What's the Fascination

I know this is a 4 year old topic but whatever >.< IMO those who don't financially support companies making chubbier dolls by buying (or saving up for) those dolls have no leg to stand on when it comes to telling more companies to make those type of dolls. The reason human clothing companies started making way more plus sized clothing/option isn't because a few people wanted to see it but didn't buy it, it's because the demand greatly increased and people were actually buying that clothing in droves. These are products and they have to sell. You can admire the concept all you want but if you don't buy it then it will fail. Companies don't sit there going "I know if we make a heftier doll line people will love it and it will sell but I hate fat people and think they're gross so I would rather not have the money." They don't care, they will make what sells. If you want to convince other buyers to change their own beauty standards or what have you then make the plus sized dolls you bought look as awesome as possible and share them around to get other people hooked :3

 

(I know this was directed at americanseamstress, but that message was years ago and I don't know how active they are, so I would like to respond as well if you don't mind)

So, I am not sure exactly what you mean by your tastes conforming to all those things, if it's hypothetical or not, but I do not believe any of those (sexism, racism, homophobia, fat-phobia) to be "tastes" or have anything to do with aesthetics. You could perhaps make an argument that certain races or body types in general are less aesthetically appealing to you, but minority groups are just as varied in their looks as the majority is, so I feel it would be close-minded for someone to say that all people of X group are unattractive to them. Bringing homophobia into also strikes me as odd, as peoples' sexualities are a very personal, internal part of who they are, and don't have to do with their looks in any inherent way.

I believe the goal in subverting and diversifying current beauty standards is just to have more variety and representation for everyone, including those who are currently represented the most in media. Like, in this case people would like to see more varied body types for dolls. That doesn't mean anyone is calling for companies to stop making thinner dolls altogether, or that they expect that to ever happen.

 

I just saw this on instagram and I just happened to also find this post.
Login • Instagram
I think a lot more chubby dolls are popping here and there lately.
I don’t really like chibby myself, because I’m very fit and into sports…I see chubby as unhealthy. But I absolutely like the idea of having more variety and I do like seeing what people do whit their chubby dolls.

 

Yes please!

This is exactly where I think the interesting conversation is! Just to give a really straightforward example, a key concept/phrase in this hobby is "Normal Skin." It's pretty hard for me to not identify that as a racist concept. It privileges a certain range of skin tones as "normal," quietly rendering everyone else's appearance "abnormal." Does that mean people who are satisfied with white, NS and maybe sometimes tan are evil racists who need to be stopped or the world is going to explode? No. What I think often gets lost in this kind of conversation is that these terms (fatphobia, racism, etc...) unhelpfully cover a whole gamut of attitudes and behaviours from awful stuff like genocide at one end to much less dramatic stuff like privileging of certain bodies as more beautiful on the other.

And while we can all (hopefully) agree that the former end is bad and should be stopped at every turn, the latter end is much trickier because it's not clear (at least to me) whether we should want to do away with cultural beauty standards or what we should want to turn them into.

Hm... that's fair. I probably got carried away with my list. While I live in a culture that's pretty heteronormative, the BJD community incorporates a level of sexual and gender fluidity that's really inspirational... breathtaking even. We could talk about how the desire for more muscular girl bodies struggles against heteronormative ideas about femininity, but that's a whole 'nuther can of worms.

Agree. I'm on board with this 100%. I'm just also a compulsive over-thinker who can't stop picking at things.
...Like how the proliferation of niche luxury product choices doesn't necessarily change cultural standards. No matter how many flavours of Ben and Jerry's we get, I keep hearing the word "vanilla" used to mean "normal."

So Cool! Thank you!

 

It's really interesting to see how availability has changed within the few years since this thread was originally posted; perhaps not enough given both how few bigger dolls exist and how they are still less known, but still the march of progress is evident. Honestly I think that, along with most things, 3d printing is really going to advance our ability to create the things we want to see and encourage more experimentation. Also, once people see bigger dolls that pose well there won't as much hangup on "fat rolls" which seems to have been some of the "evidence" supporting these dolls not being made - but thats the same line of thought that designers used to use to support them not offering larger sizes ("it doesn't look right"). We all have biases and I personally think it behooves us to not only recognize when they jump up, but also to actively work in dismantling biases that were foisted onto us by a bigoted society so that we can generate a future society that isn't held back by those ideas. A little rambly and idealistic, sure, but there's no divorcing the types of dolls we see from the mores of the societies who give rise to the artists that create them.

