First, I do agree that there are certain unfair standards that society has impressed upon women; a woman must have big breasts, a tiny waist, the overwhelming desire to cater to a man's every need, etc. Barbie clearly does not help to get rid of these stereotypes in any way, especially considering how dolls have looked in the past. In comparison to the asexual dolls of early America, the way that Barbie promotes the unfair beauty standards of today sticks out like a pink elephant to most feminists. Many would prefer the Madame Alexander dolls of the 50's, the ones that as Prager puts it, "represented the kind of girls who looked perfect in jodhpurs, whose hair was never out place." Prager's rhetoric here paints a picture of a time when women were not only admired for their beauty but also their independence. It is also important to note that the beauty that was admired during the mid-20th Century was much classier and conservative. I know it's hard for everyone to believe, but once upon a time, beauty wasn't based on how much skin you could expose without Jesus having to come save you from being stoned for prostitution.
Despite the fact that I agreed with her thoughts in regards to perpetuating unfair beauty standards, I found Prager's comments on Ken laughable. There was one thing throughout this section that she clearly did not understand: Neither Barbie or Ken have genitalia because, as Prager should've learned in middle school health class, breasts are not actually reproductive organs. She ends her essay by making the claim that by not having a penis, Ken was portrayed as being more powerful than Barbie, and that as sexual as Barbie may be, she would never be able to turn Ken on. But she fails to note the fact that the same injustice is affecting Ken. She is blind to that fact that Ken is designed as the model of a perfect man, creating a body image that, like Barbie, will almost never be able to be attained. And since Barbie is also lacking genitals, Ken is stuck in the same depressing reality as Barbie, because he too will never be able to please his significant other, no matter how attractive he is.
I like how you argued against Prager's claims about Ken. You make a very good point about how beauty sandards for men are also distorted. I also love the line "beauty wasn't based on how much skin you could expose without Jesus having to come save you from being stoned for prostitution." Great use of "Jesus"
ReplyDeleteAh, back at it again with your controversial views and quite convincing writing. You really have a good ability to notice the two sides of every story, and to speak up about things that often go unnoticed. I agree with your perspective that both men and women are stuck in their own rigorous standards of gender, and that it needs to be addressed. I think that not only is it a depressing reality, but it leads to a depressive state. Something I did laugh about was how you talked about Pragers talk of reproductive organs, and how breasts aren't what she states. I feel like it legitimatized a lot of what she was talking about and made her sound foolish as well. I really like the dry humor used in your writing, and the concise and simplistic style used. Keep it up :)
ReplyDelete