Dolls and feminism

Barbie is a symbol of a problem, not the problem itself. It isn't as if all women had great body image concepts until Barbie came along. Rather, Barbie reinforced gender roles and concepts of beauty in the same way that an entire society reinforced gender roles and concepts of beauty.

I don't think Brats are slutty, and those who call them that are reinforcing the Virgin/Whore aspect of women. Women who are sexual are called "sluts" and "whores" - even when they aren't easy to get into bed, and never take money for sex. Take the song "Ho ho ho" song - it's a song about how a girl cheated on a guy, so she's a "ho". Cheating on someone isn't a positive thing, but that makes her a cheater, not someone who takes money for sex. But she's called a "whore" for comedy. Now THAT is problematic. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nZmsBfw03tg

 

I think there is enough variety in the BJD market (if you can tear yourself away from CP and Volks and the more "anime" look dolls) for there to be very little problem with how the female body/face is portrayed, and after all they are customizable by design, so how the doll winds up looking is down to the owner up to a point.

I personally don't want to own dolls that I find unattractive, so I don't want a plump body with a double chin and a wrinkly face (I can provide that myself, thanks!). If that sounds like I have a negative body image it's simply a realistic reflection of the fact that I want my dolls to be able to wear the clothes that, I, as a middle aged woman, no longer feel I can get away with.

For me, dolls have always been about fantasy, and were always there for me to project my fantasy self onto. When I was little girl it didn't bother me that Barbie was a tall blonde and had enormous hooters when I was average build, flat chested (I was 8 after all, boy did they sprout in my teens - I could have made Barbie feel deflated later on) with dark hair. Barbie did not make me feel inferior, mainly because she looked so vacuous. Being from the UK, I also had a Sindy doll who had a ridiculously bulbous head, she didn't make me feel inferior because my head was normal size. (Sindy was also pretty flat chested and had thick ankles... poor Sindy)

My favourite childhood fashion doll was always Mary Quant's Daisy doll. She had amazing streaky blonde curls and was short slim and flat chested too. I had curly hair and so bought a dark haired Daisy who became my alter ego. The fact I looked nothing like the doll never came into it because dolls are about fantasy. I think there are so many things out there in the world trying to dictate how women should look and behave but I have always seen dolls as innocent and a positive thing. I still do

 

on a side note, I would like to question: WHO THE HELL WANTS TO LOOK LIKE A BRATZ DOLL??? from age 10 to 12, I owned about 50. obviously, I loved them. I liked how they were styled. it was so cartoonish and therefore, very different from the other dolls sold at that time. back then, the other big seller was Barbie. she was made to seem realistic but kinda failed at it. but back to bratz, because of how unrealistic they looked, I never wanted to look like them! huge eyes, no nose, huge lips -even for women with fake lips- and a head that really didn't fit on the body!

for BJD: I can hardly find girl bodies I like. so no, they do not affect how I feel about my body. I hate big breasts. for me, the smaller the better! most dolls have breast bigger than what I want for myself. face wise it really depends. most dolls are still too stylised for my taste. I feel like crap face-wise compared to about 95% of real girls. dolls have never affected how I see myself :/
I like what I find pretty, and what I find pretty is young and really really slim. kinda like supia I guess

 

I personally hated barbie, I never had one except one somebody gave me as a gift and I promptly pulled off it's head and played a creative sports game with it....(I was a tomboy)

Uhm most of the dolls (actually all of them) are pretty darn realistic, my girls have tiny tummies but they're not perfectly flat, they have proportional bodies etc. My boy is super muscular but I don't need them to be.

Also, barbie revamped their girls bodies to more realistic torsos (like years back) so they're thicker etc.

I'm in this for dolls I like, I enjoy the idea of an older looking doll but I don't want a fat one (the jointing would be too weird to get one with a hanging belly etc). There's plenty of older male models and I have a floaty head modeled after an older female. Of course they're all "pretty" but take one look at all the sculpts bjd heads have and they're all different!

BJDS aren't supposed to be "fashionistas" or "the popular girl" or "perfect" they're modeled towards you making them whatever you want them to be ( I have yet to see a barbie inspired BJD)

 

I agree with you that the concept of Virgin vs. Whore is problematic. The way female sexuality is presented and perceived (namely as either non-existent, or "slut/whore") in our society is unfair, wrong and sometimes disgusting. And the reason for this is the male attempt to control female sexuality. Hence, we also shouldn't forget that there is always a third quality which the Virgin and the Whore share - the Object. Not in the sense of "object of desire", but in the sense of "thing", "dehumanized", "reduced to a certain function".