 

@Errantry

We don't really grow up outside of the society that we are raised in, so we can't really say that our opinions are wholly "personal" or intrinsic. What we view as beautiful, as aspirational, as sexy, as taboo, as shameful, etc. are all shaped by society. That's how we get beauty ideals that change so much with respect to location and time. When I was growing up, rich people paid to go to tanning beds and used self tanner religiously, whereas if you went to Korea or even 17th century Europe, you'd get a different story and pale skin would be in.

So if that's what you mean by "outside of our control," I disagree. What we find as attractive is very much in society's control, very much due to socialization. And furthermore, just because a decision is personal, doesn't make it free from morality or free from the burden of self-examination. Self-examination of our very personal opinions and desires, for example, is how movements such as feminism were able to deconstruct the internalized prejudices which limited women so that they could imagine a future without gendered hierarchy.

Many people historically (and even in present day) have very entrenched, very personal feelings that women just aren't as funny as men, just aren't as smart as men, just aren't as deserving of high wages as men, just aren't as deserving of the same respect of men, and we wouldn't tell them not to examine these positions just because they claim to be personal. Personal opinions color one's life and one's actions, and therefore have the ability to affect other people, and therefore, yes, we have a duty to examine them.

So to respond to your questions:

So, to be a little more concrete, if I find that my personal tastes conform to deeply sexist, objectifying, fat-phobic, racist, homophobic standards, am I responsible only for noting that this is the case and then trying my best to behave justly to people IRL regardless of my admittedly prejudiced aesthetic biases?

I think we would both agree that obviously this is true. Beauty standards are heavily influenced by society and thus recapitulate the biases society already holds against those in the outgroup, whether this means fat people, racial and ethnic minorities (conventionally "attractive" features are horribly Eurocentric), etc.

In other words, beauty standards are a type of bias where we have learned to value particular physical characteristics over others. Due to the cultural and temporal variablility of these beauty ideals (some of which very much go against fertility or health signifiers) I am very much skeptical of those who believe they are intrinsic or biological. When your internal biases against a particular demographic leak out into your actions in the real world and whether you treat other people with respect and dignity, yes, we have a problem

...Or am I responsible for trying to change my preferences? ...which is a much more daunting (maybe impossible?) project to take on.

And as for the following, it depends on what you mean by "responsible."

Movements seeking to advance the rights of a particular group, to remove stigma against them, to eliminate structural bias and oppression which harms them aren't interested in being the thought police for an individual person. Your thoughts are your own, moral or not, right or not. I think there are other ethical concerns in social justice movements attempting to ensure morality (which requires, to a certain extent, authenticity of an action and consistency of thought), instead of advocating for ethical behavior (in this case, behaviors which allow for maximizing equity and fairness to all groups).

So this is where your definition of "responsible" comes in. Do I think you should be responsible to others to ensure that internally you have eliminated all bias against fat people, for instance? Do I think others should be able to ensure that you are trying to explore attraction to groups of people that you might have not considered before? No.

I also think it's a bit bizarre (and honestly a really common specter or caricatured representation of the argument activists tend to make--but it wouldn't work as propaganda if people didn't so readily believe it, so I'm not surprised) to center this discussion on your personal attraction to other people when this is very much an issue of larger societal groups and the discrimination which results from this beauty ideal at a systemic level. Right, like my point is about how fatphobia which is pervasive in society has permeated all aspects of it including preferences in BJDs. It's a very macro-level concern.

To illustrate the macro aspect of the issue I'm actually concerned with, in one field (that I'm most familiar with), fatphobia has dangerous and even deadly results: fat people are less likely to be referred to a specialist for major heath concerns, they're more likely to have their symptoms dismissed, they're more likely to have their symptoms attributed solely to their weight. It's so serious the AMA has a whole statement about it (Weight Bias in Health Care).

But do you have that personal responsibility to yourself as someone trying to deconstruct the biased socialization we all receive from a young age? That's a question for yourself. I think the better way to frame it would be to look at myself: Do I believe I have a moral imperative to address biases that I may hold against a particular demographic, regardless of whether they might be affecting my external actions? Yes, I feel I owe it to other people to do so.

