Mommy I Want Plus Size Barbie

hate to bump, and I realize it's late, but relevant:

I see the parallel they're going for but it doesn't quite line up.

indeed, I prefer this guy:




or *** it, better yet:

My childhood aspiration:



You can only imagine how heartbroken I was when the blue hair and spines didn't grow in. (And that I had to wear pants...)

Gives young women a realistic expectation after getting married.

Corrected.

I dunno, how about they make a unatainably skinny barbie, a regular size 7 barbie, and an overweight cow of a obese barbie? We can see who buys what and the toy makers can continue to make the model that no doubt takes the majority of the sales.

I think that the super skinny Barbie will continue to get the sales because of the perception of what is beauty to adults.

So, thoughts on Bratz and Monsters High dolls? Anyone? I mean if we're talking God awfully stylized and completely unrealistic...

I have no idea what a Monsters High doll is and I don't think I want Google to enlighten me on this one. I do have a problem with Bratz dolls, though.

The thing is, Barbie is an adult. Skipper is the "teenage Barbie" and she's a bit less va-va-voom. Bratz are children. Not adults dressed up to be sexy, but children dressed up to be sexy. I don't know, I just am not so sure I'd want my six-year old daughter (if I had one) to be thinking that 6 is an appropriate age to try to look sexy.

At least a 6-year old playing with Barbie knows that this is an adult-aged doll. It may seem like a weird distinction for me to make, but it just seems too different. A child seeing an adult act sexy is one thing, a child seeing another child act sexy is a different thing, at least in my mind.

Basically, monster themed Bratz dolls. My goddaughter wanted one this year...



I think Skipper, Courtney, Stacy, etc. are a great compromise if people are that bent out of shape about it. Their proportions are a little more realistic.

EDIT: I think you and I have gabbed about the implications of branding a doll "Bratz" in another Barbie thread.

DOUBLE EDIT: Reference for those who don't buy for kids. Voila! Bratz...

I'm not familiar with the Monster High dolls, though I've heard they're quite popular. Bratz, though, are possibly worse than Barbie, but for different reasons.

The issue with Barbie is explicitly her shape. She's nearly human, although it's still a very wide gap between her and any normal woman. Because she's sufficiently life-like in proportion, she sets up all these worries about trying to mimic her appearance in people of a certain age.

Bratz don't invoke that effect because they're, to borrow the phrase from Japan, super-deformed. They're clearly dolls, so there's no impetus to try to mimic their shape as not even primordial dwarfism will result in a head that proportionately large to the body. On the other hand, though, they dress and style themselves like cheap *** and style of dress is considerably easier to imitate.

How we dress affects how we act, too, though more because of how people react to us. I have a wool coat that has the appearance of being a suit coat, for instance, and even if I wear it over jeans and sneakers, people start calling me "sir" and getting considerably more formal and snotty than when I'm wearing my usual hoodie. If we allow our tween girls to dress like prostitutes, that is how they'll be treated. If her parents don't dissuade the insanity, it has a strong chance of becoming a self-reinforcing cycle until tragedy happens, and the problem with tragedy is that it can just make the problem worse. We've spent centuries telling girls that they're vapid and shallow and, go figure, that's what they end up being.

Incidentally, one of the things that hasn't been mentioned on the issue of dolls that boys play with is that boys aren't as visually reactive. Because boys are more visually reactive than girls. It seems paradoxical, but women are trying to be ridiculous shapes to attract the male gaze (which is ridiculous because anyone who knows male minds knows how fast our gaze will dart to the newest option, even if it isn't as pretty). The disproportionate shapes of He-Man or GI Joe don't have the same effect because boys aren't motivated to the same strictures as girls are. We have a cultural ideal of what a woman should look like, but no such equivalent exists for men. Moreover, boys are taught that achievement can overcome appearance, c.f. Bill Gates. So, yeah, for all that He-Man is absurd and probably inspired a little neurosis in some ectomorphs, it has a much lessened impact due to sex differences and cultural programming.

Women are beyond me.

I don't understand the whole concept of dressing up to look pretty. I only see women as another version of human. Not as an incubator, or somebody lessor/greater than me, just another being occupying space in the vast realm we call "life."

So, why bother trying to attract somebody who you have no interest in? I know a lot of women who dress up to impress each other and themselves, but really, what's the point? It just distracts people from knowing who you are and what you can do.

How you dress is a part of who you are and what you do. It's just a pecking order thing.

If you and your male friends share some common interest, let's say fitness, and start talking, it'll quickly turn into a competition of who can bench the most or run the furthest, right? Or it'll be a debate about whose job is best or which smartphone is best or whatever. Women have the same competitive drive, it's just a different arena. Hell, I know enough hipster men who are every bit as obsessed with their appearance and that of their acquaintances as any gaggle of fashionista women you could name.