I don't see this duality in BJDs, though - since they are customizable, you can make as many concepts as you want. Even the company-styled dolls are often neither Virgin nor Whore.

And I want to ask you what you meant with your words about Bratz? Are you speaking for them? Against them? Or just disagreeing with the choice of words ("slutty")?

I wouldn't ever think of calling them "slutty". But they are clearly sexualized and reduced to certain features. They do not appear to be empowered self-confident women or girls who enjoy their sexuality to me, rather like objects. They are pictures of women how they are seen by the male gaze - in a comic-like school-book version for little girls. By the way, MyScene is as bad as, if not even worse than, Bratz.

Compared to them, normal Barbies, Moxies, Livs, ... (insert hundert other brands here) are much less sexualized... and "female" BJDs are also much less objectified and exagerrated, even though they are anatomically correct.

 

As a feminist I have never applied it to the doll hobby. As a teenager I gave a presentation about how harmful Barbie is to young women...I find it cringe worthy now!
Some people assume dolls will have a negative impact on how a young person views their own body, but I like to think that children are much more intelligent and have better things to think about than that.
Dolls are dolls, they are engineered to be posable and just happen to be beautiful.
Im male and I have never compared my own body to a male doll body, most I find to be either ultra skinny or ultra muscular. Theyre just good shapes for putting clothing on. They resemble the male form but not enough. I didnt grow up thinking my Action Man or He Man were what I should look like, I was too busy playing with them!
I own female dolls now and not once would I ever think to compare them with my girlfriend, it would be like comparing a stuffed toy cat to an actual cat.
I would find it interesting to hear from other male doll owners and how they feel about this issue.

EDIT: Last sentence was a bit off, and wasnt what I meant to say and is no way meant offensively. I just want men to be able to join in with their personal viewpoints.

I agree very much with this!

 

I think that it is completely legitimate for you to want to hear from other male doll owners and how they feel about this issue, and I am also interested about how men see it. Expecially males who own dolls - they are already non-conforming to a certain degree, according to today's extremely gendered mainstream society, so they might have interesting things to say about this topic! And after all, there are also male dolls (almost more than there are female dolls!), and I would love to see if there is any connection between the doll hobby and hence male bodies (though in doll form) being exposed to the "female gaze" (whether it is a distinct phenomenon or a cross-identification with the masculinity... there are different theories - but I see it as overtly present in the doll hobby!) and self image for guys.

BUT...

Your last sentence comes off as really offensive to me. Maybe because of the language barrier, English is not my native laguage. Still, I find it offensive.

When female humans (yes, I write this because I see your last words as a reaction to my entry among others) write about the male gaze, the Virgin/Whore duality, control of female sexuality by the male/patriarchal power, or other topics that are actually present in feminist writings, and discuss it in connection to dolls, in a debate thread that is actually about dolls and feminism - and the OP did ask about female doll bodies specifically - it is legitimate as well.

When you say, you don't want this debate to steer towards what women "assume what men think about women", you belittle and deny very real experiences of women as a class with men as a class. We might just not be talking about what your girlfriend, Alice Schwarzer or I think about you (personal "you"). You might be a cool and nice guy, and a feminist - but men as a class were and are not cool, nice and feminist towards women all the time.

As a feminist, like you worded it, you might also be familiar with women's studies, historical facts, and maybe also feminist theory - where aspects mentioned, like the "male gaze", are discussed - and hence understand these are not mere personal assumptions.




EDIT: I am not taking anything honestrabbit said as offensive anymore, because I know now how his words were meant. I am leaving this post as it is though, because I think that distinguishing between personal opinions/experiences and the aspects of feminist theory is helpful for a debate like this.

 

I think it is sometimes difficult to express exactly what is meant in words on a forum when it comes to debate, but please do not take what I meant as offensive, I completely understand and agree with the experience and view points of men as a class and women as a class. I understand the difference between the personal 'you' and 'men' in feminist theory, I am glad you have defined the two for any future discussion on this thread, it wasnt aimed at you or anyone in particular. I think I was trying to sort of say I wanted men to be able to join in the debate. I will do some editing

 

Thank you! =)
Like already mentioned, I would also welcome men to join in and write about their opinions and experiences with the issue discussed here.

 

THIS! I owned a male companion for Sindy named Mark (I think) and when I took him round to my female friends house they would say they didnt want to play with him because he had a bulbous head! I used to think he was awesome but disliked my Ken, whilst they liked him better. I think not only could we find things about a doll to make us feel inferior but there are things about them that we could feel superior to! For every negative I think we can find a positive.