You may never find yourself attracted to people or dolls you deem "fat," but again, like I said, that's not my personal concern. But I think you're mistaken in thinking that your thoughts regarding other people are impossible to change. Perhaps I'm a romantic sort of person, or perhaps there is something in me which deeply loves other people, but I don't find it hard to fine something to like in nearly everyone I meet. I find that even for people I don't understand or don't think I'd find anything in common with, and therefore I'm not particularly attracted to, getting to know somebody, humanizing them, goes a long way. Changing how you see people not deemed aesthetically attractive by society then changes how you perceive that societal bias, societal beauty ideal in general. There's even decades of research into working to address bias that support this anecdotal observation. So it's very much not impossible.

Also, I feel like it's worth asking (in a naive way... I really don't have clear answers for myself here) what's the end game? Is there a beauty ideal different from the prevailing one that would be preferable? Would we want a plethora of competing beauty ideals? Would we want no prevailing beauty ideal at all? Should the idea of beauty itself (which necessarily prefers one thing to another) be gotten rid of?

I think this question itself illustrates how socialization narrows our perspective and limits our ability to think about a particular concept. I think the better question is, "Why should beauty and beauty ideals have any influence on society at all? Why have we as a society constructed this institution of the ideal beauty such that it creates a hierarchy which leads to bias against certain aesthetics or people?"

It might to be hard to envision what this means. Think of handedness. There is less of a socially constructed hierarchy of handedness where I live at least any more. There is no existence of "dexterism" (good; right handed) and "sinisterism" (bad; left handed) which determines your worth in society, your health outcomes, whether you get properly compensated, whether people think you're attractive. It doesn't exist. But it did once. Left handed people were once outcast from society and even in my father's generation, they tried to beat the left handedness out of people. (Now keep in mind I say less because there still is systemic bias against left handed people in society: because society is constructed for right handed people, left handed people are still at a greater risk of injury and death, but the level of prejudice isn't there.)

Similarly, in these types of advocacy circles, the direction the thought moves in is something called "body neutrality," a response to the "body positivity" philosophy that you kind of reference that anything is beautiful. Body neutrality states that being beautiful shouldn't be a requirement for living a happy and fulfilling life. That "ugliness" or "beauty" should have no influence on how you are treated in society and that, essentially, we should work to dismantle the hierarchy of people and aesthetics caused by having beauty ideals. So your final statement.

And finally... What if I want an ugly doll? Like, not just a doll that's beautiful in its own way, but a doll that actively produces discomfort in me? Is this a subversive gesture, or just another way to confirm dominant prejudices?

I mean, I think that question is fraught because of what "ugly" means to us and society. "Ugly," is not a politically neutral designation, just like "beautiful" is not. "Ugly" tends to be things like non-Eurocentric features, fatness, disability, etc. and I think it's probably the average person's place (if you lack a particular marginalized characteristic under this umbrella of "ugly) to listen to activists with these identities when they say that it's fetishistic or harmful to them in some way. You might see why someone with the condition this "ugliness" mirrors might be upset to hear that you view them as disconcerting or their very existence subversive.

So again, this is a question you must ask yourself: why do I believe something is ugly and what is the history of this thing being considered ugly?

 

@americanseamstress

You make some really good points here! It gives me food for thought re: my own interest in dolls and figures that don't always fit "conventional" beauty ideals. While it's true that sculpts and character dolls are most frequently designed with those ideals and related standards in mind, I personally think that it's to the detriment of creativity in many cases. Plus, it doesn't accurately represent the diversity of appearances and aesthetics in the world to declare that dolls' appearances must fall in line with a strictly limited range to be considered "appealing" to buyers.

This is probably a bit of preaching to the choir on my part, though.

 

@americanseamstress OMG you replied! Yay!

First off, I'm totally onboard with the idea that tastes and standards are socially constructed. It's not personal. it's not biology. My preferences are the outcome of my history of negotiating with what society has told me my preferences should be. Check.

The only exception(s) to my mind would be that maybe there is some amount of freedom in that space of negotiation and/or maybe I can adopt a conscious program of socializing myself to be different. ...But whether those would actually get you any breathing room from being socially determined I couldn't say.

Also totally onboard with feminism. Radical feminism even. I quite like bell hooks, but maybe that dates me.

I think we both agree that it's obviously true except for the word "only," which I'm at least still trying to work out...