Maybe if you are meeting them for the first time ever or in a while, but think about it. Who are the ones who really matter to you in your life? I would say your family, friends, and coworkers. 99 times out of 100 you don't give a rat's *** how they or you are dressed, because you are comfortable with them (or learned to be).

While I get what you are saying about the measuring contest, I think we can all agree that it is pretty much worthless. Who cares if you can bench press a train. Unless your life revolves around picking up trains and moving them around, it doesn't really matter, does it?

Maybe that is what I'm the most confused about. Why dress up like a tramp if you aren't one? Why dress up as "sexy" if you don't want to be picked up by 500+ guys? Why dress up as anything but normal if normal is all you are?

I find this a rather naive question. Also making that mistake of assuming women (and men for that matter) dress up "for you", or at least "for you, specifically".

It does imply a certain amount of narcissism, for sure. I don't really see a reason to try and impress a group I'm not trying to attract, what would be the point of trying to attract gay men when you're straight, for example. your appearance is far more telling than people will admit. A person who takes care to look good in social settings is likely the kind of person who gives that care to the people in their lives. A person who is overly focused on appearances in any situation (wearing makeup and fancy clothes to mow the lawn) is likely very focussed on themselves and don't give that care to others. A person who gives no care to their appearance in any situation probably gives equally little care to the people around them.

I can see personal appearances being a good indicator of the type of person you are, and possibly how you treat the people around you. That said, I see no reason to focus on the perceptions of others on any level that doesn't jive with how you feel about your appearance, and I'd never dress the way I think someone wanted me to. I keep myself in shape for my own benefit, not to attract others, and I drive a car that fulfills my needs and not one I think girls will like.

There has to be a middle ground between the peacock morons you see on reality TV and the people gracing the pages of "the people of walmart".

I wouldn't compare Barbie, an icon of American plastic dolls to the likes of a Bratz or Monsters High doll which straight of bat are intentionally designed to differentiate themselves.

Lets a run a head count here: The dolls are called Bratz, feature bimbo looking females, glamorize excess and sexual appeal to the extreme. It can't get more obvious with the stylized eyes, huge lips, curves like an exotic dancer and more jewelry than a local pimp. Clearly from the design, they are designed to jump off the shelves when set beside the more realistic Barbie and the cadre of other dolls available.

Barbie is basically the Xerox, Tide, McDonalds or Coca-Cola of her field and has represented a standard in American beauty and that's why she's the source of controversy.

Heavy is the head that wears the tiara?

I think you got the wrong end up of the stick here, Jassik.

Kingnobody is essentially asking why a woman would dress like a harlot if she doesn't appreciate the stares and come-ons that accompany that. The error, though, is not in the topic being questioned but in the question itself: women who dress like tramps are, by and large, completely aware of it. Emphasis here on the word "women," incidentally. The exact trouble of Bratz and related garbage is that they're marketed at tween girls who desperately want to seem more grown up and end up getting bad data from 50-something male toy executives and their teenybopper pop star lackeys.

If we really want to talk about why people dress in a way that disagrees with our own aesthetic, though, I should think the answer is obvious: we're not all alike. I personally have nothing by disdain for skinny jeans and the majority of hipster fashion, for instance. Fashion, peer group, social status, and the like, all dictate what a person thinks is appropriate attire. If that means a micro-mini-skirt, a halter top, and high heels when going out to a dance club, that is entirely the individual's decision. Of course, the imbedded problem in Kingnobody's question is that tired old crutch of saying that a woman who dresses provocatively deserves whatever happens to her, because obviously no one is saying that it would be a terrible thing to teach our little girls to wear taffeta ballgowns or hair-covering scarves.

That said, it is hardly uncommon to find someone who has misaligned their notions and accidentally asked for more than they wanted. When I got unduly groped for dancing at a club, though, it would hardly be right to blame me for showing up in nice clothing and moving my body. It bothered me enough to not repeat the error, but it hardly excuses the violation of my body in the first place. Had I enjoyed it for whatever reason, and some people are that shallow and desperate, I'd know how to achieve the effect again. It's not complicated: if we're talking about a rational adult, they're dressing in a certain manner because it suits them to do so. For good or ill, no one cares about protecting adults from their own folly.

No, I understood completely, I was just taking it to a further point of why would anyone dress in a way contrary to what they like wearing? What you wear is a result of and indication of how you approach yourself and relationships with the people in your life.

A lot of people wear what they think people like or what everyone else is wearing.

I definitely don't agree that a woman who dresses like a tramp is asking for people to treat her that way.