 

I'll be the first honest person on here and say YES sometimes objects can affect my self-esteem.

I don't like that the discussion is mixing children toys with ABJD. I don't think the opening commentator meant for us to wonder about how Barbies and Bratz affect a child's development.

If you want to discuss sometime demeaning to women as adults, I suggest things like this: http://www.entertainmentearth.com/hitlist.asp?eeshop=51&Theme=Anime/Manga&SearchOrder=thm

I do not feel that BJDs, my own or those belonging to others, are a threat to my self image. I see these dolls as a work of art. Like with all art: I do not really know what the company was thinking when they made i;. I do not really know what the owner was driving at when they took that picture. All I know is my life experiences and personal biases, and how these feelings drive how I interact with the hobby.

Viewing the world while always thinking "and why do I feel that way?" helps keep me from being offended most of the time. (From the standpoint of a girl who still thinks inequality exists, I still am unhappy with the linked anime figurines, and things like all the batman villain-girls being slutty unimportant add-ons in an otherwise good game)

 

I think this topic is in danger of not being specific enough, could the original poster or someone else perhaps suggest some specific questions to answer?

 

I think the key difference is demographics. Bratz and Barbie present a certain body type as sexy and ideal, aimed toward young girls. Girls project themselves onto their dolls in most cases, it's a developmental thing. BJDs have a variety of body types and are primarily meant as vehicles for the artistic expression of adults. (I don't consider Monster High to be in this model because of the fantasy element.)

I think that's the main difference, really. So as a feminist, I don't see anything as inherently problematic about the dolls.

 

The questions asked by the OP were the following:

I dare to contradict you: you are (most probably - one can never be sure ) not the "first honest person on here". From what I understand, this discussion is not about objects being generally able to influence our self-esteem - it is specifically about BJD dolls and feminism. And you say yourself that BJDs are NOT a threat to your self-image. So why do you judge about the (dis-)honesty of others about them being influenced by objects generally, when they are actually only talking about BJDs or dolls - and in this case, you are even saying the same as most of them?

And I also think that talking about other doll types in comparison to BJDs can be relevant to this topic.

But I like what you say about viewing dolls as art. I think the "art" aspect is really interesting in this debate, since most collectors do see their dolls as art.

Even works of art can have an impact on one's self-image in my opinion. Let's take those figurines you mentioned for a brief example. Imagine an independent sculptor making a one-off figurine of an original character; clothed in exactly the same kind of clothing (or lack of...), in the same "sexy" pose. Is it better for your self-image to see such a figurine somewhere on the internet than it is to see the mass-produced ones? And what about the "mass-produced" figurines that are made from resin, just like the BJDs, and sculpted by someone - aren't they art, just as much as our dolls? Besides, why do you think you know what the sculptor of the prototype of the figurine thought or felt at the time he or she made it, but don't know what another artist thought during the creation of a picture? Or do you feel that art is not able to carry a misogynistic image in general?

 

Clothing is not slutty, behavior is slutty. Behavior cannot be determined solely by the way someone looks. Therefore, a doll cannot be slutty unless it's owner gives it a slutty behavior. Personally, I don't find the Bratz dolls from this season any more sexual than Barbie, Liv, Monster High, or the Moxie girls.

I object to using words like "slut" or "whore" to describe the way a person, or a doll, looks. Using that terminology also reinforces the idea of women as objects. I do not find tank tops or short skirts inappropriate or overly sexual like some members of our society do.

If someone walks down the street naked, they are not a slut. They are a person walking down the street naked. You could call it inappropriate. You could call it provocative. But it isn't slutty.

 

For me, dolls being idealized just isn't an issue. I'm happy with my face and my body, a doll having ideal features isn't going to affect how I feel about myself at all. In fact, I find myself drawn to dolls that have similar features as me and even wishing there were dolls with BIGGER breasts like mine. (in my family a DD is pretty tiny so a doll with breasts that size wouldn't be unrealistically large or something) What I do think is unrealistic is to expect asian doll companies to make chubby dolls or girl dolls with very large crooked noses, etc...because those things are so uncommon as to be almost non-existant. (does that mean they're bad? No, just not common where the dolls are being produced) I think if looking at a doll is making someone feel bad about themselves, maybe they should start thinking of it differently. Not "oh that doll is pretty and I'm ugly" but "how can I make the most of what *I* have?" You wouldn't listen to a master pianist and say "aww I suck because I can't play like that" you'd either enjoy thier gifts, or if you wanted to do it too you'd practice and make it happen. There is no single cookie cutter image for beauty, you just have to do what's best for you. What clothes flatter your body, what hairstyle compliments your face and skin, etc...compared to the diversity real women can have, dolls can't hold a candle XD

 

I think my problem with the words "slut" or "whore", etc, is to do with the very real fact that in previous centuries these terms were used against women who were "freakish" enough to enjoy sex. For most of mankind's history (certainly in Western culture) a woman was merely there to put herself through sex acts with her man to procreate children. The woman was thought to "endure" sex for this purpose, and women who appeared to want, need or enjoy sex were often locked away in sanitoriums.