This is really helpful. The first statement answers my question very succinctly. For my own money, I think this is an important point because I think there is a strong tendency for people to become defensive when they feel they are being accused of being fatphobic (or racist, or sexist or what have you). This position opens the space to say "I don't really care if you are fatphobic. That's not really on you. What matters is whether you behave in fatphobic ways."

The second one I feel like you're cheating a little bit with the reference to external enforcement, but I think maybe you're just trying to leave yourself room for your own personal commitment which you spell out further on:

This helps me make sense of what you were pointing to in bringing up morality vs ethics and my use of the word responsibility: On the one hand is the baseline that everyone should be held to (don't allow bias to produce oppressive behaviour) and on the other hand is a higher standard that it would be heroic to devote yourself to, but that it wouldn't make sense to require of anyone (actually trying to transform your own socialization to eliminate biases).

Do I have that right? Am I close?

So, like, the predominant skinniness of BJDs is (one among millions of pieces of) evidence of fatphobia, which lots of people don't realize or refuse to accept is a thing. But it's important that we do accept that it's a thing because it has all these very bad effects that don't have anything to do with dolls, like for example unequal access to healthcare. Do I have that right?

To push back a little, I don't think it's that bizarre for someone on a doll-related forum to hear "the skinny dolls that you like are a product of societal fatphobia which is obviously bad," as "you are fatphobic for liking skinny dolls and you shouldn't be that way or at least you should feel bad about it." I'm not saying that's not a gross mischaracterization of your argument. I'm just saying I don't think you need a propagandist to get there.

Here we go! This is super interesting. I'd love some reading refs for body neutrality if you could drop some on me.

It's hard for me to picture in that I have trouble distinguishing this from the "beauty should be gotten rid of" option. I'm not sure what beauty means if it's not a matter of preferring one thing over the other, unbalancing an otherwise indifferent equality. That doesn't mean it can't mean anything else, just that I don't see it (yet). There may be a paradigm shift involved...

I'll confess that part of the reason this years old conversation excited me so much is that it happened in such a perfect/impossible context. If you take socially-constructed aesthetic preference away from doll collecting, is there anything left? If I cared about my doll's sculpt (and pose and clothes and makeup...) the same amount I care about whether someone is lefthanded, I'm pretty sure I wouldn't be here. But again, maybe I'm being glib because I don't get it yet. Maybe the point is to distinguish preference from hierarchy...?

Argh! The heart of the beast! I keep turning this one over and over in my mind, trying to get a good grip on it, and it keeps eluding me. (Which is delightful. Thank you!) I want to say something about Doll Chateau's Irma, maybe even about horror as a pop culture genre... but it's too big for me to figure out just now.

While I'm busy mulling, have you checked out the podcast Maintenance Phase? It's pretty great and might be right up your alley.

Thank you again so much for replying!
I hope this is as fun for you as it is for me!
Errantry

 

@Errantry

The second one I feel like you're cheating a little bit with the reference to external enforcement, but I think maybe you're just trying to leave yourself room for your own personal commitment which you spell out further on

Nah. Not cheating. Read my response over. I specifically outline why my position is what it is:

I think there are other ethical concerns in social justice movements attempting to ensure morality (which requires, to a certain extent, authenticity of an action and consistency of thought), instead of advocating for ethical behavior (in this case, behaviors which allow for maximizing equity and fairness to all groups).

In other words, telling someone how they must think and feel about something opens the door to worse ethics violation in most activists view than not policing thought. In order to be moral, in this situation, you must genuinely care for other people, all people, regardless of appearance, and put genuine and good faith effort into unlearning the biases which we have been taught as children against people who do not conform to beauty ideals. People need things for their own, and as I state, to reiterate:

morality (which requires, to a certain extent, authenticity of an action and consistency of thought)

In other words, you have full control over your behavior, over how you treat other people. But you don't have full control of your thoughts (that's why intrusive thoughts exist). Its a common quote to reference in these circles that

Your first thought is what you've been conditioned to think; what you think next defines who you are.

I never denied that you can actively work to unlearn socialization. In fact, if you look back, you'll see I explicitly state you can:

Do I believe I have a moral imperative to address biases that I may hold against a particular demographic, regardless of whether they might be affecting my external actions? Yes, I feel I owe it to other people to do so.