Because in order to fit into certain social situations, you need to dress the part. To some extent it's for the sake of simplicity in mental heuristics and a case of the shallowness we all innately possess.

Simply putting on a collared shirt, tie and a good pair of shoes can grant you societal powers you don't deserve and increase the likelihood people take you seriously when you speak. Conversely, wearing a hoodie is immediately seen as the clothing of criminals and other ne'er do wells. How much your stats (lolgamingspeak) rise or fall is influenced by your age/gender/race/physical appearance.

Maybe I'm an intellectual who likes to dress like a bum? Perhaps so, but it comes with negative societal capital and even the contrarian would have to concede that.

I'm sure I'll get some ***for this, but I'm of the belief the better looking you are, the more happy/successful you will be, with the extra requirement that it isn't something you are aware of (because then it can cause anxiety/depression/bulimia etc). I also believe there is no upper limit on this such as being restricted to simple things like looking professional.

I'll bet you believe in "The Secret," too. Just like that load of tripe, your particular mess right here has one unrelated grain of truth in it (look up "the halo effect") but is promptly muddled into magical determinism.

If we want to talk about professional attire, though, it is worth noting that it is not the same everywhere. I live in the industrial Northeast and no one gets taken seriously as a businessman without at least a collar on. I have been told that standards in various parts of the Pacific Northwest, among others, are different and wearing a tie to work could be overdressing for many jobs.

How exactly do you benefit from your 'better looking' status without being aware of it? You don't exist in a bubble and your appearance has social consequences in your daily interactions. For every ugly, out-of-shape person lamenting being judged in the workplace or seen as social afterbirth, there are people who fit the ideal mold of society who aren't taken seriously because they look too good.

I'm pretty sure you won't be happy or successful if every time someone darts a gaze at you they see an empty headed piece of meat suitable only for sexual activity or ogling.

Actually, The Secret preaches something that's almost the exact opposite of what I believe. While I that I may be making a mistake with a halo effect of physical beauty, success is multifactoral so pointing out something else wouldn't necessarily make me incorrect. I freely admit that that particular belief of mine has less conclusive evidence than I'm usually comfortable with (given that even I think researching something like this is a waste of money and resources) but I also base it on experience both observational and personal and there being very little against it other than feel-gooders naively reinforcing something i've found to be false time and time again.


Do you really need to ask this? Well, I suppose it's possible that people just pretend to not know about it. I don't bring this sort of thing up in public because people will label you as narcissistic or shallow. But I find that people that namecall people with these terms are pretty much always equally as guilty of being that way when it's not directly spoken of.

In the blue collar world, people who wear collared shirts and ties are viewed as pretentious cake-eaters.

Depends on who, where, and when, Jassik. I work in the blue collar field and am quite aware of what I and my co-workers dress like. Most folks around here at least give airs of working in white collar environments, regardless of what the truth may be, and that was more the working field I was speaking to.

Sounds like the world of gaming/nerd subculture. Show up to an event in a collared shirt?

"This guy is a huge douchebag."

I'd really like to meet these people. I know it is convenient to imagine they exist in the hypothetical, but I've never seen a classically attractive person toiling away in a lousy job.

However, the knife cuts both ways. People who have the benefit of fitting society's preconceptions are rarely ever challenged. The brain is effectively as much as muscle as the biceps and pretty people don't flex their cerebrum much at all, which is why they tend to be completely at sea once they rise to a certain point. There are plenty of exceptions (often people who blossomed into looking good, though, not the ones who were given accolades from day one), but charisma and intelligence seem to run opposite sides of the balance and it is difficult to have both.

Anyways, the real rub to Kincard's silly 'pothesis is that rotten word "happy." Even "successful" doesn't have a very reliable definition, as it can mean anything from money to power to fulfillment of one's ambitions. And, for instance, no one needs to be pretty to be a world-class chef. One of the top writers of computer self-help books only has three fingers and a host of other congenital defects that have done nothing to stop him amassing a fortune on his own sweat. But as far as being pretty means one will be happy, virtually every pretty person I've met is more unhappy than the unpretty folks. Again, they're showered with so much as children and then when the world fails to open up for them and they find that they have only nominal skills, they become resentful and self-destructive. Most of the happiest folk I've met are ugly, stupid, and completely oblivious of both.

What good is happiness, anyhow? It's a laudable goal, but it means nothing if you don't do much to get it. I and my family have worked with Downs syndrome kids and adults our entire lives and they're all happy as larks, but similarly about as interesting as larks, too. They're nice people and they're capable of a lot more than the average person suspects, but would you change places for the sake of their 24/7 happiness? Contentment and self-respect are the things to seek. Happiness is just a less masturbatory form of self-esteem, which is easily the worst thing one can impose on anyone.