A "fallen woman" or prostitute had to suffer the double standard that while men eagerly paid her for sex, and would pay a lot more if she appeared to enjoy it, she was then further damned for that bizarre behaviour, which was seen as "against nature". Even as recently as Victorian times it was thought that a man dying of Syphilis could be cured by having sex with a child virgin, that the syphilis would be transferred to the innocent while he would walk away free of infection. THAT is objectifying women!

Down the centuries, and even here in our modern culture, there are so many outrageous cruelties and double standards forced upon women (we do make up MORE than half of the human population!) that I can't understand why dolls should be a subject of feminist outrage. Dolls celebrate everything that is good and beautiful about the female form and so what if it is idealized? Hasn't the male form also been idealized since the dawn of time in statues and art, or do we seriously believe that all ancient Greek men looked like Adonis?

Beauty is always something to be celebrated and if you feel that there are standards of beauty which you will never attain then subvert then. That is what art is about and these dolls are here to be customized and made into your own ideal. I think BJDs are less about objectifying than any other doll in history because the sculptor creates a figure that will have life breathed into it by the owner. With subtractive and additive modifications you can make them look anyway you want. If you really want a fat doll them create clothing with cleaver padding that will make up for the shortfall in resin. BJDs are what we make them so it's a bit rich to turn round and blame the sculptors for what we don't have the imagination to do with them.

 

Frankly, I think it's very annoying to just have one single body type everywhere. Other body types can be pretty as well, even if the media doesn't want us to think so. Think about it: We have to put up with seeing men like Homer Simpson. And he's fat and bald, but hey, he gets to be the hero sometimes. A woman with a potbelly? Nu-uh. We don't see girls like that on the telly, because they do not fit a very rigid standard of "pretty". Women are supposed to be pretty, and if they are not, they're not worth being a love interest to a male character. Her personality, quirks, and ability to do things do not affect her personal value, as the important part is her appearence. If she is pretty, she has a right to screentime[/Sarcasm]

Remember the victorian era? A lady had to be curvy back then. And as long as her face was pretty, nobody gave a bloody damn about her weight(Unless she was severely un-curvy). It's a little sad that there are no pretty dolls who do appear to have a healthy, proper body weight. Honestly, if I'm going to have victorian clothes in dolls sizes, I'd like a doll who would look good in them. And I wouldn't mind if she was pretty in a realistic rather than idealized way.

This goes for the male dolls as well, in a way, as they are tailored to fit an asian standard of beauty.
I honestly wish there existed ones that looked just a little more male. As much as I love the bishounen aesthetic(Hello there, Mr/ms double standard!), I'd like to see more dolls that are slightly more masculine.

 

do the pretty female dolls out there affect how you feel about yourself, if you're a woman, or women, if you're a man?
They do not affect me at all. I like a doll for the artistry of the doll. I don't think dolls are about real life at all. So I don't compare myself with dolls.

And do you think your ideas of feminity have led you to feel differently about female dolls?
No. I think women of different shapes, sizes , races and features have their own beauty. A doll is just a doll.

What do you consider feminine in a doll?
I think that I do like a doll who has a feminine shape-that is a waist, larger hips and average breasts. Not all are stick straight. I do like a doll with an interesting face.

And do you think BJDs impact on your ideas of feminism?
Not at all. I have my own views separate from doll collecting. That's my hobby not my personal outlook.
This was interesting, though, as I had never pondered these questions before.

 

So what I want to know is: do the pretty female dolls out there affect how you feel about yourself, if you're a woman, or women, if you're a man?
I derive pleasure from looking at them, but I don't compare myself or want to emulate BJDs at all. I personally wouldn't mind finding one that looks like me.

And do you think your ideas of feminity have led you to feel differently about female dolls?
I feel the way a woman presents herself is feminine, simply because she's a woman. Whether it fits into traditional ideas or not. I extend this to dolls as well.

What do you consider feminine in a doll? And do you think BJDs impact on your ideas of feminism?
A mischievous twinkle in her eye. Not really. I do see dolls as avatars embodying the human form, but because they're whatever the owner wants to make of them I think it doesn't directly affect me.