It's just I don't think that thoughts should be forced, and practically speaking, I don't think they can. I do however, think they can be changed by the individual who holds them. That's literally the foundation of therapy which teaches people to fight unhealthy thought patterns which have no grounding in reality (anxiety spiraling/doomspiraling, unhealthy body image, etc). Obviously you can do it, or these therapies wouldn't exist.

So as for your summary of my thoughts:

On the one hand is the baseline that everyone should be held to (don't allow bias to produce oppressive behaviour) and on the other hand is a higher standard that it would be heroic to devote yourself to, but that it wouldn't make sense to require of anyone (actually trying to transform your own socialization to eliminate biases).

Also no. I expect more. As I stated, I think most justice movements focus on ethics, not morality due to the ethical concerns of trying to force morality on other people, not because being moral is noble but not expected of people, but because I think that everyone should be striving to improve themselves, and this is one of the ways that you can do so. I don't think there's anything morally neutral about choosing not to combat prejudice. Doing nothing only helps the status quo, and that itself is choosing a side.

For my own money, I think this is an important point because I think there is a strong tendency for people to become defensive when they feel they are being accused of being fatphobic (or racist, or sexist or what have you).

This is another pushback or warning that I choose not to devote my time to. Everybody's got limited time, and I don't think movements get anywhere by making people who've had the privilege of ignoring these things feel comfortable (not to mention there's a significant minority who will never be made comfortable and the concessions themselves weaken the message and the effort). I think it's more economical to focus my attention on actual concrete and physical things (marches, campaigns, health fairs, school talks, whatever).

Being defensive or feeling bad helps no one. No activist group is wants you to feel bad, but I don't say that to make anyone feel better. I think it's a pretty clear observation that focusing the conversation around whether or not something makes you feel bad about holding prejudice just centers a discussion meant to be about other people around yourself. It's selfish. No where in the discussion (here or in the works in the field) does it blame individual people for their prejudiced beliefs. In fact, I explicitly state it's due to socialization that we all have. What distinguishes you from the pack is not feeling bad, it's doing something about it. Changing your actions and thoughts is the first step.
So, like, the predominant skinniness of BJDs is (one among millions of pieces of) evidence of fatphobia, which lots of people don't realize or refuse to accept is a thing. But it's important that we do accept that it's a thing because it has all these very bad effects that don't have anything to do with dolls, like for example unequal access to healthcare. Do I have that right?

Eh. I think it's a stronger argument than that. Socialization touches all aspects of society and so the footholds of this type of prejudice are everywhere. You don't get to pick and choose in what facets of life you can keep a philosophy which harms people, nor what aspects of it are acceptable to keep. But I gave the example to underline that we're not just talking about "people feeling bad" here because they're not conventionally attractive, because they're dismissed as fat, we're talking about real, measurable, widespread, and significant harm.

To push back a little, I don't think it's that bizarre for someone on a doll-related forum to hear "the skinny dolls that you like are a product of societal fatphobia which is obviously bad," as "you are fatphobic for liking skinny dolls and you shouldn't be that way or at least you should feel bad about it." I'm not saying that's not a gross mischaracterization of your argument. I'm just saying I don't think you need a propagandist to get there.

Where's the propaganda? Do you find me inauthentic? Do you believe that my points are exaggerated?

And yes, I do find that a gross mischaracterization of my argument.

It's hard for me to picture in that I have trouble distinguishing this from the "beauty should be gotten rid of" option.

This is why I specifically make a point to speak in the context of body neutrality of "beauty as an institution." It may be that there are aspects of beauty which are specific to the individual and innate, kind of like how everyone has a personal style which may influence the degree to which they conform to the decade's particular normative fashion. I don't really care if there is or there isn't because this movement isn't particularly concerned with beauty on an individual level. That's why "get rid of beauty" is too simple, generalized to the point of meaninglessness, and nonspecific. We're talking about deconstructing normative beauty such that it doesn't color how people think, doesn't influence an individual's success in society.

I want to say something about Doll Chateau's Irma, maybe even about horror as a pop culture genre

I mean, it's true that horror is often used to reinforce society's fears and as a form of propaganda itself. You could talk about how horror fearmongers about mental illness, or how it pushes transphobia by fearmongering about trans people, or how apocalypse movies and doomsday prepping reality TV shows are fearporn for reactionary rightwing groups (here's another example along the same frame about how dominant groups versus outgroups might behave in a lawless Purge franchise like scenario), or how even the reality of horror can be rewritten as christian propaganda as examples.

