial of adult femininity, anorexia has more in common with neofeminism than with “beauty culture”.
I’ve never heard of that theory of anorexia. I usually see this as an issue with girls that believe they are fat (not that I know anything about this stuff). This is a very interesting take on it though.
IMHO It’s the only one which actually fits the observable facts rather than a political agenda. Girls who think they’re fat are usually bulimic rather than anorexic, and though the two are often lumped together their etiologies are usually dramatically different.
Which is why, when I was feeling particularly mischievous as a kid, I drew some pubic hair and an “eye” on my Action Man’s crotch area.
Fun fact: when I was volunteering for a library job helping kids with a summer reading challenge we got a complaint from a “kid” with very grown up writing, saying that the cartoon children advertising the scheme had “unrealistically proportioned bodies that were too skinny”.
While we’re on the subject of cartoons there’s a fantastic adult cartoon over here called Viz which is similar to MAD I think, but it has at least two characters which parody neofeminism and the sort of neurosis we’re talking about
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millie_Tant
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Modern_Parents
Well … I’d like to file a complaint against the folks who produced the Smurfs cartoon.
I only ever saw ONE female Smurf – whatup with that?
I never liked the Smurfs, but one of my sisters did and she said that the female Smurf was created by the evil wizard as a plot to cause dissent among the Smurfs.
I once read a hilarious story abut why the Smurfs are blue. They have sex once a year (Smurfette needs time to rest).
If you had sex once a year, you’d be blue too.
You also found out just what qualified Papa Smurf to be the man in charge… 😛
Women require 17 to 22 percent body fat to menstruate? I did not know that. There’s a few girls who compete in fitness contests that I work out with in the mornings and I know they are under 17% BF (well under it actually).
I really don’t understand why women aren’t more “uncomfortable” with all the patronization they get from neofeminists. I remember a few years ago – when the “waif look” was in for models (which I found to be horrendously unattractive) – nevertheless, there were women running around all over the media fretting that little girls would jump behind that trend and throw themselves into anorexic lifestyles. Then there was a “waif look” combined with a “heroin look” and people just went batshit about it. Then you had the “push” for segregated education because somehow little girls were intimidated by little boys in the class and the little girls needed to be by themselves so they could express themselves and learn better?
I mean, the ironic thing is that the neofeminist catechism states flat out that women and men are the same – it’s right in their little bookie. So why do women need to be handled with kid gloves and “protected” from the evils of society?
What happened to the part about “I am woman, hear me ROAR!”
Female athletes who compete in events where low body fat is a priority (track, bodybuilding, etc) routinely suffer cessation of menses; it’s one of those dirty little secrets neofeminists hide because it demonstrates categorically that women are not like men, who can compete in such activities with few if any serious medical consequences.
As for the patronization, I don’t get it either. As I told a busybody neofeminist librarian about 15 years ago, “If I don’t let men tell me what to do, I’ll be damned if I let other women tell me what to do!” The problem is that most PEOPLE (of both sexes) are sheep who want to be led and are afraid to think for themselves, so if the “leaders” of their herd (whichever one they follow) tell them “good Christians believe this” or “good Democrats believe that” or “good feminists believe the other thing”, they accept it without question and parrot it without even attempting to analyze how it conflicts with the other stated beliefs of the cult.
The same thing that happened to “We’re here, we’re queer, get used to it”; it was abandoned when it came into conflict with the leaders’ political agenda.
Yeah, just found an article … it’s called “amenorrhea”.
http://www.thinkmuscle.com/articles/volk/menstrual-cycle.htm
I hope these girls aren’t doing permanent damage to themselves, I know one was down to 8% pre-contest because she was chiding me that her BF was lower than mine.
I wonder if neofeminists have ever looked at the physical readiness standards for women in the military? Across the board – they are universally lower than for males. Women don’t have to run as fast, they don’t have to be able to perform as many repetitions of exercises, and they are generally allowed to carry approx 10% more BF than the males. I’ve never gotten the point of this … if a female Sailor is considered “satisfactory” if she can run 1.5 miles in 17 minutes – then why isn’t a male? I know the neofeminists keep harping on and on about putting women in combat – yeah sure fine, but shouldn’t we be making them perform physically to the same standards as males before we do that?
But – then again, in the neofeminist universe – it doesn’t have to make sense does it? LOL!
The military is getting to where they are making women perform the same as men. At least in the marine corp anyway. When I was there, the only thing that was different was that we got an extra 4 mins to run the 3 miles (men have 27, women 31) and we didn’t have to do pull ups. However recently I have been told that women are now required to do pull ups for their PFT as well. Not sure how many. I got out in 2005.
I much prefer tattoos to unrealistic proportions and the message that the most important thing is to be pretty and get a boy.
