Dolls = bad?
10 Feb 2006 10:28 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
kangeikoA new doll is selling incredibly well in Egypt:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4605334.stm
I'm not entirely certain how to react to this, oddly.
On the one hand I think it is a positive move, as the export of the Western ideal of blonde, blue-eyed, big-breasted Barbie could only be harmful to little girls. I applauded the Japanese girls who protested against this stereotype by throwing blonde wigs into the air at a rally. The alternate to the doll's existence - its lack of existence - would, to me, seem to be a negative thing. Doctor Fulla and Teacher Fulla are due out soon, and the article has a representative that argues that these are honourable professions for women. So, if Fulla is a such a positive role model, why am I so ambivalent?
I can't help but be filled with this nagging worry that Fulla isn't a positive new innovation, but is in fact a symptom of the same mysogyny that generated Barbie. My issue with Fulla is that she is an image of a specific type of femininity that is marketed at impressionable young minds, that portrays another set of 'feminine ideals', just as much as Barbie does. I was worried about my reaction to this, carefully examining it for any possibility of racism or prejudice. Would it make any difference if Fulla wasn't Fulla, but another girl from another culture who displayed another set of cultural mores? Actually, no. I'd still be very uncomfortable. At the end of the day, I have come to the conclusion that it is not a specific portrayal of femininity that I have issues with, but rather than concept of visually depicting femininity at all.
Now, I've read some fascinating stuff on the importance of the female form, and this isn't what I'm talking about here. Not the female form, but femininity is a concept is what I would argue is problematic. The moment you take a concept like that, one that affects everyone and that is a part of every individual to some extent, and you fix a visual representation of it, you limit what it can be. To be feminine is blonde, so to be any other hair colour is somehow deficient. To be feminine is to - in Fulla's case - cover up your arms and legs, so to disagree with that is to be deficient. I don't believe that children are born with any particular stamp on their identities that dictate how feminine or masculine they will be; that is something that society imprints upon them. Dolls, I would argue, are the main apparatus for imprinting the idea of 'the feminine' upon little girls, and are the mould into which girls are shoved into. 'Doll-like' is still an acceptable positive phrase in describing a quiet, tidy, impeccably turned-out girl, and the more I think on it, the more I find the entire concept absolutely terrifying.
What are your thoughts on this? I find myself coming to an unexpected conclusion - that dolls, or any visual depiction of abstract concepts such as 'the feminine' or 'the masculine' that we use to 'educate' children - are necessarily oppressive, as they limit the possibilities of a child's gender development along 'acceptable' lines. Do you agree? Disagree? Do you think that the arrival of Fulla is positive event, despite the concerns stated above?
x-posted to![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-community.gif)
feminist
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4605334.stm
I'm not entirely certain how to react to this, oddly.
On the one hand I think it is a positive move, as the export of the Western ideal of blonde, blue-eyed, big-breasted Barbie could only be harmful to little girls. I applauded the Japanese girls who protested against this stereotype by throwing blonde wigs into the air at a rally. The alternate to the doll's existence - its lack of existence - would, to me, seem to be a negative thing. Doctor Fulla and Teacher Fulla are due out soon, and the article has a representative that argues that these are honourable professions for women. So, if Fulla is a such a positive role model, why am I so ambivalent?
I can't help but be filled with this nagging worry that Fulla isn't a positive new innovation, but is in fact a symptom of the same mysogyny that generated Barbie. My issue with Fulla is that she is an image of a specific type of femininity that is marketed at impressionable young minds, that portrays another set of 'feminine ideals', just as much as Barbie does. I was worried about my reaction to this, carefully examining it for any possibility of racism or prejudice. Would it make any difference if Fulla wasn't Fulla, but another girl from another culture who displayed another set of cultural mores? Actually, no. I'd still be very uncomfortable. At the end of the day, I have come to the conclusion that it is not a specific portrayal of femininity that I have issues with, but rather than concept of visually depicting femininity at all.
Now, I've read some fascinating stuff on the importance of the female form, and this isn't what I'm talking about here. Not the female form, but femininity is a concept is what I would argue is problematic. The moment you take a concept like that, one that affects everyone and that is a part of every individual to some extent, and you fix a visual representation of it, you limit what it can be. To be feminine is blonde, so to be any other hair colour is somehow deficient. To be feminine is to - in Fulla's case - cover up your arms and legs, so to disagree with that is to be deficient. I don't believe that children are born with any particular stamp on their identities that dictate how feminine or masculine they will be; that is something that society imprints upon them. Dolls, I would argue, are the main apparatus for imprinting the idea of 'the feminine' upon little girls, and are the mould into which girls are shoved into. 'Doll-like' is still an acceptable positive phrase in describing a quiet, tidy, impeccably turned-out girl, and the more I think on it, the more I find the entire concept absolutely terrifying.
What are your thoughts on this? I find myself coming to an unexpected conclusion - that dolls, or any visual depiction of abstract concepts such as 'the feminine' or 'the masculine' that we use to 'educate' children - are necessarily oppressive, as they limit the possibilities of a child's gender development along 'acceptable' lines. Do you agree? Disagree? Do you think that the arrival of Fulla is positive event, despite the concerns stated above?
x-posted to
feminist![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2006-02-10 11:55 pm (UTC)Hmm - agreed. From the laundry list of pressures affecting girls' body image, especially girls young enough to be unironically playing with Barbie, doll-shape is not high on the list. How many correctly-proportioned human toys are there, anyway? I doubt Barbie is more influential on children's self-image than the cabbage patch kids... like
And after a certain age, a lot of kids mangle and mutilate" (http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,17618863-13762,00.html) Barbies, anyway - I know that's all I ever did with her. This does not appear to be correlated with any rejection of society's body ideal for women (sadly).
no subject
Date: 2006-02-11 03:14 pm (UTC)My issue is not with any specific example of a doll, whether it be correctly-proportioned or whatever, but, rather, wondering whether the very problem lies with the link between a toy - a doll - and it representing a specific interpretation of femininity. If that link doesn't exist - and that is open to debate, too - or if it can be severed, then I have no problem with dolls. It's the 'fixing' of any one image of 'femininity' that I have a problem with...
no subject
Date: 2006-02-11 12:04 pm (UTC)I basically agree with everything you said. Right on. I would articulate, but I'm hungover...
no subject
Date: 2006-02-11 03:16 pm (UTC)I don't know, not many people seem to! I'm not sure whether it's because I've explained myself poorly or what, but everyone seems to be focusing on a specific image - the Fulla doll, or the Barbie - rather than link between abstract concept and their anthropomorphisation (if that word can be used in this context) in dolls. Meh. Turns out that I've been contaminated by postmodernism and didn't even notice!