 

Okay, first thing's first...

OMG no. My sense is that you are an authentic, passionate, engaged, thoughtful, caring person. I think of you as a political ally (though we will inevitably disagree on some finer details) and a kindred spirit (I don't know where you live in relation to the academy as an institution, but if you're not a lefty academic, you're doing an uncanny impression of one, and that's my people.)

I also don't think you're exaggerating. ...At least not any more than the rest of us. I have been known to engage in hyperbole from time to time.

I only mentioned propaganda because I was riffing off your earlier reply where you said...

Also, please know that if I seem flippant or disrespectful, it's not because I'm trying to discredit you or not taking what you say seriously. I rely on humour as a critical tool, but lord knows that can backfire, especially on the internet. If I tease, know that I am very much aware that I am the most laughable character of all. <here I need an emoji of an angel tripping and falling down a flight of stairs>

That said...

Okay, so from your POV it is my moral duty to try to eliminate bias in my spontaneous, socially determined thoughts, regardless of whether those thoughts are affecting my actions, but there's no way to impose that task externally (as a social ethic) because that ends in catastrophe. Am I closer now?

Completely fair. I get and respect this logic. I think I'm on the other side where movements don't get anywhere by heightening antagonism and refusing to engage the political enemy as a fellow human being with real problems and concerns (that they have nonetheless ruthlessly misidentified and are trying to solve in exactly the wrong way.)

I do try to draw a distinction between creating comfort through making concessions on the one hand and disarming the enemy by being playful and refusing to engage in "I'm right, you're wrong" dynamics on the other. My starting assumption is that we're all wrong, and the interesting bit is in investigating the differences in how we're wrong. This practice then hopefully provides a space to interrogate whether I really want to be wrong in the way that I am and not in some other way.

(Also, if you feel like I'm wasting your time, I'll completely understand. It's possible that I am.)

This I agree with 100%. It certainly limits my ability to think openly and creatively and challenge myself.

This one I'm less than 100% on. ...Not that I would by any means disparage or impugn activism as such. It's just that making people feel bad so that they will change is such a tried-and-true technique, it's hard to imagine that some activists somewhere don't think it's a pretty good idea.

...But you don't say that to needle my conscience. <-- Here I am teasing. Sorry.

...But presumably, in the society that has successfully deconstructed beauty as an institution, individuals would tend to have a different subjective relationship to beauty, no? To my mind, accepting the proposition that beauty ideals are socially constructed means accepting that my subjective relationship to beauty (along with everybody else's) is precisely what is at stake when we talk about subverting or transforming dominant beauty standards. (Which, to be clear, I'm up for. I'm just excited to try to imagine what it would be like.)

I also tend to think that individual or innate style always exists in negotiation with dominant forms, so that if the dominant forms change, all the things that differ from or resist or reject those forms will also have to change. Liking something different from the mainstream would probably feel very different (and perhaps be less satisfying) if the mainstream ceased to have its power.

Which is why "get rid of beauty" actually feels (slightly) more specific and concrete to me as an idea than "deconstructing normative beauty such that it doesn't color how people think." I can (at least try) to imagine what it would be like to live my life without finding some people more beautiful than others. Perhaps it would be liberating. But if I'm not determined by dominant forces or in opposition to them, and it's not biology, and I don't just get to choose, I'm not sure where else my beauty standard would come from.

Wow, these look great! Thank you! I do carry around the line that horror as a genre is fundamentally conservative, although I can't remember whose line it is. But you know what I'm going to do now, right? I'm gonna be like: "So in a liberated society do we not enjoy horror stories? Do we enjoy other kinds of stories instead, or do we not enjoy stories at all...?" and then I'm guessing you're going to be like "You're being vague and weird and I super don't care about that," which is totes fair. Maybe we should skip all of that and talk about feminist horror, which I currently know nothing about but am suddenly super excited to learn?

Much love,
Errantry

 

Okay, so from your POV it is my moral duty to try to eliminate bias in my spontaneous, socially determined thoughts, regardless of whether those thoughts are affecting my actions, but there's no way to impose that task externally (as a social ethic) because that ends in catastrophe. Am I closer now?

I guess. I think "catastrophe" is vague. I was being specific when I stated that I don't think it's ethical to try to force people to think a certain way and I also meant it when I stated that I had a two part reasoning and that the latter point is that it's just not realistic.