So, did I miss the feminist crusade against Twilight then?
Or is that crap fine if a woman writes it?
i don`t mind the general trend to become more aware of kids in need. I was one of them. And i would like to make sure every lady can feel sexy and sexual ,if they want to , in there own way.the real problem i see is the lack of sciencetific information about sex , and relationships. The kids go to school an learn Abstinance only, amd then get al kinds of mixed messages out in the real world. we were so sexualy repressed we had to figure it out by ouselves. (i grew up in religious fundamintilism) Giving kids the tools to think and show they its a much bigger world and there is plenty of space for your kind of person.
We do have this nasty habit of insisting that each generation re-invent sex through trail and error. And the news system being what it is, we mostly hear about the errors.* Then we howl and point to the errors as proof that we need more suppression of sex.
* When we don’t find enough errors to suit us, we invent errors: train parties, rainbow parties, the absolute conviction that teen pregnancy is through the roof (it’s actually at historic lows).
I think the most important part is contained in the last paragraph…..
Strong self-reliant individuals?? Hell no, the State won’t be able to control them as easily if that were the case!
I reckon the best toys are ones that are made from scrap bits and pieces…..that’s when imagination can reign supreme 🙂
A very Happy Sinterklaas Day to you, Maggie!!
And to you as well! My column on the subject will post in just over an hour. 😉
The thing is, Barbie has the measurements she has because if she had “more realistic” measurements, she’d look grotesque when dressed. Keep in mind, the cloth from which her clothes are made is proportionally many times thicker and heavier and coarser than any cloth we now have.
As I pointed out in my previous column, the much-ballyhooed and absurdly-named “Happy To Be Me” doll doesn’t look all that different from Barbie. Smaller creatures have more gracile proportions because mass increases as a cubic function as height or length increases and the tensile strength of living tissue is a constant. Simply put, an ant increased to the size of a hamster couldn’t even stand, much less have “super strength”, and an elephant reduced to the size of a hamster would be paralyzed by the thickness of its limbs and skin. The human mind expects smaller creatures to have narrower bodies and limbs, and Barbie actually looks normal (if slightly tall) to children whose minds haven’t been warped by feminist politics.
There’s also the fact that little girls like sexy female images. Look at all the little girls who went bonkers for the Spice Girls, and the fact that little girls love Tinkerbell. I watched the extras on my Shin Cutey Honey DVD, and at the promotion it was, you guessed it, little girls wanting their DVD signed. (Not just little girls like it; I sang it at karaoke.)
It isn’t a junior lesbian thing. Little girls like Barbie’s curves the same way little boys like Superman’s muscles.
You know which group of people stare most fixedly at my figure, especially my bosom? Tween girls. Adults of both sexes are more discreet, and little boys usually look at my face, but girls about to enter puberty often look me over in a way that might make some women very uncomfortable if an adult man did it. I think the reason is, as you say, similar to the reason little boys admire sports stars; they’re looking into their own possible futures.
Damn tweenies, always degrading women! 😉
I know I stared at grown women that was as a tween. It was definitely, “I want to grow up to look like her.” And for the most part, I accomplished that goal, though it’s more that I luckily picked women who had defined hourglass figures, a little less voluptuous than mine, but much more Sofia Vergara types than Gisele types. Gisele has a lovely figure, but it’s not in my gene structure.
I eventually got the figure I wanted, but it took the help of a plastic surgeon. 😉
I do not have nor will I ever have pink hair and a chest plate. That look is fine for other people, but it’s never been my personal aesthetic. I suppose I can credit my maman for getting me to consider, “And what will all that ink look like when you’re 80 and saggy?” Beyond that I hate needles and only tolerate them for the more important test-taking and vaccination purposes (while I lie still and think of England). I’ve got friends who have quite a bit of ink and that’s fine for them but, sorry lady who likes pink-and-inked Barbie, that is not “most of us”.
I get so frustrated by this idea that unless a woman is punked out like the Barbie above or dressed frumpy and clearly doesn’t give a shit about her appearance, then she’s not a “real” representation of women. It inspires major **headdesk** moments for me.
Especially considering that if one judges by the way most women look and dress when they want to make a good impression on anyone of either sex, “doesn’t give a shit about her appearance” is not remotely representative of “real” women.
I have to say, I did not encounter such “real” women until my brief stint with feminism. I’ve even noticed feminists who would identify more as sex-positive or even otherwise archeofeminist, to use your term, yet still follow the idea that feminine grooming is patriarchal or for the male gaze or whatever. I only believed that for maybe a year. Screw that. I love fashion way too much and I was taught that you don’t go out of the house looking like crap. Even the men in my family follow that dictum.