I think I'm on the other side where movements don't get anywhere by heightening antagonism and refusing to engage the political enemy as a fellow human being with real problems and concerns (that they have nonetheless ruthlessly misidentified and are trying to solve in exactly the wrong way.)

Eh. I don't think that philosophy applied without limits works very well. I also kind of reject the premise that I am antagonistic. I don't think it's antagonistic to be blunt or refuse to handhold someone. It's merely direct. I do think there's a phenomenon where if my statements were coming from someone else who looked a bit different than I, it would read less "bitchy" and more "direct."

Without limits, it means pretending that there are two valid sides of debate, it means platforming the other opinion, it means validating the other response in some way by making the idea of "should we respect people who aren't conventionally beautiful" seem like it's reasonable to debate. On the extreme end, this is how we get people thinking climate change and Covid19 vaccination are controversial issues. This philosophy can perpetuate significant harm.

My starting assumption is that we're all wrong, and the interesting bit is in investigating the differences in how we're wrong. This practice then hopefully provides a space to interrogate whether I really want to be wrong in the way that I am and not in some other way.

Again, "both sides have issues and are equally wrong" really obscures the nature of the problem when one of the positions legitimately causes harm. This isn't a coke versus pepsi sort of debate, it's a "should we value and respect other people" issue. There isn't really a "both sides" to the issue because any sort of compromise is compromising on the idea that we should respect other people.

It's just that making people feel bad so that they will change is such a tried-and-true technique

Big disagree. I think many people interpret activism in this way, but I don't think you necessarily have to. I find it's generally more of a phenomenon as people being bad at taking constructive criticism. They take constructive criticism of their behavior as rejection of an immutable characteristic of themselves (because, in some way, they center their identity around holding a privilege which addressing the issue would eliminate).

But presumably, in the society that has successfully deconstructed beauty as an institution, individuals would tend to have a different subjective relationship to beauty, no

Yep

To my mind, accepting the proposition that beauty ideals are socially constructed means accepting that my subjective relationship to beauty (along with everybody else's) is precisely what is at stake when we talk about subverting or transforming dominant beauty standards.

Sure, but that doesn't really contradict what I'm saying. Your sense of what is beautiful right now may change. It doesn't mean that without having a dominant social concept of conventional beauty prevents people from finding things beautiful.

Liking something different from the mainstream would probably feel very different (and perhaps be less satisfying) if the mainstream ceased to have its power.

I mean, only if you're a stereotypical hipster and like things because they're not cool. That's only one of a myriad of reasons why someone might like a thing.

So in a liberated society do we not enjoy horror stories?

I mean, I think there's certainly horror which uses the macabre and disturbing to critique society. I'm not really of the opinion that whole swaths of a media category are wholly bad (although I'm sure you could find one). I have to say I'm not really a horror fan. I have a friend who is who's watched movies like Teeth (2007), A Girl Walks Home Alone At Night (2014), Get Out (2017), or Promising Young Woman (2020), but I haven't watched them, so I can't really speak to whether they succeed in their critique. But then again, I don't really view media (unless it's like an academic work or something) as wholly feminist and prefer to look at facets of works instead.

Of the media I've ingested, I think the Haunting of Hill house works (the sequel I feel is more of a gothic love story than horror). The horror in it, at least to me, is kind of a magical realist take on what it means to never be able to move forward from a horrific event (your mother having a break with reality and trying to murder you and your family). Each member of the family deals with it in their own way, from the father by living in the past, being unable to fully let go of his dead wife to the point that he creates her in his imagination, to the brother who turns to drugs and addiction, to the sister who literally separates herself from the rest of the world by putting a barrier between herself and it (gloves), to the brother who pretended everything was ok and feels he built his success on lies and a one hit wonder, thus preventing himself from ever being able to fully abandon his trajedy (because it's the--fake--story that made him famous), to the sister who is so sure that the event spoke ruin for her and her family that she created a self-fulfilling prophecy where she was unable to enjoy her fairytale life and eventually caused her own death. It's a type of horror that prompts self-examination. It's horrific because we see the characters in ourselves and can see ourselves making the same mistake.

This is horror, and while I could probably analyze it in ways that it does reinforce harmful ideas about, I don't know, addiction for example (and it's very white), the core message isn't about pathologizing or othering a group of people.

 

I think this discussion that started beeing about dolls got way too deep into the topic of what people should like or not.
I guess one thing is also disliking something (that beeing coused by society or not) and the other is mistreating people. Beeing judgmental or having some prejudice. Do I like skinny much better than chubby? Oh yes! Would I buy a skinny doll over a chubby one!? Yes I guess. But do I hate chubby people? Would I mistreated them? Absolutely no way! My most precious friend ever is way beyond fat and I don’t know what my life would be without him. He is just a fluffy bear I couldn’t live without.
I was also thinking if really ther wasn’t a chubby doll I wouldn’t buy…and than I remembered one that I might!
Login • Instagram
I just realized to me chubby has to be cute, because it’s not something I personally find sexy. Maybe society made me think like that? Maybe, but to me it doesn’t really matter, it’s maybe to late for me to find chubby something else other than cute.

 

I was hesitant to reply because this is the hardest-to-read thread I have ever read in all my years reading the forum. I can see there's a lot of hurt feelings around the topic.

The trend for 'skinny' dolls is probably very simple. They are art and different shapes are popular at different times. It changes, just like anything in the art world. Lots of angels for a body sculpt or face sculpt is something some artists like to work with. Fashion and art trends vary from region to region and from culture to culture. Some are more influential than others. I used to think that fashion models were poor examples, then I learned more about higher-end fashion and learned that the clothes were more challenging to make when more angular shapes were to be considered. On the other hand, more angels allow for layers to fall in different ways. The clothes were the art, the model was just that...... like a frame for a canvas. I stopped thinking of the social influence of the models and came to focus on the skills of the fashion designers. Dolls are sort of the same. How many paintings do you see mounted on round frames? Yet, embroidery is often put into round frames. I find it's better to think of the dolls less like people, and more of a canvas.

Dolls often are going to be a little smaller and off from people proportionally for many reasons. One reason is the scale alters perception a great deal. Another big reason would be to account for the bulk of seams and hems on clothes. Dolls don't get their clothing fabric made on tiny looms. I sometimes might let my dolls sit a few days between clothing changes if I am working with them, or if they are a new arrival. I don't give too much thought as to if they are skinny, fat or not. Everyone looks to be a regular human size when they have their clothes on. I do not notice the proportional bulk of the clothes that is actually included in the outfit. In reality compared to a human, they would have gigantic heads, super long legs and probably need to gain some body mass to carry themselves. There's a really cool aesthetic for any size doll. Some aesthetics are just more popular. There's a lot of dolls available.I appreciate the freedom to make a choice. If one wants something really, really specific then I'd suggest to learn the software and work towards getting a 3D resin printer. Otherwise, sculpting putty is always an option to change an existing doll to a bigger shape.

 

@Lillyevergold and @mollym Thanks for your thoughtful replies! You make good points (that are probably a lot more reasonable and sane than any of the nonsense I've been spouting).

Sorry. I hope it was at least a little bit interesting or entertaining to make up for having to struggle through it.

This is probably true. Following ideas down rabbit holes is pretty much my favourite thing in the world, so I may not have noticed when we left the path of reason... or talking about dolls. On the suspicion that I may now be irritating everyone by clogging up the feed with non-doll-related silliness, I will try to put on the brakes and keep this one (relatively) short.

To be clear, I also don't want to tell anybody what to like. I agree with @americanseamstress that it's dangerous and probably impossible. I think the best you can do is enjoy the thing you like publicly and then maybe someone who thought they didn't like that thing will be like "Huh. That actually looks like fun. Can I have a turn?" ...Which is more or less what happened to me when I found this community.

...Which is disgusting and enraging. Like really? The "glorious legacy of Western Civilization" and the best we can come up with is to tell women they're too quiet and should stand up for themselves and then when they do tell them they're "strident" and "shrill?" Ugh.

For the record, everything I know about you - what you've written here - I find very beautiful. It's possible I would have responded differently if your avatar was, like, Pepe the Frog and your screen name was americannavyseal, but I like to think I wouldn't.

I only meant that your strategy, which I endorse despite not adopting it, takes different risks than mine.

I will add the films you've recommended to the list of cool things I need to check out as a result of this conversation and continue to wonder about how both beautiful and ugly dolls might be used either to reinforce or to challenge oppression in our culture.

With gratitude,
Errantry